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
Whereof one cannot speak truly, thereof one can speculate.
==============
leif says
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/28/a-cool-question-answered/#comment-1674096
henry@Kim
clearly, you must realize that dr.S does not know everything.
we saw that
he really has no idea how to measure radiation less than 350 nm, never mind the variation in that type of radiation over time
he has no idea what is causing the decrease in solar field strength nor what will turn it up again
he has no idea what is happening TOA, or at least pretends not to know.
However, we all know that scientists’ biggest problem with nuclear fusion is that a spectacular magnetic field is required to contain the heat. Hence, my theory that it is the declining solar field strength that is causing more energetic particles being released. These photons react TOA with O2 and N2 and H2O to form more ozone, nitrogenous oxides and peroxides. In turn, these substances absorb and re-radiate some of the important other incoming radiation [that heat the oceans], hence more back radiation of sunlight to space, hence more cooling. So, paradoxically, a brighter sun, causes a cooler sun.
This is not “my” theory. I have proven that ozone is increasing, since 1995. Trenberth has admitted that ozone on its own is responsible for about 25% of all that is back radiated to space by the atmosphere. In fact, it was Lief who showed me that paper. Unfortunately, Trenberth forgot about the peroxides and nitrogenous oxides also being formed TOA by the type of sun rays that would kill us if it came through the atmosphere. That is what is called: Trenberth’s missing energy….
kim says:
July 1, 2014 at 11:08 am
Whereof one cannot speak truly, thereof one can speculate.
Which is fine, as long as it is clearly labeled as ‘speculation.
I do it all the time slide 17 of http://www.leif.org/research/Eddy-Symp-Poster-2.pdf
From lsvalgaard on July 1, 2014 at 10:34 am:
Yes, the PMOD composite has degradation. You mentioned SOHO in 2010, although “org2pmod_composite.dat” from Nov 2, 2011 does not list SOHO as incorporated in the PMOD composite.
I do see starting at 20010927 the only series in PMOD is VIRGO, thus that is where the problem lies.
http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic=tsi/virgo/proj_space_virgo
Ah, now I see it!
So VIRGO is at fault, and is an experiment on SOHO. To fix PMOD they have to correct the VIRGO results. Got it.
Can Michael Mann use the defence that he didn’t actually prepare his famous graph and that it was all down to a minion at the journal?
If his lordship did not draw up the graph, there are some questions that need answering:
Who did come up with the bad graph?
Why did Lord Monckton not ask the Telegraph for a correction to be printed?
Did Lord Monckton have no prior sight of the article at all, to proof read? Was he not asked about visuals?
In answer to Ms. Hardman, it will be for the individual who alleged that I had “faked” a graph, when that individual has since admitted that he did not know at the time of the allegation whether I had “faked” the graph or not, to provide proof that I had faked the graph. Since I had not done so, he will have no defence. The courts have no patience with those who make damaging allegations without knowing whether they are true.
Monckton of Brenchley says:
July 1, 2014 at 12:12 pm
In answer to Ms. Hardman,…
Why are you avoiding answering Ms Hardman’s three questions?
Who did come up with the bad graph?
Why did Lord Monckton not ask the Telegraph for a correction to be printed?
Did Lord Monckton have no prior sight of the article at all, to proof read? Was he not asked about visuals?
Here is your chance to come clean. Answer the questions.
Margaret H makes it clear that her complaints are a tempest in a teapot. She is merely piling on.
Consider Michael Mann’s widely debunked runaway global warming chart. Mann has never provided the data, methods, metadata and methodologies necessary to allow the Scientific Method to operate. $Billions are wasted every year, due in large part to Mann’s ridiculous propaganda chart, in which he deleted the MWP and the LIA.
But never one word from Margaret or anyone else in her crowd about that pseudoscientific nonsense chart, which has no connection to reality. Furthermore, scientific skeptics cannot ask questions like that at alarmist blogs. They get censored out of existence.
That shows that the motivation of the alarmist crowd is due to one of three things: self-serving self interest, such as Mann’s, or politics based on ignorance, or religious belief. Often a combination of the latter two.
Attempting to distract from Mann’s self-serving scare chart is the basic motive here. To resolve the dispute, I propose a fair, moderated debate in a neutral venue between Lord Monckton and Michael Mann. Guess which one will chicken out.
dbstealey says:
July 1, 2014 at 12:29 pm
I propose a fair, moderated debate in a neutral venue between Lord Monckton and Michael Mann.
They will probably end up suing each other for all kinds of unholy behavior. Would be fun to watch.
Regarding the Lean TSI reconstructions, it was posted on WUWT in 2011 (bold added):
There is a link there provided by Leif, however it is currently open access from Wiley:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2010GL045777/full
As Lean has adjusted her model, this adds further doubt on her reconstructions to what was pointed out earlier by Leif.
Leif,
You may well be right. But I am no fan of lawsuits. They should never enter into science debates, by either side.
