Solar Notch-Delay Model Released

Readers may recall the contentious discussions that occurred on this thread a couple of weeks back. Both Willis Eschenbach and Dr. Leif Svalgaard were quite combative over the fact that the model data had not been released. But that aside, there is good news.

David Archibald writes in to tell us that the model has been released and that we can examine it. Links to the details follow.

While this is a very welcome update, from my viewpoint the timing of this could not be worse, given that a number of people including myself are in the middle of the ICCC9 conference in Las Vegas.

I have not looked at this model, but I’m passing it along for readers to examine themselves. Perhaps I and others will be able to get to it in a few days, but for now I’m passing it along without comment.

Archibald writes:

There is plenty to chew on. Being able to forecast turns in climate a decade in advance will have great commercial utility. To reiterate, the model is predicting a large drop in temperature from right about now:

clip_image002

 

David Evans has made his climate model available for download here.

The home for all things pertaining to the model is: http://sciencespeak.com/climate-nd-solar.html

UPDATE2:

For fairness and to promote a fuller understanding, here are some replies from Joanne Nova

http://joannenova.com.au/2014/07/the-solar-model-finds-a-big-fall-in-tsi-data-that-few-seem-to-know-about/

http://joannenova.com.au/2014/07/more-strange-adventures-in-tsi-data-the-miracle-of-900-fabricated-fraudulent-days/

0 0 vote
Article Rating
633 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Bob
July 8, 2014 9:11 am

Archibald??

rogerknights
July 8, 2014 9:15 am

To reiterate, the model is predicting a large drop in temperature from right about now:

I hope that’s true, because just before this year, and early in it, I prophesied that 2014 would be a cool year–not in the top ten.

Peter Miller
July 8, 2014 9:16 am

If this proves to be correct, there are going to be some very embarrassed individuals in the Climate and Left Wing Establishments.
I hope it is, for no other reason that it will be highly amusing to listen to all those people running for the door, while making comments like, “Well, I never believed all that stuff about global warming/climate change anyway.”
Also, CO2 can return to its rightful position of being a life giving, and not an evil, gas.
If…………

william
July 8, 2014 9:17 am

The model is not beLeifable. When it passes Leif-muster then perhaps it may offer some insight.

Nylo
July 8, 2014 9:25 am

There’s nothing new this year that wasn’t happening also the 2-3 years before w.r.t. the sun, so I consider the proposed scenario quite imposible to believe. The model is probably using some teleconnections with events in the distant past, without any physical meaning.

July 8, 2014 9:25 am

@Peter Miller the warmists will never admit they’re wrong. Some half-baked idiot at GISS or elsewhere will write a paper claiming that the cooling is caused by CO2 emissions. The leftist media and politicians like 0bama and algore will trumpet it, saying we must decrease our use of fossil fuels.

Dave
July 8, 2014 9:27 am

Aside from the vindictive satisfaction that may be had watching the cagw crowd wither, cooling may not be so desirable for a pleasant existence.

John Loop
July 8, 2014 9:31 am

Not a climate scientist, but an engineer. I have been closely watching the debates on the blogs- at least the blogs allowing a debate! This model seems open and falsifiable, and promulgated by reasonable people without an agenda! And speaking in GENERAL, and in the VERY VERY end, it is the sun, right? How can anybody say this is not true? We just have to find the correlation somehow. Maybe this is taking us there…. Would be nice. Do NOT look forward to the cold tho!

July 8, 2014 9:35 am

Is the model statistically validated ( predicted relative frequencies of the outcomes of events match observed relative frequencies)? Based upon the content at http://sciencespeak.com/climate-nd-solar.html my guess is that it is not.

Jimmy Haigh.
July 8, 2014 9:38 am

It’s a pity that CO2 doesn’t warm the planet because, if this model is correct, we’re going to need some warming soon.

July 8, 2014 9:41 am

“Both Willis Eschenbach and Dr. Leif Svalgaard were quite combative over the fact that the model data had not been released.”
My goodness that is a very polite way to describe how those two acted. I would describe their actions differently, but we are all different, eh?
Dr. Evans told us all from the get-go that the data was coming after several posts explaining it all. And if someone has not read all the preliminary posts leading up to this release, then they should catch up before asking questions as much of what his data shows was described over many, many, many words. The comment threads were long and informative also.

Alan Robertson
July 8, 2014 9:48 am

Peter Miller says:
July 8, 2014 at 9:16 am
“If this proves to be correct, there are going to be some very embarrassed individuals in the Climate and Left Wing Establishments.”
___________________
Hasn’t happened, yet. What’s been the response when Nature has proved all of their predictions wrong? They’ve moved on to “climate disruption”.

July 8, 2014 9:55 am

We can all make models, but who is the maker of this one?
If it is not an IPCC original, then I do not see why we should be bothered.
Yes, I am interested in seeing other models too, but this is a bit like the “Weather forecast”. If we act upon it and it is wrong, then it matters little – or not at all, if it was not a “Met Office” forecast. –
Let’s say you cancel your trip to the beach one day because the forecast that you heard was for rain and pestilence, then you can blame no one but yourself if the forecast you relied upon was not the official one. (this example, of course, is of little importance to anybody but yourself)
And yes, I also know that Met. Office forecasts are “iffy” ones too – especially the long range ones.

July 8, 2014 9:56 am

The spreadsheet is very disorganized and difficult to navigate [simply because of all the stuff crammed into it]. The spreadsheet works with ‘parameter sets’ that may be used to run the model. As we all know ‘with five parameters I can make the elephant wiggle his trunk’ and in Evans’ model there are many more. The important bit is to construct the parameter set from the solar, temperature, and ‘volcanic’ data. That should be the model, but the spreadsheet does not [as far as I can see] do that, so is not really ‘The Model’, just an application of the model. Therefore is no help at all.

July 8, 2014 10:01 am

I think the Evanses have a sense of humor releasing this during the conference. 😉

July 8, 2014 10:02 am

This model is likely to be right once the maximum of solar cycle 24 ends which should be before this year ends. It can not be worse then what AGW theory has called for. I have listed some of their worst blunders and some of their spins to justify their blunders below.
I have specific solar criteria which I feel is needed in order to have prolonged solar minimum activity to have a significant impact on the climate. I will post this .
.The data is on our side not there side. That is what should be brought to the for front the data, which shows everything AGW theory has predicted has failed to materialize from the steady temperature trends for some 17 years, to Antarctic Sea Ice now at record highs, to no lower tropospheric hot spot in the tropics, to no increase in tropical activity ,to no increase in tornados, to no increase in global droughts. No heat waves ,no long list of record high temperatures, no increase in atmospheric humidity ,no increases in El Nino’s etc.
Their theory is a shame and they had called for a more positive AO when they first presented their BS, only to change this wrong prediction when the atmospheric circulation evolved into a more meridional pattern.
Then to make matters worse they tried to justify this wrong prediction for the atmospheric pattern due to a decrease in Arctic Sea Ice. More BS.
Now they are trying to spin the record Antarctic Sea Ice levels into somehow being connected with global warming , more absurdity.
Let us not forget ocean heat content which can be shown to correlate quite well with sunspot activity ,having nothing to do with IR but rather visible and UV light intensities. In addition OHC has leveled off of late in contrast to another wrong prediction made by them.
AGW theory is junk and the solar /climate connection theory will be the one that rises to the top, and this will be happening before this decade ends.
These are the more notable wrong predictions AGW theory has called for there are more

July 8, 2014 10:03 am

To me, a useful spreadsheet would be one where you give it 5 inputs: lists of solar, temperature, ‘atomic’, and volcanic data, and a range in years, and the spreadsheet calculates the parameter set, which you can then use in another spreadsheet to calculate the hindcast and the forecast. That would be science.

July 8, 2014 10:04 am

Thanks for the heads up. I have noticed the same thing and collected them in “Eleven signs of cooling. A new little Ice Age coming?” This twelfth sign seems to be the strongest of them all.
http://lenbilen.com/2014/07/01/eleven-signs-of-cooling-a-new-little-ice-age-coming/

Eliza
July 8, 2014 10:04 am

OT but watching the Skeptics conference, ther is no doubt in my mind that AGW is now mainly age related. Most of the young guys/gals involved/believing in AGW will probably be very skeptical or more likely very against, about what they thought when they were young. Fads are mainly age related… take socialism, y2000 ect., they all fizzled out. AGW is just one of those fads,.It will be all over in 5 years.

Pamela Gray
July 8, 2014 10:05 am

I scanned the appendix that was issued with the Excel model. Lots of “it must be there though we can’t observe it there” parts to the model, which are also considered to be key parameters, such as there must be a notch filter at 11 years or their must be a 20 year lag from solar in to temperature out. The problem with this is that if nature’s noise does not demonstrate this to be the case, the model is modeling a potential make-believe world which will occasionally “get it right”. Sorry. Not my cup of tea in terms of validity (meaning we don’t know if it is measuring what it says it can measure). As for reliability, models are far more reliable than observations in terms of always doing what it is set to do. In the very action of “setting parameters”, you create a more reliable system than nature sets for itself.
In summary, my first vote is no. But I haven’t read the code yet or whether or not it has hindcasted anything. Still, a hindcast would also be possibly invalid again because of assumptions. Indeed, all climate models have a validity issue due to the nature of having to set parameters based on assumptions.

LogosWrench
July 8, 2014 10:06 am

If true there will not be embarrassed people in the climate left wing establishment. They will change the narrative and say they predicted “change” all along and that mankind is still responsible and with warming we should expect cooler than normal temperatures. Have you learned nothing from the “polar vortex”? In other words those seeking absolute power will say and do absolutely anything to get it.

ren
July 8, 2014 10:08 am

Also decreases the temperature of the atmosphere above the equator. 2003 +11 = 2014.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_ALL_EQ_2013.gif

July 8, 2014 10:08 am

This is what I think is needed or at least be approached. Regular 11 year sunspot cycles are not going to have significant impacts on the climate because the effects keep getting cancelled out.
THE CRITERIA
Solar Flux avg. sub 90
Solar Wind avg. sub 350 km/sec
AP index avg. sub 5.0
Cosmic ray counts north of 6500 counts per minute
Total Solar Irradiance off .015% or more
EUV light average 0-105 nm sub 100 units (or off 100% or more) and longer UV light emissions around 300 nm off by several percent.
IMF around 4.0 nt or lower.
The above solar parameter averages following several years of sub solar activity in general which commenced in year 2005..
IF , these average solar parameters are the rule going forward for the remainder of this decade expect global average temperatures to fall by -.5C, with the largest global temperature declines occurring over the high latitudes of N.H. land areas.
The decline in temperatures should begin to take place within six months after the ending of the maximum of solar cycle 24.
NOTE 1- What mainstream science is missing in my opinion is two fold, in that solar variability is greater than thought, and that the climate system of the earth is more sensitive to that solar variability.
NOTE 2- LATEST RESEARCH SUGGEST THE FOLLOWING:
A. Ozone concentrations in the lower and middle stratosphere are in phase with the solar cycle, while in anti phase with the solar cycle in the upper stratosphere.
B. Certain bands of UV light are more important to ozone production then others.
C. UV light bands are in phase with the solar cycle with much more variability, in contrast to visible light and near infrared (NIR) bands which are in anti phase with the solar cycle with much LESS variability.
© 2014 Southwest Weather, Inc. All Rights

ren
July 8, 2014 10:10 am

Only warm the oceans saves us from the sudden drop in temperature at the surface. More CO2!

July 8, 2014 10:13 am

Looks to me like it shows significant warming from 1940 to 1970. That didn’t happen. Seems to invalidate the model.

Reply to  Murray
July 8, 2014 10:46 am

Murray:
That significant warming was projected between 1940 and 1970 does not necessarily invalidate the model. Usually, that a model was “invalidated” means that it was falsified. Usually, a climate model is non-falsifiable thus being insusceptible to being invalidated. A model is falsifiable when the events underlying this model exist. In climatology this is not usually the case.

JDN
July 8, 2014 10:15 am

So, it’s going to take us all the way back to the 1940s, when life on planet earth was barely possible.

ren
July 8, 2014 10:17 am

Is it the same?
http://oi58.tinypic.com/289bnsg.jpg
Here you can see the exact collapse the TSI, in 2006, as Ap.
http://oi60.tinypic.com/8w0aid.jpg
What Ap you anticipate in the coming minimum?

ren
July 8, 2014 10:20 am

Sorry, this graph is of Ap.
http://www.leif.org/research/Ap-1844-now.png

ren
July 8, 2014 10:29 am

The last such rapid decline in magnetic activity of the sun was in the 1990. Oceans slowing effect. They can store energy from the sun.
http://www.leif.org/research/Ap-1844-now.png

Bob Weber
July 8, 2014 10:34 am

lsvalgaard says:
July 8, 2014 at 10:03 am
That’s what I’m doing. Maybe DEvans has done that, I don’t know – haven’t opened his model yet. My hunch about his model – probably not fair because I didn’t read the whole thing – is that the notch temperature filter happens because solar flux diminishes near solar minimum. The notches look like they’re from the cycle minimums, when flux is less than – my model says 85-90 – and temps head downhill until solar activity picks up on the next cycle upswing, and then crosses the threshold going up, driving temps up again.

July 8, 2014 10:34 am

Ren thanks for the graph. It shows quite clearly a major change took place in year 2005 in the AP index and is still continuing today. This should continue going forward and will either make our case for solar /climate connections or break our case. I am quite confident it will make our case.
As Ren alluded to the warm oceans are creating a lag time but this should diminish as we move forward in response to prolonged minimum solar activity. Ocean Heat Content correlating quite well to the strength of solar visible and UV light bands, not IR.

