A Cool Question, Answered?

frozen_earthGuest essay by David Archibald

A couple of years ago the question was asked “When will it start cooling?” Of course solar denialists misconstrued this innocent enquiry. There is no doubt – we all know that lower solar irradiance will result in lower temperatures on this planet. It is a question of when. Solar activity is much lower than it was at a similar stage of the last solar cycle but Earthly temperatures have remained stubbornly flat. Nobody is happy with this situation. All 50 of the IPCC climate models have now been invalidated and my own model is looking iffy.

Friss-Christenson and Lassen theory, as per Solheim et al’s prediction, has the planet having a temperature decrease of 0.9°C on average over Solar Cycle 24 relative to Solar Cycle 23. The more years that pass without the temperature falling, the greater the fall required over the remaining years of the cycle for this prediction to be validated.

The question may very well have been answered. David Evans has developed a climate model based on a number of inputs including total solar irradiance (TSI), carbon dioxide, nuclear testing and other factors. His notch-filter model is optimised on an eleven year lag between Earthly temperature and climate. The hindcast match is as good as you could expect from a climate model given the vagaries of ENSO, lunar effects and the rest of it, which gives us a lot of confidence in what it is predicting. What it is predicting is that temperature should be falling from just about now given that TSI fell from 2003. From the latest of a series of posts on Jo Nova’s blog:

 

clip_image002

The model has temperature falling out of bed to about 2020 and then going sideways in response to the peak in Solar Cycle 24. What happens after that? David Evans will release his model of 20 megs in Excel in the near future. I have been using a beta version. The only forecast of Solar Cycle 25 activity is Livingstone and Penn’s estimate of a peak amplitude of seven in sunspot number. The last time that sort of activity level happened was in the Maunder Minimum. So if we plug in TSI levels from the Maunder Minimum, as per the Lean reconstuction, this is what we get:

clip_image004

 

This graph shows the CET record in blue with the hindcast of the notch-filter model using modern TSI data in red with a projection to 2040. The projected temperature decline of about 2.0°C is within the historic range of the CET record. Climate variability will see spikes up and down from that level. The spikes down will be killers. The biggest spike you see on that record, in 1740, killed 20% of the population of Ireland, 100 years before the more famous potato famine.

I consider that David Evans’ notch-filter model is a big advance in climate science. Validation is coming very soon. Then stock up on tinned lard with 9,020 calories per kg. A pallet load could be a life-saver.

David Archibald, a Visiting Fellow at the Institute of World Politics in Washington, D.C., is the author of Twilight of Abundance: Why Life in the 21st Century Will Be Nasty, Brutish, and Short (Regnery, 2014).

UPDATE:

For fairness and to promote a fuller understating, here are some replies from Joanne Nova

http://joannenova.com.au/2014/07/the-solar-model-finds-a-big-fall-in-tsi-data-that-few-seem-to-know-about/

http://joannenova.com.au/2014/07/more-strange-adventures-in-tsi-data-the-miracle-of-900-fabricated-fraudulent-days/

0 0 votes
Article Rating
711 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
June 28, 2014 6:54 am

I consider that David Evans’ notch-filter model is a big advance in climate science. Validation is coming very soon.
You mean: falsification is coming very soon [if not already there].
So if we plug in TSI levels from the Maunder Minimum, as per the Lean reconstruction
which is very likely not correct to begin with.

June 28, 2014 6:59 am

There is no doubt – we all know that lower solar irradiance will result in lower temperatures on this planet. It is a question of when
It is much more a question about ‘by how much’. If TSI falls to get stuck at the level observed at solar minimum, the temperature will indeed be lower by up to 0.1 degrees C, which is inconsequential.

Kaboom
June 28, 2014 7:02 am

Love that model because it can be put to the test soon, not convinced about the rapid change it predicts, though.

June 28, 2014 7:06 am

Here is the most important thing I have read in that series. For once someone in the climate game makes a real scientific prediction. Karl Popper call your office!!

Science is about testable hypotheses.(1) Over the next decade, the changes in temperature will reveal which theory is more correct, the carbon dioxide model or the notch-delay solar model.
Here’s the criterion: A fall of at least 0.1°C (on a 1-year smoothed basis) in global average surface air temperature over the next decade.
If the criterion does not occur: Then the notch-delay solar model is falsified and it should be thrown away.
If the criterion does occur: Then carbon dioxide driven models are falsified, and they should be thrown away. (Note that the carbon dioxide theory predicts only warming over longer periods such as a decade, and we’ve already had a pause in warming for 15+ years.)

The entire series of posts is worth your time and study if you are interested in the climate debate. I am not completely in agreement with him, but I do admire the honest scientific method in use. A falsifiable theory of climate! Shazzam!
(1) emphases is mine.

June 28, 2014 7:10 am

Mark Stoval (@MarkStoval) says:
June 28, 2014 at 7:06 am
Here’s the criterion: A fall of at least 0.1°C (on a 1-year smoothed basis) in global average surface air temperature over the next decade.
According to Figure above the criterion should be 0.5°C, not the measly 0.1°C.

noaaprogrammer
June 28, 2014 7:14 am

Is TSI being considered as a driver here or as a chance correlate?

June 28, 2014 7:29 am

If this is correct and we do indeed begin to see measureable cooling,
then President Obama’s statement that climate change is happening now
will be validated.
Uh, sort of.
🙂

Claude Harvey
June 28, 2014 7:31 am

If I successfully predict a decade of global temperature with the flip of a coin, am I good or am I lucky? At least with the IPCC climate models, we know their prognosticators are neither.

Madman2001
June 28, 2014 7:31 am

Thanks, Leif, for your participation. Your measured, knowledgeable posts are interesting and insightful.

June 28, 2014 7:32 am

Looks like the cooling will be within normal bounds.
Therefore it can’t be the sun.
Note the similarity.
The warming we have seen is within normal bounds
Therefore it can’t be the co2

Pamela Gray
June 28, 2014 7:33 am

For cryin’ outloud. The “…vagaries of ENSO…”. Everybody’s get out of town card. A tuned model always looks good. And retuning it every year or so will keep the cash coming in for whatever you are peddling. GIGO…different ingredients…still GIGO. Until the ENSO models get it right the rest of you global modelers might as well sleep in.

pochas
June 28, 2014 7:34 am

There is a need to differentiate global temperatures from northern continental interior temperatures. What has happened to date suggests that global temperatures may fall only a few tenths, while northern continental interior temperatures may take a wallop.

June 28, 2014 7:35 am

Falsification is indeed required for legitimate hypothesis. With that said, and for those curious as to when the next major glaciation might be predicted, see:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ygv83mwpytn4p65/AN%20ENGINEER%E2%80%99S%20TAKE%20ON%20MAJOR%20CLIMATE%20CHANGE%20F.53.pdf
Long winded but you’re likely to find it thought provoking.

SAMURAI
June 28, 2014 7:40 am

“The biggest spike you see on that record, in 1740, killed 20% of the population of Ireland, 100 years before the more famous potato famine.”
I thought the Maunder Minimum lasted from 1645~1715. Isn’t a 25yr lag a little too long after the fact? I could understand attributing causation had the great famine occurred during the Maunder, but a 25-year lag seems a bit of a stretch.
What am I missing?
The CET record does, however, show considerable cooling during the Maunder Minimum.

June 28, 2014 7:47 am

It is worse than I thought. The TSI used by Evans is totally wrong http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/evans/graphs/prediction/total-solar-irradiance.gif
Apart from the use of the obsolete Lean TSI for the early years, the most blatant error is the statement that TSI has had a sharp unprecedented drop starting in 2003-2005 to now. This is complete nonsense. Here is TSI since 2003 http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-since-2003.png
There is no such drop. If anything TSI is now higher than it were in 2003. As far as I am concerned, the model is already falsified. Not by the observations but by the [almost fraudulent – as there clearly is an agenda here] use of invalid input to begin with. This concludes my comments as the prediction is worthless on its face.

SIGINT EX
June 28, 2014 7:50 am

Perhaps the “temperatures” measured are not the temperatures people think they are measuring.
Back to the 1st 2nd and 3rd laws.
QED

June 28, 2014 8:10 am

II am extremely pleased to see that this information is started to be seen on other sites. I think of this hypothesis as the unifying theory of Climate Science. It is a bare bones hypothesis with falicification points. It needs inputs from others like yourself. Hopefully it will put the stake in the heart of CAGW. I have a very limited income and fuel, energy and food costs are killer for everyone.

richardscourtney
June 28, 2014 8:11 am

Steven Mosher:
Your post at June 28, 2014 at 7:32 am says in total

Looks like the cooling will be within normal bounds.
Therefore it can’t be the sun.
Note the similarity.
The warming we have seen is within normal bounds
Therefore it can’t be the co2

That is merely more non sequiter from you.
The logical matters you have failed to understand can be stated as follows.
Looks like the cooling will be within normal bounds.
Therefore it could be the sun.
Note the similarity.
The warming we have seen is within normal bounds
Therefore it could be normal and there is no reason to suppose it is caused by anthropogenic co2.
Richard

June 28, 2014 8:16 am

Excellent accurate information. Past history has shown us each and every time prolonged solar minimum conditions are present the temperature response has been down.
One item that could slow down solar effects somewhat is ocean heat content.
Anthony good article.
..

James of the West
June 28, 2014 8:17 am

Leif, perhaps your tsi data validates the model and explains the flat temps and lack of cooling?

Garfy
June 28, 2014 8:22 am

don’t worry we shall get a reply in december 2015 – great meeting in Paris concerning climate change – and Arnold Swarzenneger will be there (so maybe Al Gore too) – and the president will be Laurent Fabius –
so cheer up !!

June 28, 2014 8:23 am

it is clear to me that many “scientists” need to go back and learn some BASIC concepts……..there are NOT competing theories, in science a theory is the present best possible understanding…….there are competing hypothesis being discussed………..human caused global warming is NOT a theory in science it is a FAILED hypothesis…….the real word refuses to follow the hypothesis that humans by releasing co2 are causing warming and in so doing proves it to be FALSE…..really simple stuff folks.

June 28, 2014 8:24 am

James of the West says:
June 28, 2014 at 8:17 am
Leif, perhaps your tsi data validates the model and explains the flat temps and lack of cooling?
The model is based on wrong input and so is ‘not even wrong’, but meaningless and worthless.

Pamela Gray
June 28, 2014 8:24 am

Putting this post here may be purposed to the task of finally demonstrating how far afield David is in his knowledge base with regard to solar speculation. Truly, trolling for a solar indices that matches your speculation has to be the most obvious sign of research bias there is. Very much like Mann trolling for trees that only speak to his bias. Which one is worse? Flip a friggin coin. We will see which of the two learns from their past invalid practices.

mobihci
June 28, 2014 8:25 am

mosher-
“Looks like the cooling will be within normal bounds.
Therefore it can’t be the sun.
Note the similarity.
The warming we have seen is within normal bounds
Therefore it can’t be the co2”
considering the climate on the earth changed BEFORE so called human intervention with steady co2 levels, there must be natural variation caused by some OTHER source.
by saying the warming is within normal bounds, therefor it cannot be the co2 is perfectly logical because this was the previous condition.
by saying the cooling is within normal bounds, therefor it cannot be the sun is illogical because the sun can not be ‘removed’ from natural variation. you could say the sun may not be causing the cooling, but you cannot say ‘therefor it cannot be’.

Steve Keohane
June 28, 2014 8:27 am

Mosher is finally starting to get it, the climate is normal.

rogerknights
June 28, 2014 8:28 am

JohnWho says:
June 28, 2014 at 7:29 am
If this is correct and we do indeed begin to see measureable cooling,
then President Obama’s statement that climate change is happening now
will be validated.
Uh, sort of.

He contemptuously said, ^some Republicans have even predicted that it will cool.^ What fun it will be if it does!

Wally
June 28, 2014 8:31 am

ive been told there are no stupid questions….
what does “0.0” represent? is this fixed or subject to the author’s interpretation and/or modeling?

James Strom
June 28, 2014 8:31 am

Mark’s quote from David Evans:
“A fall of at least 0.1°C…”
That would be well within the adjustments we are seeing and not really definitive. However, it differs enough from the CO2 models to give Evans some bragging rights if it comes to pass, but such an outcome doesn’t seem much different from the way nature is already diverging from the GCMs.

June 28, 2014 8:32 am

What has to be watch gong forward are the AP index, Solar Flux values and Solar Wind Speeds.
This is what correlates best with the temperature not sunspot data or TSI per say. TSI being very hard to peg since some of it is in phase with the solar cycle while other parts are in anti- phase with the general level of the solar cycle..
I fully expect the following two climatic changes to happen in response to prolonged solar minimum conditions becoming more established once again as this decade proceeds. . They are a more meridional atmospheric circulation (more extremes or persistence in weather patterns) followed by cooler temperatures. The one factor that must be taken into consideration is ocean heat content which can act in opposition to the solar effect. . On the other hand another unknown will be future volcanic activity which seems to correspond with prolonged minimum solar activity which will enhance the given solar effects.
We saw during the very low recent lull in solar activity back around 2008-2010 that much blocking was present, I expect the same response to happen going forward .
Remember the climate is non linear, chaotic and random and the beginning state of the climate is always in flux meaning factors that impact the climate impact the climate solar for example are not going to give the same climatic outcomes.
To make it more complicated are possible thresholds that may or may not come about, this is why precise climatic forecast going forward are very hard to make. General trends are much easier to predict.

James Strom
June 28, 2014 8:38 am

lsvalgaard says:
June 28, 2014 at 7:47 am
Aren’t you being a little hasty? Once you establish the correct record for historical TSI wouldn’t it be prudent to use that as the input to their model, and see what results?

June 28, 2014 8:40 am

Anthony all my future post if put on will be like the last post. I am just going to present my findings based on data I have to share with all of you.

June 28, 2014 8:42 am

James Strom says:
June 28, 2014 at 8:38 am
Aren’t you being a little hasty? Once you establish the correct record for historical TSI wouldn’t it be prudent to use that as the input to their model, and see what results?
It would seem that authors of the model should do that, but since they claim that their model fits the old, wrong data, then it would not fit any other data set, so I don’t see the need.

June 28, 2014 8:43 am

Much as I respect Leif’s solar knowledge and have adapted my views in light of it I do have some concerns about his comments here.
Note that I have no problem with his combative style.
In particular:
i) He seems not to be accepting that many contributors to the climate debate realise that TSI is not the primary indicator of the solar effect on Earth’s climate. There is some sort of amplification factor in play which David Evans labels as ‘force x’.
ii) TSI may be slightly higher now than in 2003 but is Leif denying that the peak of cycle 24 is lower than the peak of cycle 23?
In my opinion force x, which amplifies the effect of TSI variability, is the precise mix of wavelength and particle variations from the sun depending on the level of solar activity.
That variable mix appears to be capable of altering stratosphere temperatures differently between equator and poles so as to allow shifting of the climate zones and jet stream tracks between equator and poles.
That is what amplifies both the warming and cooling effects of solar variability.
That is what we perceive as climate change.
Nothing else fits the observations.

Eliza
June 28, 2014 8:43 am

Pochas above: I agree 100% I think same will happen in the Southern hemisphere as well as Antarctica keeps expanding northward at an alarming rate (it seems),.especially in South America which is the only significant large land mass closer to Antarctica. The surrounding (relatively warmer unchanging temperatures) of the ocean prevent the same effect.I “shudder” (pun intended), to think what effect this will have on the Asian land mass on the Northern hemisphere over time

June 28, 2014 8:45 am

Table 1.Volcanoes of greater than or equal to VEI of 5 from 1650 to 2009. This list of large volcanic eruptions since 1650 was used as the baseline list for comparison against solar activity, i.e. periods of reduced sunspot count to determine any apparent associations. 5* = a class five VEI with potentially large date uncertainty, P* = plinian large class eruption, assumed >VEI 5. The study did not include activity associated with geological hot spots or caldera (super volcano) sites. Source: Smithsonian Institute.
Volcano Location Year VEI
1. Shiveluch Kamchatka Penninsula 1650 5
2. Long Island N.E. New Guinea 1660 6
3. Usu Hokkaido, Japan 1663 5
4. Shikotsu Hokkaido, Japan 1667 5
5. Gamkonora Halmahera, Indonesia 1673 5*
6. Tongkoko Sulawesi, Indonesia 1680 5*
7. Fuji Honshu, Japan 1707 5
8. Katla So. Iceland 1721 5*
9. Shikotsu Hokkaido, Japan 1739 5
10. Katla So.Iceland 1755 5
11. Pago New Britain 1800 P**
12. St.Helens Washington State, USA 1800 5
13. Tambora Lesser Sunda Islands,Indo. 1815 7
14. Galungung Java, Indonesia 1822 5
15. Cosiguina Nicaragua 1835 5
16. Shiveluch Kamchatka Penninsula 1854 5
17. Askja N.E.Iceland 1875 5
18. Krakatau Indonesia 1883 6
19. Okataina New Zealand 1886 5
20. Santa Maria Guatemala 1902 6
21. Lolobau New Britain 1905 P*
22. Ksudach Kamchatka Penninsula 1907 5
23. Novarupta Alaska Penninsula 1912 6
24. Azul, Cerro Chile 1932 5+
25. Kharimkotan Kuril Islands 1933 5
26. Bezimianny Kamchatka Peninsula 1956 5
27. Agung Lesser Sunda Islands, Indo. 1963 5
28. St. Helens Washington State, USA 1980 5
Chichon Mexico 1982 5
30. Pinatubo Philippines 1991 6
31. Hudson, Cerro So. Chile 1991 5+
************************************************************************
Of the 31 eruptions documented since 1650 with a VEI greater than or equal to 5, a total of 25 occurred during a reduced period of sunspots if not a major reduction in sunspots or a solar hibernation, e.g. the Dalton or Maunder Minimums. This preliminary study showed 80.6% of the largest eruptions took place during extended solar activity minimums. Significantly, the following list of the eight largest volcanic eruptions globally (VEI>6) since 1650, shows all but one took place
only during a solar hibernation, or significant reduction in solar activity as measured by sunspot count.
3

beng
June 28, 2014 8:45 am

Dr S updated & improved the Lean reconstruction yrs ago & it’s been linked to many times. Anytime I see “Lean reconstruction” used for analysis, I dismiss it.
David, please get up to date.

June 28, 2014 8:46 am

That is what the data shows for volcanic versus solar. More data to follow.

Jimbo
June 28, 2014 8:47 am

What it is predicting is that temperature should be falling from just about now given that TSI fell from 2003.

Another model, BUT the predictive skill can be tested within a very reasonable amount of time. It is falsifiable! Good grief.

Eliza
June 28, 2014 8:48 am

The only problem with Evans model AGAIN is using the “adjusted temperatures” against the model., If average temps are all C###, all bets are off (ie: there has been NO warming since 1880). Refer to Goddards analysis and recent posting at Judith Curry sites.

William Astley
June 28, 2014 8:48 am

The sun is currently almost spotless based on a visual count of sunspots. How many sunspots do you see visually?
http://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/assets/img/…_4096_4500.jpg
It appears the sunspot count is being propped up which is a misguided effort as it will make the sudden fall in sunspot count more pronounced.
The below link shows pictures of ‘active’ regions on the surface of the sun. The picture of ‘active’ regions is created by an overlay of the magnetogram image of the sun and a visual image of the sun. The magnogram image is created by observing the sun with a filter that is restricted to a frequency that is produced by iron ions that occurs when the iron ions are in an magnetic field (using the Zeeman effect to determine the regions of the sun that are magnetic active). As you can see there are now multiple regions of the sun that have the magnetic residue of magnetic flux tubes that have been ripped apart in the convection zone as they no longer have sufficient strength to resist the turbulent forces in the convection zone and no sunspots.
http://www.solen.info/solar/
It appears based on observations that the sun will be spotless by late 2014 or early 2015.

docduke
June 28, 2014 8:48 am

Re: There is no doubt – we all know that lower solar irradiance will result in lower temperatures on this planet. Lower irradiance, yes .. but fewer sunspots? Willis really made an impression on me with: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/23/maunder-and-dalton-sunspot-minima/ His point was the questionable data quality of this feature for which “there is no doubt.”

Ginger
June 28, 2014 8:50 am

My brain is short-circuiting.
Did I just read a climate scientist questioning his own work?
Climate scientists are not supposed to do that. That is science in the old-fashioned way.
Did I just read a climate scientist inform how a scientific theory or model can be tested?
That’s old school, as when Einstein, after presenting his Theory of Relativity, informed the world how his theory could be tested during a solar eclipse and even telling them what had to happen for the theory to be invalidated.
Mann, et al flew in the face of thousands of peer-reviewed studies and was immediately accepted, without question, by “2500 of the world’s top Climate Scientists”.
That’s the way climate science works. Please do not deviate from the path.
The science is settled.

June 28, 2014 8:53 am

William Astley says:
June 28, 2014 at 8:48 am
It appears the sunspot count is being propped up which is a misguided effort as it will make the sudden fall in sunspot count more pronounced.
Nonsense, William. Amateurs all over the world count spots and you cannot meaningfully claim that they are in on the hoax.
magnetic flux tubes that have been ripped apart in the convection zone as they no longer have sufficient strength to resist the turbulent forces in the convection zone and no sunspots.
As you have been told many times, ALL flux tubes are ALWAYS ripped apart in the convection zone.

Doug Proctor
June 28, 2014 8:55 am

David,
I think you are still right. Within 18 months, perhaps, but I’m still looking for 2015 as the start of cooling beyond ALL of the models. I don’t think the world will plunge into a Dalton, but your work has the advantage of strong observational evidence.
It is not imperative that the process be understood, but that the implications of observations be understood – if you are grounded. The pragmatist recognizes “cash value” as one of the determinants of truth: whatever you figure out has to have use, something that takes you forward, something that benefits you in a way you weren’t benefited before. You have seen a connection; that is the start, just as Copernicus saw a mathematical solution in circular (or elliptical) orbits that answered big questions about our universe. Copernicus did so without gravitational physics, and at the time nobody expected him to say why, exactly. It was enough to understand how it was; the “why” was someone else’s project.
We live in interesting times. The next couple of years I see as very exciting, because if the world cools by more than 0.2C, and the continental interiors by perhaps 1.0C, the CAGW narrative will be well and truly busted. But more importantly, Gore, Hansen, Romm, McKibben will HAVE to admit that they were fighting for a noble cause, not for the climate per se, in other words, the science was not important but a tool to them.
By the way, for our Canadian readers, Suzuki does NOT support explicitly or implicitly Gore, Hansen, the IPCC or Global Warming/CAGW. When pressed, his Foundation says he/they support “peer-reviewed studies”. That’s it. They USE CAGW, but do not necessarily stand behind it. Suzuki recognizes it is an edifice built on sand, and it and its believers are therefore useful even if, as time goes on, they are the “useful idiots” as identified by the Soviets.

