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
@ur momisugly Leif. http://www.leif.org/research/Livingston%20and%20Penn.png
That graph is very interesting it seems pretty clear that it won’t get to 1500 and so sunspots won’t be disappearing in 2022 as previously thought. That’d suggest that solar cycle 25, far from being next to absent might well be much the same as solar cycle 24. So the pause will likely continue, but significant cooling may not take place after all.
On the one hand I was hoping for a steep drop to piss off all the CAGW politicans hell bent on destroying economies, jobs and peoples hopes for their children, not to mention helping the third world get a decent future. But on the other hand would love to see Meditteranean temperatures in the UK, we’ve had close to that when the Romans grew vines up in the North of England.
@ur momisugly Willis. I don’t have your analytical brain power, or experience in examining graphs and data etc., so I have found the multi post bite sized format about right for me and the limited time I can give it. I’m not sure what all the fuss is about as David’s projection if it comes to pass only takes us back to the temperatures of the seventies. No repeat Dalton or Maunder. Livingston and Penn’s (& Leif’s) latest graph would also suggest the same, assuming one can make such simplistic assumptions, but then the co2 crowd do.
I don’t doubt that David will release everything when he said he will which he repeated in the latest post, so you only have a few days to wait now. I am sure I am not alone in looking forward to your analysis of it all, also Leif will hopefully post on the same subject once he has had a chance to plug his SSN into it, if he isn’t beaten to that by David Evans.
Me, I am neutral. I have no models of my own, I just want reality and the truth. It’s clear that politicians and the CAGW scientists have no understanding of either of those concepts.
I don’t know what will happen. On the one hand I was hoping for a steep drop to piss off all the Catastrophic AGW people, but on the other hand would personally love to see Meditteranean temperatures in the UK. My guess has been that temperatures will go down significantly, but I am becoming slowly less sure of this, especially having seen Leif’s latetst LPL graph. So I guess the best guess might be that we see the ‘pause’ continue for some time to come, with a few wobbles.
Monckton of Brenchley says:
June 29, 2014 at 11:24 am
Lord Monckton, thank you for your comment, but no, sir, that is simply not true. I am not condemning Dr. Evans before I’ve seen his work. I am condemning him for hiding his work and refusing to reveal it despite multiple requests.
And I continue to condemn Dr. Evans for requesting comments and holding scientific discussions while he is secure in the knowledge that no one will be able to falsify what he refuses to make available, which is exactly what you have condemned Michael Mann for.
Next, Dr. Evans has repeatedly requested comments on his work, publishing post after post inviting people to comment on what he little he has revealed of what he has done … and now you want to bust me for commenting on what I can see of what he has done? Really?
How does that work? Are you saying that Dr. Evans was lying when he asked for comments? Or was he just soliciting positive comments, nothing negative need apply, and I didn’t get the memo? He’s spent eight full blog posts, an eternity in internet time, withholding his data while asking people to comment on his work, and when I comment on the small part of it that I can see, I’m the bad guy? Say what?
Finally, while I’m prevented by lack of knowledge from commenting on the work that he has repeatedly refused to reveal, I have condemned him for a part of his work that I have seen, his laughable claim that the TSI plunged precipitously starting in 2003-5. That part is a joke, and yes, I’ve pointed that out in less than laudatory terms … oh, and I’ve commented very negatively on the fact that his model obviously has to contain a very large number of tunable parameters, a failing condemned by none less than John von Neumann. However, I was unable to make a specific objection to the number of tunable parameters for the usual reason—Dr. Evans hasn’t revealed the number of tunable parameters, has he? … but despite that, he’s still soliciting comments on his work.
w.
Willis Eschenbach says:
June 29, 2014 at 11:32 am
……….
Perhaps you should have asked: “Vuk where this dialogue came from?”
I would have answered: “It came from your recent WUWT article: Maunder and Dalton Sunspot Minima
However, no harm done, I hope you would conclude that your statement is no longer operative.
p.s. Dr. S. is sufficiently robust commentator, he is in no need of his defences reinforcement.
I’ve worked on a few very hard to solve problems usually with a team – and typically, there are many ideas about the problem few of which turn out to have been correct. What I’ve found is that the less direct data there is to suggest the exact cause of the problem, then often the stronger the opinion is of the participants about their particular hypothesis. Eventually, when someone comes up with a method of gathering the right data – and that data finally describes the problem correctly, a solution is found and the disagreements are forgotten as well as quite a few incorrect hypothesis But until the right data is gathered, there are usually a wide variety of opinions.
