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
NicfromNYC: “Skeptics are fatiguing of being marginalized, but grasping for oversimplified answers only adds to that marginalization.”
It seems about half throwing their hats in the air, projected by blasts of bias confirmation and cheering. The other half are being duly sceptical and giving this as much of a grilling as a warmist model would get.
I hope that Dr Evans will learn from some of the comments be able to improve what he’s done since I thinks it’s worthwhile venture.
He may well be right about the futility of using the peer-reviewed journals and opting for an open science approach. I hope he did not think that would be an easy option 😉
On the other hand, it could be interesting to see how it works.
Bart: “FWIW, my prediction for the years ahead.”
So we’re due for another super El Nino in 2064 then ? LOL
On the proposed climatic effects of nuclear testing:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/04/claim-nuclear-tests-stopped-global-warming-in-the-20th-century/
I spoke with Paul Ehrlich & the late Stephen Schneider about the problems with their & the astronomical Dr. Sagan’s blatantly political nuclear winter hypothesis. Ehrlich said if I wanted more data, he’d have to charge me. Schneider allowed as how their soot data were indeed problematical in various ways.
There are hundreds of papers based on the analysis a slew of different proxy data bases that supports the assertion that the planet cyclically warms and cools. Solar magnetic cycle changes correlate with the cyclic warming and cooling. The reason this problem has not been solved is the climate wars are blocking and inferring with the normal progression of science.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/05/is-the-current-global-warming-a-natural-cycle/
As written in our rejected paper two years ago, if the current global warming event has the same underlying cause as the 342 previous similar NWEs spread over the preceding 250,000 years–and we can think of no obvious scientific reason to think otherwise–then based on the statistical properties of all natural warming events in the Vostok record, the current global warming event will reverse by 2032 with 68% probability and by 2105 with 95% probability.
If the current warming event is homologous with a HRWE, climate reversal and global cooling are already overdue. Here is how we put it in our rejected paper. ….
…We submitted these findings sequentially to Science Magazine, Nature, and Nature Climate Change. The editor of Science Magazine replied that the results were not of sufficient general interest, suggested we submit the work to a specialty journal, and declined to proceed with external scientific review. Nature also rejected the paper without external scientific review, for reasons that we considered spurious. Nature Climate Change initially rejected the paper, but after some discussion the paper was assigned to a senior editor and reviewed by two anonymous reviewers. Given the context of their comments, both reviewers appeared to be climate modelers.
The Nature Climate Change reviewers concluded that the natural warming cycles we identified in the Vostok record could not possibly be real or significant, but instead represented irrelevant statistical “noise” in the temperature record. We replied respectfully that the warming events we detected and measured are similar to or larger than many well-accepted temperature fluctuations in ice core records, including Dansgaard-Oeschger oscillations, Heinrich events, and Antarctic Temperature Maxima. Indeed, the Vostok HRWEs are similar to or larger than the present global warming signal. These arguments were ignored by the reviewers, however, and the paper was rejected by the chief editor of Nature Climate Change.
http://cio.eldoc.ub.rug.nl/FILES/root/1999/QuatSciRevvGeel/1999QuatSciRevvGeel.pdf
“The role of solar forcing upon climate change”
“A number of those Holocene climate cooling phases… most likely of a global nature (eg Magney, 1993; van Geel et al, 1996; Alley et al 1997; Stager & Mayewski, 1997) … the cooling phases seem to be part of a millennial-scale climatic cycle operating independent of the glacial-interglacial cycles (which are) forced (perhaps paced) by orbit variations.”
“… we show here evidence that the variation in solar activity is a cause for the millennial scale climate change.”
Last 40 kyrs
Figure 2 in paper. (From data last 40 kyrs)… “conclude that solar forcing of climate, as indicated by high BE10 values, coincided with cold phases of Dansgaar-Oeschger events as shown in O16 records”
Recent Solar Event
“Maunder Minimum (1645-1715) “…coincides with one of the coldest phases of the Little Ice Age… (van Geel et al 1998b)
Periodicity
“Mayewski et al (1997) showed a 1450 yr periodicity in C14 … from tree rings and …from glaciochemicial series (NaCl & Dust) from the GISP2 ice core … believed to reflect changes in polar atmospheric circulation..”
Monckton of Brenchley says:
June 28, 2014 at 11:16 am
Now, it is not for me to say whether Mr Svalgaard’s reconstruction of the trend on the absent SORCE data is reasonable, for I am no drip under pressure. However, to refer readers to a link to a graph that has been tampered with, and without also referring to a link that explains the tampering, and to use the tampered graph as the basis for accusing a diligent scientist of “almost fraudulent” conduct while …
This kind of remark is typical of politically motivated comments as the pink curve is irrelevant to the issue whether or not Mr. Evans assertion that TSI has dropped sharply since 2003 [which it has not, as the blue curve so clearly shows – even you should be able to see that]. Using words like ‘tampering with’ shows your agenda. In addition the ‘trend’ was downward, but even that is irrelevant. Here is a version with no interpolated downward curve http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-since-2003.png
In fact you may man up and apologize for your childish comment.
