Guest 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:
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:
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
@kadaka
it seems you did not see the graph from the solar polar fields that I quoted?
I never ever proposed to compare global temperatures (T) or rate of change in global T with SSN, or TSI, for that matter.
Perhaps you should read my comment again?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/28/a-cool-question-answered/#comment-1672201
I am finding this diversion proposed by the scholars in this field somewhat puzzling….
This sad story is Politics. Trying to prove a political scam with science
Will not and is not going to work.
Livingston and Penn predicted the sun would be spotless in 2015. Leif is that a cranky prediction? Impossible? Do you have any explanation as to why sunspots are being replaced by pores and what is causing the cycle by cycle drop in the solar polar large magnetic field? It appears we will have a chance to see if Leif can accept defeat gracefully and/or change his mind. The solar magnetic cycle has been interrupted there will be no solar magnetic cycle 25, the planet will cool.
In the past the planet cooled when the sun went in a deep Maunder minimum (Changes in the solar magnetic cycle are the cause of the cyclic warming and cooling that the paleo climatologists call a Dansgaard-Oeschger cycle or a Bond event named after the discoverer(s) of the phenomena). There is already the start of cooling in high latitude regions.
The sea ice anomaly in the Antarctic is the highest in 30 years and has been two sigma higher than the 30 year average for the last 2 years.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.recent.antarctic.png
The Greenland ice sheet is one of the proxies that records the cyclic warming and cooling that correlates with solar magnetic cycle changes (see the late Gerald Bond’s paper linked to below for details).
http://www.climate4you.com/images/GISP2%20TemperatureSince10700%20BP%20with%20CO2%20from%20EPICA%20DomeC.gif
Greenland ice temperature, last 11,000 years determined from ice core analysis, Richard Alley’s paper.
http://rivernet.ncsu.edu/courselocker/PaleoClimate/Bond%20et%20al.,%201997%20Millenial%20Scale%20Holocene%20Change.pdf
A Pervasive Millennial-Scale Cycle in North Atlantic Holocene and Glacial Climates
https://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/74103.pdf
Solar Influence on North Atlantic Climate during the Holocene
A more recent oceanographic study, based on reconstructions of the North Atlantic climate during the Holocene epoch, has found what may be the most compelling link between climate and the changing Sun: in this case an apparent regional climatic response to a series of prolonged episodes of suppressed solar activity, like the Maunder Minimum, each lasting from 50 to 150 years8
Each of these cooling events coincides in time with strong, distinctive minima in solar activity, based on contemporaneous records of the production of 14C from tree-ring records and 10Be from deep-sea cores. For reasons cited above, these features, found in both 14C and 10Be records, are of likely solar origin, since the two records are subject to quite different non-solar internal sources of variability. The North Atlantic finding suggests that solar variability exerts a strong effect on climate on centennial to millennial time scales…
There was some discussion at WUWT in February http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/10/historical-and-present-total-solar-irradiance-has-been-tinkered-with-again/ about changes to the reconstruction of TSI on what Mr. Monckton calls the ‘official’ TSI site. At the time the Website said that “This historical reconstruction of TSI is based on that used in the IPCC AR5 Working Group’s Assessment Report and based on TSI reconstructions by Krivova et al. (JGR 2010) and Ball et al. (A&A, 2012).”.
Today, the LASP site says: “This historical TSI reconstruction is based on Wang, Lean, and Sheeley ( “Modeling the Sun’s Magnetic Field and Irradiance Since 1713″, ApJ 625:522-538, 2005 May 20), which was used for solar forcings in the 2007 IPCC estimates.”. It is possible that the website has not been updated or that some clerical error has crept in. This is in a sense irrelevant for the present post since it is clear from his own admission on his graph [and from the curve on the graph] that Mr Evans used Lean 2000, but could be a source of silly bickering so needs to be mentioned. Both reconstructions suffer from the same problem: the use of the flawed Group Sunspot number to provide a varying background. In particular, that leads to an increase of TSI in the first half of the 20th century. And increase not supported by direct measurements of Calcium plages since 1890 and by the influence of the solar wind on the Earth’s geomagnetic field which can be reliably inferred back to 1845. But, again, since Mr Evans used Lean 2000, the problem at the LASP website does not matter.