July 8, 2014 10:39 am

I have many other studies which show this to be fact which is one of the parts of my solar/climate connections.
Quite right. Seismic activity is NOT independent of solar activity:
NASA:Volcanic eruptions and solar activity
ABSTRACT
The historical record of large volcanic eruptions from 1500 to 1980, as contained in two recent catalogs, is subjected to detailed time series analysis. Two weak, but probably statistically significant, periodicities of ~11 and ~80 years are detected. Both cycles appear to correlate with well-known cycles of solar activity; the phasing is such that the frequency of volcanic eruptions increases (decreases) slightly around the times of solar minimum (maximum). The weak quasi-biennial solar cycle is not obviously seen in the eruption data, nor are the two slow lunar tidal cycles of 8.85 and 18.6 years. Time series analysis of the volcanogenic acidities in a deep ice core from Greenland, covering the years 553-1972, reveals several very long periods ranging from ~80 to ~350 years and are similar to the very slow solar cycles previously detected in auroral and carbon 14 records. Solar flares are believed to cause changes in atmospheric circulation patterns that abruptly alter the earth’s spin. The resulting jolt probably triggers small earthquakes which may temporarily relieve some of the stress in volcanic magma chambers, thereby weakening, postponing, or even aborting imminent large eruptions. In addition, decreased atmospheric precipitation around the years of solar maximum may cause a relative deficit of phreatomagmatic eruptions at those times.
Possible correlation between solar and volcanic activity in a long-term scale
ABSTRACT

CC Squid
July 8, 2014 10:40 am

Lsvalgarrd says, “Why didn’t he design it like I would have?”

Rhys Jaggar
July 8, 2014 10:41 am

I think people should separate out two things when discussing this:
1. Irrespective of mechanism which could mediate the notch filter, is the analysis of the primary data accurate, appropriate and worthwhile i.e. is this notch filter with a delay of around 10 – 11 years believable?
2. Are there any credible mechanisms by which such a notch filter could be delivered, if it is believable??

ren
July 8, 2014 10:42 am

What I write, sorry. The last such decline in magnetic activity (Ap) was in the 1900’s., I, stupid, I do not remember?
http://www.leif.org/research/Ap-1844-now.png

Eliza
July 8, 2014 10:43 am

It is likely that the model cannot be tested against the temperature data because it is all”adjusted” or basically C###. Maybe try RAW CET the only probably trustworthy surface temp data (if that hasn’t been tampered with!)

MattN
July 8, 2014 10:49 am

Archibald has been predicting temps dropping “right about now” for at least the last 6-7 years. I’ll believe it when I see it.

Mike Smith
July 8, 2014 10:51 am

Well, David has made good on his stated intentions and published a full and transparent package with all of the applicable code and data.
I had significant misgivings about the drip-feed approach that Jo and David decided to employ for this publication and said so at the time. I received a courteous reply from Jo and was largely persuaded that is was a good faith effort to promote discussion of various elements versus slapping down one Big Kahuna.
Authors do have the right to make decisions about the manner and timing of their publications. I would have preferred to see a different one but I do think their choice was a reasonable one. It did impose a short (2-3 week) delay on the release of fully transparent code and data. But that absolutely does not rise to the level of indecency demonstrated by Mann, Jones et al who have actively sought to prevent the release of their (publicly funded) data.
In any event, publication is now “complete”. I don’t really support the chosen method but I don’t feel it was improper or in any way deceitful. I hope Willis will be able to reach a similar conclusion.

July 8, 2014 10:52 am

It is nice to see a verifiable/falsifiable prediction. Right or wrong, they’re doing science here.

Reply to  Steele
July 8, 2014 11:30 am

Steele:
I gather from what I’ve been able to glean from reading the material at the model’s Website, the claims of Evans’s model are not falsifiable. Are you confusing a capacity for being in error on the global temperature with falsifiability? Many people do that.

Robert of Ottawa
July 8, 2014 11:01 am

A problem for many is that this model doesn’t attempt to explain causes and effects; it is an analog. As an analog model, I can accept it; it’s predictive capacity is what would validate it. Even if validated, it would still just remain an analog; it cannot be proved. The causes and effects would still be unknown.

sergeiMK
July 8, 2014 11:03 am

As Leif says:
As we all know ‘with five parameters I can make the elephant wiggle his trunk’
here is a model (well just a set of added waves of different amplitudes and different frequencies:
5 waves gives a smooth rather nice fit
http://bit.ly/VFFlDA
28 waves and every wiggle matched
http://bit.ly/1mvUb9w

John West
July 8, 2014 11:06 am

I’ve been playing with this a bit this morning and I’m impressed with the amount of work that has gone into it and I also found the nuke model hilarious (wrt the SkS Hiroshima Bomb app).
Thank you Dr. Evans for putting this together.
That being said, I can’t say I’m hopeful the model is useful with default conditions/settings at predicting GAST. The solar influence is a tad high and the CO2 influence a tad small. Agree that Dr. Evans himself says this. The problem is if one tunes (trains, calibrates, whatever you want to call it) to match any of the major datasets then it’s going to be bunkum since all the major datasets fail to show anything in the data that could have possibly caused the “coming ice age” scare. We know it happened and I find it hard to believe scientists from the 70’s couldn’t differentiate between a global decline in temperature and a global warming hiatus (even if they couldn’t quantify it to tenths or hundredths of a degree like they can today /sarc). However you slice it, the GAST record from any of the major data sets is bunkum. Thanks to Dr. Evans putting this in an easily tunable platform we can do some adjustments and see what we get.
I’m already having fun playing with the settings.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/25/unwarranted-temperature-adjustments-and-al-gores-unwarranted-call-for-intellectual-tyranny/

Tom O
July 8, 2014 11:12 am

” lsvalgaard says:
July 8, 2014 at 9:56 am

” lsvalgaard says:
July 8, 2014 at 9:56 am

So you don’t like the way it looks. One thing is certain, as a model it appears to be predicting a little more closely as to what is happening in what we call climate. Okay, Why not stop complaining and put up YOUR model that attempts to predict the future climate? I assume you DO have one, correct?

July 8, 2014 11:20 am

Tom O says:
July 8, 2014 at 11:12 am
I assume you DO have one, correct?
Living in California my prediction is that the weather/climate in the future will be just like today. i’ll be right 97% of the time 🙂

richard
July 8, 2014 11:20 am

hmm- new ideas always get mocked, of course some will be right , some not. let’s wait and see.
2011 (Reuters) – An Israeli scientist who suffered years of ridicule and even lost a research post for claiming to have found an entirely new class of solid material was awarded the Nobel Prize for chemistry on Wednesday for his discovery of quasicrystals.

RH
July 8, 2014 11:29 am

Skeptics being skeptical of skepticism. No better way to get to the truth.

July 8, 2014 11:30 am

Yes, a good comment on the ‘utility’ of consensus’.

JJM Gommers
July 8, 2014 11:31 am

This model has one advantage over the IPCC models, true or false will be soon, not 2100.

Philip
July 8, 2014 11:32 am

Robert of Ottawa: your problem with the model not explaining the causes is what seems to be tripping a lot of people up.
I don’t think that David EVER suggested that that this model was going to answer every question, or that it would match every physical process in the climate. What he is doing is science as it should be done, and using a model as it should be used.
He started from observations; looking at how changes in TSI and global temperature were related, because he thought that there should be a relationship. He found that using a back-box model, he could get a first approximation fit of the two data sets.
He chose to look at the frequency domain. The ~11 year cyclic component of TSI doesn’t appear in the temperature variation data. From a frequency domain POV, this implies either a (very) low pass or a notch filter (or, as some AGW “scientists seem to want to claim, an open circuit — no relationship at all between the sun and temperatures on earth).
He chose to go with the notch filter, mainly because (as I understand it) that implied a delay, and several independent studies have noted a ~11 year delay.
The model was elaborated from there.
All he is trying to do is build a black-box model. he is specifically NOT trying to do what the IPCC do and model specific processes. He is starting from the other end. Looking purely at the two data sets, he is trying to answer the question “how do we get from there to here?”.
Once the model appears to track, only THEN do we start to look at mapping the model components to physical causes, or groups of related physical causes.
The filter may turn out not to be a notch – it could just as easily be a (very) low pass filter, and our friend Willis has already described a very active negative feedback system which would achieve that effect.
But that is stage two. He asked a question, and had proposed a model that might be an answer to that question. The scientific method is not to jump directly into physical processes, but to look at the model and see if it can be improved or discredited, it doesn’t claim, as other models do, to be the ultimate and definitive answer in itself. Once the model seems to be tracking reality, only THEN can we begin the next step in the analysis, to see if there are any physical processes which could account for the various model components. If so, good. If not, then maybe we have to backtrack and look at some of the alternatives.
Science is an iterative process. If you don’t see any real iteration going on, its not science.
——-
This is, of course, just my view.
David and Joanna may not agree.
Philip

July 8, 2014 11:37 am

Leif
‘The spreadsheet is very disorganized and difficult to navigate [simply because of all the stuff crammed into it]. The spreadsheet works with ‘parameter sets’ that may be used to run the model. As we all know ‘with five parameters I can make the elephant wiggle his trunk’ and in Evans’ model there are many more. The important bit is to construct the parameter set from the solar, temperature, and ‘volcanic’ data. That should be the model, but the spreadsheet does not [as far as I can see] do that, so is not really ‘The Model’, just an application of the model. Therefore is no help at all.”
yes,
to explain the folks.
Lets suppose I give you a pile of data
And you come back and say my model is T = f(x,y,z,d,f,t,y,e)
And then he gives you a spreadsheet of the model.
That’s NOT what we want to see. We want to see the SCIENCE BITS.. that is
how did he derive the model.
That is where the real issue is because the model was derived from questionable data and the
thing you want to check is how sensitive is model CONSTRUCTION to the data used.
Without that stuff the spreadsheet is useless.

Matthew R Marler
July 8, 2014 11:44 am

It looks like the next 6 years should provide a good test.
Any error estimates for the model values?

Londo
July 8, 2014 11:46 am

Anybody knows if the model predicts the pause when given input data preceding it? That would be a fairly good test of its validity. As it is now, it looks as a high-order extrapolation with its usual divergence characteristic. David Evans is an intelligent man so my guess is that this is something he must have done but I would like to see it in order to appreciate the 2015 prediction.

gnomish
July 8, 2014 11:48 am

a notch filter attentuates. it does not amplify. so what is proposed is equivalent to a ‘forcing of coolness’.
i do not see any requirement for a lag implicit in a notch filter and would appreciate any explanation of how i may be in error.
also, i can imagine a very simple mechanism that could respond with an 11 yr notch, namely extrasolar cosmic particles that are driven away with more solar activity and that return like the tide when there is less.
anyway- this is an interesting bit where there has been little but reruns for a long time.

Richard Case
July 8, 2014 11:52 am

Leif Svalgaard doth protest too much … about everything. He’s practically living on these blogs, seemingly trying to shoot down everything in sight. Seems like the “not invented here” syndrome at work here.
Sorry, but his behavior the past week or two sends up red flags for me.

ren
July 8, 2014 11:52 am

Let the current temperatures in Australia. It does not happen without a reason.
http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/1000hPa/overlay=temp/orthographic=136.21,-28.12,1458

July 8, 2014 11:53 am

I cannot say anything about the model, however Hadsst3 is averaging 0.392 after 5 months. The record is 1998 at 0.416. In the last two months, Hadsst3 was 0.478 and 0.479 respectively. Should these numbers repeat for the next two months, Hadsst3 would at least temporarily rank in first place after 7 months. And warm water takes a long time to cool down. The next few months will be very revealing, with or without an El Nino.

RH
July 8, 2014 11:54 am

If the climate science thing doesn’t work out, you could make a good living conducting MS Excel seminars.

Steve Fitzpatrick
July 8, 2014 11:55 am

There is money to be made for your favorite charity if you can find someone who will bet this silly ‘model’ accurately predicts temperatures over the next 6-7 years.

Brad
July 8, 2014 11:57 am

Anthony says:
“While this is a very welcome update, from my viewpoint the timing of this could not be worse, given that a number of people including myself are in the middle of the ICCC9 conference in Las Vegas.”
Anthony, Please explain your reasoning for this statement.
Leif says:
“The spreadsheet is very disorganized and difficult to navigate [simply because of all the stuff crammed into it]. The spreadsheet works with ‘parameter sets’ that may be used to run the model. As we all know ‘with five parameters I can make the elephant wiggle his trunk’ and in Evans’ model there are many more. The important bit is to construct the parameter set from the solar, temperature, and ‘volcanic’ data. That should be the model, but the spreadsheet does not [as far as I can see] do that, so is not really ‘The Model’, just an application of the model. Therefore is no help at all.”
And this:
“To me, a useful spreadsheet would be one where you give it 5 inputs: lists of solar, temperature, ‘atomic’, and volcanic data, and a range in years, and the spreadsheet calculates the parameter set, which you can then use in another spreadsheet to calculate the hindcast and the forecast. That would be science.”
Leif, if it was so simple, why didn’t you do it already and solve the problem? Your first post says five parameters and you can make an elephant wiggle its trunk. And then, amazingly, you state it would “USEFUL” to use your “5 parameters” to both hindcast and forecast???? Your lack of logic is unbelievable.
And please explain how you can forecast “volcanic activity” and its impact on changes in the climate. I’d love to see that crystal ball.
Your drive-by sniping on WUWT, in my humble opinion, only reduces your professional credibility.

william
July 8, 2014 12:07 pm

So Werner, this years temps are .478C warmer than an arbitrarily selected anomaly baseline perioid. It can be argued that the anomaly period was at the cold end of an indeterminate cycle.
I have yet to see justification that the anomaly period used to compare todays temperatures to is either 1) normal temperatures for the planet or 2) “the correct” temperature for the planet.
As a result, I find all the tracking and comparisons of month to month temperatures as laughable if not absurd.