June 28, 2014 9:00 am

The following is more research data and conclusions of many. Some will agree while others will not . But his need to be brought out which is what I am doing to show there is a strong case to be made for solar variations and the secondary effects these solar variations could have on the climate and why they could have those effects.
Solar interactions with EarthEdit
There are several hypotheses for how solar variations may affect Earth. Some variations, such as changes in the size of the Sun, are presently only of interest in the field of astronomy.
Changes in total irradianceEdit
◾ Overall brightness may change.
◾ The variation during recent cycles has been about 0.1%.
◾ Changes corresponding to solar changes with periods of 9–13, 18–25, and >100 years have been measured in sea-surface temperatures.
◾ Since the Maunder Minimum, over the past 300 years there probably has been an increase of 0.1 to 0.6%, with climate models often using a 0.25% increase.
◾ One reconstruction from the ACRIM data show a 0.05% per decade trend of increased solar output between solar minima over the short span of the data set. These display a high degree of correlation with solar magnetic activity as measured by Greenwich Sunspot Number. Wilson, Mordvinov (2003)
Changes in ultraviolet irradianceEdit
◾ Ultraviolet irradiance (EUV) varies by approximately 1.5 percent from solar maxima to minima, for 200 to 300 nm UV.[20]
◾ Energy changes in the UV wavelengths involved in production and loss of ozone have atmospheric effects. ◾ The 30 hPa atmospheric pressure level has changed height in phase with solar activity during the last 4 solar cycles.
◾ UV irradiance increase causes higher ozone production, leading to stratospheric heating and to poleward displacements in the stratospheric and tropospheric wind systems.
◾ A proxy study estimates that UV has increased by 3% since the Maunder Minimum.
See also: Error: Template must be given at least one article name
Changes in the solar wind and the Sun’s magnetic fluxEdit
◾ A more active solar wind and stronger magnetic field reduces the cosmic rays striking the Earth’s atmosphere.
◾ Variations in the solar wind affect the size and intensity of the heliosphere, the volume larger than the Solar System filled with solar wind particles.
◾ Cosmogenic production of 14C, 10Be and 36Cl show changes tied to solar activity.
◾ Cosmic ray ionization in the upper atmosphere does change, but significant effects are not obvious.
◾ As the solar coronal-source magnetic flux doubled during the past century, the cosmic-ray flux has decreased by about 15%.
◾ The Sun’s total magnetic flux rose by a factor of 1.41 from 1964–1996 and by a factor of 2.3 since 1901.
Effects on cloudsEdit
◾ Cosmic rays have been hypothesized to affect formation of clouds through possible effects on production of cloud condensation nuclei. Observational evidence for such a relationship is inconclusive.
◾ 1983-1994 data from the International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project (ISCCP) showed that global low cloud formation was highly correlated with cosmic ray flux; subsequent to this the correlation breaks down.[21]
◾ The Earth’s albedo decreased by about 2.5% over 5 years during the most recent solar cycle, as measured by lunar “Earthshine”. Similar reduction was measured by satellites during the previous cycle.
◾ Mediterranean core study of plankton detected a solar-related 11 year cycle, and an increase 3.7 times larger between 1760 and 1950. A considerable reduction in cloud cover is proposed.
◾ A laboratory experiment conducted by Henrik Svensmark at the Danish National Space Center was able to produce particles as a result of cosmic ray-like irradiation, though these particles do not resemble actual cloud condensation nuclei found in nature.[22]
Other effects due to solar variationEdit
Interaction of solar particles, the solar magnetic field, and the Earth’s magnetic field, cause variations in the particle and electromagnetic fields at the surface of the planet. Extreme solar events can affect electrical devices. Weakening of the Sun’s magnetic field is believed to increase the number of interstellar cosmic rays which reach Earth’s atmosphere, altering the types of particles reaching the surface. It has been speculated that a change in cosmic rays could cause an increase in certain types of clouds, affecting Earth’s albedo.
Geomagnetic effectsEdit
Magnetosphere rendition
Solar particles interact with Earth’s magnetosphere
The Earth’s polar aurorae are visual displays created by interactions between the solar wind, the solar magnetosphere, the Earth’s magnetic field, and the Earth’s atmosphere. Variations in any of these affect aurora displays.
Sudden changes can cause the intense disturbances in the Earth’s magnetic fields which are called geomagnetic storms.
Solar proton eventsEdit
Energetic protons can reach Earth within 30 minutes of a major flare’s peak. During such a solar proton event, Earth is showered in energetic solar particles (primarily protons) released from the flare site. Some of these particles spiral down Earth’s magnetic field lines, penetrating the upper layers of our atmosphere where they produce additional ionization and may produce a significant increase in the radiation environment.
Galactic cosmic raysEdit
File:Heliosphere drawing.gif
An increase in solar activity (more sunspots) is accompanied by an increase in the “solar wind,” which is an outflow of ionized particles, mostly protons and electrons, from the sun. The Earth’s geomagnetic field, the solar wind, and the solar magnetic field deflect galactic cosmic rays (GCR). A decrease in solar activity increases the GCR penetration of the troposphere and stratosphere. GCR particles are the primary source of ionization in the troposphere above 1 km (below 1 km, radon is a dominant source of ionization in many areas).
Levels of GCRs have been indirectly recorded by their influence on the production of carbon-14 and beryllium-10. The Hallstatt solar cycle length of approximately 2300 years is reflected by climatic Dansgaard-Oeschger events. The 80–90 year solar Gleissberg cycles appear to vary in length depending upon the lengths of the concurrent 11 year solar cycles, and there also appear to be similar climate patterns occurring on this time scale.
Cloud effectsEdit
Changes in ionization affect the abundance of aerosols that serve as the nuclei of condensation for cloud formation. As a result, ionization levels potentially affect levels of condensation, low clouds, relative humidity, and albedo due to clouds. Clouds formed from greater amounts of condensation nuclei are brighter, longer lived, and likely to produce less precipitation. Changes of 3–4% in cloudiness and concurrent changes in cloud top temperatures have been correlated to the 11 and 22 year solar (sunspot) cycles, with increased GCR levels during “antiparallel” cycles.[23] Global average cloud cover change has been found to be 1.5–2%. Several studies of GCR and cloud cover variations have found positive correlation at latitudes greater than 50° and negative correlation at lower latitudes.[24] However, not all scientists accept this correlation as statistically significant, and some that do attribute it to other solar variability (e.g. UV or total irradiance variations) rather than directly to GCR changes.[25][26] Difficulties in interpreting such correlations include the fact that many aspects of solar

Editor
June 28, 2014 9:04 am

David, there are a raft of problems with this analysis.
First and foremost, David’s Evan’s claim of a notch filter is a joke. If you run his model against white noise instead of global temperatures, you get an identical notch. Is it your contention that there is a “notch filter” in white noise?
Next, David Evans has not released the data, the model, the model results, the equations, the out-of-sample tests, or any of the details. This is the same garbage we got from Michael Mann and Phil Jones. And now, here you are cluttering up WUWT with the same kind of garbage. There is no transparency. There is no data. There is no code. In what alternate universe does this pass for science?
Next, as Leif points out, he’s using a bogus set of TSI data.
Next, he posits an incredibly intricate model, vis:

Really? We’re supposed to believe that the climate has all of these items, neatly connected in a very specific order?
In any case, this is one of the most complex and useless curve-fitting exercises I’ve ever seen … and to date, we still don’t even know how many tunable parameters have been harmed in the process of making the whole thing look realistic.
I’m sorry, David, but your attempt to channel Michael Mann’ data-withholding, code-withholding style is just as offensive when you do it as when he does it. I begged Jo and David to publish, and I got the same answer we’ve gotten from every other pseudo-scientist, that for me to ask was wrong, wrong, wrong, and that they’d publish the code and data and out-of-sample tests when they damn well felt like it … science at its finest.
In any case, David, since you are among the blessed few, how about you tune the model using the first half of the data, and then see what it predicts for the second half … Jo said that David has already done that, but they’ve refused to release the results.
The most bizarre part of this whole thing is that I’ve been saying that there is no 11-year cycle in the climate … and getting brickbats and abuse in return. Meanwhile, David Evans is saying the exact same thing over at JoNova’s, and people are genuflecting in awe and proclaiming that he’s a genius.
WUWT?
Finally, you say:

There is no doubt – we all know that lower solar irradiance will result in lower temperatures on this planet. It is a question of when.

What? You mean that finally, after all these years, evil doubt has been banished and The Science Is Settled™? Gosh, that’s great to hear … how did I miss such a momentous occurrence? [/sarc]
In fact, as my recent series on the Maunder and Dalton minima have shown, IF (and it’s a big if) there is cooling from solar variations, it is so small as to be lost in the weeds.
I’m sad to see you and David Evans and Joanne taking up the habits of Mann and Jones, David. I’d thought y’all were scientists. Ah, well, live and learn.
w.

Steve W.
June 28, 2014 9:05 am

“Solar denialists”
For shame. Using “denialist” against your opponent is defamation. Period.
You concede that your own model (fantasy?) is iffy. So people that laugh at it deserve this label? You owe us all an apology.

June 28, 2014 9:06 am

What strikes me the most with the data I just presented is the significant increase in solar magnetic activity last century which corresponds to the temperature increase. In addition the increased solar activity of last century matches up quite strongly with ocean heat content changes.
Again because the climate system is so dynamic with so much noise cause and effect are not always going to be so obvious. which I talked about in my earlier post.
That is it thanks for the time.

June 28, 2014 9:06 am

David (Archibald).
I suspect that you may have overestimated the speed of system response from a fall in solar activity bearing in mind that the oceans have been accumulating energy since the depths of the LIA.
The thermohaline circulation takes 1000 to 1500 years to run its course and it does apply a moderating influence on sea surface temperatures.
As per the solar climate model of David Evans the thermal response of the Earth system to a single solar cycle is smeared across 3 to 15 years and ultimately negated by the thermal inertia of the system (probably due to the oceans) but we have had a lot of accretion to ocean heat content since 1600 and it is going to take more than one quiet solar cycle to start making a dent in that.
IMHO I think that if we just see a trend change towards net cooling over the next 5 years that will be enough to validate the solar theory without having to expect more.
Especially if our CO2 emissions keep rising at the current rate.
To validate the CO2 theory we would need to see a rise in atmospheric temperature DESPITE a quiet sun and a negative Pacific Multidecadal Oscillation (PMO).
We should stop using the term PDO in favour of PMO because Bob Tisdale correctly tells us that PDO refers only to a surface pressure differential which has no causative effect in itself.

greg Goodman
June 28, 2014 9:08 am

New ideas are always welcome but I see several serious problem with Dr Evans’ idea that he has not replied to.
1. The idea of 0.5K worth of “nuclear winter” is frankly a fudge factor. If you look at how they present it you can see they know they are pushing the limits. A couple of years ago I tried to find some variation in temperature close to some of the major aerial tests, fully expecting to be able to find something. I was mistaken, I could not find anything, even speculative.
To get from there to 0.5K which is almost the total “global warming” over the last 100 years…. sorry, that requires some pretty firm evidence, not a fudge factor pulled out of the air.
2. The idea of the “notch” filter is an error of interpretation. He starts from the assumption that TSI is _the_ input and SST is _the output. Then does an EE’s FFT on input / FFT of output as a “blackbox” investigation.
This is to erroneously generalise a specific case ( in electronics ) where the input and the output are known and measured, to a much more messy case where he is guessing the two quantities are the input and the output.
Even is SST can be hypothesised to be the “output” there is not justification for thinking that the low frequency noise in SST is the LF part of SSN passed through the “transfer function” of the climate system. It almost certainly is not.
Of that is borne his , IMO, spurious idea of a notch filter. There is an 11y peak in the “input” and no 11y peak in the “output”.
What is more he clearly states that the “notch filter” is non-causal. This makes it physically meaning as a model for a physical system which must be causal. ( He also runs it backwards in time too, just as well it’s non causal ).
I see not reason to conclude an 11y “notch” filter, rather than a >11y low-pass filter which could at least be physically meaningful and easier to justify.
It would be equally valid to conclude from what he presents in FFT that there is no discernible connection between input and output. No doubt that will please uncle Willis.
Then he has to go fishing for another fudge factor to explain the lag he needs to make the notch filter line up.
At this point I think he needs to ask if the model is both physically realistic and parsimonious.
I would say it’s neither.
Now I recently showed that there is a roughly 10y lag between SSN and SST.
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=958
( Correlation does not prove causation but it’s there, on average ).
I also showed that a more physically realistic, yet equally speculative, link can be obtained by a relaxation response to SSN:
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=981
short term ( 11y ) detail shows phase drift as has often been noted ( except by cherry-pickers ) , however the underlying, long term trend seems to match rather well.
There is a notable divergence since about 1990 but it would be an easier starting point that the “notch-delay” scheme.
I think the idea of trying to construct a non AGW model is a good exercise but the Evans model has serious issues as it stands.

greg Goodman
June 28, 2014 9:11 am

oops: What is more he clearly states that the “notch filter” is non-causal. This makes it physically meaningless as a model

Jim G
June 28, 2014 9:18 am

Doug Proctor says:
“But more importantly, Gore, Hansen, Romm, McKibben will HAVE to admit…”
Will never happen. These guys, and their ilk, will always have a dodge or an excuse of some kind.

greg Goodman
June 28, 2014 9:20 am

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/28/a-cool-question-answered/#comment-1671519
Willis’ block diagram simplifies it nicely from Evans’ verbiage. The the jonova posts are now at “Big News VII” without any maths being presented getting near to a joke. (Perhaps beyond)

greg Goodman
June 28, 2014 9:22 am
de_mol
June 28, 2014 9:25 am

David Evans’ notch-filter theory of the climate is infinitely fine-tuned:
http://motls.blogspot.nl/2014/06/david-evans-notch-filter-theory-of.html

June 28, 2014 9:34 am

I last thought.
At this stage I believe neither side is going to be able to convince the other side they are correct. Everyone has dug in and are convinced they are correct.
Time will tell and it is not far off.

Steve from Rockwood
June 28, 2014 9:38 am

This has me confused. Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) varies from a smoothed high of 1366.5 W/m2 to a low of 1365.5, or +/- 0.5 W/m2. This represents a change of less than 0.04% in TSI over a complete solar cycle, i.e. 100*(0.5)/1366. This is responsible for climate changes of 0.5 deg C? If that is the case we never evolved because the earth is too sensitive to changes in TSI to support life.

MikeUK
June 28, 2014 9:38 am

The story of Icarus from Greek mythology should be borne in mind by anyone trying to predict the climate by looking ONLY at the sun’s output. Also bear in mind the theories of next years harvest based on previous correlations with sacrificed goats.
This article gives scepticism a bad name.

Editor
June 28, 2014 9:45 am

greg Goodman commented on A Cool Question, Answered?.

I see no reason to conclude an 11y “notch” filter, rather than a >11y low-pass filter which could at least be physically meaningful and easier to justify.
It would be equally valid to conclude from what he presents in FFT that there is no discernible connection between input and output. No doubt that will please uncle Willis.

It does indeed please uncle w.. and I pointed it out to David Evans. You get the same result running his magic model against white noise instead of the global surface temperature.
All Evans has shown to date is that the surface temperature is immune to small changes in the solar input, either fast or slow … which I’ve been saying for some time now …
w.

June 28, 2014 9:51 am

For about three years now, I have read every paper I could find on the subject of the N. Atlantic, analysed records of the CET, NAO, AMO, AO, etc, .
What I have learned is that there are very few authors (mainly oceanographers) who understand the ocean-atmosphere system operating there. However that doesn’t mean that the complexity of causes is entirely clear to anyone I came across.
Therefore, I would suggest that anyone’s guess Archibald’s, Evans’, yours or mine is as good or as bad as any other is.

john robertson
June 28, 2014 9:56 am

I await the rest of David Evans conjecture.
So far I like the roll out and approach.
If the solar data used is rubbish and the land based temperature record as flawed as I believe, then there is also a chance the proposed model can be useful.
G.I.G.O can produce weird truths.
What I do admire is the process, soon enough all of the Australian Duo’s theory will be on line for all to see and assault.

June 28, 2014 9:58 am

leif says
http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-since-2003.png
annum
henry says
I have recently updated my tables [to 2014]
and find that we already cooled from 2000-2014 by -0.014K/annum [for Means]
that is -0.2K in total since 2000, globally…..
If anyone does not get the same results, then that is your fault, not mine.
As to what is causing the cooling, [I think} I have figured that out too.
As you can see from Leif’s chart, the trend of TSI is somewhat up, rather than down.
I figure that there must be a small window at the top of the atmosphere (TOA) that gets opened and closed a bit, every so often. Chemists know that a lot of incoming radiation is deflected to space by the ozone and the peroxides and nitrogenous oxides lying at the TOA. These chemicals are manufactured from the UV coming from the sun. Luckily we do have measurements on ozone, from stations in both hemispheres. I looked at these results. Incredibly, I found that ozone started going down around 1951 and started going up again in 1995, both on the NH and the SH. Percentage wise the increase in ozone in the SH since 1995 is much more spectacular.
This is the graph (I think also from Leif) that is relevant here:
http://ice-period.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/sun2013.png
[if you can predict where it is going, which should not be so difficult for Leif?]
So it appears there is some variation within TSI, mainly to do with the UV (C). It appears (to me) that as the solar polar fields are weakening, more energetic particles are able to escape from the sun to form more ozone, peroxides and nitrogenous oxides at the TOA.
In turn, these substances deflect more sunlight to space when there is more of it. So, ironically, when the sun is brighter, earth will get cooler. This is a defense system that earth has in place to protect us from harmful UV (C).
Most likely there is some gravitational- and/or electromagnetic force that gets switched every 44 year, affecting the sun’s output. How?
You tell me?
Anyone got any ideas?

richard verney
June 28, 2014 10:05 am

I consider that this analysis is dubious, at best.
that said, it appears that there is some measure of correlation between a quiet sun and lower temperatures. Why that is the case, the mechanisms etc involved is not clear, and since correlation does not necessarily point to causation, past observations may be nothing more than coincidental.
However, it does appear likely that the sun is entering a quiet phase. Obviously, this is not certain, but the balance of observational data, and such little understanding that we have regarding the workings of the sun and its behavoir, points towards that conclusion.
If the sun does go quiet over the next 10 to 20 years or so, we will get an opportunity to observe what happens here on planet Earth. In particular, we will get to see whether temperatures increase, continue to stay steady, or decrease, and if the ‘pause’ in temperature anonaly is broken, we will get to see the rate of change.
If the sun goes quiet and if temperatures begin to rise, then that will add weight to the (c)AGW theory, and will cast doubt on the sun being a major player. On the otherhand, if temperatures begin to fall, this will not prove that it is ‘the sun stupid’, but it will certainly lead scientists to consider in more detail the role that the sun plays in driving temperatures here on planet Earth. In this latter scenario, I would expect to see an increase in the number of papers suggesting that the sun is a significant driver of temperature, and conjecture as to why this is the case. These papers will also no doubt suggest that climate sensitivity to CO2 is less than previously suggested.
It will be insteresting to revisit this in 10 to 20 years time. If we see a fall of temperatures over the next 10 to 20 years of say 0.2 to 0.3 degC per decade, it will be interesting to see whether lief is less certain on his views as to the extent to which the sun and changes in its activity influence temperatures here on planet Earth.
Whilst any prediction is always interesting, especially since it leads to an opportunity of falsification, in reality we know and understand so little that these predictions are nothing more than a guess. I would not even clasify them as an educated guess, but of course where reasons are put forward, they are a reasoned guess.
Lets wait and see. Matters may well be much clearer in the coming decade. My only concern about sitting back and waiting to see what, if anything of note happens, is the risk that in the meantime our political leaders will have destroyed our energy generation, and will have locked us all into high energy prices put considerable stress on the consumer and rendering industry uncompetitive. thank heavens for the fact that the western economies are burdened by so much socialist debt and substantial deficits that the western economies have been forced to slow down there pursuit of green and renewable technoligies. This high level of debt probably means that we can sit back and see what happens over the coming decade.

James Strom
June 28, 2014 10:08 am

I would not fault the Evans-Nova team for their roll-out. Think of the early posts as the abstract of the paper that they will release. OK, they set the all-time record for complexity and convolution in an abstract, but that seems to be the idea. They believe, for rhetorical purposes, that their paper will be more effective if the audience sees a semi-technical exposition first. That may be wrong, for some readers, but since the climate science world will get all the code and data within about two weeks, their approach hardly seems a crime against science. After all, there was a time when it would take more than two weeks to get a letter from Australia.
Their approach certainly compares favorably with the Team, whose data releases have been delayed for years or more in some cases.

William Astley
June 28, 2014 10:14 am

In reply to:
“There is no doubt – we all know that lower solar irradiance will result in lower temperatures on this planet. It is a question of when. Solar activity is much lower than it was at a similar stage of the last solar cycle but Earthly temperatures have remained stubbornly flat. Nobody is happy with this situation. All 50 of the IPCC climate models have now been invalidated and my own model is looking iffy.”
To make an accurate prediction of what will happen next it is necessary to understand what is happening to the sun currently and the physical reasons why the planet warmed in the last 150 years. Roughly 90% of the warming in the last 150 years was caused by solar magnetic modulation of planetary cloud cover. There is now observation evidence that what was inhibiting the solar magnetic modulation of planetary cloud cover has started to abate. The planet has started to cool, there is record sea ice in the Antarctic and Arctic sea is starting to recover. Cloud properties and periods of cloud cover have started to increase in high latitude regions. The number of high precipitation events has started to increase.
There is a physical reason for the delay in cooling (something is physically inhibiting the solar modulation of planetary cloud cover mechanisms). If solar magnetic modulation of planetary cloud cover mechanism was not inhibited (the inhibiting started around 2003) the planet would have cooled due to the following:
1) Solar wind burst intensity has dropped by a factor of two due to the reduction in the heliosphere density by 40%
2) The number of high speed protons striking the earth is the highest ever measured during a solar maximum. During a solar maximum the solar heliosphere increases in extent and there is an increase in the number of magnetic flux pieces from the sun that are ejected into the heliosphere. A ‘stronger’ (more magnetic flux pieces and a greater extent) solar heliosphere deflects and blocks more high speed cosmic protons.
The high speed cosmic protons strike the earth’s atmosphere creating ions that strongly affect cloud droplet size and the duration that clouds persist. Due to the current weakening of the solar heliosphere the number and intensity of the high speed cosmic protons that strike the earth (the high speed cosmic protons are called galactic ‘rays’ (GCR) or cosmic ray flux CRF for historical reasons. The first discovers of the phenomena though the effect has caused by a ray rather than particle and the idiotic scientific community names phenomena after discoverers and keeps confusing terminology due to weird sociological reasons.) that are striking the earth is the highest ever measured during a solar maximum.
http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/query.cgi?startday=27&startmonth=03&startyear=1969&starttime=00%3A00&endday=14&endmonth=05&endyear=2014&endtime=00%3A00&resolution=Automatic+choice&picture=on
Comment: Solar wind bursts create a space charge differential that removes cloud forming ions from high latitude regions of the earth and changes the cloud droplet size in the tropic region clouds of the planet by a process that is called electroscavenging. At high latitude regions the removal of ions reduces the amount of cloud cover which causes high latitude warming. It should be noted that solar wind bursts are created both by sunspots and coronal holes. The cause of solar coronal holes is not known. If there are low latitude coronal holes during a solar magnetic cycle minimum there will be solar wind bursts which will remove ions from the earth’s atmosphere which makes it appear incorrectly that high levels of GCR does not correlate with an increase in cloud cover.
A reduction in GCR causes there to be less clouds in high latitude regions of the planet. The reduction in GCR has no significant effect in the low latitude regions are the GCR in question is blocked due to orientation of the magnetic field. (See Svensmark’s book Chilling Stars for an explanation of the GCR mechanism.)
The increase in cloud droplet size in the tropic region when there are electroscanvenging events, causes the tropical clouds to be less transparent to long wave radiation which amplifies El Niño events. As most are aware something is now inhibiting El Niño events. As most are aware there is now an unexplained increase in sea ice both poles which supports the assertion that cloud cover is increasing at high latitude regions. Both of these observations support the assertion that what ever has inhibiting the solar magnetic cycle modulation of planetary cloud cover is abating.
P.S.
The IPCC models are fundamentally incorrect. The AGW mechanism saturates at high altitudes (the lack of warming in the tropic troposphere at 10 km issue) and the planet resists forcing changes by an increase or decrease of clouds in the tropics (sensitivity issue).The majority of the warming in the last 150 years was caused by solar magnetic cycle modulation of planetary cloud cover. Observational evidence to support this assertion would be the sudden and rapid reversal of the warming in the last 150 years. The majority of the cooling will occur over the next 3 to 4 years, not 2020.
Leif:
This is a link to the latest visual picture of the sun. http://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/assets/img/latest/latest_4096_4500.jpg
How many sunspots do you see? Do you observe pores (tiny sunspots) or sunspots. Why are there no large sunspots as observed in previous solar cycles? How long are you going to keep up the charade that the solar cycle 24 changes are not unprecedented? I notice you have no explanation for what is happening to the sun and you have no prediction of what will happen next based on a physical model and mechanisms which can be used to falsify or confirm your ‘beliefs’ and what ever physical model those beliefs are based on.
P.S. Amateur solar observers have noted there is an unexplained change to solar magnetic cycle and that the sunspot count is rigged in a misguided effort to try to hide what is happening. P.S. The gig will be up when the planet cools.

June 28, 2014 10:15 am

HenryP says:
June 28, 2014 at 9:58 am
“Incredibly, I found that ozone started going down around 1951 and started going up again in 1995, both on the NH and the SH. Percentage wise the increase in ozone in the SH since 1995 is much more spectacular.”
Quite so:
http://www.newclimatemodel.com/new-climate-model/
“11) Solar activity passes its peak and starts to decline.
12) Ozone levels start to recover. The stratosphere warms.”
which is the reverse of standard climatology 🙂

June 28, 2014 10:23 am

http://gravity.wikia.com/wiki/Solar_variation
The above presents much data that supports the case that is being made by those of us who feel primary and secondary solar changes play a very important role in climatic outcomes over time.
Again I am going to repeat the climate is non linear, chaotic and random not to forget the initial state of the climate is in constant flux and thresholds are out there which means a given force put upon the climate is NOT going to give the same result. Lag times are also involved which are tied into the initial state of the climate.
There is so much noise in the climate system which often times in the short run will obscure factors which indeed correlate to the climate but not over the long term which is where we are now with the given prolonged solar minimum.
Enough duration of time and degree of magnitude change in activity has now taken place (once solar cycle 24 max ends which is happening now) which should start showing up in the climatic system. Year 2014 will be the last year with out a global temperature decline.

June 28, 2014 10:28 am

William Astley says:
June 28, 2014 at 10:14 am
Roughly 90% of the warming in the last 150 years was caused by solar magnetic modulation of planetary cloud cover.
There is no evidence for that. And all the rest of your stuff are misunderstandings, unsupported, and rambling nonsense.
This is a link to the latest visual picture of the sun. http://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/assets/img/latest/latest_4096_4500.jpg
How many sunspots do you see? Do you observe pores (tiny sunspots) or sunspots.

There are six groups with a total of 11 spots, so the official sunspot number is 0.6*(10*6+11)=43, which is what SILSO [formerly SIDC] reports for today http://www.sidc.be/silso/home
Since the spots are smallish, they will not be weighted.
You can cut the crap about sunspot counts being manipulated.

June 28, 2014 10:37 am

In due course this will boil down to a simple issue.
Solar changes cause albedo changes on the Earth which affect the proportion of TSI that gets into the oceans to drive the climate system.
Cloudiness is responsible for those albedo changes.
Svensmark suggests that changes in the amount of available cloud condensation nuclei (affected by cosmic ray amounts) are the relevant parameter.
I suggest that cloudiness changes are a consequence of changes in the length of the lines of air mass mixing when jet stream tracks become more meridional or zonal as a result of the permanent climate zones altering their latitudinal positions and that solar variability alters those positions via differential changes in ozone concentrations above the tropopause.
David Evans’s ‘force x’ is the change in the mix of wavelengths and particles from the sun which causes those differential changes in ozone concentrations above the tropopause.
Any better ideas?