Leif accused Evans of being almost fraudulent. I quote his words @ur momisugly: “…but by the [almost fraudulent – as there clearly is an agenda here] use of invalid input…”. I do think Leif has legitimately suggested that Evans’ work is affected by an agenda. Evans has been posing his thesis as legitimate in choosing a published data series. However that series is now understood to be questionable, and yet fails to point that out to his readers, which in my book too is “almost fraudulent”. The two choices then are Evans, as an investigator, is plausibly stupid, or is plausibly deceptive.
The good Lord however, flatly accuses Leif of “doctor[ing]”. I quote his words @ur momisugly –Monckton of Brenchley says: June 29, 2014 at 5:16 am– “from which Mr Svalgaard himself took (and then doctored) the graph on the basis of which he challenged Dr Evans’ assertion”.
The apology is Monckton’s to make.
Just for the heck of it as the SSN does not have the proposed correction, here are the graphs for evaluating variance variability starting in 1850, the start of the Hadley Center/Met Office datasets:
Global:
http://woodfortrees.org/graph/sidc-ssn/from:1850/to:2014/compress:12/derivative/plot/crutem4vgl/from:1850/to:2014/compress:12/derivative/scale:200
The oldest minimum is not circa 1965, that’s a hiccup. It is actually about 1900 for SSN, but 1920 for temperature. My eyeball wants to say there are two sine signals lagged about 20 years, SSN leading, but there is only 1 1/2 cycles of data.
NH:
http://woodfortrees.org/graph/sidc-ssn/from:1850/to:2014/compress:12/derivative/plot/crutem4vnh/from:1850/to:2014/compress:12/derivative/scale:200
Same. Note the great variability coming out of the LIA.
Tropics:
http://woodfortrees.org/graph/sidc-ssn/from:1850/to:2014/compress:12/derivative/plot/hadcrut4tr/from:1850/to:2014/compress:12/derivative/scale:200
Same.
It appears people may have been looking at the wrong things in the wrong direction for too short a time frame. The solar/terrestrial connection apparently is in the rates, with a period of a few centuries, not the results, and definitely not with a period of one or two sunspot cycles. This indicates the Earth has robust temperature regulation. And that the oceans (what else has the heat capacity?) possibly provide a 20 year lag noticeable on land.
More data is needed, perhaps comparing adjusted SSN to CET, and SSN to SST. As greater annual variations can lead to greater weather variations, perhaps evidence could be found there, if we had enough trustworthy weather records.
lsvalgaard says:
June 29, 2014 at 9:41 am
There was some discussion at WUWT in February…
Consulting the original literary shows that the reconstruction shown today at LASP’s website is by Krivova, so the explanation to the graph on what Mr Monckton calls the ‘official website’ is wrong [screen cap]:
http://www.leif.org/research/LASP-Screencap-1014-06-29.png
As I said, this doesn’t matter as Mr Evans used by own admission the obsolete Lean 2000 reconstruction.
From HenryP on June 29, 2014 at 9:16 am:
The dynamite does not care about the match once the fuse has been lit.
–KD Knoebel 2014
@ur momisugly Leif. I expect you have come across this and wondered what your thoughts on it might be ?