Travis Casey
July 8, 2014 12:07 pm

@Philip – That is a great explanation and is also my understanding at this point. I would add that since we are at a point where divergence is expected due to CO2 continuing to increase and the TSI decreasing, the path that temperature follows will render one or the other approach rubbish in the near future.

milodonharlani
July 8, 2014 12:14 pm

Murray says:
July 8, 2014 at 10:13 am
I have to agree. Even if its forecast proves valid, its hindcast sucks.

Pamela Gray
July 8, 2014 12:18 pm

The inputs of my table napkin model set to predict atmospheric temperature output would be:
1) Adjustable equatorial oceanic stored energy to 1000 meters to begin the run.
2) TOA solar insolation calculated for surface incidence on a rotating and tilting sphere minus ocean surface reflectance.
3) Adjustable by amount and length aerosol shading input (clouds, dust, ash, sulfur, etc) as a filter.
4) Adjustable by amount and length of heat loss to the atmosphere via evaporation calculation for rough (IE mixed) versus calm (IE layered) ocean surface.
5) Oceanic fluid dynamics calculations to produce lag.
6) Various calculations to translate energy to joules to watt to atmospheric temperature, etc.

July 8, 2014 12:32 pm

Brad says:
July 8, 2014 at 11:57 am
And please explain how you can forecast “volcanic activity” and its impact on changes in the climate. I’d love to see that crystal ball.
Evans’ ‘model’ uses volcanic activity….and worse ‘atomic bomb tests’

GabrielHBay
July 8, 2014 12:33 pm

At the very least this is a very serious effort with a lot to digest. Spreadsheet loads up perfectly for me, but is likely well above my paygrade. OK, I do standard C daily but I do not use Excel unless under duress. The fast-draw drive-by shooters here can not POSSIBLY have given due attention in the short time since release, so I shall treat their comments with the disdain deserved. Waiting for those smart enough to be able to digest and at least treat this with some respect and make a useful contribution to the subject on hand.

July 8, 2014 12:37 pm

Two of the biggest unknowns are how will Ocean Heat Content change going forward and how much of an influence might it have on global temperatures. How much of a lag time ? Further if OHC is changing with time the lag time is going to be different then if OHC remained at a steady state..
I think there are circumstances that could drive Ocean Heat Content down to a lower level faster then what most thinking assumes which is, OHC is extremely slow to change. Maybe not so slow if circumstances are right.
What circumstances? Changes in ENSO,VOLCANIC ACTIVITY ,SOLAR , CLOUDS ,ATMOSPHERIC CIRCULATION all of which influence the heat content and temperatures of the oceans.
This is one of the biggest risk in making future temperature prediction in my opinion.
Maybe thresholds come into play that can impact OHC to a great degree if met while OHC changes little until the threshold (x) is reached. Just some thoughts.

July 8, 2014 12:38 pm

Brad and Richard: stop whining about Leif like a bunch of wallflowers. The man is very busy, yet still finds time to mingle with us mere padawans, fow which I am grateful. Leif might point this out himself, but no doubt you would accuse him of bragging if he mentioned he was gearing up for his keynote speech at SCOSTEP’s 13th Quadrennial Solar-Terrestrial Physics Symposium (STP13) in China.
Try not to be jealous of Leif, boys, he actually Walks his Talks.

David L. Hagen
July 8, 2014 12:39 pm

David Evans/Archibald
Re: Pi/2 (~2.75 year) lag between solar cycle and ocean temperature
Thanks for your innovative efforts.
Now to find out how accurately your model predicts.
See David Stockwell Key evidence for the accumulative model of high solar influence on global temperature 2011
He models the solar cycle on the ocean, calculates a 2.75 year lag (Pi/2 or 90 deg) and shows support for that lag. Further Stockwell links. including the 2.75 year lag in Roy Spencer’s data.
How well does your model show this 2.75 year lag between solar cycle and ocean temperature?
Or does your notch filter avoid looking at this effect?

Greg
July 8, 2014 12:49 pm

The base concept of a notch filter is a misinterpretation of the what the spectra represent. HadSST is not “the” output in the sense of TSI proxy convoluted with the transfer function of the system, it is a lot else besides. That makes the basic premise erroneous.
He then brings in a massive, hitherto undocumented, “nuclear cooling” nearly as big as a full 100y of global warming that no one has noticed yet. WTF?
Then he needs another fudge factor to bring in the 11y lag.
I and others have brought up all these major flaws over at JoNova’s and he has not addressed them. I thought he was taking time publishing the details because he was reconsidering some of the implications. It seems not.
While I do think that there will be increased cooling in the coming years, the sudden drop is just a figment of curious data processing and if he’s hanging his hat on that a falsifiable prediction, I think he’s going to be disappointed equally quickly.
I don’t see this going any further.

GabrielHBay
July 8, 2014 12:49 pm

@Sherry Moore
Aw how sweet. LS has a groupie….

MikeUK
July 8, 2014 12:53 pm

For the “derivation” of David Evan’s model see here (a bit buried in their latest post):
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/cfa/excerpts.pdf
Not at all convincing to me, seems to forget about the existence of noise, and the signal processing arguments are poor/wrong.
Bob Carter has just announced it at the Heartland conference, which makes me worry about handing ammo to the opposition.

July 8, 2014 1:03 pm

Gabriel-hahaha! Maybe, and yes, I have read most of what Leif has published. He has earned the “right” to say whatever he darn well pleases, (being correct an awful lot never hurts either). Let me tell you, Leif would squash me like a bug just as much as he squashes some of the Idiocracy denizens here, if I made an incorrect statement. I would be honored by that fairness, and so should some of these dimwits.
Also, I often illustrate other’s epic Fails, with Leif’s brilliant work, when relevant, so I can’t complain. Maybe Leif will give us all the scoop on the MiniMax 24 findings 😉
[Was that just “an awful lot”, or an “awe-filled lot”? 8<) .mod]

July 8, 2014 1:03 pm

william says:
July 8, 2014 at 12:07 pm
So Werner, this years temps are .478C warmer than an arbitrarily selected anomaly baseline period. It can be argued that the anomaly period was at the cold end of an indeterminate cycle.
That misses the point that this year may well have the warmest sea surface temperature since 1850. And should that be the case, global data sets should not be too different. So 2014 will not likely support the theory. However 2015 may be different.

July 8, 2014 1:06 pm

John Loop says:
July 8, 2014 at 9:31 am
And speaking in GENERAL, and in the VERY VERY end, it is the sun, right? How can anybody say this is not true? We just have to find the correlation somehow. Maybe this is taking us there…. Would be nice. Do NOT look forward to the cold tho!

Well, there are the “It’s the Sun, stupid” folks, but I’m more along the lines of “It starts with the Sun, stupid” person. (hope I got the punctuation right there)
There must be some level of fluctuation of the total solar irradiance (TSI) that has a measureable affect on the climate. During a Solar Eclipse, the folks in the Moon’s shadow report a noticeable decrease in the ambient temperature and shifts in the wind. But, does a .01% change in TSI have a noticeable affect no matter how long it lasts?

Pamela Gray
July 8, 2014 1:07 pm

I admit I am also a LS groupie. Brilliant man.

milodonharlani
July 8, 2014 1:17 pm

JohnWho says:
July 8, 2014 at 1:06 pm
The variation in the UV component of TSI varies by a lot more than that, as does magnetic flux.

July 8, 2014 1:33 pm

milodonharlani says:
July 8, 2014 at 1:17 pm
The variation in the UV component of TSI varies by a lot more than that, as does magnetic flux.
Not in terms of actual energy, and the magnetic flux is not a climate variable.

Editor
July 8, 2014 1:38 pm

First, my sincere congratulations to David Evans and Joanne Nova for releasing a portion of their work on their “notch filter” model. It is very good news to see that they have done so. It obviously represents a huge amount of work on their part.
Unfortunately, I was unable to get it to run. I followed the instructions, up to the following point:

Suppose you want to run the solar model with, say, the P25 set of parameters (recommended).
1. Go to the “Comparisons” sheet and and locate the “Save and Recall Scenario” area. ” From the drop down list there, choose something like “Mix of CO2 and solar, from 1770” or “Nearly all solar, from 1900 (reconstructed TSI)”, then click “Recall”. This puts default parameters into the solar model (on the “Analysis” sheet) and the other models (on the “Models” sheet), which you can overwrite as you see fit (only write numbers into the cells with white backgrounds). It also puts appropriate parameters in the “Comparisons” sheet for running that scenario.
2. On the “Analysis” sheet, locate the “Save and Recall Solar Model Settings” area, choose “P25” from the drop down list, and press the “Recall” button. That loads the model parameters intot he solar model, and draws the transfer function and step response on the “Analysis” sheet. 3.
On the “Comparisons” sheet, press “Compute All”. The big graph appears below the “Comparisons” settings, after a few seconds.

At that point I got the following error:

Run-time error ’53
File not found: kernel32

Searching the VBA code finds the following two lines in the module “CTimer”, which are the only two lines referencing the model:

Private Declare Function QueryPerformanceCounter Lib “kernel32” (lpPerformanceCount As LARGE_INTEGER) As Long
Private Declare Function QueryPerformanceFrequency Lib “kernel32” (lpFrequency As LARGE_INTEGER) As Long

It appears that these are part of a timer which keeps track of how long it takes the program to compute the answer. I suspect that the difference may be platform-dependent, as I’m working on a Mac. However, those are just guesses. In any case, I’m not able to run the model.
Finally, as Leif pointed out above, there is a deeper problem. They have only published a portion of their work. On the sheet “Storage”, they list the arbitrary parameters for their model. There are nine tunable parameters, and two binary (true/false) parameters, for a total of 11 parameters.
I must point out again the very cogent comment about arbitrary parameters by John von Neumann as related by Freeman Dyson, viz:

In desperation I asked Fermi whether
he was not impressed by the agreement
between our calculated numbers and his
measured numbers. He replied, “How
many arbitrary parameters did you use
for your calculations?” I thought for a
moment about our cut-off procedures
and said, “Four.” He said, “I remember
my friend Johnny von Neumann used to
say, with four parameters I can fit an
elephant, and with five I can make him
wiggle his trunk.”With that, the conversation
was over. I thanked Fermi for his
time and trouble,and sadly took the next
bus back to Ithaca to tell the bad news
to the students.

I shudder to think what Enrico Fermi would have said about a model with 11 parameters … regardless, I urge readers to keep in mind that obtaining a good fit from a model with 11 arbitrary parameters is meaningless.
In any case, they list a total of 25 different parameter sets. It is not clear why there are so many sets of parameters. The problem is that they have not shown how those parameters were obtained. This makes it impossible to do “out of sample” testing with their method.
Second, I had previously commented over at the JoNova blog that they should have done “out of sample” testing of their choice of parameters. Jo assured me that such tests had indeed been done.
However, they have not released those tests either.
As a result, even if I could run the model, it is impossible to do the most basic of tests of the model, the out-of-sample test.
Please be clear that I am NOT saying that David and Jo have evinced bad faith in this. From everything I’ve seen, they are honest people working to understand a most complex system, and they have put a huge amount of time and effort into the project.
However, even at this late date they have not revealed the information needed to do even the simplest testing of their model, nor even the results of the out-of-sample testing that Jo said is already done.
As a result, sadly, their model remains an advertisement, and not science in any form.
w.

Tom in Florida
July 8, 2014 1:42 pm

JohnWho says:
July 8, 2014 at 1:06 pm
“During a Solar Eclipse, the folks in the Moon’s shadow report a noticeable decrease in the ambient temperature and shifts in the wind. But, does a .01% change in TSI have a noticeable affect no matter how long it lasts?”
——————————————————————————————————————
But that is an insolation effect not a change in TSI.
Now the question for me is this: Which TSI graph is being used now? The original one using the outdated Lean info, the one Leif complained about, or a corrected version?

LT
July 8, 2014 1:46 pm

MattN says:
July 8, 2014 at 10:49 am
“Archibald has been predicting temps dropping “right about now” for at least the last 6-7 years. I’ll believe it when I see it”
Below is the last 7 years of land only temps (RSS), which clearly shows cooling, perhaps you can believe it now. The oceans will soon follow.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss-land/from:2007/plot/rss-land/from:2007/trend

milodonharlani
July 8, 2014 1:51 pm

lsvalgaard says:
July 8, 2014 at 1:33 pm
Many of your colleagues do consider magnetic flux to affect climate, possibly decisively.
The amount of energy in the UV variation may be less important than the physical or chemical effects of UV on atmospheric gas molecules & on the ocean surface.

milodonharlani
July 8, 2014 1:52 pm

Brad says:
July 8, 2014 at 11:57 am
IMO Leif isn’t a drive-by sniper. I’m impressed by the time he spends here, actually.

Pete Ross
July 8, 2014 1:59 pm

Not exactly off topic, but what I see happening, (and this Evans hypothesis and the reaction by its sceptics within the wider sceptical camp showing scepticism towards Evan’s work, which is actually a continuation of a developing phenomenon) is that the sceptical camp is creating schisms, sub-groups and even some mild internecine warfare. This is healthy as long as we don’t end up stonewalling each other.

July 8, 2014 2:04 pm

milodonharlani says:
July 8, 2014 at 1:51 pm
Many of your colleagues do consider magnetic flux to affect climate, possibly decisively.
I’ll confess to be totally ignorant of their considerations. Perhaps you could tell me who they are and how many ‘many’ is: 3? 10? 1000? with a link to the ONE claim that you consider decisive.

Rob
July 8, 2014 2:07 pm

For 18- years, there has been no change. With the PDO controlling
ENSO, there are already some suttle
signs of cooling. Prolonged low solar
activity just might be the kicker.

