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
Sorry Anthony, it was aimed at other posters not you personally.
bushbunny says:
June 29, 2014 at 8:58 pm
bushbunny, first, you say “who cares”, when I think you actually mean “I don’t care”. However, there are obviously people who do care about honest transparent science, even if you and many others don’t. I’m one of them. There are others. So if you are not interested, that’s fine, just skip the thread.
Second, I started this all out over at JoNova’s by publicly contacting David at the time of his second of what are now eight posts on the subject of his “notch filter” model. I got little response from him, basically he indicated that I should just stop asking questions of him until he published the secret doctrines.
So … I started out by doing what you’ve asked. I contacted him, just as you suggest. Paraphrased, I was told to be a good boy, be quiet, stop asking impertinent questions, and wait for the master to make up his mind to publish.
As you might imagine, I’ve taken a pass on his invitation … except of course for not posting over at his site. I told him then that there was no use in having anything to do with him until he published, so I wouldn’t be bothering him at all until then.
Do you have any more suggestions for me, bushbunny? Because your first one was overtaken by events long before you made the suggestion …
w.
As a layman reading this exchange. I think we can safely retire the Honorific “Dr” from anyone who isn’t a medical Dr, as it is clearly not given any respected by those who carry the title themselves. The attempts to demean, on both sides of this exchange, has been demeaning to both sides. If ever there was an example of wrestling with pigs in mud, the comments to this article has gone there.
I also find it Ironic that the esteemed commentators roundly ignore the two comments of the only polite adult in the room. I guess when you have changed the fabric of society, proved that your strategy was sound, and won a Nobel prize in hard science having proven expertise in the space science arena, no one wants to reply to you during a self destructive flame war.
Willis you suffer from graphamania, and maybe if you read my further comments, you will understand. I don’t like your posts and rarely comment on them because your are an arrogant know all. This distracts from no doubt your ability and scientific contributions. You tend to be rather precious not caring about the political side of AGW, to your chagrin, so long as it doesn’t involve any of your papers or research. I do care about David and his contributions over the years and he shouldn’t be sidelined like you and others have done. So good night, and forever hold your piece.
A Guy Named Jack (@JackHBarnes) says:
OK, I give up … who is this mysterious paragon of virtue with the Nobel prize?
w.
PS—Ever since watching the antics of the unlamented Steven Chu, I piss on Nobel Prizes as any measure of a man’s ability to understand practical subjects. But I am very curious who among the commenters has one, and what it was awarded for.
George.e.schmit says
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/28/a-cool-question-answered/#comment-1672783
henry says
what I have tried to explain is that the declining solar polar field strengths allow for more of the most energetic type particles to be released from the sun. If they were to hit us directly we would die. So the atmosphere catches these, to form ozone, peroxides and nitrogenous oxides. In its turn more ozone & others deflect more SW radiation to space, when there is more of it, due to absorption and subsequent re-radiation.
To add clouds top this mix as well becomes total chaos in terms of results.
Willis,
I stand to be corrected but, I believe that George Elwood Smith (born May 10, 1930) is an American scientist, applied physicist, and co-inventor of the charge-coupled device. He was awarded a one-quarter share in the 2009 Nobel Prize in Physics for “the invention of an imaging semiconductor circuit—the CCD sensor”. (wiki bio, stating it to be clear and not misleading in advance) attempted to twice join the conversation but sadly he wasn’t forceful enough to gain the attention of such illuminating conversationalist as those involved like yourself while busy mixing mudd.
Jack Barnes
PS It Is the Elwood part of his name that makes me smile, and for a movie almost as funny as some of the exchanges in this thread.
bushbunny says:
June 29, 2014 at 11:46 pm
OK. You don’t like my writing style. Got it. I wasn’t aware you were an authority on style, and I’m the most popular guest author on WUWT, so I must be doing something right … so I fear that anonymous opinions on my writing style are of little interest to me.
One thing I’ve found for sure after writing 500 posts to date … no matter what I write or how I write it, someone will tell me that the way I’ve written it is wrong. This time it’s you. I’m sure you can tell how important that is in my life.
And yet here you are, still reading my comments and commenting on them … conflicted much? If you dislike me, and you dislike my writing style as well, I have no problem with that. Read something else.
Next, dear lady, you suggested that I talk directly to David Evans. I had done so, long before your comment, and gotten no satisfaction. Sorry you don’t like my telling you about that, but you’re the one who made the suggestion.
I fear this makes little sense, and I’m not willing to guess what you mean.
I’m sure you do care about David, and that does you credit. Unfortunately, I do care about transparent science, and he should definitely be sidelined for what he has done in that regard.
However, I fear you overestimate my abilities—it’s far beyond my poor power to sideline anyone. For example, David has paid no attention to me at all. The internet is funny that way … he gets to do what he wants to do, I can’t “sideline” him in any way.