Monckton of Brenchley said in part June 28, 2014 at 11:16 am
Here is the unique resource locator of Dr Evans’ TSI graph:
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/evans/graphs/prediction/total-solar-irradiance.gif
And here is ……..
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/evans/graphs/prediction/total-solar-irradiance.gif
The two graphs appear to me to be strikingly similar.”
******************
Does this surprise anyone – aren’t these the same URL ! Am I missing something!
Just running the cosmic radiation above the Arctic Circle during the polar night.
The increase in ozone occurs in the vicinity of the magnetic pole.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/intraseasonal/temp50anim.gif
It seems Svalgaard is, vigorously, saying he doesn’t know how climate changes and he believes no else does either?
Bernie Hutchins says:
June 28, 2014 at 12:46 pm
Does this surprise anyone – aren’t these the same URL ! Am I missing something!
You are missing the political nature of the comment which was intended to insult [and hoping people would not pay too much attention to actual facts].
This is a very good discussion today. Balanced.
Mr Svalgaard, having been caught out in a false, nasty, libellous allegation against the blameless Dr Evans, fails to have the grace to apologize when his error is drawn to his attention.
He admits that he tampered with the TSI graph from SORCE that had nine months’ missing data. It was on the basis of that tampered graph he said that Dr Evans had deliberately used wrong data. Having made that admission, and having been given clear and compelling evidence, from the very source of his own data, that Dr Evans’ TSI graph is in substance correct, he must now apologize without any further evasion.
In passing, Mr Svalgaard will understand that a layman like me is baffled that the form which his tampering took was the imaginative application of a 27-day smoothing to a period when there were no data at all not for 27 days but for nine months. He says the tampering had no consequences: but it was on the basis of that fictitious graph that he falsely accused Dr Evans of having deliberately used false total solar irradiance data as the basis for his model.
Dr Evans interprets the longer-term record of historical TSI as suggesting that a rapid decline in TSI began in 2003 or thereby and is now under way. One can legitimately argue this both ways. On the one hand, as Mr Svalgaard points out, the current peak of the solar cycle is about the same as the peak of the previous cycle 13 or 14 years ago and may even be a tad higher. On the other, the very length of the cycle (for longer cycles are often followed by less active cycles), taken with the fact that between this cycle and the last the trough was deeper than at any time since before the Second World War, suggests at least the possibility of a quite rapid decline in solar activity.
But it is not acceptable that Mr Svalgaard should suggest that Dr Evans was “almost fraudulent” or that he has an “agenda” merely because Mr Svalgaard interprets the data differently from Dr Evans.
The fact remains that he falsely accused Dr Evans of being “almost fraudulent” in using incorrect TSI data, when the “Historical TSI Reconstruction” graph published by the very same academic source as the graph tampered with by Mr Svalgaard is visibly identical in all material respects to Dr Evans’ TSI graph reproduced in the head posting.
Here are the relevant links:
From SORCE/TIM, the IPCC (2013) graph of some 400 years’ total solar irradiance, updated by the SORCE/TIM team to 2014, a source as mainstream as one can get:
http://lasp.colorado.edu/home/sorce/data/tsi-data/
and click on the menu item “Historical TSI Reconstruction”, or search for that term with control-F, or simply scroll down the page a bit.
From Dr Evans:
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/evans/graphs/prediction/total-solar-irradiance.gif
Or see the head posting.
Mr Svalgaard cannot plausibly deny that Dr Evans’ graph is very close to the official IPCC graph as updated by the very university from which he himself got the graph he tampered with.
Here is a reminder to Mr Svalgaard of what he wrote:
“It is worse than I thought. The TSI used by Evans is totally wrong. …”. TSI stands for “Total Solar Irradiance”.
(Then a rant about how Mr Evans has in Mr Svalgaard’s opinion drawn an uncongenial conclusion from the data). Then:
“As far as I am concerned, the model is already falsified. Not by the observations but by the [almost fraudulent – as there clearly is an agenda here] use of invalid input to begin with.” The words in square brackets, and the square brackets themselves, are Mr Svalgaard’s words.
Mr Svalgaard, confronted with the near-identity of the official IPCC graph and Dr Evans’ graph, must now apologize publicly and without reserve and without further circumlocution, evasion, excuse or delay, or forever forfeit all scientific credibility.
This is not a matter for any further bluster or wriggling on Mr Svalgaard’s part. By his conduct in reply to this thread, he will demonstrate to all whether he is a scientist or a quack. If he apologizes, he’s a scientist. If he doesn’t, he’s a quack. It’s his call. Many will be watching. Many will remember.
William Astley.
For predictions of a possible future cooling based on the 60 and 1000 year quasi periodical cycles in the temperature data and using the neutron count- 10 Be record as the best proxy for solar :activity” see esp Figs 3,4,5,6,7,8 (esp 8 C and D),9,at
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2013/10/commonsense-climate-science-and.html
(Leif I see no point in rehashing our recent exchange on the Maunder Minimum thread)
lsvalgaard said June 28, 2014 at 12:52 pm
” Bernie Hutchins says:
June 28, 2014 at 12:46 pm
Does this surprise anyone – aren’t these the same URL ! Am I missing something!