JJM Gommers
June 28, 2014 10:45 am

We should see result even before the climate summit the coming year(november) in Paris, if it really would happen that the temperature have dropped by a little bit at that time that would be a blessing.
An what about the El Nino, would that be a false tune in the story.

June 28, 2014 10:49 am

Willis said:
“All Evans has shown to date is that the surface temperature is immune to small changes in the solar input, either fast or slow … which I’ve been saying for some time now ”
Yes, Willis, and you received credit for that limited insight.
I told you that you needed to expand it beyond tropical thunderstorms but did you listen ?
It is a matter of the entire global air circulation responding to solar (or any other) variations in order to maintain system stability.
The entire global air circulation is intimately tied to adiabatic uplift and descent which I was previously abused for drawing attention to on this very site.
C’est la vie.
I notice that I am being subjected to moderation these days simply for expressing an unpopular opinion.

MikeUK
June 28, 2014 10:54 am

Sceptics are right to scoff at the Team’s “gas jar” theories of the climate system, but should not then fall prey to much worse hubris, claiming to be able to predict the coupled Sun/Earth/Cosmic-ray system (complete with electromagnetic radiation, many gases, ionisation, water in 3 states, heat, biological systems, …) with a simple filter.
I can’t believe that some people are falling for this.

highflight56433
June 28, 2014 10:55 am

The real point is planning. Are you an ant or a grasshopper? 🙂

June 28, 2014 11:00 am

lsvalgaard says:
June 28, 2014 at 10:28 am
There are six groups with a total of 11 spots, so the official sunspot number is 0.6*(10*6+11)=43, which is what SILSO [formerly SIDC] reports for today http://www.sidc.be/silso/home
Since the spots are smallish, they will not be weighted.

Since there is a large sunspot just coming around the East limb, the final sunspot number for the day may be adjusted upwards [SILSO updates the count is real-time].

ThinkingScientist
June 28, 2014 11:02 am

To all those commenting that if you perform the cross-correlation using white noise you get a notch filter, well yes that is true. I posted several places with my concerns about that that. I think that was Lubos’ concern and why he rejected it. I asked David Evans. Unlike some commenters here, he is not rude and arrogant and is prepared to have a polite debate. I finally understood where he is coming from. David Evans is saying IF we assume temperature change is linked to TSI (in some unknown way) what would the transfer function look like? The answer is a low pass plus notch filter.
David is not saying he is correct. He knows he is invoking some unknown “Factor X”. David’s position is very clear because he states in the latest blog, proposing his prediction but says very clearly “If the criterion does not occur: Then the notch-delay solar model is falsified and it should be thrown away.”
He knows the model could be rubbish and disproven. The experiment is taking place as we wait, over the next 5 – 10 years. It could be interesting seeing how it plays out.
For those complaining about his filter being non-causal, this is not strictly correct. In his analysis he divided the amplitude spectra of input and output to estimate the amplitude spectrum of the transfer function (under his assumption), but he did not estimate the phase spectrum of the “transfer function” because it was too noisy. The notch filter is clearly going to be SEEN as zero phase based on this analysis ie non-causal. The notch filter could just be an artefact ie TSI is not in temperature signals (that was my objection). But IF you make the assumption it is a real filter, then to make it causal it needs a delay, which is about 11 years (between 10 and 20 years).
David is fully aware of the assumptions he is making. And as he says, “If the criterion does not occur: Then the notch-delay solar model is falsified and it should be thrown away.”.
That is a pretty honest way to present your work.
And the spreadsheet is coming very shortly, as David has said many times, so a lot of the complaints here look to me rather premature.

June 28, 2014 11:07 am

ThinkingScientist says:
June 28, 2014 at 11:02 am
He knows the model could be rubbish and disproven. The experiment is taking place as we wait, over the next 5 – 10 years. It could be interesting seeing how it plays out.
We don’t need to wait. As he uses incorrect input the model is already rubbish.

Ulric Lyons
June 28, 2014 11:08 am

“The model has temperature falling out of bed to about 2020 and then going sideways in response to the peak in Solar Cycle 24.”
It will do on CET up to 2024, but not for global temperatures, there will more frequent El Nino, like through the coldest years of Dalton (1807-1817), and a renewed warm AMO. Global temp’s will creep down slowly, then briefly nosedive when the first stronger La Nina happens.

ren
June 28, 2014 11:11 am

Should not forget about gamma radiation – the weaker the magnetic field of the sun rise GCR including gamma rays and muons, which strongly ionize the atmosphere to the surface itself.

June 28, 2014 11:15 am

ren says:
June 28, 2014 at 11:11 am
Should not forget about gamma radiation – the weaker the magnetic field of the sun rise GCR including gamma rays
You can forget about gamma rays. The cosmic ‘rays’ are not rays and in particular not gamma rays.

June 28, 2014 11:16 am

Mr Svalgaard should beware of the solecism of the expert – to assume that because he knows something he knows everything. He has disgracefully accused Dr Evans of being “almost fraudulent” in that, according to Mr Svalgaard, the TSI data he is using are incorrect.
Here is the unique resource locator of Dr Evans’ TSI graph:
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/evans/graphs/prediction/total-solar-irradiance.gif
And here is the unique resource locator of the graph covering much the same period from Krivova et al, which appeared in IPCC AR5 (2013) and has been updated since by the SORCE Total Irradiance Monitor team, the originators of Mr Svalgaard’s graph:
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/evans/graphs/prediction/total-solar-irradiance.gif
The two graphs appear to me to be strikingly similar. On the data, therefore, Dr Evans (who should not be underestimated) is correct and Mr Svalgaard, the supposed “expert”, is not only wrong but libelously wrong. An immediate and abject apology seems in order.
“X”, an unknown quantity, “Spurt”, a drip under pressure.
Next, I had a look at Mr Svalgaard’s graph of total solar irradiance from 2003. The graph is similar to that of the SORCE/TIM graph, except that Mr Svalgaard, without saying so and without explaining how, has inserted trend data imaginatively covering a recent gap of about nine months in the data from SORCE.
Now, it is not for me to say whether Mr Svalgaard’s reconstruction of the trend on the absent SORCE data is reasonable, for I am no drip under pressure. However, to refer readers to a link to a graph that has been tampered with, and without also referring to a link that explains the tampering, and to use the tampered graph as the basis for accusing a diligent scientist of “almost fraudulent” conduct while suppressing a graph from the same source that confirms the rightness of Dr Evans’ data in every material particular, does not fill one with confidence in Mr Svalgaard’s scientific judgment, still less in his probity.
To Mr Eschenbach and others who deplore the absence of mathematics in Dr Evans’ slowly-unfolding blog account of his unpaid researches over many years, I should explain that he agonized long and hard about how to release his results and concluded, with great regret, that attempting to publish them in the once-learned journals would be pointless. Therefore, he is first giving an outline of what he has done – and, from the number of hasty comments from the usual suspects condemning his work before they have seen the details, his outline has inspired more than a little terror in the camp of the Thermageddonites.
In due course, when he is ready, he will no doubt make all relevant details available. You can be sure that he will not be taking the Michael Mann or Phil Jones approach to disclosure.
Finally, to those who, like Mr Svalgaard, inappropriately and repellently suggest that Dr Evans has a “hidden agenda”, anyone who knows Dr Evans would at once dismiss that notion. First, he has been working unpaid on his theory for years. Secondly, he was once a Thermageddonite himself: he was lavishly paid to write carbon-accounting models for the Australian Government.
He was cured of the Thermageddonite affliction on learning that “Dr” Mann and “Dr” Overpeck and the IPCC had attempted to abolish the medieval warm period. On seeing what arrant nonsense was being published about that period, he resigned his comfortably-paid government post and decided to investigate at his own expense what he regarded as an outrageous abuse of the scientific method for profit.
He found,– as so many of us have similarly found – that the official story-line did not withstand scrutiny. And what possible “hidden agenda” could he have for declaring in advance not only that he expects a sharp fall in global mean surface temperature at some time between now and 2024 but also that if no such drop occurs his theory will have been falsified? That transparent approach is the approach of an honest scientist – an approach that Mr Svalgaard would do well to learn to emulate.

June 28, 2014 11:18 am

ThinkingScientist says:
June 28, 2014 at 11:02 am
Well said.
David Evans’s description is based on a ‘what if ‘ scenario.
If there is some solar influence other than TSI which is affecting Earth temperatures with a delay in the region of one solar cycle then that could explain a great deal.
That idea has the merit of being readily falsifiable within one solar cycle, maybe within 5 years or so from today.
I have put forward one possibility.
Svensmark has put forward another.
AGW theory is yet another.
Let us see how the cards fall.
Anyone who claims to know at present is an idiot 🙂

June 28, 2014 11:22 am

@ren
I am not disagreeing with you that global cooling will cause more clouds at the lower latitudes [since we are cooling from the top latitudes down] and that these clouds at the lower latitudes cause more deflection of sunlight and hence more cooling. So it is a chain of events.
Trenberth knew and recognized that ozone on its own is responsible for 25% of all that is absorbed and reflected back to space by the atmosphere. You will understand that if there is more of it [ozone], that there is more cooling?
Trenberth forgot and probably never knew that there are also other chemicals being formed TOA back radiating energy to space. Hence the term, “Trenberth’s missing energy”
….

NikFromNYC
June 28, 2014 11:48 am

Willis asserted: “You get the same result running his magic model against white noise instead of the global surface temperature.”
Alas it’s a deeper rabbit hole than that since their result includes a massive nuclear winter adjustment thrown in due to atomic testing, and this locks them in with a serious fluctuation added to any white noise test data. I also suspect that this is how they obtain their sudden plunge at the end, but that’s just an intuitive extension of having my BS detector already pinging so loudly. They even suggest nuclear radiation being itself at work, their only reference for this massive kludge being a brochure about the potential numbers out there for a real nuclear winter in the future. Climate modelers rely mostly on pollution-based aerosols to adjust for post 1970s cooling, but Evans uses nuclear testing instead. This also defeats your suggestion of early/late model testing or Motl’s suggestion of time reversing the record to retain its spectral character as differing test data since much of their variation is hard wired.
If a signal analysis algorithm from the mostly causual world of electronics can perfectly match any causually entrained pair of signals then why the nuclear testing adjustment at all? For a good match it’s not needed, by definition of using a transfer function as a “model.” Then I think of it as loading a spring so it eventually pulls the future down into a plunge.
That these most elementary criticisms were not proactively anticipated but now lead to hurt feelings and tribal clashes is a bit of a red flag too, since using a the very idea of using a signal matching algorithm as a physical model (that must invoke an unknown Force X since that provides an perfectly matching 11 year delay to cancel an 11 year input signal along with a speculative nuclear winter effect based on radioactivity) barely passes the laugh test since its a textbook example of arbitrary wiggle matching with a wrench thrown in to thwart testing.
Where were the proactive tests of uniqueness? Does the “nuclear option” provide a future plunge by biasing unknown Force X and does it also defeat tests of uniqueness with test data? Is this exercise helping to throw away the skeptical advantage of checking our own work like real scientists outside of climatology do? That they promote only a *future* test instead of a careful internal one is a gambler’s outlook with quite good odds given the sudden plunges every few decades in the main Greenland ice core:
http://oi61.tinypic.com/2cxbxw4.jpg
Skeptics are fatiguing of being marginalized, but grasping for oversimplified answers only adds to that marginalization.

June 28, 2014 11:55 am

@Lord Monckton
It seems both Willis and Leif are playing the devil’s advocate, probably to keep everyone [sceptic] on their toes?

June 28, 2014 11:55 am

“NikFromNYC says:
June 28, 2014 at 11:48 am”
That isn’t true at all.
David Evans was puzzled by the mid 20th century cooling and referred to the 1950s nuclear testing as a possible cause. Indeed I recall that being blamed for the cooling at the time.
Now, however, it is clear that the lower activity level of solar cycle 20 plus the negative phase of the PDO could have povided the explanation.
David’s offhand conjecture does not in any way derogate from his basic hypothesis.

June 28, 2014 12:00 pm

“Trenberth knew and recognized that ozone on its own is responsible for 25% of all that is absorbed and reflected back to space by the atmosphere. You will understand that if there is more of it [ozone], that there is more cooling?”
Eh ???
More ozone means more warming and less ozone means less warmimg !!!
The presence of ozone in the stratosphere reacting directly with incoming solar energy is what causes the temperature inversion at the tropopause.
More ozone more warming and lower tropopause.
Less ozone less warming and higher tropopause.
Basic meteorology.

June 28, 2014 12:04 pm

.
I have a list of solar parameters going forward that if achieved should have a significant impact on the climate, and sunspots is not one of them . Reason being look at all the different sunspot counts that are out there, and it is so subjective. I never seen a parameter with such a diversity of values.
This is why total surface of the sun covered with sunspots should be used as a guide for sunspot activity but then again solar flux corresponds quite well to area coverage of sunspots on the sun, and that is what I am going with as far as how active or not solar activity is.

June 28, 2014 12:07 pm

Monckton of Brenchley says:
June 28, 2014 at 11:16 am
The two graphs appear to me to be strikingly similar. On the data, therefore, Dr Evans (who should not be underestimated) is correct and Mr Svalgaard, the supposed “expert”, is not only wrong but libelously wrong. An immediate and abject apology seems in order.
Nonsense. As I pointed out the most blatant error and the one on which the forecast hinges is the assertion that there has been a sudden and unprecedented drop in TSI in the 2003-2005 time frame. I showed that that is false.
Next, I had a look at Mr Svalgaard’s graph of total solar irradiance from 2003. The graph is similar to that of the SORCE/TIM graph
It is the SORCE/TIM data plotted every day [blue curve].
except that Mr Svalgaard, without saying so and without explaining how, has inserted trend data imaginatively covering a recent gap of about nine months in the data from SORCE.
The pink curve is simply the 27-day running average. The plotting program interpolates across data gaps, but that is totally irrelevant as you can remove that interpolation without any consequence.

NikFromNYC
June 28, 2014 12:08 pm

David Evans is quoted: “If the criterion does not occur: Then the notch-delay solar model is falsified and it should be thrown away.”
O.K., anyone can bet this way who anticipates a downturn over the next few decades with any model they choose, but that plunge doesn’t prove the model is right even as it falsifies mainstream models. I’ve already provided my Greenland “model,” that climate even on century time scales is highly chaotic, and by probability alone, temperatures always plunge upon peaking. I don’t even need Force Y to make that claim. Now whose model will a future plunge better support, theirs or mine? They have one big advantage over me here: I have no causality to offer a test of uniqueness using test data but they do. So why aren’t they offering it upfront but instead concluding only that future tests are available?

ren
June 28, 2014 12:09 pm

lsvalgaard says:
ren says:
June 28, 2014 at 11:11 am
Should not forget about gamma radiation – the weaker the magnetic field of the sun rise GCR including gamma rays
You can forget about gamma rays. The cosmic ‘rays’ are not rays and in particular not gamma rays.
Cosmic rays are particles (mostly protons) accelerated to relativistic speeds. Despite wide agreement that supernova remnants (SNRs) are the sources of galactic cosmic rays, unequivocal evidence for the acceleration of protons in these objects is still lacking. When accelerated protons encounter interstellar material, they produce neutral pions, which in turn decay into gamma rays. This offers a compelling way to detect the acceleration sites of protons. The identification of pion-decay gamma rays has been difficult because high-energy electrons also produce gamma rays via bremsstrahlung and inverse Compton scattering. We detected the characteristic pion-decay feature in the gamma-ray spectra of two SNRs, IC 443 and W44, with the Fermi Large Area Telescope. This detection provides direct evidence that cosmic-ray protons are accelerated in SNRs.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/339/6121/807

William Astley
June 28, 2014 12:11 pm

In reply to:
lsvalgaard says:
June 28, 2014 at 10:28 am
This is a link to the latest visual picture of the sun. http://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/assets/img/latest/latest_4096_4500.jpg
How many sunspots do you see? Do you observe pores (tiny sunspots) or sunspots.
There are six groups with a total of 11 spots, so the official sunspot number is 0.6*(10*6+11)=43, which is what SILSO [formerly SIDC] reports for today http://www.sidc.be/silso/home
Since the spots are smallish, they will not be weighted.
You can cut the crap about sunspot counts being manipulated.
William:
I would strongly suggest everyone have a look at the latest solar visual picture. (See link above.) How many sunspots do you count? Do you or do you not agree with Lief’s sunspot count above?
You have no explanation as to why the magnetic field strength of newly formed sunspots is decaying linearly, you have no explanation why sunspots are being replaced by pores, and you have no prediction as to what will happen next to the solar magnetic cycle. The sun will be spotless by late 2013, early 2014.
The planet has started to cool due to the sudden and abrupt change to the solar magnetic cycle which supports the assertion that some physical mechanism was inhibiting the solar magnetic cycle modulation of planetary cloud cover and the assertion that the solar magnetic cycle modulates planetary cloud cover.
The warming phase of the last 150 years and the enhanced warming phase of the last 30 years has happened again and again. The planet cyclically warms and cools, sometimes the cooling is abrupt. The forcing mechanism is the solar magnetic cycle. Name calling and emphatic statements will not change the physics of what happened in the past and what is happening now.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/davis-and-taylor-wuwt-submission.pdf
Davis and Taylor: “Does the current global warming signal reflect a natural cycle” (William: Yes)
…We found 342 natural warming events (NWEs) corresponding to this definition, distributed over the past 250,000 years …. …. The 342 NWEs contained in the Vostok ice core record are divided into low-rate warming events (LRWEs; < 0.74oC/century) and high rate warming events (HRWEs; ≥ 0.74oC /century) (Figure). … ….The current global warming signal is therefore the slowest and among the smallest in comparison with all HRWEs in the Vostok record, although the current warming signal could in the coming decades yet reach the level of past HRWEs for some parameters. The figure shows the most recent 16 HRWEs in the Vostok ice core data during the Holocene, interspersed with a number of LRWEs. …. ….We were delighted to see the paper published in Nature magazine online (August 22, 2012 issue) reporting past climate warming events in the Antarctic similar in amplitude and warming rate to the present global warming signal. The paper, entitled "Recent Antarctic Peninsula warming relative to Holocene climate and ice – shelf history" and authored by Robert Mulvaney and colleagues of the British Antarctic Survey ( Nature , 2012, doi:10.1038/nature11391),reports two recent natural warming cycles, one around 1500 AD and another around 400 AD, measured from isotope (deuterium) concentrations in ice cores bored adjacent to recent breaks in the ice shelf in northeast Antarctica. ….

June 28, 2014 12:11 pm

One item to remember is this period of below normal solar activity started in 2005 so the accumulation factor is coming into play.
Secondly it is not just solar activity within itself but the secondary effects associated with solar variability which I feel are extremely hard to predict as far as how strongly (to what degree)they may change and thus effect the climate in response to long prolonged minimum solar activity.
I strongly suspect the degree of magnitude change of the prolonged minimum solar activity combined with the duration of time of the prolonged minimum solar activity is going to have a great impact as to how EFFECTIVE the associated secondary effects associated with prolonged minimal solar activity may have on the climate. An example would be an increased in volcanic activity.To make it more complicated could thresholds come about? An example would be a changing atmospheric circulation pattern which may promote more snow cover/cloud cover and thus increase the earth’s albedo. How will the initial state of the climate play into it? An example of this would be the great amounts of excess Antarctica Sea Ice the globe has presently and how this might play out going forward under a very long period of prolonged minimum solar activity. Will climatic outcomes unknown come out of this?
Then one has to consider where the earth is in respect to Milankovitch Cycles (favorable )and how the earth’s magnetic field may enhance or moderate solar activity.
Given all of that I think at best only general trends in the climate can be forecasted going forward. I am confident enough to say in response to prolonged minimum solar activity going forward the temperature trend for the globe as a whole will be down. The question is how far down /how rapid will the decline be? I really do not have the answer because there are just to many UNKNOWNS. Further when you have unknowns in a system like the climate which is non linear, random and chaotic expect surprises.

ren
June 28, 2014 12:12 pm

lsvalgaard
Gamma rays, like muons and neutrons is part of the secondary radiation.

greg Goodman
June 28, 2014 12:12 pm

“For those complaining about his filter being non-causal, this is not strictly correct. In his analysis he divided the amplitude spectra of input and output to estimate the amplitude spectrum of the transfer function (under his assumption), but he did not estimate the phase spectrum of the “transfer function” because it was too noisy.”
Thanks, that’s something I forgot. IFAIR, he said it was “unreliable” not “too noisy”. An FT is a series of complex numbers, which can either be expressed as (x,y) or (magnitude, phase) . It is not clear how the magnitude can be regarded as reliable while the phase unreliable. That was not explained.
” The notch filter is clearly going to be SEEN as zero phase based on this analysis ie non-causal. The notch filter could just be an artefact ie TSI is not in temperature signals (that was my objection). But IF you make the assumption it is a real filter, then to make it causal it needs a delay, which is about 11 years (between 10 and 20 years).”
No. Dumping the phase then adding spurious fixed temporal lag which will represent a different phase for each component is yet another fudge. It in no way renders it “causal”.
“David is fully aware of the assumptions he is making. And as he says, “If the criterion does not occur: Then the notch-delay solar model is falsified and it should be thrown away.”.
…..
He knows the model could be rubbish and disproven. The experiment is taking place as we wait, over the next 5 – 10 years. It could be interesting seeing how it plays out.”
I think within that time frame we won’t need an alternative model to see whether AGW has even a grain of truth in it. However, I suspect this model will not last that long as it is. Some models don’t need more data.
His Lordship says: “He was cured of the Thermageddonite affliction on learning that “Dr” Mann and “Dr” Overpeck and the IPCC had attempted to abolish the medieval warm period. On seeing what arrant nonsense was being published about that period, he resigned his comfortably-paid government post and decided to investigate at his own expense what he regarded as an outrageous abuse of the scientific method for profit.”
Highly commendable. A large part of the problem today is that few in science seem to have that sort of cojones. Sadly, that does not fix the model.

June 28, 2014 12:20 pm

William Astley says:
June 28, 2014 at 12:11 pm
The sun will be spotless by late 2013, early 2014.
At late 2013, early 2014 is when we observed the ‘second peak’, with average sunspot numbers around 75. Hardly spotless.

ren
June 28, 2014 12:22 pm
Bernie Hutchins
June 28, 2014 12:22 pm

In fact, the step response of a physical notch filter must be causal. David Evans (for reasons that are very unclear – he originally said all notches were non-causal) chose a non-causal step response. He then further proposed to delay the response to make it causal (thus physical). But you can NOT make a non-causal step response become causal by using a delay unless the step response is finite duration (does not extend back to minus infinity), AND is symmetric about some center point (so that time reversal for the finite segment would not matter, since a delay does not reverse time). Neither special condition is a property of the step response David plotted in his Part II. Just engineering here.

Bart
June 28, 2014 12:24 pm

greg Goodman says:
June 28, 2014 at 9:08 am
‘There is an 11y peak in the “input” and no 11y peak in the “output”.’
That would tend to make the result rather tautological.
FWIW, my prediction for the years ahead.

greg Goodman
June 28, 2014 12:33 pm

NicfromNYC: “Skeptics are fatiguing of being marginalized, but grasping for oversimplified answers only adds to that marginalization.”
It seems about half throwing their hats in the air, projected by blasts of bias confirmation and cheering. The other half are being duly sceptical and giving this as much of a grilling as a warmist model would get.
I hope that Dr Evans will learn from some of the comments be able to improve what he’s done since I thinks it’s worthwhile venture.
He may well be right about the futility of using the peer-reviewed journals and opting for an open science approach. I hope he did not think that would be an easy option 😉
On the other hand, it could be interesting to see how it works.

greg Goodman
June 28, 2014 12:36 pm

Bart: “FWIW, my prediction for the years ahead.”
So we’re due for another super El Nino in 2064 then ? LOL

milodonharlani
June 28, 2014 12:38 pm

On the proposed climatic effects of nuclear testing:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/04/claim-nuclear-tests-stopped-global-warming-in-the-20th-century/
I spoke with Paul Ehrlich & the late Stephen Schneider about the problems with their & the astronomical Dr. Sagan’s blatantly political nuclear winter hypothesis. Ehrlich said if I wanted more data, he’d have to charge me. Schneider allowed as how their soot data were indeed problematical in various ways.