The problem we have is that the climate has seemingly responded to changes in the sun. Seemingly because the relationship is not certain. Nor exactly how it is accomplished is certain either. If the temperature does not respond to the sun, then what causes it to change? Historically, we have had warm and cool periods in the Holocene without changes in CO2 nor can volcanic events be linked to many of the changes. The climate also does not appear to respond in ways that would seem logical to changes in TSI. At least nor immediately. There does not appear to be a linear relationship between TSI and temperature or CO2 and temperature. The proof that CO2 does not have the “logical” impact is simply the fact that the temperature is flat and the vast majority of climate models show increased heat.
My own not so learned view is that David Evans was somewhat maligned. I read David Evans on JoNova a few days ago and had some of the same concerns that Dr. Svalgaard expressed later. However, I felt that we needed to wait to see the entirety of the hypothesis before jumping to conclusions.
It appears that Lord Monckton got very angry at Dr Svalgaard for his apparent maligning of David Evans – I think he was very angry about this and exaggerated the offense. Dr. Svalgaard did the same thing when maligning David Evan’s – exaggerated the problem. David Evans’s point about 2003 was that about that time, based on the TSI chart available most places and used by the IPCC started going down. Dr. Svalgaard took this point in a way that I felt it was clearly not intended. I’m sure though that Dr. Svalgaard did think it was intended that way which is probably the root of the problem. Willis jumped in to support Dr Svalgaard also I think exaggerating what happened. Willis’s position being that he can’t find any such relationship between temperature and changes in solar cycle, TSI and etc., and he does not see a reasonable mathematical relationship based on what David Evans reported so far. The fact that he has not found one though does not mean that there is not some mechanism that will be explained in the future with the right theory and data.
I personally think that in the feedback mechanism for temperature change, what is missing is an understanding of ENSO and changes in the AMO, AO, NAO and etc. and how they fit together with other changes in the sun, CO2 and other factors. This means that a feedback mechanism might not be very linear … But just because the relationship has not yet been described does not mean it does not exist.
lsvalgaard says:
June 29, 2014 at 11:41 am
…..
Reading further on:
Thanks doc for putting out info for Willis.
You do underestimate value of us amateur (/ish, if you wish) enthusiastic researchers, posting our findings and then being in your view qualified as wrong.
– declared wrong, indicates to any of your followers that this was a dead end result.
– alternatively someone may wish to replicate my result and find it correct or wrong and consequently comes to a conclusion.
One way or the other, thanks again, your advice is always welcome, but not necessarily always followed.
Mr Svalgaard, who bafflingly continues to refuse to apologize to Dr Evans, asks where Mr Svalgaard had said the reconstruction by Lean that he says was on the SORCE/TIM website dated back to 2000. Mr Svalgaard’s exact words were: “The plot on the SORCE/TIM website is not a ‘historical record’, but a flawed reconstruction by Lean dating back to 2000.” He will find his own words earlier in this thread.
On the website the record is described as a “historical reconstruction”, it is not by Lean but by Krivova; and it is a 400-year record dating back to 1600. It does begin to look as though Mr Svalgaard has even less basis for his nasty and still unretracted allegation against Dr Evans than before. He should cease his vexatious squirming and apologize to Dr Evans.
And perhaps Mr Svalgaard will let us into the secret of why a “27-day running mean” on data for which approximately 270 days were altogether absent should be regarded as a credible scientific exercise, rather than the doctoring and fabrication that it was. The effect of the tampering was to conceal the missing data beneath, whose absence I only discovered when I went back to the SORCE source. One hopes that the concealment arose by inadvertence or ignorance rather than malice. I shall be referring the matter to an eminent statistician, for I am at a loss to discover any rational basis for calling any such exercise of the imagination a “running mean”, still less a “27-day” one, when there some 270 days’ data missing. And, acting on his advice, I shall consider – in view of the seriousness of the allegation that Mr Svalgaard has made against Dr Evans – whether the fabrication, and the part it played in Mr Svalgaard’s false allegation against Dr Evans, as well as the false allegation itself, should be reported as research misconduct. There are certain minimum standards in scientific discourse, and Mr Svalgaard, here as all too often before, has fallen well below them.
Mr Svalgaard now admits the possibility that Dr Evans used a dataset with which Mr Svalgaard disagrees “out of ignorance”. If that were so, then Mr Svalgaard’s allegation of “almost fraudulent” conduct on Mr Evans’ part was inappropriate. It is unscientific, as well as immature, to accuse Dr Evans of a serious, imprisonable, criminal offense if there is a possibility that he acted out of ignorance. The more likely possibility, of course, is that Mr Svalgaard’s allegation, both in its original form alleging the deliberate use of incorrect data and in its amended form admitting a less criminal possibility, is false and without foundation.
