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
dp says:
July 1, 2014 at 7:48 pm
Thanks, dp, but I don’t understand your confusion. You do know who Michael Mann and Phil Jones are, and what that did, don’t you?
Both Michael Mann and Phil Jones made the repeated claim that they were under no obligation to reveal their code and data until they decided to. I quoted Phil Jones upthread, and Mann not only refused to reveal his data and code, he went so far as to say that asking him for his data was “intimidation”.
In my quote above, I didn’t say that they each repeated the same words. I said that all of them had asserted the same claim, that they weren’t obliged to share their code and data until they decided to do so.
This, of course, is the same stance of David Evans, who has said that he will not reveal his data and code until he decides to do so.
Of course, anyone can conceal their data and code, it’s not a crime or anything. The problem is, no code, no data, no science … without code and data, as Mosh pointed out, it’s just an advertisement. Hiding the code and data has allowed David to “defeat” all objections to his work during ten long discussions of his ten long posts … sorry, but that’s not science.
I’ll leave you to look up further quotes, because no matter what quotes I come up with you can and likely will say “but no, that doesn’t mean the same thing” … that’s a fool’s errand. You want quotes on this one, find them yourself. If you don’t see that all three men are taking the same stand, that they can conceal the data and code until they want to release it and at the same time still call themselves scientists, I fear you are far beyond my poor power to add or subtract from your knowledge.
All the best,
w.
Ms Hardman says there is a “consensus” about HIV/AIDS, evolution, vaccination, Moon landings and so on, and that amongst these consensus is climate change. Well, of course there has been climate change for 4.5 billion years (or 6000 years, depending on whether you follow the amiably dotty calculations of the late Bishop Ussher based on the generations since Abraham).
It is established by titration that a particular virus is present in all patients with HIV; by mitochondrial DNA paleogenetics that the world is older than 6000 years and that certain species evolve, while others can eventually acquire fixed characteristics; by epidemiological and laboratory research that vaccination is efficacious. In short, all of these things are established by evidence, using replicable experiments. They can be verified. They are almost as certain as the fact that the square on the hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the squares on the other two sides.
However, one must define what one means by “climate change”. Do we mean the fact that the climate changes? We have only to look out of the window to see that that is the case. There will be 100% “consensus”. Or that, all other things being equal, climate may change to some unspecified extent owing to Man’s activities? There, too, it has been demonstrated by experiment that enriching the atmosphere with CO2 will – all other things being equal – cause some warming. So, again, there is no need for any such proposition to be sanctified by the notion that it is supported by a “consensus”. For it is demonstrably so.
However, if you mean that most of the global warming since 1950 was manmade, or that future global warming on business as usual will be 3.7 [2.6, 4.8] K this century, or that catastrophe may ensue if we do not shut down the West and establish a global government, then both the scientific and the political agreement will fall away to very much smaller values – too small, in fact,, to lay claim credibly to the existence of any “consensus”.
Wilful imprecision in defining what is meant by “climate change” has been a hallmark of the Thermageddonites for a generation. For they know, as Ms Hardman and I know, that there is no consensus that most of the global warming since 1950 was caused by us: indeed, we know from the datafile in Cook et al. (2013), though not from the paper itself and not from the acres of me-too lefto-bilge that have been written about it since, that the supposed consensus that most recent warming is manmade is 0.5%, not 97%. So it is possible that most recent warming was not manmade, in which event as little as 0.3 K warming in the 20th century may have been anthropogenic. As I have said, the argument from consensus, as applied to the climate question, fails in two respects. First, there is no 97% consensus; and secondly, science is not consensus, and consensus is not science.
Science is observation, followed by measurement, followed by the application of pre-existing theory to the results. In that process, there is no place for “consensus” whatsoever, and all those who wave the white flag of “consensus” are in effect surrendering, by admitting that they have no better argument than a logical fallacy dismissed as feeble-minded by Aristotle 2350 years ago.
I will beg Anthony’s and the moderator’s forbearance to respond one last time to Monckton of Brenchley in this forum.
I generally try to be a charitable reader. In this case I have specifically chosen *not* to read charitably. I do so because I do not like bullies or people who try to use power to intimidate others. Monckton of Brenchley does not extend the courtesy to others and deserves no charitable readings in return.
Monckton of Brenchley claims that when he wrote, “The graphs did not purport to be the IPCC’s graphs and were not labeled as such…” this should be interpreted as *only* referring to the ‘Battle of the Graphs’ image. I interpret ‘the graphs’ as applying to all the graphs that accompanied the article – and I made it clear that I was speaking of the reference materials.
The clear facts of the matter are that the caption below the figure on page 6 of the reference materials is incorrect. As I have already stated, the year is wrong *and* even correcting for the year it is NOT the graph used in IPCC 1990.
Charitably we would say the author made a couple of mistakes. I choose *not* to be charitable. The caption claims the graph came from UN [IPCC] 1990. This is a lie. The graph is *not* the graph that is in IPCC 1990 – it’s not authentic, it is a fake. Monckton of Brenchley uses weasel words to sweep this away. “As far as my inexpert eye can tell ….” Apparently he needs glasses. Clearly the X-Axis labels are different. He also needs to get his story straight. In one comment he says the graph was “sent to me by an eminent professor” in another comment he says, “I reproduced the IPCC’s 1990 graph…” and in yet another comment he says, ” I received the graph from a reliable source …”
I stated that *if* he were an academic or serious researcher he might be guilty of misconduct because of his shoddy research practices. His answer? That he is not an academic nor was he doing serious research. With this I will agree.