William Astley
June 28, 2014 12:40 pm

There are hundreds of papers based on the analysis a slew of different proxy data bases that supports the assertion that the planet cyclically warms and cools. Solar magnetic cycle changes correlate with the cyclic warming and cooling. The reason this problem has not been solved is the climate wars are blocking and inferring with the normal progression of science.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/05/is-the-current-global-warming-a-natural-cycle/
As written in our rejected paper two years ago, if the current global warming event has the same underlying cause as the 342 previous similar NWEs spread over the preceding 250,000 years–and we can think of no obvious scientific reason to think otherwise–then based on the statistical properties of all natural warming events in the Vostok record, the current global warming event will reverse by 2032 with 68% probability and by 2105 with 95% probability.
If the current warming event is homologous with a HRWE, climate reversal and global cooling are already overdue. Here is how we put it in our rejected paper. ….
…We submitted these findings sequentially to Science Magazine, Nature, and Nature Climate Change. The editor of Science Magazine replied that the results were not of sufficient general interest, suggested we submit the work to a specialty journal, and declined to proceed with external scientific review. Nature also rejected the paper without external scientific review, for reasons that we considered spurious. Nature Climate Change initially rejected the paper, but after some discussion the paper was assigned to a senior editor and reviewed by two anonymous reviewers. Given the context of their comments, both reviewers appeared to be climate modelers.
The Nature Climate Change reviewers concluded that the natural warming cycles we identified in the Vostok record could not possibly be real or significant, but instead represented irrelevant statistical “noise” in the temperature record. We replied respectfully that the warming events we detected and measured are similar to or larger than many well-accepted temperature fluctuations in ice core records, including Dansgaard-Oeschger oscillations, Heinrich events, and Antarctic Temperature Maxima. Indeed, the Vostok HRWEs are similar to or larger than the present global warming signal. These arguments were ignored by the reviewers, however, and the paper was rejected by the chief editor of Nature Climate Change.
http://cio.eldoc.ub.rug.nl/FILES/root/1999/QuatSciRevvGeel/1999QuatSciRevvGeel.pdf
“The role of solar forcing upon climate change”
“A number of those Holocene climate cooling phases… most likely of a global nature (eg Magney, 1993; van Geel et al, 1996; Alley et al 1997; Stager & Mayewski, 1997) … the cooling phases seem to be part of a millennial-scale climatic cycle operating independent of the glacial-interglacial cycles (which are) forced (perhaps paced) by orbit variations.”
“… we show here evidence that the variation in solar activity is a cause for the millennial scale climate change.”
Last 40 kyrs
Figure 2 in paper. (From data last 40 kyrs)… “conclude that solar forcing of climate, as indicated by high BE10 values, coincided with cold phases of Dansgaar-Oeschger events as shown in O16 records”
Recent Solar Event
“Maunder Minimum (1645-1715) “…coincides with one of the coldest phases of the Little Ice Age… (van Geel et al 1998b)
Periodicity
“Mayewski et al (1997) showed a 1450 yr periodicity in C14 … from tree rings and …from glaciochemicial series (NaCl & Dust) from the GISP2 ice core … believed to reflect changes in polar atmospheric circulation..”

June 28, 2014 12:44 pm

Monckton of Brenchley says:
June 28, 2014 at 11:16 am
Now, it is not for me to say whether Mr Svalgaard’s reconstruction of the trend on the absent SORCE data is reasonable, for I am no drip under pressure. However, to refer readers to a link to a graph that has been tampered with, and without also referring to a link that explains the tampering, and to use the tampered graph as the basis for accusing a diligent scientist of “almost fraudulent” conduct while …
This kind of remark is typical of politically motivated comments as the pink curve is irrelevant to the issue whether or not Mr. Evans assertion that TSI has dropped sharply since 2003 [which it has not, as the blue curve so clearly shows – even you should be able to see that]. Using words like ‘tampering with’ shows your agenda. In addition the ‘trend’ was downward, but even that is irrelevant. Here is a version with no interpolated downward curve http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-since-2003.png
In fact you may man up and apologize for your childish comment.

Bernie Hutchins
June 28, 2014 12:46 pm

Monckton of Brenchley said in part June 28, 2014 at 11:16 am
Here is the unique resource locator of Dr Evans’ TSI graph:
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/evans/graphs/prediction/total-solar-irradiance.gif
And here is ……..
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/evans/graphs/prediction/total-solar-irradiance.gif
The two graphs appear to me to be strikingly similar.”
******************
Does this surprise anyone – aren’t these the same URL ! Am I missing something!

ren
June 28, 2014 12:50 pm

Just running the cosmic radiation above the Arctic Circle during the polar night.
The increase in ozone occurs in the vicinity of the magnetic pole.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/intraseasonal/temp50anim.gif

cedarhill
June 28, 2014 12:50 pm

It seems Svalgaard is, vigorously, saying he doesn’t know how climate changes and he believes no else does either?

June 28, 2014 12:52 pm

Bernie Hutchins says:
June 28, 2014 at 12:46 pm
Does this surprise anyone – aren’t these the same URL ! Am I missing something!
You are missing the political nature of the comment which was intended to insult [and hoping people would not pay too much attention to actual facts].

June 28, 2014 12:53 pm

This is a very good discussion today. Balanced.

June 28, 2014 12:58 pm

Mr Svalgaard, having been caught out in a false, nasty, libellous allegation against the blameless Dr Evans, fails to have the grace to apologize when his error is drawn to his attention.
He admits that he tampered with the TSI graph from SORCE that had nine months’ missing data. It was on the basis of that tampered graph he said that Dr Evans had deliberately used wrong data. Having made that admission, and having been given clear and compelling evidence, from the very source of his own data, that Dr Evans’ TSI graph is in substance correct, he must now apologize without any further evasion.
In passing, Mr Svalgaard will understand that a layman like me is baffled that the form which his tampering took was the imaginative application of a 27-day smoothing to a period when there were no data at all not for 27 days but for nine months. He says the tampering had no consequences: but it was on the basis of that fictitious graph that he falsely accused Dr Evans of having deliberately used false total solar irradiance data as the basis for his model.
Dr Evans interprets the longer-term record of historical TSI as suggesting that a rapid decline in TSI began in 2003 or thereby and is now under way. One can legitimately argue this both ways. On the one hand, as Mr Svalgaard points out, the current peak of the solar cycle is about the same as the peak of the previous cycle 13 or 14 years ago and may even be a tad higher. On the other, the very length of the cycle (for longer cycles are often followed by less active cycles), taken with the fact that between this cycle and the last the trough was deeper than at any time since before the Second World War, suggests at least the possibility of a quite rapid decline in solar activity.
But it is not acceptable that Mr Svalgaard should suggest that Dr Evans was “almost fraudulent” or that he has an “agenda” merely because Mr Svalgaard interprets the data differently from Dr Evans.
The fact remains that he falsely accused Dr Evans of being “almost fraudulent” in using incorrect TSI data, when the “Historical TSI Reconstruction” graph published by the very same academic source as the graph tampered with by Mr Svalgaard is visibly identical in all material respects to Dr Evans’ TSI graph reproduced in the head posting.
Here are the relevant links:
From SORCE/TIM, the IPCC (2013) graph of some 400 years’ total solar irradiance, updated by the SORCE/TIM team to 2014, a source as mainstream as one can get:
http://lasp.colorado.edu/home/sorce/data/tsi-data/
and click on the menu item “Historical TSI Reconstruction”, or search for that term with control-F, or simply scroll down the page a bit.
From Dr Evans:
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/evans/graphs/prediction/total-solar-irradiance.gif
Or see the head posting.
Mr Svalgaard cannot plausibly deny that Dr Evans’ graph is very close to the official IPCC graph as updated by the very university from which he himself got the graph he tampered with.
Here is a reminder to Mr Svalgaard of what he wrote:
“It is worse than I thought. The TSI used by Evans is totally wrong. …”. TSI stands for “Total Solar Irradiance”.
(Then a rant about how Mr Evans has in Mr Svalgaard’s opinion drawn an uncongenial conclusion from the data). Then:
“As far as I am concerned, the model is already falsified. Not by the observations but by the [almost fraudulent – as there clearly is an agenda here] use of invalid input to begin with.” The words in square brackets, and the square brackets themselves, are Mr Svalgaard’s words.
Mr Svalgaard, confronted with the near-identity of the official IPCC graph and Dr Evans’ graph, must now apologize publicly and without reserve and without further circumlocution, evasion, excuse or delay, or forever forfeit all scientific credibility.
This is not a matter for any further bluster or wriggling on Mr Svalgaard’s part. By his conduct in reply to this thread, he will demonstrate to all whether he is a scientist or a quack. If he apologizes, he’s a scientist. If he doesn’t, he’s a quack. It’s his call. Many will be watching. Many will remember.

June 28, 2014 1:03 pm

William Astley.
For predictions of a possible future cooling based on the 60 and 1000 year quasi periodical cycles in the temperature data and using the neutron count- 10 Be record as the best proxy for solar :activity” see esp Figs 3,4,5,6,7,8 (esp 8 C and D),9,at
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2013/10/commonsense-climate-science-and.html
(Leif I see no point in rehashing our recent exchange on the Maunder Minimum thread)

Bernie Hutchins
June 28, 2014 1:07 pm

lsvalgaard said June 28, 2014 at 12:52 pm
” Bernie Hutchins says:
June 28, 2014 at 12:46 pm
Does this surprise anyone – aren’t these the same URL ! Am I missing something!
You are missing the political nature of the comment which was intended to insult [and hoping people would not pay too much attention to actual facts].”
So – he was just being a smart ass? Very helpful of him! Especially in a posting criticizing the conduct of yourself!
Thanks Leif. Got it.

Eliza
June 28, 2014 1:08 pm

A very interesting video very related to this posting

greg Goodman
June 28, 2014 1:19 pm

Bernie, I think his Lordship was trying to point out in a humouristic way the data used by Evans was also used in recent IPCC AR5 (2013). The point was exactly that it was the same URL.
lsvagaard’s comment is that the IPCC don’t know what they are doing and have used wrong data.
(Would not be the first time).
Evans’ idea is to use the warmists’ sources to prove you don’t need CO2. Thus it does not matter if this is “wrong” in the same way it does not matter if hadSST3 is wrong and has been tweaked.
It’s interesting to note that my relaxation model turns lsvalgaard’s “correct” TSI into something not dissimilar to the ramped up Lean et al TSI reconstruction, except for the improbably drop at the end which is probably related to using a crap filter“smoother”.
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=981
Will the world ever learn to find out what a filter does before using it?
https://climategrog.wordpress.com/2013/05/19/triple-running-mean-filters/

Chuck Nolan
June 28, 2014 1:23 pm

Steven Mosher says:
June 28, 2014 at 7:32 am
Looks like the cooling will be within normal bounds.
Therefore it can’t be the sun.
Note the similarity.
The warming we have seen is within normal bounds
Therefore it can’t be the co2
——————————————-
What a lame comparison. I thought you were one of the more intelligent ones here.
This is testable.
There is NO CO2 test for temperature effect.
If climate changes it’s CO2 wotdunit?
cn

June 28, 2014 1:35 pm

@lord monckton
lsvalgaard is an atheist
it is not in his nature to apologise

June 28, 2014 1:42 pm

Monckton of Brenchley says:
June 28, 2014 at 12:58 pm
He admits that he tampered with the TSI graph from SORCE that had nine months’ missing data. It was on the basis of that tampered graph he said that Dr Evans had deliberately used wrong data.
Not at all, the blue curve shows that Mr Evans assertion is false [and I maintain seems to be agenda driven – as your comments are]: http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-since-2003.png
The rest of your comment is not worth elaborating on.

MikeUK
June 28, 2014 1:46 pm

There IS some science in what David Evans has done, an investigation of how closely the TSI time series resembles that of global temperature, plus estimation of a hypothetical sensitivity. Such an investigation would involve data smoothing filters to show better the major trends.
A SCIENTIST would call the work something like “Investigation of a simple (or toy) model of climate response to solar forcing”.
A PSEUDO-SCIENTIST would start calling it a theory involving mysterious forces, claiming it can make predictions, that it could bring down the CO2 theory, and would make elementary errors like claiming that notch filters are acausal, and that it is original. Glassman has done something similar, and probably many others.
http://journal.crossfit.com/2010/04/glassman-sgw.tpl

greg Goodman
June 28, 2014 1:48 pm

http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/evans/graphs/prediction/total-solar-irradiance.gif
Looking at the 25 year “smooth” on that graph running up to the end of the data , they must be doing some kind of Mannian padding. My guess is they’re padding the window by repeating the last value. That means the end of the 11Y “smooth” has last value represented 6 times. Hence the spurious drop. 2003-2005 is where they should have stopped when the data ran out.
There’s another way to get that sort of error but it’s about as bad so I won’t bother explaining in detail.
The “unprecedented” drop is nothing but illegitimate data processing, it would appear.

June 28, 2014 1:48 pm

Monckton of Brenchley says:
June 28, 2014 at 12:58 pm
It was on the basis of that tampered graph
This comment is not only wrong, but outright stupid as everyone can plainly see. You do yourself no favours by pretending to be so dumb [I have a hard time believing that you are – but I could be wrong…]

June 28, 2014 1:53 pm

Dr Norman Page says:
June 28, 2014 at 1:03 pm
For predictions of a possible future cooling based on the 60 and 1000 year quasi periodical cycles in the temperature data and using the neutron count- 10 Be record as the best proxy for solar :activity”
In a recent report http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=13519&page=17 Muescheler points out that “there is no evidence of sustained periods on the order of 1,000 years of low solar activity in either the 10Be or the 14C record”

Bernie Hutchins
June 28, 2014 2:03 pm

greg Goodman said in part June 28, 2014 at 1:19 pm
” ….Bernie, I think his Lordship was trying to point out in a humouristic way the data used by Evans was also used in recent IPCC AR5 (2013). The point was exactly that it was the same URL…..”
Greg – thanks. But I assume you mean the same GRAPH. Both the URL’s were identical and from Jo Nova’s site. If it was meant to be funny he really needed to provide separate links. Lazy. Wouldn’t have been the first time he fumbled – and that I had called his attention to his error, for which he thanked me. Engineers and details.

June 28, 2014 2:08 pm

greg Goodman says:
June 28, 2014 at 1:48 pm
The “unprecedented” drop is nothing but illegitimate data processing, it would appear.
An issue here is whether this was deliberate. Now most of what we do is deliberate, and I have a hard time believing that Evans did not know what he was doing, but [as always – I could be wrong].

June 28, 2014 2:10 pm

Number of comments were made about the notch filter delay, the main feature in the research by David Evans. Yes, filters do, as all transmitting systems do produce some delay.
When compared (any point in time) solar activity and the climate indices show a certain time shift, which often is characterised as delay.
However in number of indices, the shift is non-stationary, in which case is may not be a ‘delay’ of one variable related to the other, but it is likely that two systems are running on two different fundamental frequencies.
If both sources affect the global temperature, than the effect of natural variability or ‘oscillations’ such as the AMO and PDO would be observed.

June 28, 2014 2:29 pm

Monckton of Brenchley says:
June 28, 2014 at 12:58 pm
Many will be watching. Many will remember.
And many will remember [one might hope] your silly comments trying to cover for Mr Evans.

MikeUK
June 28, 2014 2:40 pm

Leif and Greg, the TSI data being used DOES show a drop-off in recent years, look at the troughs here: http://lasp.colorado.edu/lisird/tsi/historical_tsi.html
But, the source of the data mentions a splicing of 2 different data sets, so that may be an issue.
If I was going to predict a drop in temperature I’d check exhaustively that the TSI data supports it.

June 28, 2014 2:44 pm

Mr Svalgaard said Dr Evans was deliberately using wrong TSI data. He now knows that was false. He said, on the strength of that false allegation, that Dr Evans was acting in an almost criminal fashion. Having been caught out, he has refused to apologize as he should have done, and has instead tried to explain away his absurd tampering which, like the USHCN tampering to invent data from non-existent temperature stations, fabricated a trend on nine months of missing data. He is a quack, not a scientist. This was not inadvertence on his part: it was plain wickedness. Nothing he ever says again on any scientific subject can or will be taken seriously. He is finished, dead by his own hand.

greg Goodman
June 28, 2014 3:08 pm

Oh dear, the text on the graph says they used mean of Jul 2012- Feb 2013 to pad out data to 2015. Credit due for colouring differently.
Looks like they must have padded the 25y SST in a similar way.
Part of what makes the drop remarkable is the distortions of the running mean. Note how the 1990 peak is inverted.. Also IIRC the Lean et al method adds back in the 11y average. to give their TSI reconstruction. That is presumably a trailing 11y mean, so that adds a 5.5y lag.
It starts to become clear why this is so similar to the relaxation calculation.

ren
June 28, 2014 3:19 pm

Action of cosmic radiation.comment image?w=450&h=553

Bruiser
June 28, 2014 3:24 pm

Despite Solar Cycle 24 having low sunspot activity, TSI is running slightly higher than SS23. The lull in TSI between SS23 and SSS24 is plainly evident in the UAH temperature record and wiped out all of the temp anomaly of the preceding years. Sunspots are only a proxy for TSI and until SS24 radiation levels start to tail off, we should not expect to see much change in global temperature averages.

June 28, 2014 3:37 pm

MikeUK says:
June 28, 2014 at 2:40 pm
Leif and Greg, the TSI data being used DOES show a drop-off in recent years, look at the troughs here: http://lasp.colorado.edu/lisird/tsi/historical_tsi.html
But, the source of the data mentions a splicing of 2 different data sets, so that may be an issue.

It is indeed an issue. The splicing is done to the PMOD data which had a lower 2008 minimum than the preceding minimum. However, the PMD data suffers from unmodeled degradation and as W. Smutz has shown the 0.2 W/m2 difference is not real, but an effect of that degradation, see. e.g. slide 36 of http://www.leif.org/research/Another-Maunder-Minimum.pdf
So there is no evidence for a decline of TSI at that solar minimum
Monckton of Brenchley says:
June 28, 2014 at 2:44 pm
Mr Svalgaard said Dr Evans was deliberately using wrong TSI data. He now knows that was false.
No, he does not know that. On the contrary he has shown that Mr Evans used wrong TSI data. This is either incompetence [I will allow for that hence my ‘almost’] or a deliberate act [you made that call].

commieBob
June 28, 2014 3:39 pm

Folks who think they are experts would do well to read and understand the work of Philip Tetlock.

Natural science has discovered in the past half-century that the dream of ever-growing predictive mastery of a deterministic universe may well be just that, a dream. There increasingly appear to be fundamental limits to what we can ever hope to predict. http://www.cato-unbound.org/2011/07/11/dan-gardner-philip-tetlock/overcoming-our-aversion-acknowledging-our-ignorance

Some humility is in order.

Greg Goodman
June 28, 2014 3:42 pm

MikeUK says:
Leif and Greg, the TSI data being used DOES show a drop-off in recent years
Indeed it does. You can see that reflected in my relaxation graph too. Though it is mostly the magnitude of the positive swing that changes not the base line.
However, what you link to is not “TSI data” it is a “TSI reconstruction”.
There seems to be less support for these ramped up recon. plots now, which is Leif’s main contention. TSI should be reconstructed from SSN directly , not adding back in some longer term average. That seems like double counting to me and I’m not sure on what theoretical grounds ( if any ) this was done.
There is recent decline which has been going for the last 3 cycles and to a lesser extent since 1960.
If one assumes the climate system equilibrates almost instantaneously, that would imply there should be a cooling since 1960. However, if there is some stockage of the incoming energy that dissipates over time, some kind of relaxation response should be expected. That seems a more realistic proposition than instantaneous equilibration.
I did a very quick stab at that with the most simplistic single slab ( single reservoir ) model, giving a single time constant. It fits rather well over all but shows divergence since about 1990. Due to the reservoir effect, the drop starts later.
A more realistic model would have a second reservoir with a longer delay and that would prop up the end of the data. Such a model would drop off slower too, leading to a slow decline rather than Evans’ sudden drop.
The divergence may also indicate some other factor is propping up recent temps. That may be AGW, or maybe the extra incoming SW since Mt Pinatubo:
http://climategrog.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/tropical-feedback_resp_ci.png?w=843
The other possibility is that all this is a total coincidence, there is no relation between SSN and surface temps, they just happen to go up and down in a similar way. Correlation is not causation etc.

JP
June 28, 2014 3:46 pm

Are there solar denialists? Do we have to use the term? Would Willis Eschenbach be called a solar denialist?
The study of solar influences on climate is in its infancy – there is no need to start dividing critics along supposed differences in belief while a proper theory is very far away.

Brad
June 28, 2014 3:47 pm

Boy am I naive…. I thought skeptics were above name calling and slinging mud at each other. I thought that was an alarmist characteristic. My respect for many of you has dropped considerably based on this single post. Not that it matters to any of you, you are too busy playing in the gutter.
A good deal of ammunition (talking points) has now been created for the alarmists, thanks guys.
I have used this website as a reference in many past emails to friends but will no longer be doing so.

cynical_scientist
June 28, 2014 3:53 pm

Dr Evans analysis is flawed but not fatally so. The early parts of it are insightful and useful. However his model pushes things too far in my opinion and the “bomb test” correction in his model looks like a massive fudge factor to me; a sign that the model has been stretched beyond the point of usefulness.
Leif – I understand your frustration that he seems to have ignored your work in correcting the sunspot/TSI record. At the very least, if he didn’t want to use your updated figures, he should have commented on them and explained why. However this doesn’t invalidate his work (at least the early parts) because the majority of his analysis is carried out in frequency space and is completely insensitive to the corrections you made. He WILL find the same “notch” using your figures.
Similarly, because almost all his analysis is carried out in frequency space, it is insensitive to “corrections” and “adjustments” to the temperature record as well. It doesn’t matter which temperature figures he uses and how they were massaged. As long as the adjustments don’t tamper with the frequency spectrum of the data he will get the same result.
Willis – you note that he would have found the same notch if he had used white noise for temperature. Well duh! If your input (TSI) has an 11 year oscillation and your output (temperature) shows no such oscillation (because you’ve replaced the real data with white noise) then there is obviously some kind of disconnect between input and output. If you model the disconnect using a filter, then the strongest frequencies present in the input will need to be most strongly filtered and you’ll see an 11 year notch.. That is precisely the point. Temperature should show an 11 year cycle because TSI has such a cycle. It doesn’t and that requires explanation. This observation is extremely robust to adjustments to either the TSI record or the temperature record.
The second insightful observation in my opinion was that the physical basis for such an 11 year filter has to come from an indirect solar effect, and that magnetic field strength has the correct timing to provide a physical basis for such a filter. Field strength is low when sunspot numbers and TSI are high. However field strength isn’t determined by sunspot numbers. At times of low solar activity (such as we are now starting to see) field strength becomes generally lower at all phases of the solar cycle. If field strength is your suggested physical mechanism then trying to impute it from TSI figures just using a simple delay is not good enough.
Beyond this point he loses me. I think his model is flawed. Clearly the model WILL be effected by corrections to the TSI record ( a la Leif ) and to the temperature record ( a la the various climate sausage factories ). Furthermore if magnetic field strength is the physical basis of his notch then an 11 year delay filter is a very poor way to model it. The “bomb test” fudge factor is a sign to me that he may have fitted an elephant.
Nevertheless there is value here. He is showing us where to look for evidence of an indirect solar effect. We need to look at the reason why the dog isn’t barking in the night – variation in TSI is not showing up as variation in temperature. An indirect solar effect in counterphase is the perfect explanation. And if this indirect effect originates from magnetic field strength then at times when the sun is quiet we should also see overall cooling.

Belvedere106
June 28, 2014 3:53 pm

They will never ever admit that the sun drives out climate and not human induced greenhousegasses. That does not mean we can polute btw. Because our way of living makes account a lot of UFP’s floating around in the air we breath. And UFP’s causes cancer.

Mr Green Genes
June 28, 2014 3:59 pm

What I like about this is that we will know whether or not the proposition is sound in a relatively short time, unlike all the thermogeddonists’ claims which conveniently project forward so far in time that they (and we) will all be dead before we know whether or not they are correct.
So, I have a question for the participants in the little spat which has been going on here. If Archibald and Evans (and by extension Monckton) are shown to be wrong in 10 years or so, will they admit it and apologise and, similarly, if they are shown to be correct, will Svalgaard do likewise?

June 28, 2014 3:59 pm

Greg Goodman says:
June 28, 2014 at 3:42 pm
TSI should be reconstructed from SSN directly , not adding back in some longer term average. That seems like double counting to me and I’m not sure on what theoretical grounds ( if any ) this was done.
In addition the sunspot group that are created at a rate of about one a day, everyday thousands of little magnetic bipoles [called ephemeral region, ERs] are also created. It was once thought that those would add a significant contribution to TSI and that their emergence rate was a function of general solar activity: the more sunspots, the more ERs. So they would constitute a varying ‘background’ on top of which the regular sunspot-related TSI would ride. The assumption was that a running 11-yr average of the Group Sunspot Number would be a measure of that background [so indeed the sunspots were counter twice], see 34 of http://www.leif.org/research/Another-Maunder-Minimum.pdf
Hagenaar et al [2008] have shown that this assumption is false, and that ERs erupt at a rate that is almost, if not absolutely, unrelated to the sunspot number. Therefore all TSI reconstructions that assume that varying background are not correct. This is not controversial, see e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/2011GL046658.pdf

TedM
June 28, 2014 4:01 pm

Thanks to Stephen Wilde and thinkingscientist for some civil discourse. A few levels above the vitriol expressed in the some of comments in this post. I suspect that I am not the only visitor to this and other sites that tend to ignore the vitriolic comments.

NikFromNYC
June 28, 2014 4:02 pm

Monckton’s rabid response to a mere plot average that meaninglessly jumped a gap is yet another red flag that this whole exercise may be an organized PR stunt gone bad. I fear an insider circle has turned to the dark side and intend to fight fire with fire by themselves playing sensationalist dirty pool to compete with Steven Goddard at the same strategy. Those supporting this model don’t seem to enjoy critical feedback at all, an extremely valuable commodity to obtain compared to merely being ignored. Now Monckton is channeling prickly Mann in a world gone topsy turvy mad. Is Leif’s graph wrong I don’t know but his casual software average is no valid criticism of it and he does happen to be a working solar expert who does not overlap with the corrupt hockey stick team that was plotted graphically in the Wegman report:
http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/social_network.gif
Leif posts a lot here too, which is against hockey stick team rules of Alinskyite engagement, tutored by real PR firms, so I judge his comments as valuable as I try to understand these claims. He doesn’t come off as one of the bad guys.
Would the TSI drop matter anyway for an “infinitely tuned” model that could wiggle match either way or is this also important for the future cooling prediction? All this nitpicking isn’t answering such fundamental questions that only David can answer until code is released. For now I’ll rely on my favorite string theorist who suggests this isn’t a model at all, just a mathematical stunt.