You are missing the political nature of the comment which was intended to insult [and hoping people would not pay too much attention to actual facts].”
So – he was just being a smart ass? Very helpful of him! Especially in a posting criticizing the conduct of yourself!
Thanks Leif. Got it.
A very interesting video very related to this posting
Bernie, I think his Lordship was trying to point out in a humouristic way the data used by Evans was also used in recent IPCC AR5 (2013). The point was exactly that it was the same URL.
lsvagaard’s comment is that the IPCC don’t know what they are doing and have used wrong data.
(Would not be the first time).
Evans’ idea is to use the warmists’ sources to prove you don’t need CO2. Thus it does not matter if this is “wrong” in the same way it does not matter if hadSST3 is wrong and has been tweaked.
It’s interesting to note that my relaxation model turns lsvalgaard’s “correct” TSI into something not dissimilar to the ramped up Lean et al TSI reconstruction, except for the improbably drop at the end which is probably related to using a crap
filter“smoother”.http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=981
Will the world ever learn to find out what a filter does before using it?
https://climategrog.wordpress.com/2013/05/19/triple-running-mean-filters/
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
——————————————-
What a lame comparison. I thought you were one of the more intelligent ones here.
This is testable.
There is NO CO2 test for temperature effect.
If climate changes it’s CO2 wotdunit?
cn
@lord monckton
lsvalgaard is an atheist
it is not in his nature to apologise
Monckton of Brenchley says:
June 28, 2014 at 12:58 pm
He admits that he tampered with the TSI graph from SORCE that had nine months’ missing data. It was on the basis of that tampered graph he said that Dr Evans had deliberately used wrong data.
Not at all, the blue curve shows that Mr Evans assertion is false [and I maintain seems to be agenda driven – as your comments are]: http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-since-2003.png
The rest of your comment is not worth elaborating on.
There IS some science in what David Evans has done, an investigation of how closely the TSI time series resembles that of global temperature, plus estimation of a hypothetical sensitivity. Such an investigation would involve data smoothing filters to show better the major trends.
A SCIENTIST would call the work something like “Investigation of a simple (or toy) model of climate response to solar forcing”.
A PSEUDO-SCIENTIST would start calling it a theory involving mysterious forces, claiming it can make predictions, that it could bring down the CO2 theory, and would make elementary errors like claiming that notch filters are acausal, and that it is original. Glassman has done something similar, and probably many others.
http://journal.crossfit.com/2010/04/glassman-sgw.tpl
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/evans/graphs/prediction/total-solar-irradiance.gif
Looking at the 25 year “smooth” on that graph running up to the end of the data , they must be doing some kind of Mannian padding. My guess is they’re padding the window by repeating the last value. That means the end of the 11Y “smooth” has last value represented 6 times. Hence the spurious drop. 2003-2005 is where they should have stopped when the data ran out.
There’s another way to get that sort of error but it’s about as bad so I won’t bother explaining in detail.
The “unprecedented” drop is nothing but illegitimate data processing, it would appear.
Monckton of Brenchley says:
June 28, 2014 at 12:58 pm
It was on the basis of that tampered graph
This comment is not only wrong, but outright stupid as everyone can plainly see. You do yourself no favours by pretending to be so dumb [I have a hard time believing that you are – but I could be wrong…]
Dr Norman Page says:
June 28, 2014 at 1:03 pm
For predictions of a possible future cooling based on the 60 and 1000 year quasi periodical cycles in the temperature data and using the neutron count- 10 Be record as the best proxy for solar :activity”
In a recent report http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=13519&page=17 Muescheler points out that “there is no evidence of sustained periods on the order of 1,000 years of low solar activity in either the 10Be or the 14C record”
greg Goodman said in part June 28, 2014 at 1:19 pm
” ….Bernie, I think his Lordship was trying to point out in a humouristic way the data used by Evans was also used in recent IPCC AR5 (2013). The point was exactly that it was the same URL…..”
Greg – thanks. But I assume you mean the same GRAPH. Both the URL’s were identical and from Jo Nova’s site. If it was meant to be funny he really needed to provide separate links. Lazy. Wouldn’t have been the first time he fumbled – and that I had called his attention to his error, for which he thanked me. Engineers and details.
greg Goodman says:
June 28, 2014 at 1:48 pm
The “unprecedented” drop is nothing but illegitimate data processing, it would appear.
An issue here is whether this was deliberate. Now most of what we do is deliberate, and I have a hard time believing that Evans did not know what he was doing, but [as always – I could be wrong].
Number of comments were made about the notch filter delay, the main feature in the research by David Evans. Yes, filters do, as all transmitting systems do produce some delay.
When compared (any point in time) solar activity and the climate indices show a certain time shift, which often is characterised as delay.
However in number of indices, the shift is non-stationary, in which case is may not be a ‘delay’ of one variable related to the other, but it is likely that two systems are running on two different fundamental frequencies.
If both sources affect the global temperature, than the effect of natural variability or ‘oscillations’ such as the AMO and PDO would be observed.