Mr Svalgaard says the graph at the website – and one assumes he means the graph at the URL I had previously provided – was not by Krivova but by Wang et al. No, it was by Krivova. The word “Wang” does not appear on the page anywhere. Here is what the caption on the page at SORCE/TIM actually says:
“These estimated solar irradiances for the last 400 years are based on an historical TSI reconstruction by N. Krivova et al. (see references below), which is used in the IPCC AR5 Working Group I’s Assessment Report. The values from this group’s SATIRE model have been offset a small amount (-0.30 W/m2) for agreement with SORCE/TIM values and replaced by SORCE/TIM annual averages from 2003 onward. The historical reconstruction provided here was computed using TIM V.15 data in February 2014.”
None of the “references below” mentions any Wang. Once again, the facts are altogether at variance with Mr Svalgaard’s constantly-shifting account (first it was Lean, then it was Wang, while in fact it was Krivova all along); and the carelessness with which Mr Svalgaard rushed to make a false, baseless, and nasty allegation against Dr Evans becomes ever more apparent.
Really, it would be more adult if Mr Svalgaard simply accepted that he has gotten far too much far too wrong. He should mind his language in future, and avoid making any further nasty allegations about Dr Evans. And he should not hesitate to apologize for his allegation of near-criminality against Dr Evans. In most British universities, an unfounded and – from the tone of Mr Svalgaard’s remarks throughout this thread – malevolent allegation of dishonesty in scientific research itself constitutes serious research misconduct. One hopes, for Mr Svalgaard’s sake, that he is safely retired.
BobG says:
June 29, 2014 at 12:37 pm
David Evans’s point about 2003 was that about that time, based on the TSI chart available most places and used by the IPCC started going down.
Mr Evans did much more than that, namely stated [and doctored his plot – the hard to see blue dashed line] that since the 2003-2005 timeframe, TSI has dropped by a serious amount up to the present. I simply pointed out that according to the most reliable data we have [SORC/TIM] TSI has not dropped and that it, in fact, is higher now than in 2003-2005. This invalidates his prediction, regardless of what else might be wrong [or right]. That is all.
Dr. Svalgaard took this point in a way that I felt it was clearly not intended.
I will agree that Mr Evans did not intend to have anybody discover his little ‘trick’. [One is reminded of Mann’s ‘Nature Trick’ of Climategate fame].
&
I still do not understand the obsession of everyone with TSI and SSN
where it is obvious that the declining solar polar field strengths are a much better parameter versus declining earthly temperatures.
Anyway, I did answer the cool question:
It is globally cooling
Live with it.
BobG says:
June 29, 2014 at 12:37 pm
David Evans’s point about 2003 was that about that time, based on the TSI chart available most places and used by the IPCC started going down.
Mr Evans did much more than that, namely stated [and doctored his plot – the hard to see blue dashed line] that since the 2003-2005 timeframe, TSI has dropped by a serious amount up to the present. I simply pointed out that according to the most reliable data we have [SORC/TIM] TSI has not dropped and that it, in fact, is higher now than in 2003-2005. This invalidates his prediction, regardless of what else might be wrong [or right]. That is all.
Dr. Svalgaard took this point in a way that I felt it was clearly not intended.
I will agree that Mr Evans did not intend to have anybody discover his little ‘trick’. [One is reminded of Mann’s ‘Nature Trick’ of Climategate fame].
David Archibald says ” “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’”
For a forecast of the possible coming cooling based on the 60 and 1000 year quasi- periodicities in the temperature data and using the neutron count- 10 Be data as the best proxy for solar activity see
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2013/10/commonsense-climate-science-and.html
and several other posts at http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com
There is altogether too much time spent on the short frequency 11 and 22 year cycles. These are really just froth on the lower frequency periodicities
The key periodicity for climate forecasting over humanly significant time scales is the quasi millennial cycle see Figs 4 and 3 at the first link,The question is are we just at, just past or just before a peak . The recent sharp decline in the HMF and increase in the neutron count at the 23/24/ minimum suggests that we are past the peak. Given the +/- 12 year delay in that decline showing up in temperatures we may look for a sharp drop in 2016-17. If this doesn’t occur I would have to rejigger my forecasts.
Reblogged this on The Next Grand Minimum and commented:
David Archibald considers David Evans’ notch-filter model is a big advance in climate science. Validation is coming very soon.