June 28, 2014 4:04 pm

Mr Green Genes says:
June 28, 2014 at 3:59 pm
If Archibald and Evans (and by extension Monckton) are shown to be wrong in 10 years or so, will they admit it and apologise and, similarly, if they are shown to be correct, will Svalgaard do likewise?
Of course, that is what honest scientists do. I’m not so sure about the other guys, though. ‘Apologise’ is normally not the way it is done. One way is to say in a paper that one’s earlier ‘finding’ was incorrect but even that is rare – wrong papers are simply quietly forgotten.

June 28, 2014 4:10 pm

cynical_scientist says:
June 28, 2014 at 3:53 pm
Leif – I understand your frustration that he seems to have ignored your work in correcting the sunspot/TSI record. At the very least, if he didn’t want to use your updated figures, he should have commented on them and explained why.
That is not the issue. The issue is that he used an obsolete reconstruction of TSI [see my comment at 3:59pm]. This has nothing to do with the revision of the sunspot number. My frustration is with people [such as Monckton] with an agenda.

June 28, 2014 4:13 pm

NikFromNYC says:
June 28, 2014 at 4:02 pm
Monckton’s rabid response to a mere plot average that meaninglessly jumped a gap is yet another red flag that this whole exercise may be an organized PR stunt gone bad.
You may a point here. It certainly looks that way.

Belvedere106
June 28, 2014 4:22 pm

Everybody is talking this and that and letting their egos speak. Cut it out will ya? Nobody knows what the weather will do tomorrow, nobody. You can speak out in weather terms and nowcast all you want, the weather never does what you think it will do… Hell as i know, this could well be a counter operation website full of cons (i dont know, just meant it as a matter of speak)..
You see.. There is the main problem. People who think they can outsmart someone else by new data. As soon as you see the data, it is already the past. You can only enjoy the weather now, is by looking at it and be present, just be there and observe.
All the focus is on CO2., And it should not be. It should be focussed at UFP’s or Ultra Fine Particles. They are real danger and are spread by cars and plains. Nobody is looking at that, the problem we all create for ourselfs. And not only we are affected, other species too.

cynical_scientist
June 28, 2014 4:24 pm

lsvalgaard says:
June 28, 2014 at 4:10 pm

The issue is that he used an obsolete reconstruction of TSI [see my comment at 3:59pm]. This has nothing to do with the revision of the sunspot number.

Sure. But his main observation is so totally robust and insensitive to manipulations in the data that it almost doesn’t matter where he gets his figures from. It is astonishing how robust his result is. Working in the frequency realm has many advantages not least of which adjustments of the kind which plague climate science (and solar science) have almost zero impact there.

My frustration is with people [such as Monckton] with an agenda.

Yeah Monckton can be a bit of a loose cannon. It isn’t fun to be in front of him when he lets loose a blast in the wrong direction.

Greg Goodman
June 28, 2014 4:30 pm

Brad says:
“Boy am I naive…. I thought skeptics were above name calling and slinging mud at each other. I thought that was an alarmist characteristic.”
I think the “solar denialist” thing was a tongue in cheek mockery of “climate denialist” name calling, it was not supposed to be a invitation to fight fire with fire and start throwing names back.
Apparently such subtle humour is beyond some. Not funny, not P.C.

June 28, 2014 4:30 pm

cynical_scientist says:
June 28, 2014 at 4:24 pm
Sure. But his main observation is so totally robust and insensitive to manipulations in the data that it almost doesn’t matter where he gets his figures from.
I think not [as many people have agreed]. Certainly the drastic drop would not come from random data.
Yeah Monckton can be a bit of a loose cannon. It isn’t fun to be in front of him when he lets loose a blast in the wrong direction.
I would rather be in front than just behind him…

Greg Goodman
June 28, 2014 4:35 pm

Belvedere106 says:
“All the focus is on CO2., And it should not be. It should be focussed at UFP’s or Ultra Fine Particles. They are real danger and are spread by cars and plains. Nobody is looking at that, the problem we all create for ourselfs. And not only we are affected, other species too.”
Oh don’t worry, that’ll be the next pretext to remove our freedom of mobility and have us all forced ride around in electric powered shoeboxes or solar assisted bicycles.

HAS
June 28, 2014 4:36 pm

I think the rapidity with which some impugn motives is unfortunate and unnecessary.
As I read this work it starts with an assumption TSI => GST without recourse to GHGs, and looks at the consequences. It steps its way through making a number of further assumptions about cause and effect that are chosen not to violate empirical evidence and concludes we can reasonably model the process without having to include GHGs, if we assume an external Force X. (“If we had eggs, we could have ham and eggs, if we had ham” where ham and eggs is GST, eggs is TSI and ham is Force X).
Somewhat speculatively the model is also used to project future states.
Where does this leave us in the pursuit of our understanding of the earth’s climate system?
First, reductio ad absurdum is in the fine tradition of scientific method. If the process had led to a contradiction it would have disproved the initial assumption. Since the analysis comes down to the assumption of the existence of Force X that is what this turns on. If the existence of Force X or something that could manifest itself in that form is unphysical, this increases the evidence that GST does depend on internal states.
However reductio ad absurdum disproves things, it doesn’t prove them.
Second, the model produced does provide a basis for testing the various assumptions made along the way. If the model not only doesn’t reduce to a contradiction but also shows skill in projecting phenomena out of range of the information used to create the model (not just GST, but also intermediate results) then this adds credence to the assumptions (i.e. maybe we don’t need to understand the internal states to project GST). On the information I’ve seen so far however the investigators don’t seem to have used part of the historic information to independently project what the model would show for the balance, and are waiting for the future. This is a (unfortunate) limitation.
Finally, the approach is useful to remind that top down modeling does often help our understanding of a system – particularly by drawing attention to where greater effort in understanding a subsystem could be warranted, and where materiality suggests it is necessary.

James Abbott
June 28, 2014 4:40 pm

David Archibald’s post is just wishful thinking. When will it start cooling ? Global temperature is unlikely to cool significantly in the short to medium term as there is no physical reason why it should. A major eruption would cause short term cooling, but we don’t know when the next one will be.
He overplays the temperature response to solar variation – and we have little real idea of what future solar cycles will bring.
Also, what are “lunar effects” in this context ?

June 28, 2014 4:42 pm

HAS says:
June 28, 2014 at 4:36 pm
As I read this work it starts with an assumption TSI => GST without recourse to GHGs, and looks at the consequences. It steps its way through making a number of further assumptions about cause and effect that are chosen not to violate empirical evidence
Except that it does. The TSI reconstruction they use is not empirical evidence and we know today that it is wrong. Even Lean who is cited for her 2000 reconstruction has long ago given up on it.

Greg Goodman
June 28, 2014 4:43 pm

Belvedere106 says:
June 28, 2014 at 3:53 pm
They will never ever admit that the sun drives out climate and not human induced greenhousegasses. That does not mean we can polute btw. Because our way of living makes account a lot of UFP’s floating around in the air we breath. And UFP’s causes cancer.
===
Well if the whole enviro movement would stop pretending that CO2 is pollution and wasting everyone’s time and effort, then maybe they’d have some time to take care of REAL pollution issues.
The trouble is at this stage, I suspect it’s too late and next time they try to “sound the alarm” about something, even if they are right, no one will listen, they’ve over played their hand so badly.
That is a shame and it will do no one any good. But that’s the way it is.

george e. smith
June 28, 2014 4:46 pm

Well, I have never put much stock in the various attempts to deny that GHGs do indeed capture LWIR radiation emitted generally from the surface thus slowing its escape, and warming the atmosphere. The basic physics is not in much doubt.
But I have also always believed, that such perturbations, including variability of TSI, are simply washed out by the strong negative feedback due to clouds.
Less clouds, more surface insolation (ocean), more evaporation, more water in atmosphere, eventually more clouds, less surface insolation.
Or, more clouds, less surface insolation, cooler surface and lower atmosphere, more precipitation, less clouds, more surface insolation.
So it is not at all surprising, that the global Temperature, basically ignores a lower incoming TSI, regardless of what the primary cause of that lower TSI may be.
So when Leif says that a 0.1% lower TSI during a solar minimum, causes less than 0.1 degree change; about 78 m deg. C if you use a BB S-B assumption; that is a thermal equilibrium change one would expect if NOTHING ELSE CHANGED.
But the clouds do change, so the temperature pays no attention to small TSI shifts; either up or down.
Negative feedback works in both directions to oppose changes from any quarter. Le Chatalier’s Principle even says as much.
The true effect of global cloud cover, is something that cannot be monitored from out in space. Even with a flock of satellites giving 24-7 , and 4pi global coverage, you can’t see what makes it through the clouds to the surface.
And no adequate surface monitoring cloud system exists. The cloud level horizon, around any surface monitoring point is a few km, or tens of km at most. And clouds come and go in mere minutes.
So it is likely cloud negative feedback, that frustrates Willis E’s search for a 11 yr solar cycle signature.
Well that is my conclusion anyway. All are free to differ.

Greg Goodman
June 28, 2014 4:48 pm

James Abbott says: David Archibald’s post is just wishful thinking.
I suspect you are right. A lot people seem to be jumping this because it’s what they want to hear. Bias confirmation.
“When will it start cooling ? ”
About 2005. But it won’t anything like the Evans projections.

cynical_scientist
June 28, 2014 4:49 pm


Sure. But his main observation is so totally robust and insensitive to manipulations in the data that it almost doesn’t matter where he gets his figures from.

I think not [as many people have agreed]. Certainly the drastic drop would not come from random data.

The drastic drop you refer to is in the model part of his work, which is the part I don’t find much value in. I wasn’t reading carefully at that point. I’m sure you are right about this, although I would be very reluctant to impute malicious motives here. I believe Dr Evans to be a man of integrity.
This error however merely balances another error. His model will fail to pick up the overall drop in magnetic field strength due to the lessening of solar activity because he is inferring this totally from TSI using an 11 year delay filter. That will work when the sun is doing its usual thing, but not when the sun is entering a period of overall low activity. It is that overall low activity which will be responsible for cooling (should that occur) – and a model based purely on TSI won’t detect it.

June 28, 2014 4:52 pm

cynical_scientist says:
June 28, 2014 at 4:49 pm
although I would be very reluctant to impute malicious motives here. I believe Dr Evans to be a man of integrity.
Incompetent thus. I did allow for that [‘almost’], and as they say “Never ascribe to maliciousness what can be explained by stupidity”

Greg Goodman
June 28, 2014 4:54 pm

george e. smith says: So it is likely cloud negative feedback, that frustrates Willis E’s search for a 11 yr solar cycle signature.
Oh, he’s not at all frustrated, he’s very happy not to find it since that supports his global thermostat hypothesis.

Bill Illis
June 28, 2014 5:05 pm

The SORCE TIm instrument seems to be working again. Or at least, there is 3 months of recent data now.
It looks to be 0.3 W/m2 to 0.5 W/m2 lower than is should be at this time of solar cycle.
http://lasp.colorado.edu/data/sorce/total_solar_irradiance_plots/images/tim_level3_tsi_24hour_3month_640x480.png
Divide by 4 and multiply by 70% and the net solar irradiance is about 0.07 W/m2 lower than it should be. That is only about 0.02C worth of impact according to climate and the Stefan Boltzmann equations. (That is unless there is long-term accumulation of energy levels which is important which the seasonal cycle and the lags in the seasonal cycle tell us is actually important – this is about 10% of the daily change in energy levels that occurs in the seasonal cycle when temperatures change by 20.0C over 180 days, So the drawdown in energy of 0.07 W/m2/time is going to have an important temperature effect the longer this downturn in TSI occurs).
Climate science has gotten to this important energy flux over time question.

Greg Goodman
June 28, 2014 5:11 pm

lsvalgaard, “The assumption was that a running 11-yr average of the Group Sunspot Number would be a measure of that background [so indeed the sunspots were counter twice], see 34 of http://www.leif.org/research/Another-Maunder-Minimum.pdf
Hagenaar et al [2008] have shown that this assumption is false, and that ERs erupt at a rate that is almost, if not absolutely, unrelated to the sunspot number. ”
Thank you.
So there is still the ER factor that is variable but almost, if not entirely, unrelated to SSN. That would mean that a purely SSN based reconstruction is incomplete. Even if ER is uncorrelated to SSN it seems that it was accorded a fairly significant magnitude. Has that disappeared too?
Is there an implicit assumption that whatever ERs do is random and is hoped to average out?

Greg Goodman
June 28, 2014 5:16 pm

BTW, you were kind enough to provide a source to basic polarisation data that the rotation FFT was derived from but I don’t really understand the format.
There is daily binary “x” and “.” values, how is that processed to get to something that is FFT-able?

Editor
June 28, 2014 5:25 pm

john robertson says:
June 28, 2014 at 9:56 am

I await the rest of David Evans conjecture.
So far I like the roll out and approach.

Has the world gone mad? David Evans has said exactly the same thing that Michael Mann and Phil Jones told us—we don’t have to give you the data until we want to, and so far we don’t want to.
I begged David Evans, begged him please, please, to release the hidden code, to stop keeping the model equation a secret, to reveal the data, to expose the numbers of tunable parameters, to show the results of the out-of-sample tests that Jo says he’s already done … but no, he’s too busy channeling Lonnie Thompson and the rest of the serial non-archivers among the alarmists by hiding everything he can from public view.
John, while you may personally like his approach, the rules in science are simple. It’s like the sign you see in the restaurant that says “No shoes, no socks, no service” … except this sign says:
No code, no data, no science.
I find the actions of David Evans and Joanne Nova in this to be totally against science. Joanne said that they had sweated and gone unpaid for five years to develop their model, and it was their right to not reveal it right now if they didn’t want to … I told her I was sorry, but Anthony and Steve McIntyre and I have sweated in our respective hovels for five years as well, but that doesn’t buy any of us one minute’s exemption from the normal rules of scientific transparency.
As a result, it is terribly depressing to see my good friend Christopher Monckton once again defending someone who spits in the face of transparency and refuses to expose his work to the harsh light of day. Last time Christopher was defending Nicola Scafetta, another man who thinks he’s above the rest of us and has no need to show his work. The sad part is that in both cases Christopher was not defending science of any sort—as Steve Mosher observed, without data and code it’s not science, it’s just an advertisement for your ideas.
And David and Jo have been advertising for all it’s worth. And as a result, they have developed a whole coterie of suckers who’ve bought into the deal BEFORE GETTING THE TEST RESULTS! How dumb is that? Well, it’s dumb on the part of those buying in, but it’s genius on the part of Jo and David, because people hate to admit that they were wrong. So, sadly, we’re gonna see people advancing their cockamamie “notch theory” ten years from now, whether David and Jo ever reveal their secrets or not. They’ve got a guaranteed long-term cheering squad at this point … but no test results …
And it is more depressing how many people are standing up here at WUWT and applauding this kind of pseudo-science. Look, guys, the rules don’t just apply to the alarmists. You can’t say that Phil Jones was wrong when he refused to give data to Warwick Hughes on the grounds that Warwick might find fault with it, and then give David and Jo a big round of applause when they are doing exactly what Phil did, refusing to give us the data for fear we might find fault with it. Applauding them for that is venal hypocrisy of the worst kind. Busting your opponents for something and giving your friends a pass for the same thing is despicable. Applauding David and Jo for refusing to reveal their work is exactly like the alarmists applauding Peter Gleick for his actions. Both cases call for approbation, not applause.
When David and Jo decide to cut out the crap, come to the party like the rest of us mortals, and act like scientists by being transparent about their work, we’ll have something to discuss. But until then, as I told David and Jo, if I want advertisements I’ll watch Mad Men …
Sadly,
w.

June 28, 2014 5:39 pm

Bill Illis says:
June 28, 2014 at 5:05 pm
It looks to be 0.3 W/m2 to 0.5 W/m2 lower than is should be at this time of solar cycle.
I don’t know where you get that idea from. If you plot TSI against the Sunspot Number, you find that TSI currently is actually a bit too high compared to what we what it should be for the current sunspot number.
Greg Goodman says:
June 28, 2014 at 5:11 pm
So there is still the ER factor that is variable but almost, if not entirely, unrelated to SSN.
I may have given you the wrong impression. The ER emergence rate is almost constant within the error bar. What little, inconsequential, variation there is, is not related to the sunspot number.
Greg Goodman says:
June 28, 2014 at 5:16 pm
There is daily binary “x” and “.” values, how is that processed to get to something that is FFT-able?
Assign -1 to the ‘x’ and +1 to the ‘.’
Willis Eschenbach says:
June 28, 2014 at 5:25 pm
As a result, it is terribly depressing to see my good friend Christopher Monckton once again defending someone who spits in the face of transparency and refuses to expose his work to the harsh light of day.
And ‘defending’ him in a such a rabid way that it demeans himself. Depressing indeed. How can some people sink so low…

June 28, 2014 5:54 pm

In reply to Willis Eschenbach, if we were dealing with a rational scientific community it would be possible for David Evans to publish in a scientific journal and let people pick his work apart in an honorable and straightforward fashion. However, the climate debate is no longer rational. David and Jo have thought long and hard about how to announce their project, and they have decided to describe it in outline and then – quite soon now, in fact – to reveal all of the code and data, which Willis will find to be in an exceptionally transparent and user-friendly form.
It has been interesting to see how many of the usual suspects – the unspeakable Connolley for one – have been drawn out and are sounding off, doing their best to tear down David’s work before it is published. We all suspected that would happen. It shows how worried they are. David is using a brand of mathematics that most climate scientists have very little familiarity with. His work has very much impressed those scientists whom he has consulted. It is well above my pay-grade to say whether or not he is right: but he has at least conducted a genuine and quite difficult scientific enquiry. He may or may not be right, but at least he has made the effort to try to work things out for himself, and he has the courage – which is more than can be said for the “official” climate scientists – to say what will constitute falsification of his theory.
So don’t complain: everything will very soon be available to everybody, and then – and only then – will people be in a proper position to criticize David’s work. One hopes the criticisms will be less immature and more soundly founded than those of Mr Svalgaard.

June 28, 2014 6:02 pm

Monckton of Brenchley says:
June 28, 2014 at 5:54 pm
David is using a brand of mathematics that most climate scientists have very little familiarity with.
None of this matters: Garbage in, garbage out. And it does not matter if it is deliberate garbage or just incompetent garbage.

farmerbraun
June 28, 2014 6:10 pm

Oh well at least I’M whiter than white . . . 🙂
Oops , hold on . . . what’s my name?

June 28, 2014 6:16 pm

Neither Mr Svalgaard nor his apologists have been able to defend his malicious and uncalled-for attack on Dr Evans for having used TSI data virtually indistinguishable from the historical record on the SORCE/TIM website, which is an updated version of the data used in the most recent IPCC report. Mr Svalgaard can no longer be taken seriously as a scientist. Let readers compare the two graphs for themselves.

RossP
June 28, 2014 6:19 pm

Well recent weeks ( with the David Evans and Steve Goddard work ) have told me something. There are huge egos involved in this debate on both sides. I am no expert, just someone who wants to learn and reads many sources to do so. Many people I have respected in this debate have gone down several notches in that respect in recent weeks. One in particular is acting like a spoilt teenager –I want it and I want it now. You won’t give what I want so I’ll throw the toys out of my cot.

4 eyes
June 28, 2014 6:22 pm

The models we used to design fracture stimulations are built around known physical laws. They are generally very good these days. However in one basin the models were just wrong. We included a fudge factor on one of suspect variables and Bingo the model worked. To this day I do not know why trebling the value of a input variable to a quite unrealistic value made the model useful again. But it worked and we got good results and made money. The engineer in me is frustrated by not understanding the cause to this effect. But it would have been plain nuts not to use the fudge factored model. If Evans model turns out to be good, don’t ignore it just because there is no explanation for its abilities.

June 28, 2014 6:27 pm

And here is confirmation, in detail, that Dr Evans is indeed shortly going to release all his code and data. It is frankly astonishing that he should have been criticized for lack of transparency when he has made it quite clear from the outset that he was going to release everything. The vicious attacks on him have shown just how worried the Forces of Darkness are that he might have stumbled upon something other than Man that drives the climate, and – alas – just how jealous some skeptics are of the attention that his idea is attracting.
This is what Dr Evans says about the forthcoming release of the code and data:
““Our climate model is in a spreadsheet that we will be releasing shortly. We chose to do all the work for this project, right from the beginning, in a single Microsoft Excel spreadsheet for PC. It’s not the fanciest or the fastest, but an Excel spreadsheet is the most ubiquitous and one of the friendlier programming environments. It runs on most computers (any PC with Excel 2007 or later, maybe on Macs with Excel 2011 or later), can hold all the data, makes nice graphs, and all in a single file.
“The models use VBA code, a form of the BASIC programming language that is part of Microsoft Office. The spreadsheet is professionally presented, and you press buttons on the sheets to make models run and so on. You can inspect and run or step through the code; it will be all totally open. Thank you for your patience, but giving away the spreadsheet early would pre-empt the blog posts and disrupt a focused discussion.”

milodonharlani
June 28, 2014 6:27 pm

RossP says:
June 28, 2014 at 6:19 pm
As I’ve had occasion to write here before, that’s just Willis being Willis.
I’m confidant that Dr. Evans will provide data & code in a timely manner. To compare him to Jones & Hansen is IMO absurd. Waiting to while promising promptly to present everything in support of a model is a far cry from fighting tooth & nail, grabbing & holding onto wood work while being dragged screaming & kicking to comply with a FOIA request to follow basic scientific procedure by showing your data & work.

NikFromNYC
June 28, 2014 6:31 pm

NASA’s page on TSI shows both types of TSI plots, one Space Age and another longer term, and the long term one shows a recent uptick in the regular zig-zagging of a falling trend since about 1970:
http://lasp.colorado.edu/home/sorce/data/tsi-data/
A Photoshop overlay of Evans versus the NASA page shows a fair match with a downturn since 1970 and a recent uptick that corresponds to Leif’s bowl back only to 2003:
http://oi61.tinypic.com/2meafea.jpg
So the TSI is indeed falling but is noisy or chaotic in short term trend. The debate here seems to be about how the level of Leif’s bowl pulls down the average since 2003 even though the level itself recovers to that lower 2003 value. I don’t see much issue here either way now that I look at the plots in detail.

Bernie Hutchins
June 28, 2014 6:31 pm

Monckton of Brenchley said in part June 28, 2014 at 5:54 pm:
“…David is using a brand of mathematics that most climate scientists have very little familiarity with….”
Possibly.
It is fair to flip this about to say that David’s theory crucially involves this “brand of mathematics” (signal processing) that many “non-full-time climate scientist” have a LOT of familiarity with? Indeed, isn’t David advertised first as a DSP engineer?
Yet he ignored, often with what seemed true resentment (on Jo’s blog), our pointing out clear mistakes. Well, engineers do their very best work standing around a blackboard, coffee cup in one hand, chalk in the other, calling out errors, laughing at our usual foolishness. In the end, we get things right. Blogs – not so much!

William Astley
June 28, 2014 6:38 pm

Cooling, unlike a lack of warming for 17 years, is a game changer. There will be significant cooling in time for the US presidential election. Cooling of the planet that correlates with an abrupt change to the solar magnetic cycle during a presidential election will be a major news story. There will be panic in the science community as the paradigm rapidly changes.
http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/nature02995.pdf
Unusual activity of the Sun during recent decades compared to the previous 11,000 years
Here we report a reconstruction of the sunspot number covering the past 11,400 years, based on dendrochronologically dated radiocarbon concentrations. We combine physics-based models for each of the processes connecting the radiocarbon concentration with sunspot number. According to our reconstruction, the level of solar activity during the past 70 years is exceptional, and the previous period of equally high activity occurred more than 8,000 years ago. We find that during the past 11,400 years the Sun spent only of the order of 10% of the time at a similarly high level of magnetic activity and almost all of the earlier high-activity periods were shorter than the present episode.
How many sunspots do you see on the sun. This is the peak of solar magnetic cycle 24. There will be no solar magnetic cycle 25. A simpleton can predict what will happen to planetary climate. There are cycles of warming and cooling in the paleo record that correlate with changes to the solar magnetic cycle.
http://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/assets/img/latest/latest_4096_4500.jpg
Is there any other physical explanation for the sudden and significant increase in Antarctic sea ice?
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png
Antarctic sea ice is now more than 2 sigma greater than the 30 year average for ever month of the year.
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_stddev_timeseries.png
Arctic sea ice is recovering. The predicted minimum Arctic sea ice for 2014 is above the 30 year average.
To avoid career ending political retribution for climate gate type shenanigans, US government scientific agencies and US universities will suddenly become neutral concerning reporting of what is happening to the sun and cooling climate change. There will suddenly be discussion of past cyclic abrupt climate changes that correlated with solar magnetic changes. Those who were center in climategate type research and public discussion will suddenly become isolated.

