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
The release of code and data serves a very important function, proof of honesty.
We know very well what it is like to be held hostage to data of unknown provenance, of questionable sourcing and inscrutable processing.
Does anyone else remember reading how the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit had apparently tossed out their raw data? Which conveniently barred replication and confirmation, leaving manipulated “data” that went to further processing, and likely still more processing to come, that we must accept on faith.
We are confounded by those withholding info, whose work we are to trust, as they are trustworthy scientists. Yet we complain. There are those who withhold as their work is proprietary and provides them income such as Piers Corbyn. Yet we complain.
For a long time we were told GISTEMP was released, anyone could download and run the code. Which wasn’t exactly true. Thence came the Clear Climate Code project, where for “clarity” they were converting it to Python. And discovered mistakes, headaches, flawed processing. It was a spectacular project. When here on WUWT we would ask for working code, many would pop up and point to CCC as the release of GISTEMP from GISS. I remember reading CCC reported how their code was so good, GISS was supposed to switch over to it.
GISS went to a new version of GISTEMP, hid away the code, CCC couldn’t rewrite to the new version. GISS would have to be trusted or else, CCC went under the bus.
We are told Dr. David Evans will release code and data “in the near future”. But even then, how will we know it is THE info used for his predictions? Archibald says he has a beta of a spreadsheet. What shall Evans really release, with what final tweaks and tunings to “prove” it works, that it will “predict” trends growing more evident with time, and be verified within mere years?
We hold ourselves to higher standards than the opposition. They withhold info, we complain. One of us withholds info, we should complain louder.
We should not accept the honesty of scientists without question, as we have been burned for doing so, multiple times. If Dr. Evans wants our trust, then he should show there is no deception, and release the code and data now.
Sparks says:
June 29, 2014 at 9:13 pm
Try this Leif, a 20% reduction of the solar maximum sunspot number after 1945 input into Dr Evans model does not effect the notch, nor does it effect the model output because the notch refers to ZERO sunspot activity.
Mr Evans’ error is to postulate a [non-existing] sharp drop of TSI from 2003-2005 until now, and based on that he predicts a 0.5 degree drop in temperatures. This has nothing to do with the sunspot number after 1945.
Sparks says:
June 29, 2014 at 9:13 pm
Try this Leif, a 20% reduction of the solar maximum sunspot number after 1945 input into Dr Evans model does not effect the notch, nor does it effect the model output because the notch refers to ZERO sunspot activity.
Then neither would a 30% reduction, or a 50% reduction, or a 70% reduction, or a 90% reduction, or a 100% reduction, right? So Mr Evans’ can predict with no input whatsoever. Is that what you are peddling” or at what percentage does the reduction matter?
lsvalgaard says:
June 29, 2014 at 9:18 pm
Mr Evans used a hypothetical Influence “x”, which can be interpreted as the suns polarity at rest, or when it is moving, both have an influence on earth. you know this to be a correct hypothesis, don’t call an idea “fraudulent” out of spite or for what ever reason!
Correct Leif,
Lets short out all data values, lets study it from ZERO.
Monckton of Brenchley says:
June 29, 2014 at 6:16 pm
As I’ve said to Mr Svalgaard, there is no advantage to Dr Evans in fabricating data
Then why does Mr Evans fabricate data? Even the data he claims is Lean 2000 has been tampered with and doctored into shape. Here are some TSI reconstructions http://www.leif.org/research/Monckton-Flaw-2.png Take a good look at them and don’t be like the cardinals who refused to look through Galileo’s telescope to avoid seeing an inconvenient truth.
What you are seeing [should you have the courage to look] is at the bottom Lean’s original reconstruction from her 2000 paper http://www.leif.org/EOS/Lean2000.pdf . The upper panel shows that reconstruction put on the modern SORCE scale [by subtracting 5.5 W/m2], the black curve. Above that is the Krivova reconstruction in pink, and above that, in dark blue, what is used in Mr Evans’ graph [and called ‘Lean 2000’]. The doctoring consists of removing the varying background, which should not have been there to begin with – so is not necessarily a bad thing, but then it should not be called Lean 2000. The doctoring should have been mentioned up front. As both Krivova and Lean used the flawed Group Sunspot Number [GSN] as input to their reconstruction, all values before about 1885 are too low [because the GSN is too low by about 50%]. The pink and blue curves should be moved up such that all the minima approximately are at the same level.
Sparks says:
June 29, 2014 at 9:37 pm
Mr Evans used a hypothetical Influence “x”, which can be interpreted as the suns polarity at rest, or when it is moving, both have an influence on earth
This is not even a hypothesis, it is just nonsense. I’m sure not even Mr Evans or his sidekick Monckton would subscribe to such nonsense.
