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
phlogiston says:
June 29, 2014 at 4:38 pm
Steven Mosher says:
June 28, 2014 at 7:32 am
Looks like the cooling will be within normal bounds.
Therefore it can’t be the sun.
Note the similarity.
The warming we have seen is within normal bounds
Therefore it can’t be the co2
I have to say I’m with Steven Mosher on this one.
I agree with him that neither CO2 nor insolation are drivers of climate change in the direct linear sense.
The correlation of both with temperatures is too poor for that to be feasible….”
//////////////////////////////////////////
What is not often appreciated is that it would not take a substantial drop in temperatures to really throw the cat amongst the pidgeons.
According to the satellite data, we have already todate seen a drop of about 0.1degC since the high of 1998. If there is a further drop of about 0.15degC to 0.18degC between now and say mid to tate 2020s then we would find ourselves in a remarkable position.
If that were to occur (via any mechanism whether solar or otherwise), we would find that the temperature anomaly, according to the satellite data set, would be about the same as it was in 1979.
This would mean that over the entire period of the satellite data set, say by then just under 50 years, there would have been no measured warming.
This would be remarkable since in that time (assuming a BAU emission scenario) about 805 of all manmade emiisions (ie. emissions from 1979 through to late 2020s) would have occured and during all of that there would be no measured increase in temperature assessed by our most sophisticated and advanced temperature measurement devices.
If that were to come to pass (and I am not predicting the future) it would make the case for AGW very difficult indeed.
So we are not talking about the need to see huge drops in temperature, but rather quite a modest drop of about 0.12degC per decade (may be a little more) for a period of about 12 years (may be a little longer), and the case for AGW, in the light of observational evidence, would be very difficult.
So we may get to see, in the not too distance future.
@Anthony
that was funny!
leif says
claimsguy says:
June 30, 2014 at 7:55 am
Does the variation in TSI (such as it is) occur at wavelengths that are meaningful to surface temperatures?
As TSI encompassed ALL wavelengths it also covers wavelengths that influence the surface temperatures. Now, it is possible, and there have been hints – but no conclusive evidence, that variations at some wavelengths are opposite to [and thus compensate for] variations at other wavelengths such as to produce less variation of the total. We would expect such variations themselves to vary with solar activity, so TSI or the sunspot number or any other indicator of solar activity would also be a proxy for those variations.
henry@leif
it seems to me that you have changed your position on this….which is good. You know or are beginning to realize what is happening TOA. Paradoxically, earth is getting cooler, when the sun is getting brighter.
FYI
according to me the sun is more brighter now here, as seen in South Africa, more white than I have ever seen it before. It is full winter and the rays are still burning me on my head; I have to wear a hat during my midday walk with the dogs.
There are some typos in my recent post, the most noteworthy being “805” which should have read “80%”, ie.,
“This would be remarkable since in that time (assuming a BAU emission scenario) about 80% of all manmade emissions…..
I think the biggest issue here was that Monckton took issue with the word “fraudulent.” He is not an American so maybe he is unaware that “fraudulent” has other meanings (in America, don’t know about Mother England) meanings other than fraud for financial gain. I’ve read this entire thread, top to bottom, was following it from the moment the article was first posted. When the first time “fraudulent” was used, the context I garnered was more like “cock up” or “bunkum” or “sheesh what a mess this is.” I was shocked at Monckton’s reaction and why he kept coming back again and again about “fraudulent.” Then it hit me. Monckton’s definition of fraudulent is perhaps different than what was initially intended? He has mentioned he is close with Dr. Evans and his family. No wonder the bristles. And certainly no slight towards Lord Monckton when I make the “not an American” comment. I have nothing but respect (and heritage) in regards to the British Isles and their peoples. And their wonderful language of which I am an admitted hack.
Bottom line, all three parties have acted much like they have all along. Svalgaard made a blunt observation, Monckton took offense, Eschenbach came in with his usual wordy defenses, then none was willing to back down. I think the only reason people are freaked out is because the three of these men went at each other, and did so publicly. Me? I wasn’t shocked in the least. Some of the most opinionated firebrands I have ever met were men involved in the sciences. I remember well the fiery flame wars that went on in Usenet groups back in the day: alt.insert-topic-here or sci.whatever. Holy cow, there were flames flying for years on end, back and forth, threads like this one that lasted for years. It was often surprising to discover that the arguers were quite friendly towards one another outside their given rants; many times they worked at competing universities. So maybe folks are simply unused to seeing men get really passionate and really have a go at one another. Duh.