Friends:
Please, enough.
People I have learned to respect are tearing each other apart. This is not good.
Watching it happening hurts.
It is good to disagree. It is not good to be disagreeable. Please, enough.
Richard
This thread represents the moment when the entire CAGW debate has jumped the shark. I feel like taking a long hot shower.
“Can Michael Mann use the defence that he didn’t actually prepare his famous graph and that it was all down to a minion at the journal?”
Of course not, Mann wrapped his hands around that mighty stick and loudly declared to the world it was all his own ages ago. To say otherwise now would be admitting to plagiarism. And that maybe the tip is fake. And the significance was inflated. And that the real stimulation value was woefully overstated. With real data and realistically evaluated, it is hardly noticeable, the Hockey Stick is a Bent Twig.
So much angst over such a small and very uncertain portion of a large number.
Two highly intelligent men that never heard of the phrase: “we agree to disagree”.
Dbstealey, you and I bicker so much people are surprised to learn we aren’t married to one another.
I posed three honest questions. The article that contained the graph in question was followed a week later by another in the Telegraph authored by Lord Monckton. There was an opportunity to disown the graph then and print a clarification but the opportunity was missed. I don’t know who draw up the diagram. I gave Lord Monckton a chance to give a definitive answer but, given an open goal, he missed. I don’t know why he chose to pass the buck, perhaps it was because the questions came from me.
If the answers are (1) a graphic designer at the Telegraph, (2) did ask for one but newspaper, (3) yes, but not the visuals, then there is nothing to argue against. Waving about courts and fakes isn’t helpful and does not help Lord Monckton’s case.
Whoops. (2) should have said did ask for one but newspaper refused.
Monckton of Brenchley says:
July 1, 2014 at 9:54 am
No comment on his ugly threats of legal action, no comment on his ugly threats to screw up Leif’s employment … ah, well.
In any case, so I go there, and I find this:
Unfortunately, Dr. Evans gives the following sources for his main claim, vis:
The first one goes to a KNMI page that says nothing about Lean or TSI.
The second link goes to the Lean TSI reconstruction up to 2008. I have no idea what he means by “WMO FUB TSI Data”, as it is a reconstruction, one that everyone agrees is faulty.
The third link goes to “Page not found”.
The fourth reference doesn’t have a link. Despite the existence of actual TSI data for the period, this is another model-based “spectral reconstruction”. Bizarrely, however, there are only three references on Google for that title, one of which of course is Dr. Evans post. The second one is the only one giving further data. It lists the following:
Unfortunately, none of those reconstructions go up to the present … nor has Dr. Evans said which of the various Lean reconstructions he is using.
Now, Dr. Evans is using a “composite” TSI index, using some unspecified splice at the end of the faulty Lean reconstruction. It is described only as “averaging Lean 2000 (to the end of 2008), PMOD, and ACRIM (from the start of 1992)”
Unfortunately, he doesn’t say exactly how he’s doing that, or why he’s thrown away the early part of the ACRIM data … and as you can see, the ACRIM, PMOD, and Lean datasets are staggeringly different …
Next, both the PMOD and Lean datasets have been admitted BY THEIR DEVELOPERS to be faulty … a fact which Dr. Evans somehow neglected to explain.
And once again, Dr. Evans has not released either his code as used or his data as used. Oh, I’m sure Lord Monckton will pop in to tell us that Dr. Evans will release it “someday” … but someday doesn’t pay the bills today.
Until that day comes, Dr. Evans hasn’t said whether he’s used some kind of weighted average of PMOD, ACRIM, and Lean data, or a straight average, or what. Actually, it appears from the data that he’s used an 11-year average of the 11-year average of each of the three datasets … but it’s not at all clear.
In fact, we’re back into the same old position—by not posting his code as used and his data as used, Dr. Evans has provided nothing but an advertisement for his claims. With no data as used, and no code as used, we have no way to falsify anything he’s done, and as a result, it’s not science in any form, it’s just an ad. He claims that everything is explained by the fact that he’s using an “11-year average” … but he’s neglected to say what kind of 11-year average he’s using, nor has he revealed how he has extended that average all the way up to 2014 … I’m sorry, Lord Monckton, but that is just as shabby an imitation of science as were his previous posts. While Dr. Evans may be correct, at present, there’s no way to determine whether he is correct or not.
Finally, none of this touches the sheer foolishness of using an 11-year “boxcar” average of a system which has an inherent cycle which varies from 9 to 14 years or so … that method is guaranteed to alias some portion of the frequency information into the amplitude. Take a look at what an 11-year boxcar average does to the sunspot data:
Note that from 1760 to 1790, the 11-year average actually inverts the data, putting peaks where there are troughs and vice versa … while at other times the average runs in parallel with the sunspot data. Not only that, but often, it shifts the timing of the peaks and troughs backwards and forwards.