Coupling of Total Solar Irradiance and Solar Magnetic Field Variations with Time Lags: Magneto-thermal Pulsation of the Sun
Yoshimura, H.
in
Solar drivers of the interplanetary and terrestrial disturbances. Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Proceedings of the 16th (sixteenth) international workshop National Solar Observatory/Sacramento Peak, Sunspot, New Mexico, USA, 16-20 October 1995, San Francisco: Astronomical Society of the Pacific (ASP), |c1996, edited by K. S. Balasubramaniam, Stephen L. Keil, and Raymond N. Smartt, p.601
Found by SunSword; http://joannenova.com.au/2014/06/big-news-viii-new-solar-model-predicts-imminent-global-cooling/#comment-1496830
This extract by, and comment from David Evans;
““We argue that the time lags between the TSI and magnetic field variations demand us to consider the influences of the Sun on the Earth and on the space environment through two channels which are physically linked together but their variations may not necessarily be in phase in time. One channel is through the irradiance variations and the other is through the magnetic field variations. Tim evolution of a phenomenon on the Earth that is influenced by the Sun can be in phase as well as out of phase with the solar magnetic cycle if this phenomenon is mainly caused by the irradiance variations of the Sun.” – Abstract (at end)
“In practice, since the sunspot number has the longest time interval of observation, we used the sunspot number as the index of the solar magnetic field to be compared with the ERB TSI data. We found that the multiplied correlation index of the two kinds of data has a sharp peak at around 10.3 years of delay time. This sharp peak means that similarity between the time profile of the ERB TSI and the time profile of the sunspot number is the best when the time series of the ERB TSI is displaced toward the past by an amount of about 10.3 years, which is one solar cycle prior to the observed time interval of the ERB data.” (section 8, bottom of page 606)
In other words (I think), he found the TSI leads the sunspot number (which represents the solar magnetic field) by 10.3 years. This hints heavily at force X as we detected it, an influence that lags TSI by 11 years and which is intimately tied to the solar magnetic field.”
William Astley says
The solar magnetic cycle has been interrupted, there will be no solar magnetic cycle 25, the planet will cool.
Henry says
I have been thinking the same thing, in fact I think the solar magnetic poles might switch over again before we can cycle the hill back up again, i.e. increasing solar polar field strengths.
Christopher (Monckton), thanks for your reply to Dr. Svalgaard and myself. You seen strangely unwilling to bite the bullet and admit that (at least according to their graph) they have made a wildly incorrect claim that the TSI has fallen precipitously since about 2004. It is on the basis of this supposed fall that they are predicting falling temperatures.
But as both Dr. Svalgaard and I have both demonstrated, THERE IS NO SUCH FALL IN TSI. And since both he and I are quite familiar with the data, one quick look at the graph was all it took to know that David Evans had made a horrendous mistake, one that totally destroys his claim of falling temperatures.
Now, we have two choices at this point, neither one of them pretty. EITHER Dr. Evans and all of the top scientists that you claim he conferred with are shamefully ignorant of the habits of the sun … OR David Evans has an agenda.
Me, I’ve taken no position on that question, as I prefer not to speculate about motives unless they are plainly apparent from the actions.
Dr. Svalgaard has. He’s unwilling to call David Evans shamefully ignorant. Would you have preferred that he take that path? I suspect that you would have been no more happy about him calling Dr. Evans “shamefully ignorant” than about his use of the word “fraudulent”.
But neither of us owe David Evans an apology. He’s the one that made the horrendous newbie mistake, not us. It would help matters greatly if you came to grips with that fact. We’re just the guys that have demonstrated the laughable error by showing the actual data. And while blaming the messenger has a long and honorable tradition … you sure you want to go down that path?
You go on to say:
and
Actually, Christopher, what I said was:
Show me where in that I have said that I wanted “Dr Evans to release his code and data before rather than after giving an outline of what his code and data.” I said no such thing, I give you the lie direct on that.
I said they should be released at the same time, and I could live with an outline and a delay of one or two posts … but that after eight posts with people begging him to release the data, it was no longer acceptable.
Next, you yourself have accurately described David Evans’ position as being “sure in the knowledge that no one will be able to falsify what he refuses to make available.” Of course, you actually used the words to describe Michael Mann’s position, but David is in exactly the same position for exactly the same reason. No one is able to falsify him because he refuses to make his results available.