John Of Cloverdale WA, Australia
June 28, 2014 6:41 pm

OMG such debate. Plate tectonic theory next?

Tom Harley
June 28, 2014 7:10 pm

It’s obvious Dr Svalgaard wasn’t one of the scientists that Dr David Evans has consulted with in producing his model, which by the hysteria he shows here was a good thing. He doesn’t seem to have read all the posts at Jonova, along with other critics like Willis who also appear not to have. Otherwise he would not have had this outburst, which is not dissimilar to the worst kind of bullying from climatologists like Mann. Just shut up Dr Svalgaard, and wait until it’s all out there, then you can be free to criticize all you want.
This just proves Evans’ approach was right in a deliberate effort to educate the rest of us in a field few of us are expert in. As he said, if it turns out wrong, throw it out! Patience is a virtue.

RoHa
June 28, 2014 7:13 pm

Meh. We’re doomed anyway.

David Archibald
June 28, 2014 7:16 pm

A lot of people are missing the big picture. All 50 of the IPCC models have been proven wrong, invalidated, shown to be worthless, demonstrated as no good, falsified by actual observation. Tens of billions have been spent on the basis that those models would be proven to be correct. That didn’t happen and it is like the weight of medieval superstition has been lifted from mankind, all over again. We are free to pursue what might really work. We are well into the 21st century and, as far as I know, there are only two models with predictive ability that are still in the game – mine and David Evans’. Of those two, the former is very blocky with an eleven year average forecast while the latter has monthly data input providing a monthly output profile. This much finer resolution, once validated, will be of great practical value to real world practitioners. People who speculate on corn futures perhaps, the longer dated contracts especially. His model is full of goodies – it is an Aladdin’s Cave of data sets all put together very neatly. Its release will be Christmas come early for all who have a natural curiosity re climate. Those in the pay of Soros won’t like it so much.

jim2
June 28, 2014 7:24 pm

Willis E needs to grow up. Sheesh!

June 28, 2014 7:25 pm

I am grateful to NikfromNYC for having compared Dr Evans’ graph of total solar irradiance with an official dataset and for having found the two to be substantially similar: certainly not dissimilar enough to make an issue of. Yet – let it not be forgotten – Mr Svalgaard made an issue of it, saying that Dr Evans had deliberately used wrong total-solar-irradiance data, saying he had an “agenda” and, for good measure, accusing him of coming close to fraud.
And Mr Svalgaard has unbecomingly ducked and dived and wriggled instead of apologizing promptly, which is what a true scientist would have done after having made such serious and – as NikfromNYC has now discerned for himself – baseless allegations about Dr Evans.
The bullying tone adopted by too many commenters here – whether through fear that Dr Evans may be right or through jealousy that he might get to the truth first – is unbecoming. I, for one, have less and less patience for those who make outright false allegations. Mr Svalgaard is very lucky that it was not I who was his victim.
It is beginning to look as though the only successful method of reminding true-believers in the New Superstition of their moral obligation not to make up falsehoods about those with whom they disagree, and to remind them also that the laws of libel apply to blog comments, is to take one of them to court. I have just discovered that a notorious individual on Joanne Nova’s site has been saying I “faked” a graph in whose design, production and publication I played no part at all. I am giving the individual in question a fair opportunity to back off. If he does not do so, I shall issue proceedings for libel. The outright mendacity of those who see the climate scare collapsing around them does them no credit. It reeks of the desperation of the cornered rat.

Editor
June 28, 2014 7:41 pm

First, Christopher, my thanks for your prompt and thoughtful reply.
Monckton of Brenchley says:
June 28, 2014 at 5:54 pm

In reply to Willis Eschenbach, if we were dealing with a rational scientific community it would be possible for David Evans to publish in a scientific journal and let people pick his work apart in an honorable and straightforward fashion. However, the climate debate is no longer rational. David and Jo have thought long and hard about how to announce their project, and they have decided to describe it in outline and then – quite soon now, in fact – to reveal all of the code and data, which Willis will find to be in an exceptionally transparent and user-friendly form.

You, David, Jo, Phil Jones, and Michael Mann are all taking the identical position—we don’t have to reveal the data and code until we want to, and right now, we don’t want to.
I fail to see how this can be blamed on the scientific community. I manage to publish my data and code along with my theory. Steve McIntyre publishes his data and code. We don’t stand around and complain that the “scientific community” isn’t rational.
We just publish our data and code. How hard can it be, Christopher?

It has been interesting to see how many of the usual suspects – the unspeakable Connolley for one – have been drawn out and are sounding off, doing their best to tear down David’s work before it is published. We all suspected that would happen. It shows how worried they are.

Ooooh, bad Lord Moncton, no cookies, logical fail. David has published all of the teasers and all of the advertisements for his work, but he has refused to publish the code, the data, the equation for the model, the number of parameters, or the out-of-sample tests.
Now, if you publish the uniportant half and refuse to publish the important half, when you come back and complain that people are attacking the half you’ve published, I’m just going to point and laugh. They’ve published I think seven posts now, ASKING FOR COMMENTS without posting the important stuff … so you simply cannot bitch that William Connelly (and I for that matter) have taken them up on the invitation to comment on the work. My comment to them was, stop faffing around and publish everything. Should I not have said that as well? They published in sections asking for comments, Christopher, and as a result, you absolutely can’t bust people for commenting. That’s not on.
If David didn’t want people attacking half of a theory, he has a simple option—reveal the data, reveal the code. The exact same thing Thompson refused to do. The same thing Phil Jones refused to do. Since David has steadfastly refused to do that, despite others asking and me begging him to reveal the data and code, you have no moral standing to complain when someone attacks the half-portions and teasers and advertisements that he has published.

David is using a brand of mathematics that most climate scientists have very little familiarity with. His work has very much impressed those scientists whom he has consulted.

Actually, I have noticed a whole group of scientists responding both on and off his blog to say that his math is badly flawed … in any case, aren’t you the guy who said that “appeal to authority” is a well-known logical fallacy? Except you said it in Latin, but still …

It is well above my pay-grade to say whether or not he is right: but he has at least conducted a genuine and quite difficult scientific enquiry. He may or may not be right, but at least he has made the effort to try to work things out for himself, and he has the courage – which is more than can be said for the “official” climate scientists – to say what will constitute falsification of his theory.

He has indeed put forth a genuine effort, and it is great that he has proposed a falsifiable test. It is a tragedy that he has spoiled it by channelling Phil Jones.

So don’t complain: everything will very soon be available to everybody, and then – and only then – will people be in a proper position to criticize David’s work. One hopes the criticisms will be less immature and more soundly founded than those of Mr Svalgaard.

Christopher, I have a simple rule that has never failed me. When a man is hiding something, it’s because he’s got something to hide.
Let me suggest that you apply this rule to both David Evans and to Nicola Scafetta …
And while it’s wonderful to be assured that some day soon the great magicians will condescend to lift the veil of mystery and reveal to the undeserving polloi the code, the data, the equation for the model, the number of parameters, the out-of-sample tests, and everything else that they are keeping secret …
… I do not see what they are gaining by continuing to hide their light under a bushel. I mean, what is the gain in all of this? You’re left having to make excuses for them, and to come up with some BS claim about how it’s the fault of the “scientific community”; people who are honest scientists are pointing out that they are acting just exactly like the alarmists; nobody can check their work; people are giving objections based on half-information; we can’t answer Leif’s question because we don’t have the code and data … and for what?
What have they gained by this, other than deserved approbrium, and division among the people who should be their supporters? The only thing I can see that they’ve gained is a whole host of suckers who have signed on and are busily defending the theory before seeing the out-of-sample tests that Jo says are already completed. Was this their intention going in? I doubt that greatly … but it’s the situation coming out.
Now, perhaps you and they think that tradeoff, gaining devotees and losing scientists, is worth the approbation. Or perhaps you are amazed that I and others would hold David to the same standard to which we hold Michael Mann. Or perhaps you agreed with Jo, that their five years of hard unpaid work and dedication buys them exemption from scientific transparency. Or perhaps you just misjudged the outcome. I don’t know.
To me, every bit of what has happened is totally predictable. This is 2014, and science has changed. We got burned, Christopher, and burned very badly, by people doing just exactly what David and Jo are doing as I write this—hide the data, hide the code.
And as a result, the rules changed. Even Science magazine now has a policy requiring the authors to post data and code, not after the first seven publications as David is doing, but at the same time they post the theory
But nooooo, you and Scafetta and David and Jo think you get some kind of special exemption from the rules because you’re on the side of the angels … never gonna happen. Scafetta will never be a scientist until he reveals his work.
In any case, if you have any swing with them, tell them it’s way past time, that their reputations are suffering along with yours, that their advertisement for their science is way past its use-by date, and the hour has come to extract digit …
As always, my friend. Please know that none of this is personal regarding you, other than my heartbreak at the fact that for the second time, I see you supporting someone who is spitting in the face of scientific transparency, and I want to shake you and say wake up, dear fellow, it’s 2014, wake up to the current scientific reality …
w.
PS—An exit question. If you had it to do again, would you advise them to post up the results when they posted up the theory? I mean … was all of this worth it?

Tom in Florida
June 28, 2014 7:43 pm

It seems to me that you’all are talking about a change of maybe a little more than 1 W/m2. Would you even notice it if the left side (vertical) went from 0 – 2000 W/m2 instead of being centered on a tiny portion of that such as it is now?

Jeff Alberts
June 28, 2014 7:44 pm

DA: That didn’t happen and it is like the weight of medieval superstition has been lifted from mankind, all over again.

On the contrary, medieval superstition is alive and well. In some cases it’s gotten worse.

Editor
June 28, 2014 8:00 pm

Christopher, one more comment. You’ve read enough of my stuff to know that when I get interested in something, I go get the data and run the numbers myself. I don’t trust anyone’s numbers, including my own. In that way I can understand what the authors have done, I can evaluate their work, I can see if I can improve on their method.
So when I started looking at the “notch filter” hypothesis, and discussing it with David, I found myself at a huge disadvantage—he had all of the secret information, and I had none. So I could and did make objections, but he could just say oh, you misunderstand what I did, or wait until the data is published or …
And I was left with no possible way to show that he was wrong. Without the data and code, science comes to a grinding halt.
As a result of not revealing the data, code, and results, he has established himself in an impregnable position. A number of signal engineers have posted strong objections to his work … but he can just say the same thing, that they don’t understand his deep mathematics … the math he hasn’t revealed. So they, like me, grind to a halt with nothing to say.
As a result, nobody can show that his work is flawed, nobody can falsify it, nobody can get him to concede a single point, nobody can say anything. It’s not possible. He just goes on blithely, asking for comments, as though it were a discussion between equals, when in fact he holds all the cards.
And he has kept up this highly asymmetrical charade for I think seven posts now. Of course, the credulati think that he’s da bomb, here he is blowing all of these signal engineers out of the water, and even Willis can’t find anything to say …
I’m sorry, Christopher, but I find his whole charade deeply depressing. Have we really sunk that low, that some charming fellow who invites comments on seven successive posts about his theory but steadfastly refuses to show his out-of-sample tests has people like you claiming that he’s doing science?
w.

Editor
June 28, 2014 8:21 pm

cynical_scientist says (emphasis mine):
June 28, 2014 at 3:53 pm

Willis – you note that he would have found the same notch if he had used white noise for temperature. Well duh! If your input (TSI) has an 11 year oscillation and your output (temperature) shows no such oscillation (because you’ve replaced the real data with white noise) then there is obviously some kind of disconnect between input and output. If you model the disconnect using a filter, then the strongest frequencies present in the input will need to be most strongly filtered and you’ll see an 11 year notch.. That is precisely the point. Temperature should show an 11 year cycle because TSI has such a cycle. It doesn’t and that requires explanation. This observation is extremely robust to adjustments to either the TSI record or the temperature record.

Thanks, cynical. As I told David Evans, we agree that the temperature record shows no 11-year cycle. We just differ on the cause.
David posits a hugely complex system involving something described as a thermal notch filter. I asked him if he know of one other example of a natural thermal notch filter … crickets. He has steadfastly refused to publish his results, and has no observational evidence to support his ideas.
His original claim was that the notch requires a notch filter. You disagree, saying “duh” to the alternative, but that was his claim. After I and others noted the “duh”, he changed it to say that IF we assume the system is linear (or semi-linear), so that a change in the input GUARANTEES a change in the output, then the system requires a notch filter. I agree … and I say that is strong evidence that the the system is not linear in the slightest.
In contrast to David, I say that the reason we don’t see the 11-year solar cycles in the temperature is the same reason the global temperature shows no sign of the ~ 5% increase in solar input over the last half billion years—because the earth has strong thermoregulatory systems that maintain the temperature within a very narrow range (e.g. it was temperature-stabilized to within ± 0.3°C over the entire 20th century, a remarkable record). And I have provided a host of observational evidence to support this theory, and published the data and code for each analysis of the observations.
Your choice …
Regards,
w.

June 28, 2014 8:22 pm

I cannot understand what Willis Eschenbach is wittering on about. Michael Mann has refused, to this day, to part with all his code and his data, and spent a fortune trying to make sure that the courts did not get to see his emails about it either. I have given a plain and clear account of the manner in which Dr Evans will shortly make everything available to everybody. Unlike Mann, he has no intention of concealing any inadequacies in his work from the public so that he can go posturing around the world sure in the knowledge that no one will be able to falsify what he refuses to make available.
Mr Eschenbach complains simultaneously that Dr Evans has not published his math and that some who have not seen his math have criticized it. Well, they should be more careful. I was taught not to criticize what I had not myself read.
It would be much better if Mr Eschenbach were to campaign against those “scientists” and journals that have a policy of refusing to make everything public, and of spending large sums with lawyers to keep publicly-funded scientific research permanently secret, than to whine at such pointless length about someone who has said that he will imminently make everything available, and in the most transparent and accessible way. There is a clear distinction between these two positions,
One realizes that Mr Eschenbach has strong views on the Sun’s lack of influence on the climate. He is entitled to those views. But other views are possible. It does seem to have been very cold on both sides of the Atlantic during the little ice age, which coincided with – and may have been caused by – the prolonged absence of sunspots during the 70 years of the Maunder Minimum. And it is also arguable that, given the large quantity of square meters on Earth, and the fact that 1 Watt per square meter is one Joule per square meter every second, a prolonged change in the activity of the Sun can indeed alter the climate on Earth, particularly if the small variations in solar activity are amplified by cosmic-ray displacement or some other such factor.
Dr Evans, instead of starting by trying to work out by what mechanism the Sun influences climate, has started by trying to work out whether the Sun influences climate. His broad conclusions are that solar variability can influence the climate; that at present one may attribute all of the past century’s global warming either to the Sun or to CO2 or to any combination of the two, or to natural variability.
But the interesting point about the current stage of his drip-feed release of his project is that he now foresees the impact of the two theories diverging. For most of the past century, solar activity was rising. From 1925-1995, peaking in 1960, there was a quasi-Grand Maximum. That may have caused some of the 20th century’s warming, just as our adding CO2 to the air may have caused some warming. But solar activity is now in decline and, if the solar physicists are right, it will be in decline for 20-60 years. Yet CO2 concentration is rising. So now it may become possible to discern which of the two theories predominates. This is potentially very interesting. Let the man have his say before you shoot him down.

farmerbraun
June 28, 2014 8:23 pm

Willis , you’ve made it clear where you’re coming from. But it looks like a storm in a teacup.
In ‘Strine terms (Down Under Speak) you could be seen to be accusing DA of “under-arm bowling”.
But it looks to me like he’s gone out to face Denis Lillee , without even a box. Pretty damn gutsy for mine.

farmerbraun
June 28, 2014 8:24 pm

Sorry , that should be DE (David Evans)

farmerbraun
June 28, 2014 8:28 pm

” Let the man have his say before you shoot him down.”
Hear hear.

Editor
June 28, 2014 8:37 pm

Brad says:
June 28, 2014 at 3:47 pm

Boy am I naive…. I thought skeptics were above name calling and slinging mud at each other. I thought that was an alarmist characteristic. My respect for many of you has dropped considerably based on this single post. Not that it matters to any of you, you are too busy playing in the gutter.
A good deal of ammunition (talking points) has now been created for the alarmists, thanks guys.
I have used this website as a reference in many past emails to friends but will no longer be doing so.

Gosh, you mean skeptics are human too?
Brad, if you don’t think skeptics can sling mud, look at the abuse I’ve taken for saying that I can’t find evidence of the 11-year cycle in the temperature data.
However, if you think you’ll find a more “sciency” site out there, I doubt it. The truth of the matter is that science is a blood sport. You have to understand that the central activity in science is showing that some guy’s precious pet idea is wrong, wrong, wrong … surely you don’t think that will be all flowers and rainbows.
But that’s what scientists do. And if you can show that e.g. some guy’s idea that he’s given his life to is based on some embarrassingly obvious error … well, despite stereotypes, he’s not likely to shake your hand and thank you warmly for advancing the science. Like any cornered animal, he’s likely to lash out.
Finally, we are at a turning point in science. It used to be OK to post your ideas without archiving the data and the code. We trusted that the scientists were doing what they were saying.
However, we got burnt very, very badly by that trust. And as a result, the new scientific requirement is total transparency—for your work to be considered science, you have to show everything.
Some people, unfortunately, haven’t gotten the memo … and as a result, the fight is intense. Look, I tried nice. I literally begged David Evans to please, please stop hiding the data … and I got bupkis.
As a result, I now speak strongly about his actions. And you may not like that, but he’s doing damage to both science and to the skeptical cause, so I’m not going to just stand by. So I use hard words, but it’s not because I haven’t tried the gentler methods …
In any case, I’d advise continuing to read WUWT, if only to see how this all plays out. Grab a beer and some popcorn, it’s always a good show around here.
Best regards,
w.

Editor
June 28, 2014 8:42 pm

Monckton of Brenchley says:
June 28, 2014 at 8:22 pm

I cannot understand what Willis Eschenbach is wittering on about. Michael Mann has refused, to this day, to part with all his code and his data …

Perhaps you haven’t noticed, but David Evans has refused, to this day, to part with any of his code and his data. How is that any different? Yes, one day Mann and Evans may come to their senses and reveal their code and data … so how does that help us today?
w.

gnomish
June 28, 2014 8:50 pm

i’m happy to let jo and dave have fun presenting their discoveries and interpretations. it’s interesting and fun.
at xmas i hide presents and we wait for the day. half the fun is the surprise of opening them.
i don’t think that makes me treacherous and deceitful, but a wall of text in 24 pt Calumny Bold might persuade me…lol

Editor
June 28, 2014 8:50 pm

Monckton of Brenchley says:
June 28, 2014 at 8:22 pm

I have given a plain and clear account of the manner in which Dr Evans will shortly make everything available to everybody. Unlike Mann, he has no intention of concealing any inadequacies in his work from the public so that he can go posturing around the world sure in the knowledge that no one will be able to falsify what he refuses to make available.

Thanks, Christopher. I begged David to reveal his work to the public. He refused. To date, David has concealed any inadequacies so that he can go posturing around the web, sure in the knowledge that no one will be able to falsify what he refuses to make available.
He has kept up this charade for seven posts now, inviting comments while he knows no one can falsify anything he says, and thus able to appear to defeat their counter-arguments.
Sure, now that he has done that, now that over the course of the seven posts he has convinced the true believers and the less inquisitive that he’s able to vanquish me and a bunch of signal engineers and other scientists with one hand behind his back, perhaps at that point he’ll reveal the secrets …
How you find this charade anything but depressing is beyond me.
w.

bobl
June 28, 2014 8:55 pm

Patience is not your strong suit Willis,
There are a lot of riduculous unscientific comments on this, so I would like to point out the following
Dr Evans’ model is valid for any system, any system having a notched transfer function can be described by the collection of elements that David has described… it’s a model, an approximation of the way TSI maps to temperature.
He makes an assumption that temperature should be driven by TSI, that’s part of the hypothesis.
Leif, jumps to unwarranted conclusions. I understand David has updated the input data and that does not change the conclusion. Leif is also seemingly unacknowledging of the possibility that he doesn’t know everything about Sun-Earth interactions. Dr Evans is not so dismissive. I might point out that Leif hasn’t mentioned the biggest failing of the model… an exercise best left to the reader.
From a science/engineering point of view there is nothing wrong with the model put forward, other than it might not descrribe Sun-earth interactions adequately. For that we must wait and see, until about 2020.
From a personal note, it’s extremely interesting to note that TSI modulates temperature on a daily, annual and geologic scale, but not across the sunspot cycle. Dr Evans is seeking to find out WHY? This is an interesting question all on its own, the idea that thermal inertia irons out the 11 ripple doesn’t work, it doesn’t result in the empirically derived transfer function, indeed David’s model finds that effect, but limited to a 5 year response.
For those that think TSI is too small to be discernable, – you will note that GPS signals are about 20 dB below the noise floor, GPS works by adding up multiple samples over many repeated cycles, the signal is correlated, the noise is not, and the signal rises from the noise (otherwise GPS “can’t work”). Even with this technique 11 year ripple doesn’t appear in the output temperature… now isn’t that interesting?, where did it go? Maybe TSI doesnt affect temperature and our observations that winter is colder than summer is all in our imaginations?
Give this model a chance, if its wrong we’ll know in a few years. If you have criticisms, send them politely to Dr Evans. If you have other ideas then do your own competing model.

holts7
June 28, 2014 9:01 pm

Guys cool it maybe good idea! Wait till it is all revealed shortly and then have your say, anything said now is just conjecture and looks from the reading like a cream pie fight in the comics to the viewer,guys Cool it!

Editor
June 28, 2014 9:13 pm

Monckton of Brenchley says:
June 28, 2014 at 8:22 pm

It would be much better if Mr Eschenbach were to campaign against those “scientists” and journals that have a policy of refusing to make everything public, and of spending large sums with lawyers to keep publicly-funded scientific research permanently secret …

Christopher, if you have been reading my work, then surely you must know that I have been doing exactly that. I’ve campaigned very loudly for scientific transparency. I’ve written a number of open letters on the subject to e.g. the head of the NSF and the editor of Science and another editor of Science and a variety of other people, arguing forcefully for them to require archiving of code and data as a condition of publishing. I’ve done exactly what you recommend, in spades.

… than to whine at such pointless length about someone who has said that he will imminently make everything available, and in the most transparent and accessible way. There is a clear distinction between these two positions,

I see. You think I should hold my opponents to one standard, and David to another. Not gonna happen, my friend. It is because I have done what you recommend, it is because I have strongly advocated transparency in science, that I have no choice but to hold the skeptics to the same standard to which I hold the alarmists. Any other position would be hypocritical.
At this point, David has kept up this charade for seven long posts now, in a position which you describe accurately as being “sure in the knowledge that no one will be able to falsify what he refuses to make available.” After the publication of the second one, I told him his tactics were unethical, and I begged him to publish … and I waited through another post … and another …
If the data and code were one post late, I wouldn’t care. If it were two posts, I’d get concerned.
At seven posts, I’m sorry, but this evasive behavior is way, way past its use-by date. He’s maintained the fraudulent position where no one can falsify him for seven long and complex posts now, with equally long and complex comment threads, during which predictably he has roundly and unfairly “defeated” every opponent including myself, which has clearly impressed the credulous to no end, but which is an insult to science.
Color me unimpressed …
I’m sorry, Christopher, but that’s not science in any form. David’s pulling the same BS Mann pulled, and with exactly the same outcome—no one can possibly falsify his claims. You sure you want to endorse that?
w.

RossP
June 28, 2014 9:18 pm

Willis
I guess I’m one of those you accuse of being sucked in. Well I haven’t formed an opinion one way or the other yet. I will wait until all the information is out.
If you keep doing things the same way in life you are unlikely to get much change. So David Evans has decided to publish what is a quite big and complex issue in a new way. It is still to be seen if it improves the publication of the information. Obviously you do not like this. A number of others have commented that they like what are doing.
But it is his work , not paid for by Government or anyone else, so it is his right to decide how to publish it. It is certain he would not have got it published by any of the main journals.
May I suggest you take up a suggestion made on Jo’s site to you — contact David privately and ask him for the full details ( which he intends to make public in the near future) so you can look at it , on the proviso you do not make any public comments on it until he has released it publically in the way he wants to.
But if you have already made up your mind that his work is useless it would probably be a waste of time.

Editor
June 28, 2014 9:18 pm

farmerbraun says:
June 28, 2014 at 8:23 pm

Willis , you’ve made it clear where you’re coming from. But it looks like a storm in a teacup.
In ‘Strine terms (Down Under Speak) you could be seen to be accusing DA of “under-arm bowling”.
But it looks to me like he’s gone out to face Denis Lillee , without even a box. Pretty damn gutsy for mine.

I fear you’re going to have to translate that for me, farmer. I’ve been to Oz more than once … but I have no clue what “under-arm bowling” is when it’s at home, I don’t know who “DA” might be, and I haven’t any idea what it’s like to face the mysterious “Denis Lillee”, a being who sounds like the local Australian equivalent of the Headless Horseman …
My best to you,
w.

Editor
June 28, 2014 9:21 pm

RossP says:
June 28, 2014 at 9:18 pm

Willis
I guess I’m one of those you accuse of being sucked in. Well I haven’t formed an opinion one way or the other yet.

Thanks, Ross. In that case, you’re definitely not one of the ones I would say were sucked in.
w.