Latitude
July 8, 2014 2:15 pm

…and you’re going to hind cast this to whos/whats temp reconstruction?
This years temp reconstruction?…
…..last years temp reconstruction?
the one from 20 years ago?….the ones from 30 years ago?
The ones that showed the MWP….or the ones that don’t
the ones that show the 1930’s warmer….or the ones that don’t
The one where NOAA had 1936 the hottest year….or in 2012 when they claimed it was the hottest….or last month when they changed it back to 1936

ren
July 8, 2014 2:16 pm

Already this winter in the south surely convince of many. How will be the north?
http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/850hPa/overlay=temp/equirectangular=-122.55,0,160
Only in California gets warmer.

Brad
July 8, 2014 2:19 pm

milodonharlani says:
July 8, 2014 at 1:52 pm
Brad says:
July 8, 2014 at 11:57 am
IMO Leif isn’t a drive-by sniper. I’m impressed by the time he spends here, actually.
**********************************************************************************************
Milodonharlani,
IMO, he spends a lot of time sparring, not contributing.
Please read his comments on posts at Joannenova, as well as here. In this case he leaves cryptic sarcastic comments with no scientific backup. He may very well be a smart man (no I haven’t read his papers) but his demeanor through this whole process is very childish. His lack of consistent logic is also apparent, unless people are wearing blinders. He keeps finding fault but has apparently done nothing on his own regarding creating a model using this approach?
His response to a request for his model was
” lsvalgaard says:
July 8, 2014 at 11:20 am
Tom O says:
July 8, 2014 at 11:12 am
I assume you DO have one , correct?”
“Living in California my prediction is that the weather/climate in the future will be just like today. i’ll be right 97% of the time :-)”
Please explain the scientific brilliance of that comment. And if that is all there is, why has he bothered at all with all his years of research?
Can anyone explain why all this discussion is occurring here in WUWT and not at the publishers website? I would call that snubbing (dissing, shunning, etc), which is typical of drive-by snipers. If you are going to make comments, make them directly to the authors.
Closing statement – Since when is it not OK to try a new approach to an old problem? Even if it fails as a whole there are parts that people may not have taken into account before, or even thought about. Everyone should shed their egos and take off their blinders for a while. it is a free education.

July 8, 2014 2:21 pm

Figure 3: Notch-Delay Cimate Model and CET record with projection to 2045.
The hindcast match is good.
http://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2014/06/edge-cold-deep-abyss/

Steve Keohane
July 8, 2014 2:22 pm

milodonharlani says: July 8, 2014 at 1:51 pm
A third possible effect of ‘minor’ UV variation might be the effect on plants. Some plants come to fruition by time, some by length of day in combination with the shift to less UV and more IR as autumn approaches. Lower UV might reduce length of growing season if the ratio of UV:IR is significantly different from the plant’s perspective.

July 8, 2014 2:23 pm

Brad says:
July 8, 2014 at 2:19 pm
Closing statement – Since when is it not OK to try a new approach to an old problem?
It should be a valid approach, using correct input data, describing how to construct the parameters [which is the crux of the problem], and delivering a model that actually can run.

July 8, 2014 2:26 pm

Steve Keohane says:
July 8, 2014 at 2:22 pm
A third possible effect of ‘minor’ UV variation might be the effect on plants
So let us build a ‘plantometer’ to measure the tiny UV variations that are so hard to measure with instruments on spacecraft. 🙂

milodonharlani
July 8, 2014 2:26 pm

Brad says:
July 8, 2014 at 2:19 pm
I’m all for new approaches. In this case, as I commented, the model doesn’t look good because of the poor match with what IMO has been actual global temperature history (in so far as that can even be known) since c. AD 1850.
Leif is convinced of his positions & his defenses of them might well sound initially sound dismissive or snide, but IMO “drive-by” doesn’t fit because he’s willing to follow up on objections to his views.
I agree that the prior discussions on Dr. Evans’ proposed model here & on Jo’s site got out of hand, but I’ve been guilty of that myself, too.

July 8, 2014 2:30 pm

milodonharlani says:
July 8, 2014 at 2:26 pm
Leif is convinced of his positions & his defenses of them might well sound initially sound dismissive or snide, but IMO “drive-by” doesn’t fit because he’s willing to follow up on objections to his views.
And the discussion should not be about me, but about the Newly Released Model, touted as ‘Big News’.

milodonharlani
July 8, 2014 2:30 pm

Steve Keohane says:
July 8, 2014 at 2:22 pm
You’re right that I should have added the biological effects with climatic consequences of UV variations. UV for instance can harm or kill phytoplankton:
http://www.photobiology.info/Hader.html
One of the many baleful effects of the Carbonari mafia highjacking climatology (mutated into “climate science”, ie computer modeling) has been less emphasis on collecting actual data via observations & experiments.

milodonharlani
July 8, 2014 2:35 pm

lsvalgaard says:
July 8, 2014 at 2:30 pm
And I need to proofread before clicking “Post Comment”.

Editor
July 8, 2014 2:37 pm

Brad says:
July 8, 2014 at 2:19 pm

Can anyone explain why all this discussion is occurring here in WUWT and not at the publishers website? I would call that snubbing (dissing, shunning, etc), which is typical of drive-by snipers.

Thanks, Brad. First, we discuss a host of things here rather than on the “publisher’s website” in order to expose the ideas to a much wider and larger variety of readers. Alexa ranks their site as number 82,590 in the world, while WUWT is number 9,370 … so we have a much, much larger audience. You should be thanking WUWT for bringing their ideas out to the wider scientific world, not busting us.
Second, for me, I got frustrated over there because they hadn’t published either the model or the results of the out-of-sample tests which they said were already done. By claiming victory while refusing to show their work, they gained a host of adherents among the credulati. These folks had already become true believers in the model despite the lack of either the model or any testing, and those are the worst kind of believers. As a result of their belief being grounded in … well … nothing, they are most unreceptive to even the slightest criticism of the model.
So I gave up, and told David and Jo I’d return when they published their model and their out-of-sample test results.
At present, they’ve published only part of their model. They have not published the part which actually fits the arbitrary parameters. In addition, they have not published their out-of-sample test results. So we are prevented from doing the very simplest of tests on their model, the out-of-sample tests … and they have not published their results from the out-of-sample tests despite the fact that they have already been done.
When they do publish the out-of-sample tests and the rest of their model, I’ll return and discuss it there. Until then … I’m here.
w.

July 8, 2014 2:38 pm

milodonharlani says:
July 8, 2014 at 2:35 pm
lsvalgaard says:
July 8, 2014 at 2:30 pm
And I need to proofread before clicking “Post Comment”.

And I didn’t say that, so be more careful when quoting.

Patrick L. Boyle
July 8, 2014 2:49 pm

Apparently my copy of Excel is too antique to work properly.

karabar
July 8, 2014 2:50 pm

Combative???COMBATIVE???? Is that what you call it???I think a better description would be DISGRACEFUL!

Brad
July 8, 2014 2:54 pm

lsvalgaard says:
July 8, 2014 at 2:30 pm
milodonharlani says:
July 8, 2014 at 2:26 pm
Leif is convinced of his positions & his defenses of them might well sound initially sound dismissive or snide, but IMO “drive-by” doesn’t fit because he’s willing to follow up on objections to his views.
And the discussion should not be about me, but about the Newly Released Model, touted as ‘Big News’.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Some of you are apparently taking positions that support your salary/ego, with no room for possible alternate solutions?
The whole intent of David’s work, my understanding, is to show a plausible alternate reason for the climate changes we have seen, and provide short-term forecasts. (The AGW models have already failed, based primarily on CO2.) That is the biggest goal in my mind, to stop the CO2 madness that is gripping our governments. They are destroying the world’s economy now, and into the future, killing millions of people. I really don’t want that to be my generations legacy for my grand kids. Do you?

July 8, 2014 2:58 pm

Brad says:
July 8, 2014 at 2:54 pm
That is the biggest goal in my mind, to stop the CO2 madness that is gripping our governments.
So the effort is agenda-driven [as I have said – good you agree] rather than science-driven.

ren
July 8, 2014 2:58 pm

Willis Eschenbach I believe in data, not models.

Duster
July 8, 2014 3:04 pm

John Loop says:
July 8, 2014 at 9:31 am
Not a climate scientist, but an engineer. I have been closely watching the debates on the blogs- at least the blogs allowing a debate! This model seems open and falsifiable, and promulgated by reasonable people without an agenda! And speaking in GENERAL, and in the VERY VERY end, it is the sun, right? How can anybody say this is not true? We just have to find the correlation somehow. Maybe this is taking us there…. Would be nice. Do NOT look forward to the cold tho!

The problem is that this argument is similar to arguing that a landslide is caused by gravity. It is trivially true, but the events and conditions that go into the process of an individual slide are far more complex. It is impossible to predict the magnitude of a slide based on gravity alone. Depositional history, vegetation, material, particle size, lubrication and friction are just a few of the factors that create the slide. Gravity just supplies the energy. The sun without a doubt supplies some of the energy that drives climate, but planetary rotation, gravity, and coriolis force all have their influence and that is without invoking a single GHG or human influence.

milodonharlani
July 8, 2014 3:09 pm

lsvalgaard says:
July 8, 2014 at 2:38 pm
What did you not say? What did I misquote?
I was commenting on my failing to edit out one of my two uses of the word “sound”.

ren
July 8, 2014 3:12 pm

This discussion about faith, not fact.

John Hewitt
July 8, 2014 3:12 pm

Anthony, I find your arrogance in your introductory comments astonishing. Your failure to control the total negativity of both Leif and Willis diminishes your credibility further. I have no idea whether Dr Evans has produced something that has scientific legs but he at least deserves respect for what he has done even if it turns out to be much less than it seems at this point. You and your major contributors have failed badly to treat the work seriously.
REPLY: I’m not sure where you get “arrogant” from my brief note. It was written under pressure while at the conference, and please note I could have waited and run it next week when I return home, but hat would garner criticism too.
As for failure to “control negativity”…imagine this. I find your comment highly negative, should I delete it because it appears negative to me? I can imagine the flames you’d throw at me if I did so. I’d made it clear to Leif and Willis that I don’t like how they behaved on that thread, especially since I believe Jo and David are making an honest effort here. But, know this: I CANNOT READ AND POLICE EVERY COMMENT ON WUWT (over 1.3 million now). During that week I had to devote more time to my business, and so some folks got a bit out of hand. I can’t always be there to break up every fight, even though you seem to think so.
Comments like yours are the ones that make me think I should just shut off the blog and walk away some days. Walk a mile in my shoes, take the abuse I get from both sides of the climate wars, then maybe you’ll understand.
As skeptics we have to be doubly hard on each other, pal review has no place here. That said, I’ve asked for more courtesy.
Further, Jo and David and I are on quite good terms. I’ve sent them some tools to help, and offered some advice. All is well between me and them.
If you think you know what is going on between Jo, David, and I and want to lecture me further on “respect” …think again.
Anthony Watts

Brad
July 8, 2014 3:16 pm

lsvalgaard says:
July 8, 2014 at 2:58 pm
Brad says:
July 8, 2014 at 2:54 pm
“That is the biggest goal in my mind, to stop the CO2 madness that is gripping our governments.”
LS _ So the effort is agenda-driven [as I have said – good you agree] rather than science-driven.
********************************************************************************************************
Leif,
Whose agenda are you referencing, mine or our governments?
Most people would respond “I agree with you” but you just can’t seem to get there can you? You always spin it so that people agree with you, good for the ego, right?

ren
July 8, 2014 3:18 pm
wws
July 8, 2014 3:19 pm

At least it’s not one of those forecasts that predicts horrible things long after everyone living today will be gone. Looks like we’ll know within just a couple of years whether this model is any good or not, and I give the creators of it high marks for having the cajones to go out on a limb like this.
Now, they just need to hope that the sun doesn’t decide to geld them.

Steve from Rockwood
July 8, 2014 3:21 pm

If the TSI at the edge of the Earth’s atmosphere is 1365 W/m2 and this is responsible for 288 K of warming, in a linear world the warming is 4.74 W/m2 per degree of warming. In a linear world an extra 0.5 W/m2 would increase the temperature of the Earth’s surface by 0.002 deg K.
Obviously we don’t live in a linear world, but given the small variation in TSI relative to its average value (+/- 0.04% variation) the Earth would have to be so non-linear with respect to warming due to TSI increase that I can’t see it being stable. Notch or otherwise.
I’ve checked out JoNova’s site and have to say they are very polite defenders of their theory.

Jean Parisot
July 8, 2014 3:22 pm

Is the relationship of OHC to atmospheric effects considered as a fixed value or a function of temperature difference? Ie., Warm air and cold water having a more significant interaction than warm air and warm water.

July 8, 2014 3:33 pm

>lsvalgaard says:
>July 8, 2014 at 12:32 pm
>Brad says:
>July 8, 2014 at 11:57 am
>And please explain how you can forecast “volcanic activity” and its impact on changes in the >climate. I’d love to see that crystal ball.
>Evans’ ‘model’ uses volcanic activity….and worse ‘atomic bomb tests’
Just . . . Wow . . . Person asks how you forecast and you deride actual data used by someone else to forecast.
>lsvalgaard says:
>July 8, 2014 at 2:58 pm
>Brad says:
>July 8, 2014 at 2:54 pm
>That is the biggest goal in my mind, to stop the CO2 madness that is gripping our >governments.
>So the effort is agenda-driven [as I have said – good you agree] rather than science-driven.
Just . . . Wow . . . Person speculates about another’s motives and you ascribe that speculated motive to the other person.
This is an indication of the quality of your reasoning though lack of quality is closer to the mark. I must assume that other things you reason about, such as the study of the sun, are as poorly grounded. The logical conclusion is your “authoritative” statements have a high probability of being wrong.