I will retract my claim that Monckton of Brenchley lied, *if* he will explicitly state:
A) The caption on Page 6 of his reference materials is wrong.
B) That the figure on Page 6, purportedly from IPCC 1996, is not from either IPCC 1996 or IPCC 1990 and that the figure is not authentic, i.e., a fake.
C) His research methods were shoddy and only excused by the fact he is neither an academic nor a serious researcher.
Note that I am only asking Monckton of Brenchley to explicitly state the truth. I will consider failure to state these simple truths as proof that his discourse has been neither ‘Right’ nor ‘Honorable’ but merely an attempt to intimidate and bully.
If Monckton of Brenchley is unable or unwilling to state these simple truths – well, I am the only Kevin O’Neill living in Franklin, WI USA (to my knowledge). It should take about 45 seconds on the internet to get my mail address.
Kevin, as noted upstream, I’m preparing a response, even though I have no dog in this fight, I’m trying to be fair and to get the actual truth. At first I thought Monckton was wrong as well and that he produced a shoddy graph. Research suggests otherwise.
Willis for goodness sake this ridiculous: Thanks, Agnostic. Read what I wrote. I didn’t ask you about “over-reacting”. Over-reacting is what you accuse me of. I asked about your opinion of his legal threats, a question I note that you haven’t answered.
I DID read what you wrote and I note AGAIN that you did not read (or perhaps comprehend) what I wrote. I DID answer regarding my opinion of his legal threats which was that is an over-reaction. I did NOT accuse you of over-reacting. Where specifically does it say I think you are “over-reacting”?
Here is the quote again: 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 clearly say that I think Monckton has over-reacted to what I also think is an intemperate, rude, and ignorant remark made by Leif. That’s my opinion. Will you “note” it now?
This is what YOU said:
So in your view it is “reasonable” for Lord Monckton to threaten legal action over a scientific question, in a venue where the truth is not a defense against libel? And it’s “reasonable” for Lord Monckton to threaten to try to have Leif fired or demoted?
I specifically said apart from his tack on Leifs fraud insinuations, that his remarks regarding Dr Evans work was reasonable. But you somehow confused that into meaning he was being reasonable about the fraud remark. That’s what I mean about putting words into peoples mouths. You didn’t read what I wrote and you attributed to me an opinion I directly and specifically indicated I did not hold.
Agnostic, what David has done is ask for our opinion of his scientific work. He has asked people to give their scientific comments and objections to his work, for post after post, a total of ten posts to date. Then when we have commented he has told everyone who disagreed with him that they were wrong
No, just you, and gave really good reasons – and in fact it’s those discussions that help someone like me with just enough technical knowledge to follow the conversation. Even then, you couched those questions as if Dr Evans was some newbie with a bizarre theory (happy to furnish you with examples if necessary) rather than serious scientist who had probably already thought of those points along the way to where he is now.
Look I realize the approach is novel, but it seems clear he is publishing the theory ahead of the model in order to canvass responses and make the final result as robust as possible. Has it not occurred to you the reason the full thing is not published yet is precisely because he is making changes to what sounds to me like a really large and complex undertaking for a single scientist to take on, let alone an unfunded one? According to Jo, one of the reasons it can’t be released right away is because they are updating with more recent data, which is, according to them a really big job.
The drip feed method, you may very well argue, is wrong, dubious, a bad way to go. Make the argument if you must, but stop this absurd and self-damaging charade that he is behaving like Michael Mann or Phil Jones and hiding his data or being fearful of someone trying to see if it is wrong.
I reveal and post my data and code when I post my studies. Yes, my studies may require “further corrections, revisions, updates, bug fixes”. That’s happened to me more than once.
Great! Then you’ll have some idea what’s going on. What if that “study” is really big and complex? Won’t it take a bit longer to check through before making public? Wouldn’t you want it to be as transparent as possible? Lest you be accused of not doing something that you had, but your code and data was in such a mess it was easily over-looked?
Back in Post II, I begged David, not asked him but begged him to reveal his work then and there.
He refused. I asked him again. He refused again.
…because it was not ready to be released. What’s the point of handing over the car if you’ve dropped the sump to check on a potential oil leak? And incidentally, I trawled Part II to look for your demands for the data and couldn’t find them. I don’t doubt you asked for it because I am pretty sure I remember reading it….and the response. Now that would be a worthwhile thing to quote don’t you think?
I found a beautiful quote for those who think that we are immature.
“The pursuit of truth and beauty is a sphere of activity in which we are permitted to remain children all our lives” ~Albert Einstein
🙂
Sparks says:
July 2, 2014 at 4:59 pm
My friend, thank you for a lovely sentiment. It perfectly expresses the joy I take in my scientific research.
w.
And with that lovely sentiment above, I’m closing this thread, There will be a followup thread related to my findings on the charges that Monckton botched a graph. I have not decided if I will allow comments or not.