&
and I still have not seen any comment here by dr.Evans
unless I am missing something?
so why argue about anyone having to apologise?
Mr Eschenbach is of course free, in a free country, to comment on the general outline of Dr Evan’s research, though he would be wise, scientifically speaking, to avoid uttering truisms such as “there is a notch filter in white noise” as though they were arguments against Dr Evans’ work. And of course he is entitled to disagree with Dr Evans on whether or not solar activity is in decline.
But it continues to seem unreasonable that he should complain about Dr Evans’ non-disclosure, when Dr Evans has been working for years on making his model as transparent as possible, so that it will be more accessible than any previous model. He will launch it when it is ready, and – rightly – he will not be rushed.
He has very fairly outlined some of the main points in what he has done, to orient those who are interested so that they can start with an understanding of what he is trying to achieve. In the light of the more scientifically sensible comments he has received, he will be amending the code and the data somewhat, as every modeler does. He has plainly stated that it will not be long now before he releases everything. He has plainly stated the form in which the model operates – it is an Excel spreadsheet. As far as disclosure is concerned, then, any court in the land, contrasting his proposed conduct with the demonstrable refusal of Mr Mann to release data relating to the bent “hokey-stick”, would find that if he does what he says he will do he will have set the standard for disclosure.
And, given the extraordinary viciousness of the attacks on him for daring to do his own thinking, for daring to discuss it on his wife’s excellent blog, and for daring to promise disclosure more complete than anything any modeler of the climate has done before, he is taking a remarkable risk with that disclosure. The attitude of bellicose fault-finding that has been all too shamefully evident on this thread goes well beyond the appropriate desire of scientists to verify a new hypothesis and to falsify it if it is wrong. Nevertheless, Dr Evans will not be deterred by all the hate-speech, though he is as baffled as I am that so much of it comes from people who should know better, inferentially out of jealousy. He will make full disclosure anyway. He will take the knocks, as all of us who publish independent scientific research skeptical of the official position in or out of the journals have to take them. Either the world will warm as They say it will, or it will not. My best estimate is that it will not.
Mr Eschenbach’s remarks about Dr Evans’ alleged non-disclosure would be appropriate if Dr Evans had refused to disclose his workings. But Dr Evans is no Mr Mann. He has said he will disclose his workings. So wait and see. Or grow your own model.
Monckton of Brenchley says:
June 29, 2014 at 12:47 pm
Mr Svalgaard’s exact words were: “The plot on the SORCE/TIM website is not a ‘historical record’, but a flawed reconstruction by Lean dating back to 2000.” He will find his own words earlier in this thread.
Assuming English is your Mother Tongue you should have little difficulty understanding this to mean that Lean’s reconstruction dates back to the year 2000, meaning that she made the reconstruction in that year. So, just another attempt to throw mud.
and it is a 400-year record dating back to 1600.
No, it is not a ‘record’, just a flawed reconstruction
The effect of the tampering was to conceal the missing data beneath, whose absence I only discovered when I went back to the SORCE source.
As the blue data curves clearly extends above and below the pink running mean, nobody in his right mind would ever believe otherwise than there simply is no data for that interval. The pink curve does not influence the result in any way http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-since-2003.png
for I am at a loss
Obviously.
Mr Svalgaard now admits the possibility that Dr Evans used a dataset with which Mr Svalgaard disagrees “out of ignorance”. If that were so, then Mr Svalgaard’s allegation of “almost fraudulent” conduct on Mr Evans’ part was inappropriate.
That the possibility exists does not mean that it is plausible. It is possible I win the lottery tomorrow, but not plausible. And I consider it scientific fraud to base a prediction on a false statement. Perhaps your bar is set a lot lower, like “it doesn’t matter if you lie as long as it furthers the cause”.
It is unscientific, as well as immature, to accuse Dr Evans of a serious, imprisonable, criminal offense if there is a possibility that he acted out of ignorance. The more likely possibility, of course, is that Mr Svalgaard’s allegation, both in its original form alleging the deliberate use of incorrect data and in its amended form admitting a less criminal possibility, is false and without foundation.
What a bunch of nonsense. I had originally thought more of you, but now, I must downgrade my opinion.
Mr Svalgaard says the graph at the website – and one assumes he means the graph at the URL I had previously provided – was not by Krivova but by Wang et al.
The website says so. Do your homework. Click on the ‘About’ tab on the website
http://lasp.colorado.edu/lisird/tsi/historical_tsi.html
The word “Wang” does not appear on the page anywhere.
it states: “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.”
Now, as I showed, LASP is misrepresenting this fact, which is disappointing.
