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
“Phil. has failed to quote me in full. He has – perhaps by inadvertence – omitted my statement that it would be kinder, should the damage caused by the libels against Dr Evans persist, for him to seek a declaration (which in Scotland we call declarator) that he has not deliberately used incorrect data or fabricated any data. And I had also made it plain that the Australian courts would hear such a case. The new UK defamation law that “Phil.” mentions above does not apply in Australia.
Though the truth defence was called “justification” before, it was different from the new defence of “truth” only in technical respects that have little bearing here. Truth has aye been the standard defence against libel claims in UK law.
And those who falsely allege that Dr Evans had fabricated data (whether this was indeed their opinion or not) would not be able to plead the “opinion” defence (this used to be called “fair comment”. The reason is that they are making an untrue allegation as to fact, as a posting at Joanne Nova’s website on the matter of the spectacular fall in TSI now makes clear to all but the most malevolently prejudiced. Red faces all round, I think.
Can somebody perhaps show me the graph of global temperature or rate of change in temperature versus TSI? The right TSI graph please, if it exists?
Gee whiz, Mr. Monckton, you sure do use a lot of words to say “I gone told your momma you fibbed! Now I done give you a whole lotta chances to take back what you said about my good friend. You didn’t, and now you is gonna get whats you got coming!”
Your journalism career shines through in all of this, like pyrite in a pigsty, following the same journalistic traditions as historical newspaper giants such as New York World, New York Journal, and the historic and contemporary New York Times. A truism for the modern and future ages: “Never pick a fight with people who buy their electrons by the barrel.”
All this argy-bargy and you-did-it-no-you-did-it back and forth debate is a distraction.
The important question is : is the suggested model correct. In my opinion is it not only wrong, it is a blatant distortion of the scientific method. From my reading of this thread it seems that David Evans argued thusly,
1. There is a detectible 11 year periodicity in the sun’s TSI.
2. There is no detectible equivalent variation in the Earth’s climate.
Now some people might argue with 2. but this is what was said. Then, following on,
3. But there should be an 11 year signal.
and therefore
4. So something must be blocking it
and
5. By analogy from circuit theory a “notch filter” is defined which is cutting out the 11 year signal, and by a bit of curve fitting a form is devised for this, which unfortunately requires a postulated unknown force.
Now Dr Svalgaard points out that this curve fitting is using the wrong data, so it is not just a curve fitting, but a meaningless fitting. However I think the whole procedure should never have passed point 3. as this is not an observation nor a justifiable hypothesis – it is a desired outcome, which has been inserted into the scheme, and has no part in science.
It is easy to create models that eliminate cyclic inputs. You can design such models both in time domain or frequency domain, its equal. The real question, is whether a model fits to the empirical measurements and the amount of data in relation to the number of adjustable parameters.
@vukcevik
thanks for those CET graphs
where do you get the insolation data (London) from?
HenryP says:
July 1, 2014 at 7:31 am
where do you get the insolation data (London) from?
Hi Henry
There are number of sources, the simplest is:
http://sunsprite.co.uk/?p=guides/energy_calculator
Solar Irradiance calculator (at the far right on the page)
Select country, town, select any direction and click on the ‘Flat surface’
I think I’ve never heard so loud
The quiet message in a cloud.
I’m sure the Nobel is simply lost in the mail. It’s terribly overdue.
============
Meh, Garbage In, Falsifiable Prediction Out. If it’s not falsified, then we can argue whether he was lucky or prescient.
===============
HenryP said on July 1, 2014 at 7:00 am:
HadCRUT4 global surface mean vs PMOD composite, whole years for temp for trend, all the data with no trend for TSI (too few cycles), TSI offset by mean of all data for alignment. Note WFT does not have the latest PMOD numbers.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1979/to:2014/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1979/to:2014/trend/plot/pmod/offset:-1365.9
Rate of change of temperature vs TSI, with the trend line of the derivative to indicate acceleration.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1979/to:2014/derivative/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1979/to:2014/derivative/trend/plot/pmod/offset:-1365.9
WFT reports “#Least squares trend line; slope = -5.67859e-05 per year”, so if you’re not picky about significance you might say the rate of the rate of temperature increase has been slowing, with even more CO2 in the atmosphere the Earth is not warming as fast.