For the record, hands down, the most well written articles at WUWT are by both Mr. Eschenbach and Lord Monckton (I mean IMHO). I say this because there were outside statements that seemed to impugn and disparage this fact (at least where Mr. Eschenbach was concerned). They are both wonderfully enjoyable to read, reflecting excellent grammar, rich and compelling styles with knowledge of the topic. I admit that I am no scientist, but I have had deep interest in many things under the sun. Because of WUWT I now know about feedbacks, negative feedbacks, and now notches? Hoo boy, gonna have to get busy and find out what the heck notches are. But that’s it. This is most certainly an educational blog. I will never grasp all the bigger stuff, but I am certainly building a core understanding of the basics, and that makes me a powerful witness when discussing “Global Warming” with others who rely on the television for their info.
So, thanks for taking me back to the good ol’ days! A trip down memory lane. See you at alt.abortion.religion.politics.science and we can all have a big time.
HenryP says:
June 30, 2014 at 9:57 am
it seems to me that you have changed your position on this….which is good. You know or are beginning to realize what is happening TOA.
No, that is a misrepresentation. The fact is that the variations of UV [which have attracted the most attention in some circles] are still a small fraction [about 1/7] of the variation of TSI in terms of energy. The variation of the UV follows the solar cycle faithfully, as you can see here: http://lasp.colorado.edu/lisird/lya/ or here http://lasp.colorado.edu/lisird/mgii/ and so also follows the overall variation of TSI.
Gary says:
June 30, 2014 at 10:17 am
I’m an American who went to grad school in England. I never noticed a difference in usage or understanding of “fraudulent” between the US & UK. The OED definitions are similar to those in American dictionaries:
“Obtained, done by, or involving deception, especially criminal deception: (eg) fraudulent share dealing”
“Unjustifiably claiming or being credited with particular accomplishments or qualities: (eg) fraudulent psychics”
leif says
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/28/a-cool-question-answered/#comment-1673355
henry says
your graphs do not show me the variation in the UV wavelength range of particles that never ever reaches earth because these photons react with the oxygen, nitrogen and water TOA
HenryP says:
June 30, 2014 at 10:59 am
your graphs do not show me the variation in the UV wavelength range of particles that never ever reaches earth because these photons react with the oxygen,
Look up what the wavelength of the Lyman-alpha radiation, and UV is not ‘particles’.
I have read this entire thread. !
Thank you George E Smith for elucidating known-unknowns
Thank you cynical_scientist for constructive criticism.
Bucket o’ hubris for Eschenbach, lsvalgaard & Monckton.
T.A.G.H.L.A.Y!
milodonharlani says:
June 30, 2014 at 10:50 am
“Obtained, done by, or involving deception
Seems to apply in this case. ‘almost fraudulent’ = ‘almost deceptive’
But as the saying goes: “never ascribe to malice what can be explained by stupidity”
@leif
well, well, in order get the cool question answered, at least won’t you enlighten us with your theory as to why earth is currently cooling?
HenryP says:
June 30, 2014 at 11:32 am
well, well, in order get the cool question answered, at least won’t you enlighten us with your theory as to why earth is currently cooling?
There is no good evidence that it is. Oh wait, today was cooler than yesterday, sorry.
Monckton of Brenchley says:
June 30, 2014 at 8:23 am
“Let us summarize. ”
———————————————————————————————————————–
Your “summary” of course omits that it was YOU who first started the personal insults by referring to a person who has earned the designation of PhD as “Mr”. Since you know who Dr Svalgaard is the only reason for the deliberate and continued use of it is to attempt an insult. Apparently your childish emotions got the better of you. Here is your first post on this thread:
Monckton of Brenchley says:
June 28, 2014 at 11:16 am
“Mr Svalgaard should beware …”
And was it not you who made the following insults:
Monckton of Brenchley says:
June 28, 2014 at 2:44 pm
“He is a quack, not a scientist.”
Monckton of Brenchley says:
June 28, 2014 at 6:16 pm
“Mr Svalgaard can no longer be taken seriously as a scientist.
You may think you are appointed by God Almighty to be judge, jury and hangman on these matters but IMO you have simply shown yourself to be a pompous ass.