Agnostic
July 8, 2014 3:50 pm

Please be clear that I am NOT saying that David and Jo have evinced bad faith in this. From everything I’ve seen, they are honest people working to understand a most complex system, and they have put a huge amount of time and effort into the project.
….from the post in question regarding tunable parameters, and the bug in the code running on a mac as well out of sample tests, and their results. That’s great feedback for them, and a good post (IMHO). Have you let them know?

ren
July 8, 2014 3:50 pm

Prior to the SOlar Radiation and Climate Experiment (SORCE) Science Team Meeting, experts in measuring solar spectral irradiance (SSI) from around the world met on September 17, 2012 in Annapolis, MD to discuss the recent SSI observations. The primary topic of interest is that the SORCE measurements show larger solar variability in the descending phase of solar cycle 23 (i.e. from mid-2003 to the end of 2008) than most other previous instruments in solar cycle 22. This workshop was the sequel to a workshop held at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in February 2012 which was described in Harder et al., SORCE SSI Workshop Summary, The Earth Observer, August 2012, p 17. The ultimate goal of these SSI workshops is to understand the uncertainties in the comparisons to previous and overlapping datasets and to validate the SORCE measurements.
http://lasp.colorado.edu/home/sorce/2013/10/23/2012-sorce-science-team-meeting-summary/

July 8, 2014 3:54 pm

Steven Mosher (Willis too):
You (Steven) said “That’s NOT what we want to see. We want to see the SCIENCE BITS.. that is how did he derive the model.”
Did you go to Jo’s site? Did you read that bit “The main, long discussion paper is still to come.”?
When Dr. Evans started this he stated he would be releasing things in stages. His work, his money, his privilege to do things however he darned well pleases. If you and Willis don’t like it. Well that’s just too bad. When everything has been released, on Dr. Evan’s schedule, then I’ll see if you have anything intelligent to say. Until then, as I say to my daughter when she is having a similar tantrum, suck it up buttercup. Regarding the strategy of release in bits. I can see very good reasons for doing so. If you can’t, you need to stop, breath, be calm and think a bit.

Brad
July 8, 2014 4:01 pm

John says: “suck it up buttercup”
Haven’t heard that term in years!! Thanks for making me smile…
My favorite response to my kids when they whined and wanted me to solve their problems was “Bummer, Sorry about that but I know you can figure it out on your own. Let me know when you do…Love you” Got to the point that when they saw the “B” start to form on my lips they walked away and solved it themselves.
Kids these days…

Eugene WR Gallun
July 8, 2014 4:02 pm

Steven Mosher July 8 11:37am
This is where the real issue is because the model was derived from questionable data …..
I don’t understand. Are you saying all this data that government funded climate scientists have produced and used to predict global catastrophe is questionable? So it is questionable that CO2 is dooming the world to heat exhaustion? The work of Mann, Jones, Trenberth etc. is all questionable? Or do you have some specific data in mind – because some data can be questioned but other data cannot be questioned?
Could you provide me with two lists — one of data that can be questioned and one of data that cannot be questioned. That would help me think more clearly.
Eugene WR Gallun

gnomish
July 8, 2014 4:02 pm

willis – check the comments at jo’s- the problem you describe with running the spreadsheet appears to occur with 64 bit computers and the fix has been posted.

dr jay cadbury phd
July 8, 2014 4:02 pm

@pamela gray and leif svaalgard
I note that you both in the past have supported and endorsed crap models that have been proven wrong. Take your piece of humble pie and chew silently. Leif gave one of the worst explanations of CO2 residence times I have ever seen, just a few months ago. The current temp and atmospheric co2 levels are the lowest in 800 million years. A significant cooling is likely.

July 8, 2014 4:12 pm

>Eugene WR Gallun says:
>July 8, 2014 at 4:02 pm
>Steven Mosher July 8 11:37am
>
>This is where the real issue is because the model was derived from questionable data …..
Eugene:
Steven is speculating. The details of how the model was derived have not yet been fully explained. As he would know if he read the post about the release of the spreadsheet at Jo’s site. Not reading the reference is something Steven (rightly) hammers others about, so I’m disappointed to see him fall into the same trap.

July 8, 2014 4:14 pm

Jo and David are to be commended. They kept their word. Good for them. The Excel spreadsheet is awesome and is easy to play with.

July 8, 2014 4:16 pm

The data supports solar/climate connections as recently as the period from 2008-the end of 2011.
Much less the last two prolonged solar minimums the Maunder Minimum and Dalton Minimum.
It is going to happen again in a more substancial way once this prolonged solar minimum establishes itself and starts going toward the solar parameters I have called for.
Unlike the use of a model which I do not find attractive I am depending on data.

Brad
July 8, 2014 4:18 pm

gnomish says:
July 8, 2014 at 4:02 pm
“willis – check the comments at jo’s- the problem you describe with running the spreadsheet appears to occur with 64 bit computers and the fix has been posted.”
Gnomish,
Willis has said he is not going there until “all is provided”, so maybe he shouldn’t be taking help from it either? Maybe let him dig it out on his own? After all, he was in such a hurry to make a post of his “problems”, he obviously didn’t have time to think it through and dig a little first. Oh wait, he did go there to download the model, didn’t he. Hmmm…let me think about that logic for a little. (Love that hmmm thingy.)
Hip-shooting…:) Sometimes you get shot in the foot.

Rud Istvan
July 8, 2014 4:22 pm

No matter what the end result may be (I have the model, it runs, but obviously have not had the time to wring it out, look at the the parameterization fits, or run validity tests (the Abomb thing is a bit worrisome as an alternative to natural variability) neither has anybody else.
The sniping that took place here previously was in my view disgraceful. Said so, and the worse WE got the more respect he lost in my eyes. And it continues here. lS doesn’t like the format. So what. Go put in a years work to reformat as you want, then run it. WE at a Heatland conference complaining it did not run on his Mac yet. Well, it did on mine- maybe time to upgrade. AW, our host, complaining about the timing of the release, when previously folks were complaining that it wasn’t yet released. I doubt that the Australians care very much about a two day conference hosted by Heartland in Vegas. Nor does it matter to the ultimate value of the thing.
What matters is what happens as people work with the thing, a novel top down ‘black box’ circuit analog model rather than a bottoms up finite element physical phenomena GCM doomed to failure if for no other reason than computing power–the smallest possible grid cells are still much larger than could ever hope to produce the essential convective cells. So after necessary hindcast parameterization of the most essential processes, they really are more top down data fits just pretending to be bottom up causal. And tuned to a partly natural warm phase, so run hot. And CMIP5 got aerosols wrong to cool them down. And CMIP5 is being falsified by Santer’s own published criteria.
Shooting first and aiming later, demonstrated both previously and here, is neither productive nor becoming. Skeptics should be polite, focus on substance more than form, and do their own testing before drawing snap conclusions. Anything less diminishes this site compared to others.

ren
July 8, 2014 4:26 pm

This is the truth about the measurements of the TSI. The most reliable ACRIM1, 2.3.
http://spot.colorado.edu/~koppg/TSI/TSI.jpg

July 8, 2014 4:31 pm

This is from Joe Bastardi ‘s web-site on what is happening at the climate conference. The solar /climate connection theory is very much alive. These are little summaries of what points they are trying to drive across which are correct and will be proven as this decade proceeds.
I have talked with Joe Bastardi (a friend ) at length as well as Joe D’ Aleo about solar/climate connections. We are all on the same page.
Listing 10 problems with the IPCC report regarding their solar ideas
Terms it “anti-scientfic” Purposely chose to hide the facts
 Reply Replied to 0 times
 Retweet  Retweeted 5 times 5
 Favorite  Favorited 1 time 1
 More
Joe Bastardi @BigJoeBastardi · 41m
Dr Soon talk IPCC: Still the Gangster of Science
 Reply Replied to 0 times
 Retweet  Retweeted 1 time 1
 Favorite  Favorited 0 times
 More
 Spring Valley, NV
Joe Bastardi @BigJoeBastardi · 42m
Dr. Abdussamatov, done. I think Wow sums it up.. Dr Willie Soon now on
 Reply Replied to 0 times
 Retweet  Retweeted 2 times 2
 Favorite  Favorited 2 times 2
 More
Joe Bastardi @BigJoeBastardi · 42m
have always felt sun is the conductor of the climate,but the “music” comes from the ocean..stochastic events the solos
#Triplecrownofclimate
 Reply Replied to 0 times
 Retweet  Retweeted 3 times 3
 Favorite  Favorited 3 times 3
 More
Joe Bastardi @BigJoeBastardi · 44m
Was @algore aware the 20th century was a “solar summer” warming observed on Mars! We are entering solar autumn. Solar winter by 2060
 Reply Replied to 0 times
 Retweet  Retweeted 10 times 10
 Favorite  Favorited 4 times 4
 More
Joe Bastardi @BigJoeBastardi · 46m
Attributes lack of warming to the decrease in TSI. I think its combination of factors, but this is an eye opening presentation
 Reply Replied to 0 times
 Retweet  Retweeted 1 time 1
 Favorite  Favorited 1 time 1
 More
Joe Bastardi @BigJoeBastardi · 48m
Graphic of solar cycle 24 compared to all others show this coming down big time. #startling
 Reply Replied to 0 times
 Retweet  Retweeted 3 times 3
 Favorite  Favorited 0 times
 More
Joe Bastardi @BigJoeBastardi · 49m
Decrease in TSI in cycle 22 ,007w/m2 23, .02 w/m2, current .1 w/m2 getting significant
 Reply Replied to 0 times
 Retweet  Retweeted 3 times 3
 Favorite  Favorited 1 time 1
 More
Joe Bastardi @BigJoeBastardi · 50m
Dr. Abdussamatov presenting compelling evidence, that I first read about in 1992 out of Russia, that little ice age is coming based on sun
 Reply Replied to 0 times
 Retweet  Retweeted 8 times 8
 Favorite  Favorited 0 times
 More
Joe Bastardi @BigJoeBastardi · 52m
Dr. Abdussamatov, from Russia, has no fears about speaking up about the scam co2 is. I guess times have changed
 Reply Replied to 0 times
 Retweet  Retweeted 7 times 7
 Favorite  Favorited 1 time 1
 More  Spring Valley, NV
Joe Bastardi @BigJoeBastardi · 54m
The superstars of solar climate forcing have now taken the stage..Drs Sebastian Luning, Habibullo Abdussamatov, Willie Soon
 Reply Replied to 0 times
 Retweet  Retweeted 0 times
 Favorite  Favorited 3 times 3

Brad
July 8, 2014 4:38 pm

Rud Istvan at July 8, 2014 at 4:22 pm:
Thumbs up on this post!
Thank you for being so clear in your explanation.

July 8, 2014 4:44 pm

Rud Istvan says:
July 8, 2014 at 4:22 pm
No matter what the end result may be
Rud:
Well said. I too have lost a lot of respect for Willis and Leif. Leif in particular. Steven Mosher has also disappointed. I can understand Anthony’s frustration with the release timing. There will be a tendency to attack this in other circles and those who provide a balance are otherwise engaged in Las Vegas. If you consider me to be part of the sniping problem, please say so.

July 8, 2014 4:45 pm

Ren great data. TSI was down .015% during the most recent severe but short solar lull during the time period 2008-2010. It will likely go down by more then that when this prolonged solar minimum establishes itself in an even more significant way later this decade. Temperature decline /atmospheric circulation pattern more meridional along with a decline in OHC will be some of the effects amongst others. It is just around the corner.
IMF field will break 4.0nt

James Strom
July 8, 2014 4:47 pm

Looks like David Evan’s model will face an ordeal by fire, much more severe than faced by any of the mainstream models, which means that, unlike them, his theory could be refuted quickly by contrary evidence. But one thing he has done that may give him some protection, and that may be good for science, is to set things up so that the development of the theory turns into a community project. If, as seems likely, flaws turn up in the original model, the structure of the project makes it likely that improvements will lead to an “Evans-Nova” family of models of which one or more will turn out to be quite interesting.

Eugene WR Gallun
July 8, 2014 4:52 pm

John Eggert July 8 4:12 pm
You are taking me seriously. I am not use to that. I find it — disturbing.
Eugene WR Gallun

Editor
July 8, 2014 5:01 pm

gnomish says:
July 8, 2014 at 4:02 pm

willis – check the comments at jo’s- the problem you describe with running the spreadsheet appears to occur with 64 bit computers and the fix has been posted.

Thanks, gnomish. Do you have a link to the updated file, or to the page where it’s listed?
w.

Editor
July 8, 2014 5:08 pm

John Eggert says:
July 8, 2014 at 3:54 pm

Steven Mosher (Willis too):
You (Steven) said

“That’s NOT what we want to see. We want to see the SCIENCE BITS.. that is how did he derive the model.”

Did you go to Jo’s site? Did you read that bit “The main, long discussion paper is still to come.”?
When Dr. Evans started this he stated he would be releasing things in stages. His work, his money, his privilege to do things however he darned well pleases.

Certainly, it is Dr. Evans privilege to release the actual results and the full model next week, next month, or never if he “darned well pleases”.
Until he does so, however, it’s not science in any form, which is all that I said.
The result of his doing it the way he has, however, has been to gather around him a group of true-believer adherents, who have already staked out their position that his model is valid and correct without ever seeing the model, the tests, the results, or anything. People in that position are very difficult to get to change their minds, because everyone hates to be shown to be wrong. As a result, it is almost impossible to have a reasonable discussion of their work.
His choice, as you point out … but it is not science, it doesn’t advance his cause, and the optics of it are horrible.
w.
PS—I’m not waiting for the “main, long discussion paper”. I’m waiting, as is Steven Mosher, for the “science bits” … so discussion papers are useless.

