A Cool Question, Answered?

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.”

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

“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.

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.

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

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)

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

“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.

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.

“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.

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.

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

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!

This is a very good discussion today. Balanced.

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)

A very interesting video very related to this posting

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 ?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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!

Meh. We’re doomed anyway.

Willis E needs to grow up. Sheesh!

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.