So I’m puzzled here … it seems to be OK for you to point out that Michael Mann is acting highly improperly when he holds dialogs “sure in the knowledge that no one will be able to falsify what he refuses to make available” … but when I say the exact same thing about David Evans, you insist that I should apologize to him.
Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander … so I’ll tell you what, Christopher.
As soon as you publicly apologize to Michael Mann for castigating him for holding dialogs with his scientific opponents while he was sure in the knowledge that no one will be able to falsify what he refuses to make available … at that same time, I will apologize to David Evans for for castigating him for holding dialogs with his scientific opponents while he was sure in the knowledge that no one will be able to falsify what he refuses to make available.
Do we have a deal?
You truly don’t seem to get it, Christopher. We are now up to eight posts where David has been requesting comments on his work, and refusing multiple requests to publish his results … and all the while he is sure in the knowledge that no one will be able to falsify what he has refused to make available.
I find that action to be fraudulent on the part of both Michael Mann and David Evans, although of course YMMV. It is pretending to hold a public scientific discussion while your scientific opponent is prevented from seeing all of the facts … how is that not a fraud?
But heck, if you don’t like “fraudulent”, I retract it entirely. Consider it gone. As Nixon said, “That statement is no longer operative”, I take it back root and branch …
… so in its place, would you suggest I use “deliberately deceptive” to describe David’s actions? Or would you prefer “sneaky and underhanded”? Would “taking a massively unfair advantage” fit the bill? How about “intentionally hobbling his potential detractors”? Hey, I’m open for suggestions … but since you castigate Michael Mann for doing what exactly David is doing, I’m not sure how swapping out negative descriptions changes anything. It is scientific malfeasance of the highest order, no matter who does it.
In any case, let me know when you decide to publicly apologize to Michael Mann, and I’ll join you on the podium …
w.
William Astley says:
June 29, 2014 at 9:25 am
Livingston and Penn predicted the sun would be spotless in 2015. Leif is that a cranky prediction? Impossible?
Based on a short series of observations. A later paper by Livingston, Penn, and Me [ http://www.leif.org/research/Livingston-Penn-Svalgaard.pdf ] revises that ‘prediction’ and does not advocate a spotless unless until the next sunspot minimum [when, indeed, the Sun will be spotless for a while]. The latest plot of Livingston’s data is here http://www.leif.org/research/Livingston%20and%20Penn.png
The solar magnetic cycle has been interrupted there will be no solar magnetic cycle 25, the planet will cool.
The solar magnetic cycle has never been ‘interrupted’ and there will be a cycle 25. Even during the Maunder Minimum, the cycle went on.
J Martin says:
June 29, 2014 at 10:57 am
Leif. I expect you have come across this and wondered what your thoughts on it might be ?
[…] “We argue that the time lags between the TSI and magnetic field variations demand us to consider the influences of the Sun on the Earth and on the space environment through two channels which are physically linked together…”
There is no time lag between TSI and the solar magnetic field so there is no mysterious ‘force’ at work.
Annie says:
June 29, 2014 at 6:20 am
It’s funny how when people agree with me I’m a genius and they enjoy my posts, but when they disagree with me I’m “bleating” and “petulant” …
And I’m sure that Michael Mann and Phil Jones would agree with you, that they are also “sick to death of [my] endless repetitions of [my] bleat about [their] not yet having released all the data” … so what? If you think that I’m going to stop advocating for scientific transparency simply because your health is too delicate for the fight and you are sick to death, think again. You can get as sick as you want, Annie, it will make no difference.
In any case, if you are “sick to death” of my comments, GO READ SOMETHING ELSE. Or read this thread and just skip over my comments … how tough can that be? Because accusing me of being a “toddler throwing a tantrum” is content-free babble. If you have an actual objection to something I said, QUOTE IT and show us where I’m wrong. Otherwise, your comments go directly to the bit bucket as being without substance.
w.