Pamela Gray
July 8, 2014 5:12 pm

Now wait a minute. Just wait a minute. If you smooth a signal that has a pretty good 11 year cycle visible just by lookin at it (and SSN along with all the other solar indices certainly do have close to that just by lookin at em), and then you take a N…O…I…S…Y data string and smooth it with an a set of box cars each 11 years long, you will find a match. Which also means you can match our noisy temperature data set with anything else that is about 11 units long, like the times table column for the 11’s. Don’t mean it’s connected. That is the evidence this model uses for a notch filter followed by an 11 year long lag.
I will leave it up to others here to comment because I fear mine will be quite unlady-like in estimating the knowledge and evidence that was sunk into that part of the model by the author. Charitable it is not.

sakhara
July 8, 2014 5:13 pm

Willis Eschenbach says:
July 8, 2014 at 5:01 pm
gnomish says:
July 8, 2014 at 4:02 pm
willis – check the comments at jo’s- the problem you describe with running the spreadsheet appears to occur with 64 bit computers and the fix has been posted.
Thanks, gnomish. Do you have a link to the updated file, or to the page where it’s listed?
w.
——————-
Willis, here is the link to the comment:
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/07/big-news-ix-the-model/#comment-1505102
Copy everything from the “#If” to the “#Endif” and then it can be pasted over the offending code in the spreadsheet.
I have heard that it works on Macs.

Editor
July 8, 2014 5:15 pm

Block Head says:
July 8, 2014 at 2:21 pm

Figure 3: Notch-Delay Cimate Model and CET record with projection to 2045.
The hindcast match is good.

Thanks, Block. If David could not get a “good” hindcast using 11 arbitrary parameters, a full choice of model form, and a variety of data sets of his choice, I’d be shocked. A “good hindcast” of a tuned model of that type is meaningless, which is why we need to see the “out-of-sample” tests.
w.

Editor
July 8, 2014 5:22 pm

Rud Istvan says:
July 8, 2014 at 4:22 pm

WE at a Heatland conference complaining it did not run on his Mac yet.

I didn’t “complain” that it’s not running yet. I reported a bug, which I traced as far as I could to assist them in fixing it … is bug reporting now a crime? Would you prefer that folks don’t report bugs to them at all?
No pleasing some people …
w.

DT Christensen
July 8, 2014 5:24 pm

To those that have downloaded the spreadsheet, if you are running on a 64bit machine, 2 slight changes to the code must be done. The CTimer module has two “Declare Function” statements.
If you get a runtime error, change “Declare Function” to “Declare PtrSafe Function” in the CTimer module.
From there it works well.

Andyj
July 8, 2014 5:24 pm

To be doubtful is healthy for good science and enhances credibility.
To pile straight in stinking of testosterone and hurt pride with guns blazing is a problem and helps nobody.
This is going to be tough for some people, either way.
Lets not make it tough for all. Give it time. It is a thesis from a hypothesis and needs more careful study.
.
Nobody knows if this is a big set up (Using a mathematical trick) to kill off the credibility of the people on this side of the fence.
.
If this thesis runs true. We are not only going to win the battle it is going to win all wars for good.

Pamela Gray
July 8, 2014 5:27 pm

If I was a mind to, I could say that we have a 60 year AMO cycle (or a 30 year PDO metric) and then take that noisy temperature data string and smooth it with 60 box cars, or 30 box cars. I would likely get a pretty good match. Do you see the weakness of the 11-year solar cycle with an 11 year smoothed temperature data series? It’s a parlor trick, whether meant or not. I would hate to find out the author was not able to understand the weakness of that kind of comparison between a fairly well defined cyclic entity and a noisy data string smoothed to the same cycle.

July 8, 2014 5:31 pm

Thanks Willis.
I made it clear at David’s that I thought his use of bad tsi data to derive his model was the first choice I would want to test.
The spreadsheet is useless to investigate the actual scientific decisions he made.

Brad
July 8, 2014 5:37 pm

Willis,
Please provide backup that provided direct contact with either David or Jo.
I don’t think you did either action, otherwise you would have posted there or emailed them directly.
You waited for gnomish to post a comment before responding.

sakhara
July 8, 2014 5:48 pm

64-bit fix:
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/07/big-news-ix-the-model/#comment-1505102
Code:
#If VBA7 Then
Private Declare PtrSafe Function QueryPerformanceCounter Lib “kernel32″ (lpPerformanceCount As LARGE_INTEGER) As Long
Private Declare PtrSafe Function QueryPerformanceFrequency Lib “kernel32″ (lpFrequency As LARGE_INTEGER) As Long
#Else
Private Declare Function QueryPerformanceCounter Lib “kernel32″ (lpPerformanceCount As LARGE_INTEGER) As Long
Private Declare Function QueryPerformanceFrequency Lib “kernel32″ (lpFrequency As LARGE_INTEGER) As Long
#Endif

July 8, 2014 5:48 pm

Willis:
I disagree with your opinion that his method is “not science”. How Dr. Evans chooses to publish his work is entirely up to him. I see that you haven’t taken my advice to “stop, breath, be calm and think a bit” about why his method may be a good way of doing things. Indeed, I believe when this whole thing is done, thinking people will see that his method may be THE way to publish in the internet age. When he finishes, I may expound on this. Then again I may not.
To your credit, you are certainly much more circumspect than Leif today.

Brad
July 8, 2014 5:51 pm

Anthony,
Willis did not investigate the problem or post a comment on Jo’s website. How is that “reporting”?
Willis has no intention of helping David make this work based on all his attacks both, here and there.
Neither does Leif or Mosher for that matter.
All drive-by hip-shooters, IMO.
I have supported your website and referenced it often but this latest set of derogatory comments have soured my stance.
As requested earlier, can you explain why this release was bad for you, time wise?
Brad

REPLY:
Because I’m in the middle of ICCC9, and I have other duties that prevent me from able to give my full attention. Do you expect me to drop everything? Two of WUWT’s moderators are also at the conference. They can’t help either.
I can’t please everybody, and I can’t watch comments in the middle of a conference. Perhaps I should have waited until next week…but that would get criticism too….so there’s no easy option for me at this time. Anthony

July 8, 2014 5:56 pm

This is going to be very easy and there should not be any argument whatsoever. It is going to be proved out by purely empirical means. Sit back, relax, and see what happens.

July 8, 2014 6:00 pm

Brad says:
July 8, 2014 at 5:51 pm
Willis has no intention of helping David make this work based on all his attacks both, here and there. Neither does Leif or Mosher for that matter.
Oh, but you are quite wrong there. I have supplied David with a much more realistic data file for the solar input. This should be of help to David. If he wants help is another matter.

Editor
July 8, 2014 6:00 pm

sakhara says:
July 8, 2014 at 5:13 pm

Willis, here is the link to the comment:
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/07/big-news-ix-the-model/#comment-1505102
Copy everything from the “#If” to the “#Endif” and then it can be pasted over the offending code in the spreadsheet.

Thanks, sakhara. Unfortunately, it still doesn’t run on my mac. However, I finally got it to run by just cutting out the various calls to the clock, which times the execution.
Having said that, I still can’t test the model. The proper test for this kind of model is to train the model on the first half of the data, and then see how well it predicts the second half of the data. Looking at the quality of the fit of the model is meaningless—it’s trivial to train a model to reproduce a given sample.
Unfortunately, we can’t do any out-of-sample tests because David still hasn’t released the part of the model that fits the 11, count’em 11, arbitrary parameters.
Your assistance is much appreciated,
w.

July 8, 2014 6:04 pm

Huh I confirmed the 64bit bug on David’s. Saw the fix. And have been on the road since.
I made it clear what I wanted to test. Same as Willis.

July 8, 2014 6:05 pm

crosspatch says:
July 8, 2014 at 5:56 pm
This is going to be very easy and there should not be any argument whatsoever. It is going to be proved out by purely empirical means. Sit back, relax, and see what happens.
Even if the forecast turns out to be in the ballpark, that does not prove anything at all, as Evans could be right for the wrong reason. If the forecast fails, it could simply be because the ‘parameter set’ chosen was not the right one. There could be another parameter set that would have given the correct forecast.

Stupendus
July 8, 2014 6:07 pm

this model makes a prediction, temperatures will drop a certain amount over the next decade. Full stop. If it does all you naysayers and complainers SHUT UP AND GO HOME !! if it doesnt you can say I told you so and David and Jo will go back to the drawing board. The IPCC models predict temp rise (hint it aint happening yet) I dont think any of their code is available nor are the “science” and assumptions behind them published anywhere for people to examine. David has explained most things in an open and honest way, those of you complaining about it being too complex or too messy or too much info or not enough info, look at the results, read the posts that takeyou by the hand and help you through the nasty theory that conflicts with your entrenched beliefs. or better yet SHUT UP AND GO HOME!! (and put some wood on the fire and cuddle up under the duvet as its going to get cold…..

Reply to  Stupendus
July 8, 2014 6:18 pm

To falsify the claims that are made by a model one has to be able to be able to make the counts that are called “frequencies” in statistics. I don’t believe that these counts can be made with respect to Dr. Evans’s model. If I’m wrong, I wish someone would tell me of how I’ve erred.

Editor
July 8, 2014 6:07 pm

Brad says:
July 8, 2014 at 5:51 pm

Anthony,
Willis did not investigate the problem or post a comment on Jo’s website. How is that “reporting”?

I investigated the problem and found exactly where it was coming from. I reported it here. I am extremely reluctant to post anything at Jo’s website, because at this point it is infested with people like yourself who will never be satisfied with what I do. In any case, the same bug was indeed reported there by others.
w.

AlexS
July 8, 2014 6:08 pm

Now we have sceptics that think they know there is enough human knowledge to know climate like warmists say…
What could be worse.?

Editor
July 8, 2014 6:08 pm

Stupendus says:
July 8, 2014 at 6:07 pm

The IPCC models predict temp rise (hint it aint happening yet) I dont think any of their code is available nor are the “science” and assumptions behind them published anywhere for people to examine.

A perfect example of how little you actually know about the subject …
w.

Pamela Gray
July 8, 2014 6:11 pm

Priceless. People complain all the time about AGW paywalled studies and research by media. Or grey papers filled with unvetted sciency sounding proclamations with no research to back it up. We cheer when skeptics, after great effort, finally get the stuff needed from the AGW crowd for reproducibility, validity, and sound science critique of CO2 global warming. Apparently we can’t do that with our own side. Poppy Cock.
If you can’t stand the heat of laser beamed scrutiny of skeptic proposals that is as good as we give to the AGW side, you should just be a spectator.

July 8, 2014 6:12 pm

Steven Mosher says:
July 8, 2014 at 5:31 pm
Thanks Willis.
I made it clear at David’s that I thought his use of bad tsi data to derive his model was the first choice I would want to test.
The spreadsheet is useless to investigate the actual scientific decisions he made.
So test it. You have the data. You have the spreadsheet. You have (I assume) the ability to understand it. So test it. Stop slagging from the sidelines and prove him wrong. Or is that beyond your capabilities? He has provided a model and expected output. Identify the error. There are equations. You don’t have to know where x, y and z come from if you can show that the relation between x, y and z is not supported by the data. So show us where the relation is not supported by the data. If you can’t, you do not have the knowledge to say he can, in which case you are no better than sunshine guy.
Regarding the “scientific” decisions made. That is a cheap and easy cop out. There are things done today that are not fully understood, except on an empirical basis. The operation of a ball mill in a mining plant comes to mind. No one has an exact explanation of how energy is translated into broken rock, but people build billion dollar facilities, based on things like Dr. Evans spreadsheet. For those versed in the alchemy of mineral processing, yes I am familiar with Bond’s work. It is very much empirical and often less than predictive.

Pamela Gray
July 8, 2014 6:13 pm

Oops. I wrote “Poppy C***” with all the letters and now I am in potty mouth moderation. LOL!

Brad
July 8, 2014 6:21 pm

[ok – we are done with the food fight Brad, you don’t like what Willis has to say, we get it…move on to something relevant like posting what you’ve learned from the model – Anthony]

Bernie Hutchins
July 8, 2014 6:27 pm

When I heard that Phil Jones did not know how to do a linear regression my first reaction was SHAME! but then I wondered if it meant he did not know how to calculate squared error, take derivatives, and solve equations for a line (true SHAME) or if he simply did not know how to use Excel to do it. My Microsoft Office has Excel but I have never used it. I don’t know how, and I am honest-to-goodness too old to take the time. [I do know how to write my OWN equations to fit least-squares curves in a language of my choice (Matlab for myself).]
So David’s Excel spread sheet does me no good. That’s my failing of course. But in a community that does well in R, Matlab, C, and even Fortran, why take the Excel route? In a model that supposedly uses signal processing, why not Matlab, C, or R? The point being that if we must work in what is not a familiar software platform, we need considerable incentive that something very good is being revealed for our efforts, and I don’t think we have this here as a viable potential. What is needed is a regular “scientific paper” of perhaps a max of 5 pages and 5 illustrations. Of course, it need not be peer reviewed. How hard is that? Yes – I know, it’s NOT easy!
When I first saw the release of the notch-filter model I was quite enthusiastic to have an engineer, an EE in fact, and a DSP engineer making an offering. Here was something I should be able to understand. I was amazed however to find a proposal for a physically generated notch (very unlikely), and that the notch was non-causal (quite absurd) and watched for explanations, and even asked questions at Jo’s site. Two things were (sadly) apparent:
David’s notch was inferred from a suspect ratio of Fourier transforms, and David did not really understand filters. In addition, he doubled down on Jo’s site with regard to the non-causality [“It is well known that notch filters are non-causal,” June 20, 2014, and “The step response of the complete model above, in Figure 4, is causal — but without the delay it is not.” June 21] This despite protests from myself and other engineers, and even my photo of a scope trace:
http://electronotes.netfirms.com/NotchStep.jpg
to which David replied, June 21, “Bernie I’ve no idea and am not going to debug and figure out what you have done exactly.” What it was was a simple experiment! I wasn’t asking him to “debug” my work, but rather his own. Neither, by the way, does his added delay make HIS non-causal notch causal, as his had neither the symmetry nor the asymptotic properties to do so. (If he needs a delay for his model, just use a delay, but don’t blame it on a notch.) David further said things (like Butterworth was only low-pass) which indicated to me that he did not know filters very well. My sincere efforts (and the sincere efforts of others) were apparently not appreciated at Jo’s. It’s just engineering after all.
Then along came “Force X” and nuclear winter, and so much playing with tiny effects, and fine tuning.
I like Jo and David, and have three or four times supported Jo’s site “tip jar”, and expect to do so more in the future.