This is a result of the fixed frequency of the average and the varying frequency of the data, which goes both above and below the frequency of the average. In fact, you likely couldn’t invent a filter which would do more damage to the sunspot (or TSI) data … yet that is what Dr. Evans is using.
It also doesn’t touch the problem that a centered 11-year average contains information about the future … and as a result, using it in a predictive model is cheating.
But then, because he hasn’t revealed his secret code for the analysis, of course we don’t even know yet if he’s using a centered average, or some other kind of average. And we don’t know how the fact that it includes the future affects the model, because he hasn’t revealed the model. So Dr. Evans can make any claim he wants about all of this, secure in the knowledge that I can’t falsify a thing he says.
Finally, in the original data graph to which Leif and I were objecting, Dr. Evans pasted invented data at the end of the actual data, in order to extend the 11-year average all the way out to 2013. I note that in his explanation/apologia of that graph, he hasn’t used the same process he used in the graph to which Leif and I objected … apples and oranges.
Conclusions? I suspect that Dr. Evans may be right, that IF you use an 11-year centered boxcar averaging method, and IF you tack invented data on the end of the actual data, and IF you use the faulty Lean and PMOD data, and IF you use an 11-year average of the 11-year averages of the PMOD, Lean, and ACRIM data as your input … you may indeed get something like his original graph.
Color me unimpressed …
Unfortunately, however, we don’t even have any way to know if my string of conjectures above is true or not, because Dr. Evans STILL has not released the code as used, the data as used, the out-of-sample tests that Jo says have already been done, and all the rest of the hermetically sealed secret information.
And while someday he may release it all, and I hope it’s soon for his sake, in his cited explanation of his study he has already changed the procedure that he used in the graph Leif and I objected to, and has not noted that change anywhere in the explanation.
So whenever he finally gets around to releasing all the hidden stuff, at that point we have no way of knowing whether what he’s releasing is what he has been discussing for the last ten posts … which is why data and code need to be released when the study is released.
Regards to all,
w.
From vukie on July 1, 2014 at 1:18 pm:
Which of the three main ones are you leaving out?
This is a disagreement among honorable men that has been elevated to a matter of honor. For this there shall only be two acceptable courses of action.
Drawn pistols at dawn, or crawling together to somebody’s home at 4AM after getting kicked out of the tavern with the issue forgotten many liters ago.
Margaret Hardman,
Just because you ‘gave someone a chance’ does not create an obligation. Plenty of folks like McIntyre and McKittrick have given Michael Mann a chance, ever since MBH98/99, but he completely disregards them. He even ridicules and insults them; see the Climategate emails.
Mann’s refusal to provide the data and methods that he used to create his hokey stick chart is far more serious than whoever made a relatively insignificant chart. Wouldn’t you agree?
Mann’s disregard of the Scientific Method has directly and indirectly resulted in a massive misallocation of taxpayer resources. Thus my point: your complaints are misdirection.
dbstealey says:
July 1, 2014 at 2:08 pm
Thus my point: your complaints are misdirection.
Monckton behaves very much like Mann. So Margaret’s questions are relevant. The lack of answers is telling.
I will state here and now that Monckton faked an IPCC 1996 graph. The proof is on page 6 of the reference materials that accompanied his 2006 Telegraph story. Yes, that’s right, not only was there a fake graph published with the story (a graph Monckton claims he had no part in creating) there is also a fake 1996 IPCC graph in the reference materials.
Is Monckton going to now claim that he had no part in the reference materials? They have the logo on them that he used when he was pretending to be a member of the House of Lords. The caption on page 6 says, “Upper graph: Temperature history from UN 1996 report, showing the mediaeval warm period.” No, it’s not. The graph was not used in the 1995/6 IPCC report. It’s a fake 2nd Assessment Report graph. And Monckton is the one responsible for it.
I don’t care about fake British royalty. Rather than threatening libel Monckton ought to own up to his mistakes. You want to sue me for libel? Fine. Have at it. I’ll win, you’re wrong. Even in England the truth is a valid defense – despite the fact I may be just a poor commoner.
It appears as if Jo Nova’s response to Leif & Willis hasn’t been linked here yet:
http://joannenova.com.au/
Sorry if a duplicate.
Db, Perhaps they are not obliged to answer but since they wish to assert their innocence, a straight answer would be better than an evasive one. Just seems obvious to me. It seems to concern you that Michael Mann is evasive (in your opinion, something I will check out) but not Lord Monckton, something I cannot comprehend.
Margaret,
Mann is more than ‘evasive’. Here is an ftp file that he labeled “censored“. Note that if he had used the more extensive data set, it would not have produced his hockey stick shape. So he hid it in a censored file.
To the extent that you attack Monckton, I will produce evidence showing that Mann’s actions were far more serious. I have plenty. Again, the attacks against Lord Monckton are simple misdirection. Mann caused real, quantifiable damage to the economy. Or do you deny that?
Let’s discuss Michael Mann’s chart actions, shall we?