NOR AM I TRYING TO SIDELINE HIM. I’m trying to get him to stop hiding the data, code, tests, and other information. And I’m pointing out scientific problems with his work … but that’s the core of science. Science works because we all find problems in each other’s work. And no, the process is not always full of sweetness and light. I’m sorry you don’t like that, but if so, why are you here?
Because ugly old science, that’s what we do at WUWT—for example, whenever I post something, everyone does their best to poke holes in my scientific claims. And as you might have noticed, often they do so in a most aggressive or unpleasant manner … so what? That’s science, and people are passionate about it.
And I do the same, poking holes in David’s claims. I’d have been nicer about it if he wasn’t taking unfair advantage by refusing to reveal his data, code, tests and all the rest.
Here, people are passionate about things like transparent, honest science, and as a result, we call people on it when they do what David is doing, when they hide their results and refuse to show their data. But that’s just science too.
So if you don’t like that ugly scientific process, bushbunny, go find a knitting blog or something more to your liking, where everyone will always be lovely and nice to each other. This ain’t that place …
Dang, lady, “holding my piece” sounds mondo kinky, but I’ll give it a try …
w.
For what is said hereand promptly disposed of here and here
an astute Frenchman would have advised
A wise man is above any insults which can be thrown at him. The best answer is patience and moderation.
Willis Eschenbach says:
June 30, 2014 at 12:21 am
bushbunny says:
June 29, 2014 at 11:46 pm
Seriously Willis, Can’t you hold your tongue?
Why pick on the commenter “bushbunny”?
There is no reason for your “verbal overkill” and frankly it’s embarrassing!
Life is odd. George E Smith is on this thread trying to be heard, while on twitter tonight I am exchanging comments with Marc Andreessen, who founded Netscape and the WWW browsers as we know them.
Life is short, if you don’t engage, exchange and learn from the process you will never grow. While science is a non stop learning process, I find it ironic that the practitioners of it, feel little to no reason to exercise common courtesy while exchanging between themselves agreements or disagreements.
To be clear, hyperbole is a detraction from facts.
You are missing something. It is well known that climatological variables do not follow the TSI, and the reason is that variation in the TSI is almost entirely in the UV which is absorbed above the tropopause by ozone and oxygen
As Rosanne Roseanandana would say, never mind
A Guy Named Jack (@JackHBarnes) says:
June 30, 2014 at 12:12 am (Edit)
Thanks, Jack. Actually someone did reply to george, but that was all.
As to why Leif and I haven’t responded to george, well, both of us have been under sustained, unrelenting attack by everyone from Lord Monckton to bushbunny and all the other bunnies, both for pointing out David Evans’ newbie error about TSI dropping precipitously, and for pointing out that David Evans is acting just like Michael Mann, hiding his data and code and refusing repeated requests to reveal it.
So we’ve both been picking spitballs off of the wall at a rate of knots, all kinds of ludicrous attacks and improbable claims, complete with total misrepresentations of our positions … and as a result, I fear that george’s contribution didn’t get the attention it may have deserved.
Finally, I did read what george said, and he basically agreed with my hypothesis that the temperature is controlled by clouds and other phenomena … which is good, and is interesting, but other than indirectly it is about 5,000 miles from the topic at hand. So I didn’t respond, as I was focused on the David Evans question.
In any case, welcome to the party, grab a beer and some popcorn …
Regards,
w.
Willis,
Your latest reply to me, is the first I have seen from you on this exchange that made me smile and remember the Willis who makes me smile during your more settled posts. I am a fan of your research, even if I disagree with its approach at times.
I believe your intentional seeking of a single at bat approach to the holy grail in the time series is an intentionally obtuse approach toward proving there is no single smoking gun. Something everyone at this point probably agrees with (one hopes).
It is the intentional, tertiary level engagements that makes one blink.
Best to you and yours, thank you for the thoughtful exchange tonight, and in the past. I believe its been about 5 years since our last conversation.
Sparks says:
June 30, 2014 at 12:35 am
I responded to bushbunny’s suggestion that I should contact David directly. I just re-read it, and I find little to take offense at.
In response, she attacked me for everything under the sun, starting with:
and going on from there … and now I’m the bad guy?
I did not “pick on” bushbunny, sparks. I responded to her rather unpleasant attack.
In any case, she’s a grown woman, and if she doesn’t like what I said, from my history with her I have no doubt that she will say so. I can also assure you that from what I’ve seen of her, she doesn’t need your attempt to be a white knight and ride in and save her from the eeevil Willis, that’s just your last-century assumption.
Truth be told, I kinda like her; near as I can tell she’s tough as nails, she’s a survivor who doesn’t need anyone’s help, and she punches well above her weight class.
So I’m not sure what you’re doing interposing yourself in the middle of the conversation she and I are having—you’re about as useful here as a spare Richard at a wedding …
w.
During the discussion, the global ice reaches the highest state since 1979.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg
Ren, the 96 period looks higher in total max, while the height on this date might be a record. Am I missing anything?
A Guy Named Jack (@JackHBarnes) says:
June 30, 2014 at 12:55 am (Edit)
Thanks, Jack. I’m passionate about honest transparent science, and getting attacked for it by skeptics who should be my allies in the fight has cast a shadow on my response. The hypocrisy is staggering.