Pamela Gray
July 8, 2014 6:28 pm

With 11 parameters, I want to know where they came from. From what research. Based on what mechanism, from what calculation. And are the factors a reasonable facsimile of in-situ conditions? The same necessary curiosity exists for CO2 and aerosol factors in models used to generate IPPC AGW papers.
I’m not about to play with fudge factors to run a model till I know from whence and how the factors came to be the chosen ones. I expect no less of AGW modelers. And guess what folks? In well documented articles, they are there. Should we be giving ourselves a pass and not do that?
For those of you who think AGW and ENSO modelers don’t divulge this information, they do. In fact they are pretty good at that kind of documentation. Let me take a bit of time here and I’ll post a link to one.

wayne Job
July 8, 2014 6:32 pm

Thank you Anthony,
Throwing out the baby with the bath water is never useful.

Brad
July 8, 2014 6:34 pm

Anthony says in response:
“REPLY: Because I’m in the middle of ICCC9, and I have other duties that prevent me from able to give my full attention. Do you expect me to drop everything? Two of WUWT’s moderators are also at the conference. They can’t help either.
I can’t please everybody, and I can’t watch comments in the middle of a conference. Perhaps I should have waited until next week…but that would get criticism too….so there’s no easy option for me at this time. Anthony”
Anthony,
Thanks for getting back to me so quickly.
I realize you are booked solid and fully understand, having attended two conferences in the past two months, they are killers mentally.
As an expansion to my question, why do you think you need to drop everything for this release? No one was asking you to, or expecting you to. There is no timeline on this, the model is now out there and ready for review, at your leisure. No deadlines involved.
I made the decision to donate the funds to David and Jo that I would have spent going to the conference. Both are important but I am a nobody where climate science is concerned, so I felt my money was better spent helping their research.
We all need to work together to stop the “CO2 machine” from destroying the world’s economy, and future generations. Maybe an addition to the mission statement prohibiting cross-blog sniping should be considered? Stop the illogical arguments? Just thinking out loud here…
Respectfully,
Brad

July 8, 2014 6:38 pm

Pamela Gray says:
July 8, 2014 at 6:11 pm
If you can’t stand the heat of laser beamed scrutiny of skeptic proposals that is as good as we give to the AGW side, you should just be a spectator.
Well. That gave me pause. I don’t have a come back for that. I will say this (and make the previous assertion false). Dr. Evans is not the one who “can’t stand the heat of lase(r) beamed scrutiny”. It is dolts like me that are arguing here. Anyway. He and his wife have held their fire until the next phase of their phased publication. This is a brilliant procedure. Start with the hypothesis (the previous 7 posts about the “big discovery”). Look at the critiques. Pay special attention to those who should know what they are talking about and (the following is “step a”) see if the hypothesis crumbles. If yes. Oh crap. Look the fool don’t I. If no. (end “step a”) publish the algorithm, go to step a. Still not the fool? Publish the derivations and methods for developing the parameters in the equations. Go to step a. In the mean time, address all of the legitimate issues with each step. It is crowd sourced science and it is brilliant. Who needs peer reviewed literature? We have Willis, Leif and Steven to hold the author’s feet to the fire and that is at the friendly site. I have no idea whether Dr Evans’ work is gold or total crap. I can assure you that if it passes muster with the critics here, it is indeed gold and much more credible than anything published in “Science” or other “peer reviewed literature”.

gary gulrud
July 8, 2014 6:50 pm

This week central MN is forecast not to reach 80 F. Today feels like late August or mid-September.
Who cares about data when one can author paragraphs of this dreck:
“Gary. Listen carefully. Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) includes all infrared radiation frequencies emminating from the Sun, including UV. Visible light is a very good source of heat. In fact all the shorter-wave infrareds are a very good source of heat. UV is in the much shorter-wave range and is a much smaller portion of the entire solar irradiance. It is also not as energetic in terms of its ability to heat up a large body of water. It’s very good at killing stuff. It just isn’t that good at heating water. So if variations in the entire solar spectrum, including the powerful heat-warming portion of solar irradiance does not appreciabily show a connection with surface temperatures, how do you think the much smaller less heat-producing portion would be?”
High Schoolers need their drivel pre-digested.
Wavelength is inversely proportional to energy.

milodonharlani
July 8, 2014 6:54 pm

John Eggert says:
July 8, 2014 at 6:38 pm
Maybe a paradigm for certain kinds of scientific papers in the 21st century, the 20th century approach of peer review (so-called) having failed or been corrupted in too many cases.
Personally, I’m suspect because of the apparent hind-casing failures, but maybe that’s fixable or tunable. Wonder about the nuke aspect, too, but hey, almost anything is better than the worse than worthless, epically failed CO2 assumption-based GCMs that have been foisted upon the world at such cost.

milodonharlani
July 8, 2014 6:55 pm

Hindcasting.

Pamela Gray
July 8, 2014 7:00 pm

http://www.easterbrook.ca/steve/2009/06/getting-the-source-code-for-climate-models/
As I said, the good ones have code available, some only to registered/licensed users, and the really good ones have it available as an open source code. But some modelers think the entire world speaks Chinese and you can’t have any of their stuff.

July 8, 2014 7:00 pm

John Eggert says:
July 8, 2014 at 6:38 pm
I think I see what you’re saying. Maybe not, but looking at the process is interesting in itself. Even if this doesn’t work out, one could review the evolution and the steps of the process and learn something. The feedback they are getting may have value. As far as I know they’ve tried something new, and in the future others will follow them in ways that are similar.
I am reminded of a quote, “I know you’ve taken it in the teeth out there, but the first guy through the wall. It always gets bloody, always. It’s the threat of not just the way of doing business, but in their minds it’s threatening the game.” – Moneyball

Agnostic
July 8, 2014 7:17 pm

@Leif
Even if the forecast turns out to be in the ballpark, that does not prove anything at all, as Evans could be right for the wrong reason.
Dr Evans said as much himself. What he says is that if the global temp does not drop by at least 0.1C, starting at around 2017, the model is falsified and it should be thrown away, but if they do then the model has not been falsified.
And why this is interesting is because the CO2 model is roughly similar to the solar-notch model but suggests that temps should continue to go up. From the late 20C to now, the solar model would have predicted temps to go up, meaning there would have been no way of telling the CO2 model or the solar model apart. But now, the two models definitely diverge, and he makes a definite prediction that could falsify the model – and really soon.
I really don’t sere why you don’t seem to grasp how he is approaching this. He is not using the model to assert “this is how the climate system works”, he is using at as an instrument to see if there is a solar factor influencing the climate worth identifying and investigating. Which is why he invokes ‘force x’ an unknown factor that influences the climate. And it’s why the model is relatively insensitive to the accuracy of TSI data sets used as they merely need to agree on timing and trend. It’s not about getting a perfect measurement, but to see if there is signal/relationship at all.
He knows the model is wrong. It has to be. He has made assumptions in creating the model he himself is skeptical of, for example, treating the climate system as if it has a linear response to external forcings. But it might be linear enough, he thinks, modelling it that way could tell us something useful. He knows it has to be wrong because it takes no account of GHG changes, or internal natural variability that might be at play.
He said himself, in the first blog post, that even if temps drop as the model predicts, all he will be able to say is that the model is not falsified, which is a long way from saying he is right…or that the model is validated.

milodonharlani
July 8, 2014 7:24 pm

Agnostic says:
July 8, 2014 at 7:17 pm
You describe the scientific method.
Galileo’s observations of the phases of Venus falsified (showed false) the Ptolemaic, geocentric model, without necessarily confirming the Copernican heliocentric model. Still on offer was Tycho’s middle way as well.

Pamela Gray
July 8, 2014 7:28 pm

Good quote Gary, and I am still right. Here is the % of energy for UV out of the total watts/m2 of TOA total solar irradiance wavelengths 200-2000: 5%. I stand by my statement. UV, at 5% isn’t nearly as good as visible light and infrared (comprises 95% of total energy) in heating oceans. No contest.
http://www.newport.com/Technical-Note-Solar-Simulator-Sample-Calculations/412211/1033/content.aspx

Pamela Gray
July 8, 2014 7:28 pm

And UV is very good at killing stuff. Hell you can sterilize with the damn stuff.

July 8, 2014 7:32 pm

Agnostic says:
July 8, 2014 at 7:17 pm
Dr Evans said as much himself. What he says is that if the global temp does not drop by at least 0.1C,
Since he forecasts a 0.6C drop, the 0.1C is not enough as discriminator. 0.1C is well within random variation, so tells us nothing.
He knows the model is wrong.
What he has ‘revealed’ [as if it were the ten commandments on gold tablets] is not ‘the model’ but just a vehicle to run the model. The model is how to construct the 11 parameters from a given input. That is not revealed, so cannot be judged, and therefore the scientific value of the revelation so far is nil.

tonyM
July 8, 2014 7:35 pm

The clear point to make is that David Evans stated from the very outset that his paper was a hypothesis subject to testing in a falsifiable way in the next few years. He is actually predicting a T drop.
The IPCC says that solar change (TSI) has minimal effect. Evans suggests a notch delay filter does show an amplified effect of some key changes. That is the hypothesis which is subject to testing. He has not put forward a mechanism (as yet) other than it relates to the flipping of the sun’s magnetic field.
I feel there has been a lot of misrepresentation by some on this issue reflecting a spoiled brat attitude that if they did not invent it or if it was not done their way then it cannot be right. Evans is not saying it must be right but that given his analysis of past activity it is a reasonable hypothesis of highly amplified solar influence which should be put to the test.
A positive outcome does not “prove” it of course but it certainly is a step forward compared to other hypotheses proffered without a falsifiable testing requirement which has left climatology still clambering around and stuck in a vortex hell bent on sucking the energy out of world economies despite models not working and Hansen’s forecasts being wrong.
Lief, with respect, if you make the target wide enough a blind person can hit it. Dr Evans is being very specific and not rambling about some similar T. What is your specific falsifiable prediction within the next few years based on your “hypothesis?” Will you walk away from your hypothesis if the prediction is wrong?

tonyM
July 8, 2014 7:39 pm

Salvatore Del Prete says:
July 8, 2014 at 10:02 am
… to no lower tropospheric hot spot in the tropics, …
Nice summary but I think u meant to say:
… .to no UPPER tropospheric hot spot in the tropics,

July 8, 2014 7:44 pm

tonyM says:
July 8, 2014 at 7:35 pm
He has not put forward a mechanism (as yet) other than it relates to the flipping of the sun’s magnetic field.
He would have been better off not going there at all.
Lief, with respect, if you make the target wide enough a blind person can hit it. Dr Evans is being very specific and not rambling about some similar T.
To claim success if the drop is at least 0.1C is meaningless as such a small change is well within random fluctuations.
What is your specific falsifiable prediction within the next few years based on your “hypothesis?” Will you walk away from your hypothesis if the prediction is wrong?
First, I don’t have a prediction nor a hypothesis about the climate. Second, if I had, I would indeed walk away. I do have a prediction about solar activity. So far that prediction is looking good [too good, actually], and within a year we should know if it holds up, or I need to eat crow [or whatever it is people eat in such a situation], but should I be wrong, we will have learned something important about the Solar Dynamo. What will Evans learn if his prediction does not pan out?

milodonharlani
July 8, 2014 7:45 pm

tonyM says:
July 8, 2014 at 7:35 pm
In response to Leif’s request for a specific prediction from me, I offered 0.3 degrees C +/- 0.2 cooler for the average T during the second 30 years of the satellite era (2009-2038) than for the first. I didn’t ask the good doctor for his forecast in return. If he believes that climate or at least T is totally chaotic, then he might not want to offer one. I don’t share that conclusion.

July 8, 2014 7:46 pm

tonyM says:
July 8, 2014 at 7:35 pm
He has not put forward a mechanism (as yet) other than it relates to the flipping of the sun’s magnetic field.
He would have been better off not going there at all.
Leif, with respect, if you make the target wide enough a blind person can hit it. Dr Evans is being very specific and not rambling about some similar T.
To claim success if the drop is at least 0.1C is meaningless as such a small change is well within random fluctuations.
What is your specific falsifiable prediction within the next few years based on your “hypothesis?” Will you walk away from your hypothesis if the prediction is wrong?
First, I don’t have a prediction nor a hypothesis about the climate. Second, if I had, I would indeed walk away, if proven wrong by the data. I do have a prediction about solar activity. So far that prediction is looking good [too good, actually], and within a year we should know if it holds up, or I need to eat crow [or whatever it is people eat in such a situation], but should I be wrong, we will have learned something important about the Solar Dynamo. What will Evans learn if his prediction does not pan out?

gnomish
July 8, 2014 7:47 pm

is one to assume that the ONLY affect solar radiation can have is to heat things?
i think not.

Pamela Gray
July 8, 2014 7:47 pm

Gary: here is what you need to do. Get out your backyard pool. Even a kiddy pool will work. Fill with cold water out of your hose. Aim a UV light at it that puts out roughly 5% of the W/m2 energy you get from a heat lamp that puts out visible and infrared light. Measure heat change in kiddy pool over a 24 hour period. Now start again with cold water the same temperature and aim that visible/infrared lamp at it. Measure heat change in kiddy pool over a 24 hour period. Tell me which lamp has sufficient energy worth buying as a pool heater.

Pamela Gray
July 8, 2014 7:57 pm

well gnomish, I know solar radiation can’t talk and has no opinion on spinach. Does it have something hidden in its well known and measureable wavelengths? Something invisible to detection? (I can hardly ask that last question without spewing spitting a cold one on the computer screen.)