I repeated with UAH and got “slope = -3.8594e-05 per year”.
Back at HadCRUT4, scaling the temp-related by 5 allows for comparison but would have messed up the derivatives so I presented those first. Here’s the scaling. Note the clear correlation.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1979/to:2014/scale:5/derivative/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1979/to:2014/scale:5/derivative/trend/plot/pmod/offset:-1365.9
Henry@vukcevic
That is a calculator. If there is no actual measurement done,[in London], it is worthless.
In that case, do not be relieved into finding that it is not globally cooling [by looking at CET only]. It is in fact globally cooling. CET just runs opposite the [global] wave. I knew that because I looked at CET, too. I think it has something to do with the weather.More rain and clouds cause a natural GH effect, causing a warming effect during a global cooling period [in London, also Washington DC].
Monckton of Brenchley says:
July 1, 2014 at 6:55 am
And those who falsely allege that Dr Evans had fabricated data
That is a demonstrable fact, already admitted to by Mr Evans himself.
as a posting at Joanne Nova’s website on the matter of the spectacular fall in TSI now makes clear
The other fact is that there is no spectacular fall in TSI as Mr Evans falsely claims.
Red faces all round, I think.
I can’t see yours, but am sure is on the purple side.
I have to say, apart from over-reacting to the demonstrably ridiculous remark by Lief Svalgaard that Dr Evans was “almost fraudulent” Christopher Monkton’s remarks are pretty reaonsable.
I am absolutely amazed at the position Willis is taking on this. He has insisted repeatedly that Dr Evans… “He refuses to reveal the data” (that’s a direct quote)…. when he explicitly has said that he will. If his position were to say that he should not have discussed anything about the model publicly until the data and code was ready to be published then that is one thing, but to continually pretend that he is “refusing” to and therefore behaving like Michael Mann is just absurd and completely at odds with reality.
Why is it unreasonable to canvas opinion and thoughts regarding this endeavour AHEAD of publishing and finalizing all the data and code?
Is it unreasonable because it was public? Is it not a valid reason that the data and code is not released yet because it is not ready, requiring perhaps some tidying up updating of code, checking for bugs, typos, missing meta-data, all the various things that could be missed in what appears to be a very large project?
Would a deadline help perhaps – if he knew it was coming by a certain date?
And it’s clear that if Dr Evans has been using the “wrong” TSI data as Lief contends then when the model is published he’ll be able to put the “correct” TSI data in and say something about how to falsify the model using that data instead of the data he objects to.
It’s clear as day to me as a completely disinterested outsider (I have absolutely no dog in this fight at all) that the positions of Willis and Lief on this are 1) utterly unreasonable 2) completely missing the point of what is being attempted by Dr Evans.
Like many here, I used to come to WUWT to read the many interesting analyses of in particular Willis’s – but after the debacle with Tony Brown aka climatereason (I’m still amazed he didn’t know who he was) and now this, I am afraid my estimation of him has dropped to the level of a William Connelly or a Tamino where I will always suspect some agenda behind an analyses.
It looks very similar to the “alarmist” scientists we so often complain about – hubris. Too quick to take a position before fully understanding the complexities of the issue and digging in the heels when that lack of understanding leads to incorrect and biased conclusions.
Monckton of Brenchley says:
July 1, 2014 at 6:55 am
“Phil. has failed to quote me in full. He has – perhaps by inadvertence – omitted my statement that it would be kinder, should the damage caused by the libels against Dr Evans persist, for him to seek a declaration (which in Scotland we call declarator) that he has not deliberately used incorrect data or fabricated any data. And I had also made it plain that the Australian courts would hear such a case. The new UK defamation law that “Phil.” mentions above does not apply in Australia.