NikFromNYC
June 28, 2014 9:22 pm

David Archibald asserts: “We are well into the 21st century and, as far as I know, there are only two models with predictive ability that are still in the game – mine and David Evans’”
Yet if you just turn down the water vapor positive feedback then the climate models should do fine. It’s not that they are falsified in spirit, only in overenthusiastic and alarming sensitivity. Their need to parametrize a bit doesn’t suddenly throw good light on mere wiggle matching models.

mobihci
June 28, 2014 9:25 pm

hmm –
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/bfly.gif
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/ssn_predict_l.gif
from mid 1997 to mid 2000 (3 year period) the ssn went from 10 to 170
from mid 2010 to mid 2013 the ssn went from 10 to 70 though there was a larger peak (about 100) later, but it is clear to see there has been a dramatic drop in the suns activity.
looks to me that the tsi follows the ssn pretty well-
http://spot.colorado.edu/~koppg/TSI/TSI.jpg
ultimately it does not matter that much because it seems we will be able to play with the model ourselves. congrats and thanks to evans and jo for taking the time to create the model. i am looking forward to playing with some of the variables and maybe plug in some other info as well.
the response from this series of posts from nova seems to be a bit out of proportion even before the series is over. whats the story? some toes being stood on or something? is this model going to cost us billions of dollars or something? who knows. but this last couple of months has had me revising the people i trust for an unbiased opinion, thats for sure.

Editor
June 28, 2014 9:31 pm

RossP says:
June 28, 2014 at 9:18 pm

… But it is his work , not paid for by Government or anyone else, so it is his right to decide how to publish it. It is certain he would not have got it published by any of the main journals.

Certainly he can decide how to publish it. I’m saying that publishing it as he has done gives him a huge and unfair advantage over those with whom he’s spent seven posts discussing his theory. Christopher Monckton described his position accurately as being “sure in the knowledge that no one will be able to falsify what he refuses to make available.”
And that, my friend, is about as far from science as you can get. Sure, as you point out they can publish like that, and give David an unfair advantage over anyone who might not agree with him … but while they are free to do it, it is an underhanded tactic.

May I suggest you take up a suggestion made on Jo’s site to you — contact David privately and ask him for the full details ( which he intends to make public in the near future) so you can look at it , on the proviso you do not make any public comments on it until he has released it publically in the way he wants to.

Absolutely not, I have no interest in that at all. The problem is not that I can’t access the data or read the results of the out-of-sample tests. It’s that no one can read or access them.

But if you have already made up your mind that his work is useless it would probably be a waste of time.

You have missed the point completely. There is no way that I can make up my mind about anything until I see the data and the code. Nobody can say whether it’s genius or garbage, and all the while David is prating about its advantages and “defeating” his naysayers … sorry, but to me that’s unacceptable.
Sure, I think his model wrong, just based on the improbable complexity and the lack of any other system that works in the way I think his model works … but at this point none of us know how his model works except the inner circle. Without the data and the code it’s not science, it’s just an advertisement.
Best regards,
w.

bobl
June 28, 2014 9:36 pm

Mr Svalgaard is wrong and Monckton of Brenchley is right, Dr Evans is owed an apology. I’d like to make a verry important point here, just because data is slightly wrong doesn’t make the model invalid. The MODEL is correct as far as it goes, there is nothing scientifically wrong with it as a mathematical description of a system. The data that is fed into it, is another matter, it is NOT part of the model. The model is not defined by the data, just the parameters of it. I agree an apology is in order.
For those that dispute that radiant energy can exhibit notches at different time delays, please review the two slit experiment from high school, two radiant energy beams from the same source destructively interfere at certain time delays to create a null, same effect causes speckling in lasers.
Willis, needs to have patience, David is working with many people to see if his model can withstand criticism, he, I expect, will fix issues as they are pointed out to him prior to releasing his code. Willis, Doubtless he has already taken your criticisms into account. Let’s give him time to lay out his story and take feedback before we move to convict.

kadaka (KD Knoebel)
June 28, 2014 9:43 pm

From Salvatore Del Prete on June 28, 2014 at 9:00 am (bold added):


Changes in total irradianceEdit

Changes in ultraviolet irradianceEdit

Effects on cloudsEdit

Other effects due to solar variationEdit

Geomagnetic effectsEdit

Solar proton eventsEdit

Galactic cosmic raysEdit

ETC. You pulled the same stupid stunt at Maunder and Dalton Sunspot Minima.
If you’re gonna spew Wikipedia and pretend it’s relevant, then PLEASE provide the entry link.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation
And clean it up.
Actually, next time can you PLEASE just provide the dang link, and stop cluttering the blog with nigh-endless nonsense requiring not-quite-nigh-endless scrolling to get past? Like you did here in this very thread.
Oh wait, I see what you did by what you have in that comment. My apologies. It wasn’t that you spewed Wikipedia. You spewed a Wikia entry which is using an uncredited copy of the Wikipedia entry.
So you presented the same info as evidence twice, except the first time was annoying.
Needless to say, such actions do not help your presentation.

June 28, 2014 9:56 pm

Monckton of Brenchley says:
June 28, 2014 at 6:16 pm
Dr Evans for having used TSI data virtually indistinguishable from the historical record on the SORCE/TIM website
The plot on the SORCE/TIM website is not a ‘historical record’, but a flawed reconstruction by Lean dating back to 2000. Even Lean now acknowledges that this old reconstruction is not correct [she published another one with Wang in 2005], and recent work [Hagenaar 2008] shows that the underlying assumption of both reconstructions [that the emergence rate of ephemeral regions follows the solar cycle] is false, so the reconstructions are not valid. Mr Evans should have done due diligence before using flawed data. He clearly did not [to be generous].
Tom Harley says:
June 28, 2014 at 7:10 pm
Just shut up Dr Svalgaard, and wait until it’s all out there, then you can be free to criticize all you want.
No need to wait as it is already clear that the TSI data that goes into the model is garbage. And garbage in, garbage out.
Monckton of Brenchley says:
June 28, 2014 at 7:25 pm
Mr Svalgaard made an issue of it, saying that Dr Evans had deliberately used wrong total-solar-irradiance data, saying he had an “agenda” and, for good measure, accusing him of coming close to fraud.
I don’t think he did it nilly-willy, so shall assume that what he does is deliberate, but it is still the case that garbage in gives you garbage out. His and yours agendae are obvious.
And Mr Svalgaard has unbecomingly ducked and dived and wriggled instead of apologizing promptly
One should not apologize for stating the truth. One the contrary, one must be steadfast and not be bullied by threats [see below].
Mr Svalgaard is very lucky that it was not I who was his victim.
But you have now made yourself a victim now because of your accusations.
the laws of libel apply to blog comments, is to take one of them to court.
Ah, the Mannian method. If you can’t beat their science take them to court. Good luck with that.

bushbunny
June 28, 2014 9:57 pm

Wouldn’t the suns orbit have some measure of temperature fluxes, including sun spot activity. And cloud cover generated by nutrinos (cosmic rays).

June 28, 2014 9:58 pm

Monckton of Brenchley says:
June 28, 2014 at 6:16 pm
Dr Evans for having used TSI data virtually indistinguishable from the historical record on the SORCE/TIM website
The plot on the SORCE/TIM website is not a ‘historical record’, but a flawed reconstruction by Lean dating back to 2000. Even Lean now acknowledges that this old reconstruction is not correct [she published another one with Wang in 2005], and recent work [Hagenaar 2008] shows that the underlying assumption of both reconstructions [that the emergence rate of ephemeral regions follows the solar cycle] is false, so the reconstructions are not valid. Mr Evans should have done due diligence before using flawed data. He clearly did not [to be generous].

June 28, 2014 10:02 pm

bobl says:
June 28, 2014 at 9:36 pm
I’d like to make a verry important point here, just because data is slightly wrong doesn’t make the model invalid.
The data is not slightly wrong, but verry wrong, and hence the prediction [which was the topic of the post until the hound of the PR-machine began to spew nonsense] is wrong, which was my point.

HAS
June 28, 2014 10:04 pm

In response to my:
“As I read this work it starts with an assumption TSI => GST without recourse to GHGs, and looks at the consequences. It steps its way through making a number of further assumptions about cause and effect that are chosen not to violate empirical evidence”
lsvalgaard says at June 28, 2014 at 4:42 pm:
“Except that it does. The TSI reconstruction they use is not empirical evidence and we know today that it is wrong.”
Strangely, from a methodological view the primary assumption doesn’t have to be empirical, only not related to GHG concentrations. For practical purposes it is more useful if one can forecast it, and it is less credible without an empirical explanation, but if we found we could stick white noise into a model that didn’t rely on internal processes and it reliably and predictably reproduce the temperature series the same point would be made.
Willis, what farmerbraun is saying is you are accusing DA of behaviour that might not break the letter of the law, but isn’t (shall we say) “cricket”. Facing Lillie without a box is leaving oneself unprotected in the face of an extremely fast bowler. We Kiwis understand this stuff well as the former is typical behaviour from those from the West Island.
More broadly on your contribution to the debate, I get your point about lack of data and your desire for testable results (I got it before you said it the first time), but it surprises me the methodological issues aren’t of interest in the meantime.

bushbunny
June 28, 2014 10:05 pm

Well I am sure David will be resilient enough to answer queries, just tune onto JoNova blog, he’s her husband.

June 28, 2014 10:08 pm

mobihci says:
June 28, 2014 at 9:25 pm
looks to me that the tsi follows the ssn pretty well-
http://spot.colorado.edu/~koppg/TSI/TSI.jpg

And on the plot you can see that there is not a dramatic drop in either tSI or the SSN from 2003-2005 until today. On the contrary, TSI [and SSN] is now higher than in 2003-2005. This was my objection to the prediction of a sharp drop in temperature based on a [non-existing] drop in TSI. simple as that.

NikFromNYC
June 28, 2014 11:17 pm

So where’s the improved TSI plot then, Leif?
Hagenaar 2008 doesn’t have one: http://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/678/1/541/pdf/0004-637X_678_1_541.pdf
Vast changes in the TSI plot have been noted here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/10/historical-and-present-total-solar-irradiance-has-been-tinkered-with-again/
The SORCE page claims their plot is not an ancient algorithm:
“The historical reconstruction provided here was computed using TIM V.15 data in February 2014. It is updated annually as new TIM data are available or as improved historical reconstructions are created.”
You have your own plot that doesn’t show much drama, but just as a web page;
http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-Reconstruction-2014.png
Again though, with a wiggle matching algorithm, any plot may do but future predictions might change.

Editor
June 28, 2014 11:23 pm

farmerbraun says:
June 28, 2014 at 8:23 pm (Edit)
Willis , you’ve made it clear where you’re coming from. But it looks like a storm in a teacup.
In ‘Strine terms (Down Under Speak) you could be seen to be accusing DA of “under-arm bowling”.
But it looks to me like he’s gone out to face Denis Lillee , without even a box. Pretty damn gutsy for mine.
HAS says:
June 28, 2014 at 10:04 pm

Willis, what farmerbraun is saying is you are accusing DA of behaviour that might not break the letter of the law, but isn’t (shall we say) “cricket”. Facing Lillie without a box is leaving oneself unprotected in the face of an extremely fast bowler. We Kiwis understand this stuff well as the former is typical behaviour from those from the West Island.

Thanks, HAS. So farmerbraun saying that David’s actions aren’t “cricket”, but he deserves credit for putting his theory out there in the face of strong opposition …
Mmmm … what is the strong opposition that he’s facing that take so much guts?
And in any case, near as I can tell, withholding the code and data has given him a huge advantage over myself or anyone disagreeing with him. Lord Monckton accurately describes his position as being “sure in the knowledge that no one will be able to falsify what he refuses to make available.” I’ll have to ask the farmer, how on earth is that “gutsy”?

More broadly on your contribution to the debate, I get your point about lack of data and your desire for testable results (I got it before you said it the first time), but it surprises me the methodological issues aren’t of interest in the meantime.

Until he releases the details of the method, there is no way to decide if such issues even exist. Seriously, he hasn’t released the equations that make up the method … so how can anyone discuss the method?
w.

June 28, 2014 11:28 pm

NikFromNYC says:
June 28, 2014 at 11:17 pm
So where’s the improved TSI plot then, Leif?
http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-LEIF.png is close enough although there are recent [small] upgrades.
The SORCE page claims their plot is not an ancient algorithm:
“The historical reconstruction provided here was computed using TIM V.15 data in February 2014. It is updated annually as new TIM data are available or as improved historical reconstructions are created.”

SORCE/TIM began observing in February 2003. The “historical reconstruction provided here was computed using TIM V.15 data in February 2014” simply means that the old Lean 2000 reconstruction was spliced to TIM matching in 2003. Of course, if new ‘improved historical reconstructions’ are created TIM can be spliced to the end of those as well. There are, of course, no historical data before 1978, only guesses based on models and assumptions [some of which were wrong]

bobl
June 28, 2014 11:32 pm

Well then Willis you will have to wait like the rest of hs won’t you?

bobl
June 28, 2014 11:49 pm

Leif, if the data is so wrong then how about you furnish Dr Evans with better data?
While I am making this point Leif, are you claiming the reconstruction David used is wrong for every solar cycle it is trained on as David’s methods involves extracting the transfer function from the TSI data. To arrive at a grossly incorrect parameterisation of his model either time, or magnitude, the training data would have to be systematically wrong in both time and magnitude across a significant span. If you are worried about the last few years as in a recent post, then that will affect the prediction but not the MODEL, which is based on all 150 years or so of data.
It makes a difference whether you dispute the model, or the prediction.
I also wonder if you really understand what David has done here? It’s hard to know?, you are a very smart person, but everyone has gaps.

HAS
June 28, 2014 11:49 pm

Willis, I should have added I take no view on what farmerbraun said, just a helpful sideline interpretation. You need to understand that part of the joke is the Aussie cricket team had one last ball to bowl in a limited over match and the Kiwis need a 6 to tie. The under arm bowl deprived the Kiwis of that opportunity. Since then under-arm bowling has been band in one day cricket.
Turning to more substantial issues than trans-Tasman grudges, each to their own but I’m surprised you aren’t more interested in top-down and mult-scale modelling as techniques in climate science, or in the application of signal processing to it. I found enough of interest in that alone without needing to see the definitive data and results, although they will be equally interesting when they arrive (although I don’t think they will prove to be the main game).
As to the PR effort surrounding this, I’d have to say we’re all guilty of that, all said and done.

HAS
June 28, 2014 11:56 pm

… and that should of course been “banned”. Too busy keeping an eye on the dinner.

cynical scientst
June 29, 2014 12:07 am

Willis Eschenbach says:
June 28, 2014 at 8:21 pm
David posits a hugely complex system involving something described as a thermal notch filter. I asked him if he know of one other example of a natural thermal notch filter … crickets. He has steadfastly refused to publish his results, and has no observational evidence to support his ideas.

The notch filter idea isn’t that complex. Personally I wish he had avoided the term as it makes people think of it far too concretely. He is using the terminology of signals processing and all he is saying here is that the 11 year frequency in TSI isn’t showing up in the output (temperature). I like this idea of looking at frequencies. It has its limitations but it gets past so many issues with adjustment and reliabillity of data.

His original claim was that the notch requires a notch filter. You disagree, saying “duh” to the alternative, but that was his claim. After I and others noted the “duh”, he changed it to say that IF we assume the system is linear (or semi-linear), so that a change in the input GUARANTEES a change in the output, then the system requires a notch filter. I agree … and I say that is strong evidence that the the system is not linear in the slightest.

The notch defines the filter. Even if you simply disconnect the input from the output, you can model that disconnection as a filter. As to linearity – it isn’t a vital part of his analysis. He only mentions it because certain aspects of the fourier analysis he is using are only guaranteed to work properly (in the mathematical sense) if the system is linear. However all realistic systems are at least approximately linear so Fourier analysis continues to be useful even when the assumption of strict linearity does not hold.

In contrast to David, I say that the reason we don’t see the 11-year solar cycles in the temperature is the same reason the global temperature shows no sign of the ~ 5% increase in solar input over the last half billion years—because the earth has strong thermoregulatory systems that maintain the temperature within a very narrow range (e.g. it was temperature-stabilized to within ± 0.3°C over the entire 20th century, a remarkable record). And I have provided a host of observational evidence to support this theory, and published the data and code for each analysis of the observations.

I don’t think what you and David are doing needs to conflict. I found the early parts of David’s analysis very interesting and thought provoking. I don’t buy his model though as I seriously doubt you can build an accurate model with TSI as the only input.
I agree with your active thermostat approach (and your analysis of cloud formation and thunderstorms is spot on) but unfortunately there is much that this does not explain. To damp out the 11 year TSI signal completely that thermostat would need to react very quickly and strongly to the extent that the thermostat completely dominates over all other factors. It is an attractive idea, but if climate were that tightly regulated then how could the climate vary at all? Your hypothesis explains very nicely why climate does not change, but it is less satisfactory as an explanation for why it does.

Your choice …

My choice is that I think you both are right. I think David’s notch filter is indirect solar effects tweaking with the control knob of your thermostat. And the tweaking is happening in an approximately 11 year cycle in opposition to TSI further helping to damp out the 11 year signal.

Willis’ Model: Massive thermostat response completely destroys the 11 year TSI cycle.
David’s model: Indirect solar effect in counterphase with TSI cancels out the 11 year TSI cycle.
Hybrid model: A weaker thermostat but with the indirect solar effect tweaking the knob in counterphase with TSI to help cancel out the 11 year cycle.

Proving this numerically would be difficult though. It would be hard to separate out the active response of the thermostat from the effect of tweaking the knob.
Cheers
Cynic

Editor
June 29, 2014 12:17 am

I’ve advised folks in the past not to bet again Leif Svalgaard regarding the sun. I mean, the dude has a solar-related effect named after him. Mark Twain once commented, “Never argue with a man who buys ink by the barrel.”
Me, I’d say “Never bet against a man in a field where he has a scientific effect named after him” … this post is a good reason why.
Leif said that the input data for the Evans model is incorrect, because it shows a large recent drop in TSI. Here’s that data, from JoNova’s web site:

Note that the claim is made in the graph that from 2003-5 to the present, the TSI has been dropping almost vertically. Over that period, it’s supposed to have dropped almost half a watt per square metre … and regarding that graph, Leif said:

Apart from the use of the obsolete Lean TSI for the early years, the most blatant error is the statement that TSI has had a sharp unprecedented drop starting in 2003-2005 to now. This is complete nonsense.

Since Leif made his statement, there’s been lots of noise about it. Lord Monckton and others have wasted lots of electrons claiming that Leif was incorrect, but so far nobody’s shown that he’s wrong about the claimed drop in TSI.
Now, some of you know my style—go straight to the data. I’d love to use the Evans data … but they haven’t published it yet, so I can’t …
However, upon re-reading this thread just now, I realized that in addition to the ACRIM etc. TSI data and the Lean TSI data, we also have 13 years of very good solar data from the CERES dataset. This would give me the chance to use an entirely different dataset to see if Leif is right, or whether the TSI actually has dropped from 2003-5 to the present … so went and calculated the TSI from the CERES dataset. Here’s the result.

As you can see, the CERES data says that Leif is totally correct. Not only is there no precipitous drop in TSI since 2002/3 as Evans claims. In fact, by 2013 the TSI was HIGHER than it was in 2003-5.
And as a result, what’s going into David Evan’s magic notch filter model is garbage, because TSI isn’t falling at all since 2003-5 as they claim … and there’s an old saying about what happens when you put garbage into a computer model …
w.

ren
June 29, 2014 12:39 am

What is the average temperature? Does predicts in October half a meter of snow on the prairie? Does foresee in May snowfall on the field? Consider what people remember from the Dalton Minimum?
Perhaps Napoleon’s expedition to Russia? Durable changes in circulation will change our views.

rbateman
June 29, 2014 12:40 am

Don’t worry about when the cooling will begin, it already has, and it’s right in plain sight.
The Antarctic Sea Ice extent is at a record 2m sqkm above ‘normal’, and the Arctic is busy rebuilding it’s 5 meter ice wall from Greenland to the northern tip of Banks Island, is back within the 1979 – 2000 (or 2010) mean, and readying for more of those balmy Polar Vortex droppings.
Just because it doesn’t arrive in the generally expected manner doesn’t mean that it isn’t happening.
It surely is starting. Besides, predicting with the ‘correct’ formula isn’t going to to stop it or make it any less devastating.

Editor
June 29, 2014 12:41 am

HAS says:
June 28, 2014 at 11:49 pm

… Turning to more substantial issues than trans-Tasman grudges, each to their own but I’m surprised you aren’t more interested in top-down and mult-scale modelling as techniques in climate science, or in the application of signal processing to it. I found enough of interest in that alone without needing to see the definitive data and results, although they will be equally interesting when they arrive (although I don’t think they will prove to be the main game).

Good question, HAS. I’m interested in both top-down modeling and the application of signal processing. However, I am also very aware that neither top-down nor bottom-up methods spontaneously generate emergent phenomena, which are generally far below grid scale. And without emergent phenomena the model is useless.
I am also aware that there are many things that work in the lab that have no counterpart in nature. For example, we commonly take a signal on a carrier wave, heterodyne it with an intermediate frequency, rectify the result, and extract the signal … but I know of no part of the climate that does anything like that.
So when David Evans claims that we can model the climate using just the TSI as input by feeding it into a delayed multiplier feeding a notch filter filter whose output goes to a delay filter, and the result is then added to a direct multiplier of the original signal and fed into a low-pass filter, whose output goes into a RATS multiplier … sure, that’s a 100% possible design for something we might build in the lab.
But as a model of a natural climate system? Sorry, not interested in the slightest. Evans is postulating a thermally based notch filter. I’ve never even heard of such an animal, and I have no idea how it would work. A notch filter works on resonance … and although I can conceive of the possibility of a thermal resonator, I’ve no idea what it would look like in a climate system.
Finally, HAS, because David has refused to share the method, to date we have no idea how many tunable parameters are used in the model. With enough tunable parameters and a free choice of mathematical transforms (notch filters, multipliers, low-pass filters, adders, delay filters, etc), I can match the global temperature data using nothing except for the price of US stamps as the input … but so what? Does that mean that stamps rule the climate? Hardly.
Regards,
w.

cynical scientst
June 29, 2014 12:54 am

And as a result, what’s going into David Evan’s magic notch filter model is garbage, because TSI isn’t falling at all since 2003-5 as they claim … and there’s an old saying about what happens when you put garbage into a computer model …

Agreed. You can’t use TSI to explain temperature regardless of what kind of filter you use. Nor should you try. Unfortunately I think this broken model and bad choice of data is going to overshadow the more useful ideas in the earlier parts of his work. In particular I think looking at the transfer function is a very useful approach.
To me the sad thing is that he has missed the point of his earlier observations. He observed possible evidence for a direct solar effect out of phase with TSI (magnetic field strength being a good candidate). But instead of switching his attention to magnetic field strength he persisted with modelling this indirectly from TSI via an 11 year delay when he KNOWS that this is unphysical. The problem is that by doing this he misses precisely all the interesting stuff that happens when the sun goes quiet and magnetic field strength drops across the entire solar cycle. He didn’t need to use old data with an erroneous drop in TSI. If he’d used actual magentic field strength he would probably have obtained a similar result without bending any data.

HAS
June 29, 2014 1:11 am

Willis (having finished dinner) no harm in a black box (or a series of black boxes) provided we are simplifying (aka, as you say, no over-fitting).
My point is that the technique is interesting, as is its application to this class of problem. The proof of the pudding will be in the eating, but in the domain of climate modelling I don’t see enough of this kind of discussion.
The problem is the dominance of bottom-up thinking in the modelling community. My response would be the same as that to the traveler seeking directions to Dublin “I wouldn’t start from here”. It is clear that this complex system will have parts that can be modeled on this basis, but we will make more progress by also using these kinds of “black box” technique.
So I welcome this discussion, and as you will probably have gleaned I’m surprised you too don’t also focus on this aspect, and hold your powder on whether this particular implementation adds value. IMHO this will prove too pat, but a robust discussion of the place of this and related kinds of approaches is to be encouraged.

Patrick
June 29, 2014 1:25 am

Has anyone yet said we don’t actually know?

Editor
June 29, 2014 1:30 am

cynical scientst says:
June 29, 2014 at 12:07 am

Willis Eschenbach says:
June 28, 2014 at 8:21 pm

David posits a hugely complex system involving something described as a thermal notch filter. I asked him if he know of one other example of a natural thermal notch filter … crickets. He has steadfastly refused to publish his results, and has no observational evidence to support his ideas.

The notch filter idea isn’t that complex.

Ummmm … errrr …

Simple???
w.