Leif says
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/28/a-cool-question-answered/#comment-1673400
henry says
we have supplied you with the proof that earth is cooling:
in fact multiple postings by various people on this thread,
e.g.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/28/a-cool-question-answered/#comment-1673313
If you donot answer the question
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/28/a-cool-question-answered/#comment-1673396
it could be that most onlookers would assume you have an agenda.
Tom in Florida says:
June 30, 2014 at 11:48 am
Your “summary” of course omits that it was YOU who first started the personal insults by referring to a person who has earned the designation of PhD as “Mr”.
Referring to each other as Mr is fine with me, which is why I did refer to Mr Evans and Mr Monckton the same way.
HenryP says:
June 30, 2014 at 11:50 am
If you do not answer the question
[…] it could be that most onlookers would assume you have an agenda.
If they are dumb enough to assume that, let them.
lsvalgaard says:
June 30, 2014 at 11:15 am
Malice & stupidity are not mutually exclusive.
lsvalgaard says:
June 30, 2014 at 11:52 am
“Referring to each other as Mr is fine with me, which is why I did refer to Mr Evans and Mr Monckton the same way.”
———————————————————————————————————————
Thank you for that, so I will withdraw my objection to it. However, my reaction to the other insults still stand.
“””””…..A Guy Named Jack (@JackHBarnes) says:
June 30, 2014 at 12:12 am
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…….”””””
Evidently I need to re-issue that legal disclaimer:-
For the record:- I am not now; nor have I ever been, George Elwood Smith; co-winner of the 2009 Nobel Prize in Physics, as co-inventor of the CCD (Charged Coupled Device).
He had a distinguished career at the Bell Telephone Laboratories, where he did his CCD work.
I have not met Dr. Smith, but for some decades, our career paths crossed with some regularity. I would go to register at some conference; perhaps the IEEE Convention on Electron Devices, only to be told:- “Well Dr. Smith you are already registered, and there are several notes for you on the message board.”
Well I’m NOT a Dr. and I’m not him, so I still had to register.
There are some quite distinguished persons, who DO know both of us, personally and professionally; including one, who is in my humble opinion, the US scientist most deserving of the Nobel Physics Prize, who has not yet received one. I won’t name him, but he is one of the Giants of the history of LEDs.
Back in those days, there was at least a third George E. Smith, who was a director of Research, at another major Electronics Company. When I worked at Fairchild Semi-conductor, in the late 1960s, there were three George E. Smiths in the Company Employee phone book.
With a name like mine, it’s almost as good as being anonymous. I’m already registered at half the motels on earth; well maybe for only an hour.
My favorite namesake, was a young man, newly married, who was assigned to the US battleship Oklahoma, and sent to Pearl Harbor, before he could even have a honeymoon with his high school sweetheart, and new bride.
Oklahoma was torpedoed, and capsized in battleship row, and George E. Smith was thrown over the side into the burning harbor. He swam ashore, on Ford Island, and survived; horribly disfigured by his burns.
So when his bride arrived, her handsome Prince, was physically changed. She stuck with him for the rest of their lives; still high school sweethearts. I haven’t checked recently, if either of them is still alive, and still living in Oklahoma.
I refuse to ever watch that pseudo Pearl Harbor, piece of crap, starring that dirtbag Alec Baldwin as Gen. Jimmie Dolittle. The cheek of that piece of human detritus, masquerading as a hero, makes my flesh creep; and why they had to make up some phony baloney love story, to attract women filmgoers, is beyond me. They could have included the real life love story of sailor George E. Smith of Oklahoma, and his high school sweetheart.
So for Jack Barnes; thanx for the sentiment; but I’m the other guy. But as I said, there are credible folks, who know both of us. There is a somewhat exaggerated short bio out there somewhere. The author somewhat massaged the reality. Nowadays, it seems, you really can’t believe anything you read.
Tom in Florida says:
June 30, 2014 at 12:23 pm
However, my reaction to the other insults still stand.
And thank you for that.
A Guy Named Jack (@JackHBarnes) said in part June 30, 2014 at 12:12 am
“ 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 …”
Good for him. Actually I believe that the rules for the Prize say it can be shared by no more than 3 persons/entities, so I suspect he got at least 1/3 of the Physics prize, not 1/4 of it.