J Martin says:
June 29, 2014 at 7:08 am
Note this carefully, Lord Monckton. Another man secure in the fact that he can’t be falsified because the data hasn’t been released.
In any case, J, it appear you haven’t heard the term “garbage in, garbage out”. Leif and I have both demonstrated, using different reference datasets, that David Evan’s input is garbage. I’ll leave you to do the math as to whether we need to wait to make a judgment on the output …
w.
It was inappropriate for Mr Svalgaard maliciously to accuse Dr Evans of acting in an “almost fraudulent” manner merely because Mr Svalgaard disagreed scientifically with Dr Evans. Mr Svalgaard must stop wriggling and shouting like a small child and apologize, or continue to be regarded by all as a quack.
He says the graph at the SORCE/TIM website that shows the record of TSI reconstructed back some 400 years (not just to the year 2000, as he had previously tried to maintain) was by Lean et al. a few weeks ago and that therefore there is no graph by Krivova et al. at that website. Yet it is there for all to see. And, as his own overlay shows, that graph is strikingly similar to Dr Evans’ graph in all material particulars.
And he may care to enlighten us on why it does not matter that he has fabricated a 27-day-smoothed trend-line on ten times as many days’ non-existent TSI data but regards that doctoring as acceptable. Let him clean up his own scientific act before he starts calling out Dr Evans for being close to fraudulent. No more rests on Dr Evans’ allegedly incorrect choice of dataset than rests on Mr Svalgaard’s dodgy determination of a trend on data that do not exist at all.
Mr Eschenbach continues to condemn Dr Evans before he has seen his work or talked to those specialists who have seen it. Let him be patient until Dr Evans is ready. He will be able to put any TSI or other dataset he likes into Dr Evans’ model: then at least he will have some basis for picking nits.
Monckton of Brenchley says:
June 29, 2014 at 11:24 am
Mr Eschenbach continues to condemn Dr Evans before he has seen his work or talked to those specialists who have seen it.
None of this matters as the old adage ‘garbage in, garbage out’ still rules. Having the code will make it easier to show to you how wrong Mr Evans [and the eminent specialists – who are they? btw] is.
kadaka says
The dynamite does not care about the match once the fuse has been lit.
–KD Knoebel 2014
henry says
Obviously I did do various pairings but found the graph showing the deceleration of warming against the decrease in the solar polar field strengths the most convincing.
Having said all of that, I do not think that we will have catastrophic global cooling. In terms of past time, we are around 1925. So the weather of 2015- 2040 will be the same as 1925-1950. There will be droughts on the great plains from around 2020-2030 and again later. The farmers there would do good to move south.
My wife still laughs at me when I tell her of the drop in global temperature by about 0.2 degrees C since 2000. The difference of the temperature of the various rooms in our house is much, much bigger….
vukcevic says:
June 29, 2014 at 8:08 am
So … you make up a fantasy dialog about what Leif has said, a flight of total imagination … and then you abuse Leif for what he has said in your fantasy dialog?
vuk, all you’ve done with your imaginary dialog is to demonstrate that your fantasies about people are nasty and ugly, but that says nothing at all about Leif … you are a much better man than this. If you object to something Leif said, then QUOTE IT and show us where it’s wrong.
This shabby attempt to stuff your words in Leif’s mouth only proves that your words are repugnant, it says less than nothing about his words …
w.
Bernie Hutchins says:
June 29, 2014 at 8:37 am
Oh, well done that man! As I’ve said from the beginning, a notch does NOT mean that there is a notch filter …
w.
Willis Eschenbach says:
June 29, 2014 at 11:32 am
vuk says: June 29, 2014 at 8:08 am “At that point, I walked away.
The case with vuk is that he claimed that he had shown that the Sun rotated at a 27.87 day rate [or at least the solar wind did]. I pointed out to him that the solar wind exhibits two separate rotation rates: 27 d and 28.5 days which are both present at the same time, but that there was no unified rate of 27.87 days. That number is just an artifact of the mixture of the two real periods. Vuk failed to understand the issue, so I gave him the example of how silly it is to claim that their is any physical reality or entity to the average speed of a walking man and a jetliner. He didn’t get that either and ‘walked away’. Good riddance. Unfortunately he didn’t stay away.