From Sparks on June 29, 2014 at 9:45 pm:
That is a valid test of the model. With an input of zero TSI, it should show a very minimal rate of warming.
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
June 29, 2014 at 10:09 pm
From Sparks on June 29, 2014 at 9:45 pm:
“Lets short out all data values, lets study it from ZERO”
That is a valid test of the model. With an input of zero TSI, it should show a very minimal rate of warming.
Yes, totally dominated by factor ‘x’.
lsvalgaard says:
June 29, 2014 at 10:04 pm
“Then why does Mr Evans fabricate data?”
He doesn’t fabricate data he is using the available data.
dbstealey says:
June 29, 2014 at 4:31 pm
The untimely death of the late great Dr. Crichton could be proof that there is no God. Or it could be the Creator’s way of saying, all you lesser mortals who thirst after the right path are on your own. The shining light of truth, justice & the way has been snatched from you, so you’re on your own against the forces of darkness.
Sparks says:
June 29, 2014 at 10:17 pm
“Then why does Mr Evans fabricate data?”
He doesn’t fabricate data he is using the available data.
As Willis and I showed upthread:
Willis Eschenbach says: June 29, 2014 at 8:48 pm
Mr Evans does indeed fabricate and invent data. End of discussion.
No Milo, he had cancer, but I agree I loved his books, and he had a science background too.
lsvalgaard says:
June 29, 2014 at 10:08 pm
“This is not even a hypothesis, it is just nonsense. I’m sure not even Mr Evans or his sidekick Monckton would subscribe to such nonsense.”
This is nonsense too you’re just doing a “because I said so” song and dance..
Sparks says:
June 29, 2014 at 10:26 pm
“This is not even a hypothesis, it is just nonsense. I’m sure not even Mr Evans or his sidekick Monckton would subscribe to such nonsense.”
This is nonsense too you’re just doing a “because I said so” song and dance..
Trying to fit in with the rest of you.
bushbunny says:
June 29, 2014 at 10:24 pm
Yes, the good doctor & great gentle giant genius died of lymphoma. Even his many ex-wives didn’t hate him. Were he still with us, the fight against CACA would be easier. Maybe that’s why he was untimely snatched from among us.
lsvalgaard says:
June 29, 2014 at 10:21 pm
“As Willis and I showed upthread:”
You’ve been throwing “Anthropogenic global warming skeptics” under the bus for years, let them speak, let them have a say.
Sparks says:
June 29, 2014 at 10:17 pm
Actually, Dr. Evans himself stated that he made up ~900 days worth of data. See here for confirmation.
w.
lsvalgaard says:
June 29, 2014 at 10:33 pm
This is nonsense too you’re just doing a “because I said so” song and dance..
Leif says: Trying to fit in with the rest of you.
You’re not trying hard enough!
Sparks says:
June 29, 2014 at 10:46 pm
This is nonsense too you’re just doing a “because I said so” song and dance..
Leif says: Trying to fit in with the rest of you.
You’re not trying hard enough!
You are better at producing nonsense than I am.
Anthony, This is senseless bickering again, David Evans is on our side, and all those trolls following this thread, will be rubbing their hands in glee. They’ll use your negative comments to support their arguments not just against individuals but also about the alleged faults in skeptical hypothesis as wrong. Wake up AND CONTACT DAVID.
REPLY: My negative comments? I haven’t commented on this thread nor did I write the article – Anthony
Willis Eschenbach says:
June 29, 2014 at 10:42 pm
“Actually, Dr. Evans himself stated that he made up ~900 days worth of data. See here for confirmation.”
Did Dr. Evans fabricate the data or are you inferring that he did through the data he used?
lsvalgaard says:
June 29, 2014 at 10:49 pm
Sparks says:
June 29, 2014 at 10:46 pm
This is nonsense too you’re just doing a “because I said so” song and dance..
Leif says: Trying to fit in with the rest of you.
You’re not trying hard enough!
You are better at producing nonsense than I am.
It funnier when I said it thank you very much!
*was
Sparks says:
June 29, 2014 at 11:03 pm
Sparks, if you still have questions, let me suggest that you should ask Dr. Evans. I’ve said my piece on the subject, and linked to it above. You are more than welcome to read it again if you are still in mystery about my position, as it is explained quite clearly in that comment.
In addition, you might also read what Leif has said on the subject, as he is also quite clear on the facts.
My best to you, and I hope you find the answer to your question.
w.