Oh – but how silly of me. If you are a climate alarmist, the Peace Prize to the IPCC remained viable at very high dilutions. Rules ARE made to be broken – for a good cause. In fact, perhaps homeopathic multiplication applies.
george e. smith says:
June 30, 2014 at 12:23 pm
There may have been a George E. Smith on Oklahoma, but the survivor I knew named George Smith was George A. Smith, who did swim amid burning oil but wasn’t disfigured, didn’t marry his high school sweetheart & didn’t live in the State of Oklahoma:
http://www.theolympian.com/2013/09/15/2725138/pearl-harbor-vet-from-tenino-remembered.html
Could not agree with you more about Baldwin’s sickening portrayal of General Jimmy Doolittle, who was a friend of my brother & whose splendid grandkids are friends of mine, one of whom also lives in Washington State.
Steve Keohane says,
“Too bad UV can’t get through the atmosphere, the plants need it to live.”
Um, no,
“Fortunately for us, the upper atmosphere of our wonderful planet filters out most of the really high energy light before it reaches us and the plants.
What is leftover consists of about
4% UV,
52% IR or weaker light, and
44% visible light.
All of this light is available to plants to use, but they only use visible light in the process of photosynthesis.”
“””””…..
Eli Rabett says:
June 30, 2014 at 12:40 am
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
…………………. “”””
change authors.
“””””……
Willis Eschenbach says:
June 30, 2014 at 12:45 am
…………………………….
……………………………
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…….””””
Well I don’t want to exclude too much of Willis’s comment; and I did want to specifically acknowledge Eli’s comment, by concatenating it with what Willis followed up with.
To emphasize what Willis opined;…….I absolutely DO agree….. with Willis, that the Temperature is controlled by clouds, and other phenomena, and I have already said that IMHO, this is why any 70mK or so consequence of the cyclic TSI variation, gets hidden from Willis’s search for its signature.
For the very same reason, Eli’s mentioned TSI UV variation, gets expunged by the feedback.
Electronic Amplifier negative feedback designers, fully understand that as applied, in that discipline, negative feedback applied from output, to input, cares not a jot what kinds of pestilence sneaks into the system, to create spurious outputs.
Negative feedback squishes, all perturbations that are not a part of the actual input signal; harmonic distortion, intermodulation distortion, random noise, even power supply variations, however they sneak into the system.
Now the climate system, is NOT an electronic feedback amplifier.
In my view, TSI (the sun) ….IS NOT….. the INPUT SIGNAL…… to the earth climate system.
IT’S THE DAMN POWER SUPPLY !! The sun simply provides the energy needed by the earth system to twiddle all the knobs, and eventually enable let the system settle to a rather well regulated comfortable living condition.
So the 0.1% TSI 11 year cyclic variation, is a power supply perturbation; not an input signal aka the system set point.
Likewise, Eli’ Rabbett’s UV variation in TSI, is something akin to a noisy electrolytic capacitor kicking up a fuss, with random internal breakdowns. Yes that will disturb the system, but the feedback will squish that too.
So what the hell, is the set point ??
Well that consists mostly of the physical, chemical, and biological properties of the H2O molecule, in all its three (common) phases.
The freezing/melting point ; the boiling/condensation properties; the latent heats of phase changes, etc., all conspire to define a range of conditions which the whole system is comfortable with.
If we mess with the CO2, or the aerosols, or the GCRs, or the solar charged particles, or anything else, the water molecule will re-arrange its distribution, in the various phases, including clouds, and ice/snow, to right the ship, and restore the stable state.
The gain is not infinite, so all perturbations are not reduced to zero, but the whole system operates against any and all disturbing influences, no matter their cause. We may not see a signature of some, or any of them, because the feedback simply wants to restore the stable state, and doesn’t care much who caused any ruckus. I believe that is why Willis’s 11 year solar cycle, appears to not leave a track.
Now the whole system, is clearly not immune to all abuses. Ice ages and comet crashes, demonstrate that a big enough event can take some getting used to.
But yes, I believe the cloud system is in control. I think Dr. Roy Spencer holds similar views.
That 104 degree bend in the water molecules, is what makes life on earth, possible, and comfortable.
Taylor B says:
June 30, 2014 at 1:12 pm
Plants appear green because chlorophyll uses the red & blue ends of the visible spectrum in photosynthesis rather than the green middle.