He should mind his language in future, and avoid making any further nasty allegations about Dr Evans.
Mr Evans [and you for that matter] will be met with what you deserve. As the German proverb says ‘Jedem das Seine’.
Monckton of Brenchley says:
June 29, 2014 at 1:09 pm
desire of scientists to verify a new hypothesis and to falsify it if it is wrong.
The hypothesis does not matter as long as the data used is grossly wrong. Garbage in, garbage out.
Dr Norman Page says:
June 29, 2014 at 12:51 pm
For a forecast of the possible coming cooling based on the 60 and 1000 year quasi- periodicities in the temperature data and using the neutron count- 10 Be data as the best proxy for solar activity …
As I pointed out to you upthread, there is no 1,000 yr cycle:
“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”
Russ Steele says:
June 29, 2014 at 12:52 pm
Reblogged this on The Next Grand Minimum and commented:
David Archibald considers David Evans’ notch-filter model is a big advance in climate science. Validation is coming very soon.
You mean that falsification is coming very soon. Garbage in, garbage out.
Bernie Hutchins clarified: “Here is my point. If you were to enter a room and find the light bulb NOT glowing, would you suppose that someone had arranged to provide a cancelling current of exactly the right frequency, the right amplitude, and 180 degrees out of phase to cancel an original supply?”
…and then also invoke sky radiation in a way that temporarily bent your correction function in a way that once the radiation subsided seemed to make your output plummet in the future.
Fixed link of Leif:
http://www.leif.org/research/LASP-Screencap-2014-06-29.png
He was off by a thousand years.
Someone please help me out here.
I stated up thread that it looked to me like the TSI difference in question is about 1 W/m2. If that is true, what’s all the hubbub about?
NikFromNYC says:
June 29, 2014 at 1:53 pm
Fixed link of Leif:
http://www.leif.org/research/LASP-Screencap-2014-06-29.png
He was off by a thousand years.
Thanks!
Too bad Mr Monckton has not dared click on it.
Tom in Florida says:
June 29, 2014 at 2:05 pm
I stated up thread that it looked to me like the TSI difference in question is about 1 W/m2. If that is true, what’s all the hubbub about?
It is about scientific honesty [or rather lack thereof]
Leif I clearly referred to the 1000 year quasi periodicity in the temperature data. Readers are invited to see see Figs 4 and 3 at
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2013/10/commonsense-climate-science-and.html
and judge for themselves.
I use the neutron count mainly to look at the question of where we stand relative to solar activity over the last 3 or 4 cycles and what that may augur for the future.
Mr Svalgaard is using incorrect data. Plainly he has an agenda. The Krivova graph to which I had referred, demonstrating that Dr Evans’ data were remarkably similar and that, therefore, it was inappropriate for Mr Svalgaard to accuse Dr Evans of having deliberately used incorrect data. The Krivova graph, the URL of which I had supplied, is not, repeat not, by Wang et al. No doubt Wang et al. better suits Mr Svalgaard’s attempt to smear Dr Evans with his false allegation of fraudulent use of incorrect data. But who is it that is using incorrect data?
To remind Mr Svalgaard, the URL of the Krivova graph, given by me earlier in this thread, is here:
http://lasp.colorado.edu/home/sorce/data/tsi-data/
There is no reference to Wang et al. anywhere on that page. So Mr Svalgaard appears to have difficulty in reading, because I had specifically referred him to the Krivova graph. He even quotes me on the subject:
“Mr Svalgaard says the graph at the website – and one assumes he means the graph at the URL I had previously provided – was not by Krivova but by Wang et al.”
His response: “The website says so. Do your homework. Click on the ‘About’ tab on the website
http://lasp.colorado.edu/lisird/tsi/historical_tsi.html”
Notice that that is an entirely different URL. And if Mr Svalgaard could not be bothered to do enough homework to check the thread to find the URL, he had only to go to the SORCE website and type in “Krivova plot” and the graph would appear at once. But no.
I agree with vukcevik earlier: Mr Svalgaard is not good at apologizing when – as often – he is caught out not knowing his own subject.
I have given Mr Svalgaard every opportunity to apologize to Dr Evans but he has chosen not to take it. I shall now consult the statistician, verify Mr Svalgaard’s employment status and, if any academic institution is employing him, refer his allegation against Dr Evans to the appropriate authorities as an instance of gross and persisting research misconduct.
Dr Norman Page says:
June 29, 2014 at 2:23 pm
Leif I clearly referred to the 1000 year quasi periodicity in the temperature data.
So you no longer claim they are solar related. Progress!