If I knew what a “single at bat approach to the holy grail in the time series” is when it’s at home, I could respond … but unfortunately, I understand neither the simile nor the subject. What am I missing?
Again, what is an “intentional, tertiary level engagement”? It sounds like international diplomacy, but I doubt that’s what you mean.
My best to you as well,
w.
vukcevic says:
June 30, 2014 at 12:31 am
Vuk, it appears that you are saying that what I thought was imaginary dialog was actually a chopped up bunch of partial quotes from an interchange on another thread, with the subject of the quotes never mentioned by you in this thread.
My apologies for not recognizing it. However, as presented it was an unrecognizable mashup of the original interchange, which had been clipped, chopped, and carefully arranged to show Leif in a bad light … not my idea of an ethical move, but what do I know?
As to whether I should just sit here and let someone insult me, perhaps your un-named Frenchman would do that, but I’ll pass.
The problem is that unless I point out that bogus accusations are untrue, there are a host of lurkers and commenters out there who will not only be more than happy to believe that the false accusations are true … they’ll also think I didn’t respond because I’m too scared to do so or because I’m unable to disprove their allegations.
So I’ll leave the passivity to the French, I hear rumors they’re good at that although I never believe rumors. And you are certainly welcome to follow his advice.
But me, I’ll go on actively and vigorously defending myself from misquotations, misrepresentations, misunderstandings, and outright lies.
All the best, and thanks for the clarification of what you’d written,
w.
Willis,
“I believe your intentional seeking of a single at bat approach to the holy grail in the time series is an intentionally obtuse approach toward proving there is no single smoking gun. Something everyone at this point probably agrees with (one hopes).”
It is my poor mans attempt of saying that you have proven to one and all, there is no single variable in the data time series that can prove causality for what we see in the data. Volcano’s? Check. Sun Spots? Check, post after post, you have torn down the single solution examples people grasp too.
Your methods have been spot on, and illuminating, in most if not all cases. I am only commenting now, because this stream melted down to the point, even I felt compelled to comment.
Best wishes again,
Jack
Willis Eschenbach says:
June 30, 2014 at 1:29 am
…….
a) I do not advise anyone, let alone Mr Willis Eschenbach, how to comment or respond.
In respect of the Moliere’s quote, via an early advise from my grandfather, I myself try to follow whenever possible.
b) My initial comment was addressed to Lord Monckton; the quotes are accurate extracts from a prolong exchange with Dr. S, who is a robust follow, well able to look after himself, as it has been noted, never fails to do so.
I shall leave it at that.
[snip – way over the top -mod]
I’ve been critical of some of the ideas and methods of Davis Evans, but I think he deserves a lot of credit for raising the profile of the sun. Many are now squinting at plots of TSI measurements, trying to decide the trend, and I’m adding it to temperature, ice extent, sea-level and El Nino as one of the key indicators to monitor.
I’m not naming names but we need arrogant SOBs, you probably have to be one to believe that you can spot things that everyone else has missed.
I find it interesting and disappointing that a post such as this has elicited such wrath – both pro and con – from so many who I have come to respect a great deal over a very long time. I consider you all “fellow travelers”, who (I assume) understand that The Scientific Method is the final arbiter. I point to no-one. I point to everyone.
I have been a professional geophysicist for 40 years, and I am definitely no stranger to technical conflict – at times, extremely bitter. But I’ve tried to rule my technical life based on The Scientific Method as best I could for a very long time (in human terms). I failed that goal numerous times. But, of course, no-one is perfect. One thing I do Know is that hurling insults, insinuations, and charges (groundless or not) upon others, and insisting upon a specific response from the accused is not often fruitful.
Please understand that I absolutely do not discount that GIGO may certainly be in play in this specific case, but please take a few deep breaths – ALL OF YOU. Time will tell (I’m referring to the release of data/code/algorithm, not the prediction). The tenors of some of the comments I’ve read seem to belong more appropriately on the realclimate site. And that’s about the worst insult I can imagine.
On the other hand, my wish for all of you is health, happiness, and everlasting sharp, cogent minds.
Greg Goodman said:
It is quite usual for the phase spectrum estimate to be much more difficult than the amplitude spectrum estimate. That is defintely my experience. The explanation is quite simple.
As you say, after the FT, at each frequency is defined the real and imaginanry parts pf a complex number (r,i).
The amplitude at that frequency is:
amplitude(f) = sqrt(r^2 + i^2)
ie it is Pythagoras and is based on summing, which is well behaved in the presence of noise.
The phase at that frequency is:
phase(f) = atan(i/r)
Any ratio calculation in the presence of noise is unstable. Furthermore there are two other factors: its a tangent function so is difficult to unwrap, particularly when there are fast phase shifts with frequency. For David Evan’s case the phase estimate may also be more difficult because the solar cycle length is non-stationary in the time series. I have an idea how you could fix that for the FT….