June 29, 2014 1:31 am

cynical_scientist says:
June 28, 2014 at 3:53 pm
……..
You made number of good and sensible points despite all the back yard’s flying feline fur.. Hemispheric magnetic field is rather weak at the earth’s orbit, however the Earth’s magnetic field shows similar long term trends but in the opposite direction, correlation is particularly strong in the Antarctica. The negative correlation (regardless which TSI model is used (Svalgaard’s or the earlier Lean one), gives R2 as high as 0.77.
Denying existence of something which is clearly in the data (as per Dr.S practice in this case) for either lack of understanding or any other reason, is contra productive. However the NASA-JPL’s scientist Dr.Dickey is of more open mind: http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/earth20110309.html

kadaka (KD Knoebel)
June 29, 2014 1:34 am

PMOD TSI at WoodForTrees stopped at 2011.75. Leif had mentioned there was more recent data but unfortunately I didn’t copy the link. WFT gave the FTP directory and said the file was “pmod_composite_latest.dat” but it’s not currently there.
ftp://ftp.pmodwrc.ch/pub/data/irradiance/composite/
Inside directory “DataPlots”, by the latest file date (5/20/2014), it looks like the recent stuff would be in “org2pmod_composite.dat” but that’s the composite and the different TSI series that went into the composite, and while informative it only goes to 9/17/2011.
Which makes the best remaining candidate “composite_42_64_1402.dat” which has “extended data” back to 1976 which WFT does not, and runs forward to 2/25/2014.
http://www.climate4you.com/Sun.htm is informative, with info on Ap Index and other things (and has the unfortunate Lean 2000 reconstruction), however it points to NOAA’s National Geophysical Data Center (NGDC) and an old 2003 PMOD file.
Hunting around, this looks like it should have the current info, in a directory similarly named to the cliamate4you-mentioned location: http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/space-weather/solar-data/solar-indices/total-solar-irradiance/
But aside from “Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory 1902-1954”, nothing was updated since 2013, and nothing looks like the composite, just different series.
So is “composite_42_64_1402.dat” the most recent TSI data I want?

ren
June 29, 2014 1:44 am

lsvalgaard
Cosmic rays also produces a quick electrons in the heliosphere.
A Very Local Interstellar Spectrum for Galactic Electrons
M.S. Potgieter, E.E. Vos, R.R. Nndanganeni, M. Boezio, R. Munini
(Submitted on 7 Aug 2013)
We present a new local interstellar spectrum for cosmic ray electrons over an energy range from 1 MeV to 70 GeV. Below (0.8 plus minus 0.2) GeV it has a power law form, E^-(1.55 plus minus 0.05), with E kinetic energy, which is consistent with previous studies. This is derived from comparing Voyager 1 electron data observed during 2010 with a comprehensive modulation model. However, reproducing the PAMELA electron spectrum observed at Earth during late 2006 and to address an unexpected increase in the electron spectrum between about 2 GeV and up to about 20 GeV, a spectral index of -(3.3 plus minus 0.1) instead of the reported -(3.18 plus minus 0.05) was found for this energy range. This feature cannot be caused by solar modulation or any other process inside the heliosphere.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1308.1666v1.pdf

Editor
June 29, 2014 1:47 am

HAS says:
June 29, 2014 at 1:11 am

Willis (having finished dinner) no harm in a black box (or a series of black boxes) provided we are simplifying (aka, as you say, no over-fitting).

Thanks, HAS. I’m sorry, but my value threshold for a black box is much, much higher than that it result in “no harm” …
Regarding overfitting, since David has refused to reveal the secret knowledge, we have no idea how many tunable parameters there are in the model … but given that it is composed of a splitter, three filters, three multipliers, and an adder (weighted?), it’s going to be a large number. One diagram they show of a portion of the system shows no less than 11 tunable parameters.
Remember what von Neumann said about parameters and elephants, that with four tunable parameters he could model an elephant, and with five tunable parameters he’d make him wiggle his trunk … and Evan’s model has at least eleven tunable parameters.
As a result, while you may be impressed that David Evans’ model can make the elephant wiggle his trunk, me, not so much …
Best regards,
w.

phlogiston
June 29, 2014 1:55 am

If the current abortive el Nino is beginning to overturn toward a possibly much stronger La Nina then Evans’ model would appear to receive some initial support.

cynical scientst
June 29, 2014 2:02 am

The notch filter idea isn’t that complex.

Ummmm … errrr …

Yeah well that is a picture of his model not of the notch filter. The notch filter is the bit labelled “notch filter”. I offer no support for the model.

Greg Goodman
June 29, 2014 2:07 am

NikFromNYC says:
June 28, 2014 at 9:22 pm
David Archibald asserts: “We are well into the 21st century and, as far as I know, there are only two models with predictive ability that are still in the game – mine and David Evans’”
Yet if you just turn down the water vapor positive feedback then the climate models should do fine. It’s not that they are falsified in spirit, only in overenthusiastic and alarming sensitivity. Their need to parametrize a bit doesn’t suddenly throw good light on mere wiggle matching models.
========
You’re correct to a point but I think it goes a bit deeper than that.
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=884
Volcanic forcing has been ‘tuned’ downwards, in order work with spuriously high sensitivity of the models. Not only are they tuning the model parameters, they are tuning the input data too.
There is also a long term warming effect once the volcanic “dust” settles. This is not recognised AFAIK and is being falsely attributed to GHG. see figures 3 and 10 in that post.
and this:
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=955

ren
June 29, 2014 2:42 am

ACE News #122 (4/30/2009) reported that the intensity of galactic cosmic ray (GCR) Fe at ~350 MeV/nuc, was ~12% greater in early 2009 than in 1997-1998 and also greater than ever before in the space age. The measurements were made with the Cosmic Ray Isotope Spectrometer (CRIS) on ACE. As 2009 progressed the GCR intensity continued to increase until approximately New Years Eve, when the intensities of major species from C to Fe were each 20% to 26% greater than in 1997-1998 (e.g., oxygen in Panel (a) at the right). Early in 2010 the intensity decreased to 1997-1998 levels.
http://www.srl.caltech.edu/ACE/ACENews/ACENews134.html

HAS
June 29, 2014 2:52 am

Ah Willis, if only we were simply making elephants wiggle their trunks (or their speedos for our Aussie friends).

michel
June 29, 2014 2:57 am

The thought of 20 megs of error prone excel Excel fills one with horror. Could he not have used a real programming language where you can see what you are doing? One A4 is about the limit of what its safe to do in a spreadsheet – and no macros! Every single business model I have ever seen in Excel contained gross errors which use of a proper language would have avoided.

June 29, 2014 3:05 am

Stephen Wilde says
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/28/a-cool-question-answered/#comment-1671625
Henry@ren @Stephen
It seems you do not understand that ozone (& others) also back radiate
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/files/2011/08/Atmospheric_Transmission.png
Trenberth reports that 25-30% of direct radiation from the sun does not reach earth because it is absorbed and re-radiated by the atmosphere. Ozone on its own is responsible for about 25% of that 25%-30%. Hence, there is more back radiation (cooling) if there is more of it. However, Trenberth forgot or never knew about the peroxides and nitrogenous oxides also being formed TOA.

ren
June 29, 2014 3:08 am

Although the new analysis suggests, perhaps surprisingly, that supernovae are on the whole good for life, high supernova rates can bring the cold and changeable climate of prolonged glacial episodes. And they can have nasty shocks in store. Geoscientists have long been puzzled by many relatively brief falls in sea-level by 25 metres or more that show up in seismic soundings as eroded beaches. Prof. Svensmark finds that they are what can be expected when chilling due to very close supernovae causes short-lived glacial episodes. With frozen water temporarily bottled up on land, the sea-level drops. – See more at: http://www.astrobio.net/topic/deep-space/cosmic-evolution/did-supernovas-boost-life-on-earth/#sthash.OGg8Q3wN.dpuf

Greg Goodman
June 29, 2014 3:16 am

HenryP says:
June 29, 2014 at 3:05 am
Stephen Wilde says
wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/28/a-cool-question-answered/#comment-1671625
Henry@ren @Stephen
It seems you do not understand that ozone (& others) also back radiate
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/files/2011/08/Atmospheric_Transmission.png
Trenberth reports that 25-30% of direct radiation from the sun does not reach earth because it is absorbed and re-radiated by the atmosphere. Ozone on its own is responsible for about 25% of that 25%-30%. Hence, there is more back radiation (cooling) if there is more of it. However, Trenberth forgot or never knew about the peroxides and nitrogenous oxides also being formed TOA.
====
Which also relates to what I said above and:
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=884
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=955

RAH
June 29, 2014 3:23 am

This layman is tired of models though I understand the need to strive to prefect them in order to try to develop long term forecasts and understand our climate. But for now when it comes to determining global cooling or warming it seems to me the best course for the average guy is to watch the poles.
The second year the summer Arctic and Antarctic sea ice extents remain significantly above the mean during the summer months at each pole then I will start being concerned about cooling. No corruption or “adjustment” of temperature data can change those signs. It seems to me that the satellite measurements of these extents, while not perfect by any means, as has been proven in the past, are still far more reliable and less susceptible to tampering or error than temperature data at any level from any source.

Rob R
June 29, 2014 3:25 am

Willis and Leif,
I think that now we have all gotten a pretty good grasp of your difficulties/objections to what David Evans and Jo Nova have done so far.
If David and Jo are as good as their word it will not be long before the full excel-based model is released (including full code and data). At that point both of you will be free to dissect it and/or run it with whatever data-set you choose or prefer. I struggle to see how you will be able to resist that Willis.
Until the release I don’t see how the endless argument conducted above between yourselves and others is going to achieve anything useful.
To Christopher Monckton: I think you are over-reacting. Until the model is released there is not much in what David has said that needs such a vigorous defense. You need to step outside and smell the roses as well.
By the way can I just say that most of those who have been following the series of blog posts by David and Jo seem to be comfortable with the way they are going about it, but still remain properly skeptical of the collection of hypotheses that have been advanced. That is the space that I put myself into at this stage. I look forward to the release of the model out into the wild. Once released there will be plenty of predators ready to rip into it. I hope David has braced himself for the event.

ren
June 29, 2014 3:43 am

Neutral gas cloud is not at all indifferent.
http://www.srl.caltech.edu/ACE/ACENews/ACENews136.html

June 29, 2014 3:47 am

I am concerned about the lack of unity among skeptics, as displayed in comments here on this blog.
I have said it before: there is a simple way to determine a causal correlation of weather / warmth between the sun and earth, namely by observing the speed of the drop in temperatures over time.
here you can see my initial results, up until 2012
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/02/21/henrys-pool-tables-on-global-warmingcooling/
For maximum temperatures I [we] have a warming rate of
0.036K/annum from 1974
0.028K/annum from 1980
0.015K/annum from 1990
-0.013K/annum from 2000
I have recently updated my tables to 2014
For maximum temperatures I [we] have a warming rate of
0.034K/annum from 1974
0.025K/annum from 1980
0.014K/annum from 1990
-0.008K/annum from 2000
You can critique me to say that the sample size is small (27 weather stations from each HS) but the downward trend is simply undeniable.
We also see a slight slowing down of the deceleration over the past 2 years.
[don’t be deceived that cooling is already over- we are looking at maximum temperatures – the effect is still coming]
When trying to explain this [to myself]: clearly, we can see some exponential downward trend?
Now look at this graph here:
http://ice-period.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/sun2013.png
It shows the field strengths of the sun.
Do you see that you can draw a hyperbolic curve from the top to the bottom and a parabolic curve from the bottom to the top that seems to reach a minimum/maximum around 2016?
Can you see that there is direct correlation with the drop in maximum temperature and the drop in field strengths on the sun?
Hence, I have been saying that decreased solar filed strength causes more of the more energetic particles to be released from the sun which convert to ozone, peroxides and nitrogenous oxides. If the atmosphere did not do this, we’d be dead. However, more ozone, peroxides and nitrogenous oxides TOA deflect more of the incoming SW radiation, especially of the UV type.
Hence the current cooling of the atmosphere and the oceans.

JDN
June 29, 2014 4:19 am

@Monckton, Willis, Leif, etc.
Why do any of you think any TSI is even remotely correct? The actual TSI ranges from neutron flux to atoms, in EM from gammas to radio waves. The last time I tried to estimate it (in the 80s), I couldn’t because the observations just weren’t available. I doubt very much whether our current TSI includes all known output. Why do any of you think one TSI is to die for vs. another TSI? I don’t think the data is there.

ren
June 29, 2014 4:36 am

HenryP You can see how ozone absorbs ionizing radiation. It is much weaker than in winter.
http://terra2.spacenvironment.net/~raps_ops/current_files/rtimg/dose.15km.png

June 29, 2014 4:47 am

As the end of month of June is here, for those who wish to use the CET records to prove one thing or the another, just a brief reminder:
June is the month that clearly and indisputable shows that absolutely there was no warming (regardless of the CO2 content or emissions, notch filters, multidecadal natural or any other kind of variability ) for whole of its 350 years, of the longest and the most scrutinized temperature record that there is: http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-Jun.htm
Over to you ….

June 29, 2014 5:16 am

bobl says:
June 28, 2014 at 11:49 pm
While I am making this point Leif, are you claiming the reconstruction David used is wrong for every solar cycle it is trained on
There are three pieces to the puzzle:
1) before 1978, no data, only reconstruction
2) 1978-2002, observations but with systematic errors
3) 2003-2014, observations [SORCE/TIM] that are reliable
One must splice the three pieces together to get a composite covering 1610-2014.
This must be done correctly, but even then one is hostage to the accuracy of piece #1. The Lean [2000] reconstruction is not correct [grossly in error] and the splicing of #3 to #2 is wrong.

June 29, 2014 5:16 am

Mr Svalgaard continues, embarrassingly, to fail to apologize to Dr Evans for having accused him of having acted near-criminally in deliberately using false TSI data. Instead, he tries to divert attention from his persisting falsehood by a variety of diversionary wriggles. One of the latest of these is his assertion that “The plot on the SORCE/TIM website is not a ‘historical record’, but a flawed reconstruction by Lean dating back to 2000”.
Actually, the reconstruction on the SORCE/TIM website to which I had provided a link was, as I had previously stated, by Krivova et al., though I suppose it is possible she might have relied on Judith Lean’s earlier work, as the IPCC itself has done in the past. I had also previously stated that the record went back some 400 years, not just to 2000 as Mr Svalgard has said. The TSI data on this official website is visibly strikingly similar to the TSI data in Dr Evans’ graph. On looking at the two graphs, there is certainly no respectable basis for Mr Svalgaard’s still-unretracted allegation that in using data remarkably close to that which is openly posted on the website from which Mr Svalgaard himself took (and then doctored) the graph on the basis of which he challenged Dr Evans’ assertion that solar activity had recently been declining.
It is really time for Mr Svalgaard to apologize to Dr Evans for his hasty and unjustifiable allegation that Dr Evans had knowingly used incorrect TSI data, and that in doing so he had acted in a fashion that was “almost fraudulent”. There is no respectable basis for any such allegation, and it must now be withdrawn.
The question whether Dr Evans is right to draw the conclusion from the data that TSI is falling in a manner that will have an effect on global temperature is one on which he may or may not be correct: as I have said earlier in this thread, the matter can be argued either way. But it should be blindingly obvious even to Mr Svalgaard, who is not known for his common sense, that there would scarcely be any advantage to Dr Evans in deliberately tampering with the data so as falsely to show a sharp decline in TSI, then to make a startling prediction that global temperature, far from remaining static as it has for the past couple of decades or rising as the usual suspects predict, will instead fall within not more than ten years, and then to say that if the temperature does not fall he will have been proven wrong.
It ought surely to be blindingly obvious even to the meanest and most knuckle-dragging intelligence that such behavior on Dr Evans’ part could not confer any conceivable advantage upon him. The fact is that Dr Evans did his best to put together a reasonable TSI dataset (close in all material respects to the Krivova historical reconstruction on the SORCE/TIM website); that one can apply his model to that or any other TSI dataset; and that if Mr Svalgaard does not like Dr Evans’ TSI dataset he will be free, within weeks, to apply any other TSI dataset to Dr Evans’ model.
By the same token, Mr Eschenbach should also apologize to Dr Evans. He too has used the word “fraudulent” of Dr Evans, this time because he would have liked Dr Evans to release his code and data before rather than after giving an outline of what his code and data are for. For heaven’s sake, stop whining. You have been plainly told all the code and data will be made fully and publicly available. Surely you can tell the difference between that honest approach and the approach of Mr Mann, who refuses to this day to release data for a paper that first appeared in 1998? If so, why did you accuse Dr Evans of being no better than Mr Mann in this regard?
Now, this bandying-about of the word “fraud”, when it is manifest that no fraud has been committed, is not the sort of language that marks out the man of science. To make an allegation of “fraud” is to suggest that criminality is present – in particular, a form of criminality that, where it is alleged, is calculated to damage the reputation of a man of science, in that the allegation is that the scientist has acted in a wilfully deceptive manner for his own profit or with the aim of causing loss to another. On any view, Dr Evans’ work does not fall within this definition.
Suppose that a group of researchers were to conduct a survey of many thousands of scientific papers to see how many of them stated their endorsement for IPCC’s notion that recent warming was mostly manmade. Suppose they marked their own datafile as saying that only 0.5% of the sample, explicitly endorsed that “consensus” notion. Suppose they then disregarded their own result, carefully failed to report it and instead reported that they had found 97.1% support for the consensus that defined. Suppose they then wrote another scientific paper, explicitly stating that they had found near-unanimous support for the consensus thus defined. Suppose that governments, acting on this supposed evidence of consensus as to the magnitude of Man’s impact on the climate, were to cite it as justification for predatory measures inflicting massive loss or hardship on people struggling to pay their fuel and power bills. Now, in UK law, there are two relevant offenses of fraud: fraud by misrepresentation, and fraud by abuse of the public trust that is expected of academic researchers for whose services taxpayers handsomely pay. I shall leave it to readers to decide whether, if the evidence I have outlined above is true, the group of researchers in question might, on the face of things, have committed fraud.
Now, suppose that a researcher abandons his former highly-paid job profiting from the global warming scam, shuts himself away unpaid for some years and comes up with a theory that, if it is wrong, will be shown to have been wrong within not more than a decade. How will he benefit from that, unless he is shown to have been right? To whom will he occasion any loss, other than to himself, if he is eventually shown to have been wrong? And what evidence is there of any deception? On examination, it turns out that there is none. Mr Svalgaard was simply incorrect in his allegation that Dr Evans had used incorrect TSI data. He might have used data that Mr Svalgaard disapproves of. It may even be that Mr Svalgaard is right to prefer one TSI dataset above another. But Mr Svalgaard has been too hasty in accusing the blameless Dr Evans of acting in an “almost fraudulent” fashion, and has been too dilatory in his persistent failure to apologize: a failure that will prove deeply embarrassing to Mr Svalgaard’s own reputation. For Mr Svalgaard has fallen well below the standard of probity expected of the true scientist.
As for Mr Eschenbach, he too should apologize. His use of the word “fraudulent” seems to have been more rhetorical and en passant than the calculated, deliberate and malicious use of the term by Mr Svalgaard, who accompanied it with an impertinent suggestion that Mr Evans had deliberately used wrong TSI data because he had an “agenda”, and has sullenly refused to apologize, repeating the libel on several occasions and demonstrating with each new libel and each new refusal to apologize and with each new diversionary tactic that he is not a scientist but a mere quack. Mr Eschenbach should appreciate that the use of such intemperate language is unscientific and ought to be avoided except where there is plain evidence of criminality, when, in the present instance, there is plain evidence of no criminality at all.
As for those who think I ought not to have made an issue of this, let them understand that the real battle in which we are all engaged is a battle to restore the use of reason to scientific discourse. At present, the world’s governing class has discovered that, thanks to the near-universal scientific and mathematical ignorance to which generations of State-controlled education has reduced the populace, it can manufacture scientific scare stories as justification for a vast centralization of power in the hands of new supra-national bodies elected by nobody.
In the end, the only defense against the extension of predatory, anti-democratic government to the global scale under the pretext of Saving The Planet is the truth itself. That is why it is essential that we should be careful to discriminate between actions that are genuinely fraudulent and actions that are not. And, though it is not easy to keep one’s temper while so much anti-science is peddled by the profiteers of doom, we should surely keep doing our best to try.

Greg Goodman
June 29, 2014 5:17 am

HISTALP long records show about the same thing until they get “corrected”.

June 29, 2014 5:19 am

Rob R says:
June 29, 2014 at 3:25 am
If David and Jo are as good as their word it will not be long before the full excel-based model is released (including full code and data). At that point both of you will be free to dissect it and/or run it with whatever data-set you choose or prefer.
Regardless of that, the data going in is grossly in error, so what does it matter if we have the code [the correct data we already have]. It matters not one bit.

Greg Goodman
June 29, 2014 5:25 am

Rob R says: “Once released there will be plenty of predators ready to rip into it. I hope David has braced himself for the event.”
I think most of the major flaws have already been pointed out. Those are not going to evaporate when the code gets released. They have so far published SEVEN “Big News” threads on this. It’s pretty ridiculous suggesting no one should comment “yet”.
I’m really not that interested in looking at how he coded this mistaken analysis into a spreadsheet.
Hopefully David Evans will be taking advantage of the open science approach he opted for and will be considering how he can address the major issues.

June 29, 2014 5:36 am

“Rob R” says I should not defend what Dr Evans says until it is made public. But Dr Evans’ TSI graph has been made public; it is transparently similar to the Krivova reconstruction on the SORCE/TIM website that Mr Svalgaard regards as authoritative enough to draw his own data from; and, therefore, Mr Svalgaard’s allegation that Dr Evans has knowingly used incorrect TSI data is demonstrably false.
I do not know enough of the relevant mathematics either to defend or to attack Dr Evans’ method. What I do know, from my many discussions with him during his long and often wearisome years of work on his method, is that he has taken good care to consult experts in all of the relevant fields before going public. As I have said before, it would not be wise to underestimate him. Indeed, his work has been paralleled by many other groups using Fourier analysis on the solar data. Some of them have published their results in the learned journals.
What is new is that he has not only discovered a notch-filter that appears in multiple datasets (and the fact that it appears in so many datasets provoked at least one of the eminent scientists whom he consulted to sit up and take notice); he has also devised a more precise form of Fourier transform, which seems better than most at filtering out the vast quantities of noise in the climate data. In addition to this – which is well above my pay-grade, so I cannot say whether the world of science will adopt it – he has many other interesting surprises and results to come. I suspect that the peculiar savagery of the attacks on him stems from a guess on the part of his attackers that he may have come upon a particular result that they will find as uncongenial as they will find it undeniable. In that guess, they may be right. Time will tell.

William Astley
June 29, 2014 5:52 am

In reply to:
lsvalgaard says:
June 28, 2014 at 12:20 pm
William Astley says:
June 28, 2014 at 12:11 pm
The sun will be spotless by late 2013, early 2014.
At late 2013, early 2014 is when we observed the ‘second peak’, with average sunspot numbers around 75. Hardly spotless.
William:
Correction:
Based on observations and a physical model of the solar magnetic cycle, the start of spotless days will occur by late 2014 or early 2015, the sun will be spotless by sometime in 2015. (See current solar)
http://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/assets/img/latest/latest_4096_4500.jpg
The prediction the start of spotless days in 2013 was based on observations of the solar northern hemisphere. There were days in 2013/2014 when there were no sunspots in the solar northern hemisphere. The solar southern hemisphere is for some unknown reason lagging the northern hemisphere.
The hypothesis which I have outlined in this forum that the magnetic flux tubes are formed at the solar tachocline is the ‘standard’ solar model. As the magnetic flux tubes are buoyant and there is no physical means to hold them down in the convection zone, the solar specialists proposed that the magnetic flux tubes are formed in the solar tachocline (The tachocline is the name for the region that separates the solar convection zone and the solar radiative zone). The magnetic flux tubes grow (the seed for the magnetic flux tubes is a residue of the sunspots from the last solar cycle) in the tachocline amplified by the rotational difference between the convection zone and the tachocline. When the magnetic field strength of the amplified magnetic flux tube reaches the maximum value for current tachocline conditions they are released. The magnetic flux tube then rise up to the surface of the sun picking up rotational motion from convection motion in the convection zone. The movement and expansion of the magnetic flux tube in the convection zone explains what is observed in the movie Lief showed of a specific large sunspot. The sunspot in the movie moves about in a complex motion as it dissipates the angular moment the expanding magnetic flux tube picked up as it rose up through the convection zone.
The tachocline mechanism explains the butterfly pattern. The seeds require time to be amplified as they move through the tachocline and there is insufficient time for the high latitude regions to form a magnetic flux tube that has sufficient strength to be released (the tachocline may also change by latitude). The tachocline mechanism provides an explanation as to why the solar barycenter motion by the large planets correlates with solar long period changes. The motion and relative change in motion of the sun disturbs the tachocline region (creates oscillations in the tachocline which takes time to dissipate) which affects the release of the magnetic flux tubes. The tachocline mechanism explains why large sunspots are being replaced by pores.
The tachocline mechanism also explains why sunspots will be concentrated in certain regions of the sun and why the sunspot distribution is asymmetrical comparing one side of the sun to the other. The reason for the variance is differences in the tachocline.
Leif has provided no logic or observational evidence for a competing mechanism which he prefers for some unknown reason. Leif has provided no explanation as to why the magnetic field strength of the newly formed sunspots is decaying linearly and has no explanation as to why large sunspots are being replaced by pores.
There was an increase in sunspot numbers as the lagging southern hemisphere produced multi pores rather than large sunspots. As the magnetic field strength of the magnetic flux tubes continues to weaken the flux tubes are being torn apart in the convection zone and there is nothing left to form a pore. What is forming is a large region of high magnetic field strength.
As the solar wind and coronal holes continues to strip magnetic flux off of the sun and there will be no strong concentrated magnetic flux to move down back into the tachocline to form the seed for the next solar magnetic cycle, it appears the solar magnetic cycle has been interrupted and will therefore require a different mechanism to restart.
Observational evidence to support the assertion that the solar magnetic flux tubes are formed at the tachocline and that the solar magnetic cycle has been interrupted would be a spotless sun (before the normal solar minimum) and a gradual reduction of solar