Indeed, but you were particularly criticizing Willis’s characterization of ‘the British system of justice’
Though the truth defence was called “justification” before, it was different from the new defence of “truth” only in technical respects that have little bearing here. Truth has aye been the standard defence against libel claims in UK law.
I’ll take McNally’s statement over yours.
@Kadaka
the correlation is negative:
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1979/to:2014/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1979/to:2014/trend/plot/pmod/offset:-1365.9/plot/pmod/offset:-1365.9/trend/plot/none
I already had figured something like that
The satellites are measuring TSI data to be 0.3 W/m2 to 0.5 W/m2 lower at this current solar cycle maximum.
And that is just the facts jack. Now one can argue all one wants that all the numbers should be “reconstructed” this way or that way. But the numbers are down.
And they are lower than they were at the last solar peak in 2000 to 2001. So when did it start falling? Well, that would have to be after 2001 or 2002 or so wouldn’t it.
HenryP says:
July 1, 2014 at 8:28 am
the correlation is negative:
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1979/to:2014/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1979/to:2014/trend/plot/pmod/offset:-1365.9/plot/pmod/offset:-1365.9/trend/plot/none
The PMOD series is not correct. The sensor has uncorrected degradation and the extra deep minimum in 2008 did not happen. The fact is that there is no difference between the 2008 and 1996 minima, as admitted by W. Schmutz,: http://www.leif.org/research/Monckton-Flaw-4.pdf
This fact, obviously, has implications for the false claim by Mr Evans [and now by Mr Monckton] that there was a spectacular fall in TSI. This is all old hat, and should have been clear to any competent scientist during the necessary due diligence [which was clearly not done by Mr Evans for reasons or motives he should explain himself].
Bill Illis says:
July 1, 2014 at 8:42 am
The satellites are measuring TSI data to be 0.3 W/m2 to 0.5 W/m2 lower at this current solar cycle maximum.
Than when? Mr Evans falsely claims since 2003-2005 and that is not correct as everyone can plainly see:
http://www.leif.org/research/Monckton-Flaw-3.png
And, of course, TSI is lower now than at the previous maximum as TSI simply follows the sunspot number, but that is irrelevant for the discussion and for the demonstration of Mr Evans’ false assertions.
Leif, can we trust this picture from Gregg Kopp, showing a very slight decline in TSI since 1980?
http://spot.colorado.edu/~koppg/TSI/TSI_Composite.jpg
MikeUK says:
July 1, 2014 at 9:08 am
Leif, can we trust this picture from Gregg Kopp, showing a very slight decline in TSI since 1980?
You can always trust Gregg Kopp. The decline since 1980 simply follows the similar decline of the sunspot number. The point of notice is that the SORCE/TIM data [red] does not support Mr Evans false claim that TSI has dropped spectacularly since 2003-2005.
Look, the sun is a likely candidate, that there is a delay is not improbable. Leif, you’ve looked for an amplifier for TSI for years. If Evan’s method pulls predictability from the garbage(unknowably wrong TSI and temperature reconstructions) then that is a big clue. As is hemispheric asymmetry of the sunspots.
============
MikeUK says:
July 1, 2014 at 9:08 am
Leif, can we trust this picture from Gregg Kopp, showing a very slight decline in TSI since 1980?
You can always trust Gregg Kopp. The decline since 1980 simply follows the similar decline of the sunspot number. The point of notice is that the SORCE/TIM data [red] does not support Mr Evans false claim that TSI has dropped spectacularly since 2003-2005. You may also consult the latest TCTE/TIM data [blue] also showing that there is no spectacular drop of TSI.
[Leif: Delete this dupe? .mod]
kim says:
July 1, 2014 at 9:14 am
If Evan’s method pulls predictability from the garbage(unknowably wrong TSI and temperature reconstructions) then that is a big clue
From garbage you do not get predictability, only more garbage. So no ‘big clue’, except perhaps for the clueless.
ls, @ur momisugly 9:17. I don’t think that is necessarily true.
===========
Those who persist in pretending that Dr Evans is wrong about the decline in solar activity since 2003 might care to look at his latest posting at Joanne Nova’s website.