Willis @ur momisugly 5.25
Thanks Willis.
I do like the way David and Jo are doing this.
Bite sized pieces for the majority of us who do not instinctively understand what this conjecture is.
And I am really enjoying the roll out.
Following it as closely as I can at Jo’s site.
So many comments here, all in a lather.
These are a pleasure to read, far too many take themselves far too seriously.
Time will tell. Even David admits it may all be nonsense, then he invites us to consider a different view.
The picture being painted, a sales job?
Fine with me, I do not see anyone at Jo Nova trying to dictate my life or freedoms.
greg Goodman says:
June 28, 2014 at 12:36 pm
“So we’re due for another super El Nino in 2064 then ? LOL”
It is a little disconcerting to get heckled by someone when you have agreed with them. If you posit a linear system input/output relationship between two variables, and the designated input has a component which the output lacks in any significant degree, you are going to estimate a notch in the resultant transfer function at that component’s frequency. It’s a tautology. Or, at any rate, an equivalence. It’s two ways of saying, there’s something significant in the input which isn’t significant in the output.
Was the 1998 El Nino really a “super” El Nino, or does it tend merely to be more prominent than others because rapidly declining rate of temperature rise boosted the SNR, and made it more prominent than others?
I do not believe that the lack of significant 11 year cycling in the temperature data is due specifically to quasi-linear feedback. I believe it is likely due to modulation of the 11 year-ish heating cycle with ocean mixing cycles due mainly to terrestrial-lunar dynamics, which produces harmonics at something in the neighborhood of 60 years and 5 years.
Additional time lag responses attenuate the shorter period, and the ~60 year oscillation becomes more pronounced, while the ~5 year oscillations are split, much as the SSN data are split near 11 years.
Monckton of Brenchley says:
June 29, 2014 at 11:21 am
It was inappropriate for Mr Svalgaard maliciously to accuse Dr Evans of acting in an “almost fraudulent” manner merely because Mr Svalgaard disagreed scientifically with Dr Evans.
Mr Evans made a horrible mistake [deliberately or out of ignorance – your call] making his prediction worthless; one cannot scientifically disagree with such nonsense. Disagreement requires substance and there is none in Mr Evans’ work.
(not just to the year 2000, as he had previously tried to maintain)
Show me by quoting my exact words on that or admit you are just throwing mud.
there is no graph by Krivova et al. at that website. Yet it is there for all to see.
The website says that the graph is based on Wang et al.
http://www.leif.org/research/LASP-Screencap-2014-06-29.png
I showed by going back to the original sources [what a concept, eh?] that the website is misrepresenting the facts and that, in fact, the graph is by Krivova. But this does not matter as Mr Evans did not use that graph, but, as he admits, used Lean 2000.
And, as his own overlay shows, that graph is strikingly similar to Dr Evans’ graph in all material particulars.
I made that graph to show you that the two graphs are strikingly different. They both suffer from the same problem, though, namely using the flawed Group Sunspot Number as input combined with the erroneous assumption that there is a background of Ephemeral Regions that varies with solar activity, although Hagenaar [2008] has show that there is no such varying background. I go through these details to try to make you understand the issue.
And he may care to enlighten us on why it does not matter that he has fabricated a 27-day-smoothed trend-line on ten times as many days’ non-existent TSI data but regards that doctoring as acceptable.
The 27-day running mean is not a ‘trend line’, and is no ‘doctoring’ at all. The data to look at is the blue curve http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-since-2003.png . Your attempt to throw mud here falls completely flat, but is consistent with your overall modus operandi.
No more rests on Dr Evans’ allegedly incorrect choice of dataset
You are correct that nothing can rest on Mr Evans’ incorrectly doctored dataset.