Brad
July 8, 2014 7:59 pm

[snip – covered earlier, let’s not continue the food fight between you and Willis….or anyone else for that matter.
If you have something useful to discuss about the model, that doesn’t deal with personalities, please post it. – Anthony]

July 8, 2014 8:03 pm

“So test it. You have the data. You have the spreadsheet. You have (I assume) the ability to understand it. So test it. Stop slagging from the sidelines and prove him wrong. Or is that beyond your capabilities? He has provided a model and expected output. Identify the error”
I dont think you understand
1. his model cant be tested. Look at his prediction. There is no confidence interval. He has resorted to a
guess. the model predicts a fall of .6C and he declares a .1C threshold.
2. I am more interested in out of sample testing. You can do that with what he gave.
3. The structural uncertainty is also the first thing I want to look at. he didnt release the info to do that.
In short, His paper claims the development of a model. starting with data he developed a model
THAT is the step I am interested in because THAT is the science.
Oh wait. here is my model for temp for the next 10 years the temp in 10 years will be the same as today
and if its beyond a +- .2c margin, then my model is wrong.
please test my model.
You see how silly that is. That is what david has done. the science bits are the development of the model.
in short by looking at that we can reject it TODAY, rather than waiting 10 years. but to do that he has to release what willis has been asking for.
Otherwise, I have a much simpler model. no code. temp in 10 years will be the same as today +-.2C
Leif and I worked on this for a month.

Reply to  Steven Mosher
July 8, 2014 8:36 pm

Steven Mosher:
How would one do out of sample testing of Dr. Evans’s model?

July 8, 2014 8:12 pm

Top-down solar modulation of climate: evidence for centennial-scale change
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/5/3/034008/fulltext/
“This implies that `top-down’ solar modulation could be a larger factor in long-term tropospheric change than previously believed, many climate models allowing only for the `bottom-up’ effect of the less-variable visible and infrared solar emissions. We present evidence for long-term drift in solar UV irradiance, which is not found in its commonly used proxies.”

NikFromNYC
July 8, 2014 8:18 pm

Exhibit A: Solar expert Svalgasrd suggests: “As we all know ‘with five parameters I can make the elephant wiggle his trunk’ and in Evans’ model there are many more.”
Exhibit B: Top physicist Motl suggests: “David Evans’ notch-filter theory of the climate is infinitely fine-tuned.”
In other words it’s not a model, merely wiggle matching in which lack of detectable correlation is taken to be profound proof of offset hidden correlation.
Recent commenter Chester on the Evens blog pointedly imagined: “You actually did what you accused climate modelers of doing – made a model that assumes the sun alone is responsible for global warming. / Imagine the furore on the sceptical blogs if one of the emails contained this phrase: …look for a low pass filter in the empirical transfer function, assuming the climate was mainly driven by CO2.”
This is like one big BS detector test, to see of you put batteries in it this decade or not.

gnomish
July 8, 2014 8:24 pm

ren posted this earlier, pamela gray: http://lasp.colorado.edu/home/sorce/science/?doing_wp_cron=1404857698.6750700473785400390625
uv can make ozone, for one thing, which can lead to clouds.
http://www.see.leeds.ac.uk/admissions-and-study/research-degrees/icas/the-effect-of-ozone-on-mineral-dust-in-the-atmosphere/
uv could conceivably reduce the population of surface dwelling ocean microorganisms which could influence albedo and transparency- influencing the absorbtion of heat by the body of water.
stellar fusion radiation produces ‘tsunamis’ of plasma – this affects a tide of extrasolar particles that are driven away and return like the tide when the sun is less active. particles can nucleate clouds, affecting albedo and insolation as well as upwelling radiation.
so yeah- you should give up trying to talk or feed spinach – try some snark free science.

Rud Istvan
July 8, 2014 8:26 pm

Pamela, I do not necessarily subscribe to the Lu UV/CFC hypothesis any more than to the Svensmark solar magnetosphere/CRF theory. Having read all the papers, remain unconvinced.
But I will tell you, since typing this on an iPad this evening, that I am utterly convinced that small changes in threshold control ‘gates’ can cause very large changes in signal outputs. That phenomenon is proven by the transistor, many of which power this iPad into its binary Boolean logic that obviously works.
David Evans solar model posits an equivalent ‘force X’ control gate. There are plausible physical candidates, two noted above, neither convincingly proven. Let’s see what develops.
One of the most useful part of Evans model is the ability to vary relative contributions (CO2, solar, aerosol, black carbon…) I proposed that to him, but now suspect was ‘pissing upwind’ (an old nautical expression for a dumb thing to do) since he had already figured that utility out and had embedded it in his spreadsheet model. No way could it have been done in the past few weeks.
Go play with it. input your prejudices, beliefs, suspicions. All CO2 or all solar being poor choices IMO. Beats the H out of having to book weeks on the worlds most expensive supercomputer to run one iteration of a GCM model that cannot be correct from first principles. Posted elsewhere why, with graphic examples in my next (somewhen now sooner) book.

milodonharlani
July 8, 2014 8:26 pm

Steven Mosher says:
July 8, 2014 at 8:03 pm
Why would you waste time working on a model that includes CO2 as an important driver or forcing, when all the evidence in the world shows that it isn’t & no evidence suggests that it is?

gary gulrud
July 8, 2014 8:27 pm

Pamela Gray says:
July 8, 2014 at 7:28 pm
“Right”? You are not even conversant.

milodonharlani
July 8, 2014 8:29 pm

Rud Istvan says:
July 8, 2014 at 8:26 pm
What you said. Gates.
Small changes in orbital & rotational mechanics modulating insolation make enormous differences in climate on the scale of tens of thousands of years, so why not similarly small changes in other solar-related parameters on the scale of decades, centuries & millennia?

NikFromNYC
July 8, 2014 8:31 pm

Steven Mosher hypocrisy alert:
“The spreadsheet is useless to investigate the actual scientific decisions he made.”
So mere source code isn’t useful for reproduction is it? What scientific decisions were behind having a dozen chops for most of the BEST thermometer station outputs? Why was that software knob turned to eleven? What happens to the final global average of you turn it down to five?

Travis casey
July 8, 2014 8:32 pm

@Willis – I note with respect your change of tone while you maintain the questions you want answered. Well done and I look forward to yours and many others analysis of Dr. Evans’ work. It sure feels like science to me. I am delighted to be able to watch it unfold.
@Anthony- Relax and enjoy the conference. 🙂
@Latitude- I almost always feel like you type what I am thinking. Your point of view is usually more informed than mine however.

Brad
July 8, 2014 8:35 pm

Anthony,
The model has great promise, even if it fails in its current mode. It is a “living program”, subject to changes as people find weak points. But to find those points, the program needs to be run and tested. For some, they also demand immediately the remainder of the documents, which are coming. Please look at the number of demanders as compared to those who are looking for an education, and willing to wait. How many times do David and Jo need to ask for patience? It is coming, as promised.
While you have stated you have respect for them and what they are doing, your actions on this post do not seem to support that. Why are you allowing people to personally denigrate the authors and the process here instead of making them state their claims on their website? Why not make them go to the source? Is it because of the “mutual support” they receive here? “Crowd-bashing” is not healthy, or very scientific.
I like a large number of your articles and guest authors but am getting jaded in the overall trust department.
Respectfully,
Brad

Pamela Gray
July 8, 2014 8:38 pm

Gary, you can’t be postulating that the even tinier UV variation (meaning the variation is way less than the 5% quoted above) can cause ocean heat trends. Are you postulating that? Are you saying, as some have actually said with a straight face, that UV increase (a normal variation) is heating the deep oceans and is the cause of trends in that metric.

Pamela Gray
July 8, 2014 8:42 pm

UV trends with TSI which trends with SSN. There is no measurable correlation in the temperature data. Unless of course you do that box car thing. Whatever else (IE causing the cancer on my lip that was removed a decade ago) it does is not germane to this discussion.
And clearly a simple minded person would grasp that UV does not have the energy to heat the oceans. There isn’t enough of it in total solar insolation, and its variation is even tinier. And that’s a fact easily measured and verified.

bushbunny
July 8, 2014 8:48 pm

I don’t know about the warming between 1940-1970, In 1947, England had the coldest winter ever experienced, and 1963 was the same. Maybe just isolated, but nevertheless, it was bloody cold.

xyzzy11
July 8, 2014 8:48 pm

John Hewitt says:
July 8, 2014 at 3:12 pm
..
I totally agree with Anthony here – he has allowed “robust debate” to continue, where on most other (alarmist) blogs, commentators would most likely be locked out after one “adverse” post. As Anthony said, “As skeptics we have to be doubly hard on each other, pal review has no place here.”.

July 8, 2014 8:50 pm

Even if the forecast turns out to be in the ballpark, that does not prove anything at all

When taken into context with how it has tracked with previous climate, if it has skill in forecasting what is yet to come, while one might claim it has not “proved” anything (which is technically true since Dr. Evans does not attempt to attribute cause, he is only documenting behavior), it would be good enough to use it.
If I had a box with a crank and a wheel and I cranked 10 turns and the wheel moved 5 turns and I crank 30 turns and the wheel moves 15, I have a pretty good idea that whatever is in that box provides a 2:1 turns ratio even though I can’t prove it with certainty because I haven’t opened the box, I can be fairly confident that if I now turn the crank 20 times, I’ll get 10 turns of the wheel.
If climate behaves as expected, it would indicate something a little more than coincidence, again, when the forecast is taken into context with the hindcast. I’m not understanding the vitriol. from some corners.
And “he can be right for the wrong reason” doesn’t really apply because he isn’t really attributing a “reason”. He is noting the correlation between events and that there is about a 10-ish year lag between them. The “why”, or what he calls “X” is left up to future research.

Reply to  crosspatch
July 8, 2014 9:08 pm

crosspatch:
To assess the performance of a model by the single measure of skill is to neglect the issue of the falsifiability of this model’s claims for the skillfulness is independent of the falsifiability.

gary gulrud
July 8, 2014 8:54 pm

Pamela Gray says:
July 8, 2014 at 8:38 pm
Ms. Gray, your response which I reprised was to my implication that I had little confidence in a figger of 0.1% variance(a statistical measure) over the secular Solar cycle in TSI when the UV component is known to vary 100% between cycles.
Perhaps you can see now, that your response in no way pertains.
BTW, of the 40% of Solar radiation incident comprised by the IR spectrum, but 1% of that fraction reaches the ground. Since the Atmosphere does not heat the ground by re-radiating having an emissivity of a low-pressure gas, you would do well to re-jigger your conceptual universe, such as it is.

Pamela Gray
July 8, 2014 8:55 pm

I think what may have confused you Gary is a straight across measure of energy by wavelength. Of course excitation increases in shorter wavelength. Duh. But we are talking solar insolation and the amount of UV that is a part of total solar radiance. The Sun is not a UV lamp. The Sun’s radiance spectrum is known. UV is a small part of its energy output. Very small part. Why is that even being argued? Do you not know what the solar spectrum is made of? What it looks like? Is there something wrong with the analyzers that measure the Solar spectrum? Is more UV hiding somewhere? Is it under the George Bush table?
Any variation in UV at the surface due to solar variation, would produce a tiny, tiny % change in energy available to heat the oceans, and would NOT BE detectable in the noisy ocean heat data series. Earth’s own messy environment totally buries solar sourced UV variation. Period. Case closed. We are talking many decimals places here.
Gary, you can’t be serious!

Rud Istvan
July 8, 2014 8:56 pm

Mosher, you dissemble.
Evan’s model is not designed to be a statistical expectations one like BEST. Asking for those results changes the frame of reference unfairly. Apples to oranges. He did not create your sort of model, and it does not produce your sort of result. Get over it. It is what it is, not what you might wish it to be. Whining about the difference is unseemly.
BTW, what sort of falsifiable forecast does BEST make? We’re I you, I would not answer such an unfair question. BEST was designed to produce another temperature history, not a forecast. But this question you should not answer uses your own rhetorical technique above to illustrate why your Evans complaint above was simply off base.

July 8, 2014 8:59 pm

Anthony’s call for avoidance of comments on personalities is an excellent one. If bloggers were to universally heed this call, the quality of the dialog in Anthony’s blog would be much improved. Comments on personalities should be avoided because they are: a) irrelevant b) distracting and c) often unfair.

July 8, 2014 9:09 pm

Here’s a list of some Scientists who are looking at TSI:
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/5/3/034008/cites
Part of why Evans may be right is idea the sensitivity. Small changes causing larger outcomes. As Kyle Swanson said, variability is the flip side of sensitively. If temperatures were rising and then they plateaued, what caused that? We don’t know. But if the system is sensitive to small changes, it could happen and we just can’t figure out what that small change was. But it would be consistent with high sensitivity to something causing the pause. And the irony is just a bonus. Warmists may argue sensitivity is low to TSI, UV etc.

Reply to  Ragnaar
July 8, 2014 9:30 pm

Ragnaar:
The climate sensitivity aka equilibrium climate sensitivity is the ratio between the change in the spatially and temporally averaged equilibrium temperature and the change in the logarithm of the atmospheric CO2 concentration. As the value of the equilibrium temperature is not observable, when a numerical value is asserted for the climate sensitivity this value is non-falsifiable. Thus, the climate sensitivity does not exist as a scientific concept.

gary gulrud
July 8, 2014 9:15 pm

Pamela Gray says:
July 8, 2014 at 8:55 pm
Indeed I am serious: you understand little more of what you are saying than of what I am saying, which is nothing at all.

Mike Jowsey
July 8, 2014 9:18 pm

Pamela Gray: “I’m not about to play with fudge factors to run a model till I know from whence and how the factors came to be the chosen ones. I expect no less of AGW modelers. And guess what folks? In well documented articles, they are there. Should we be giving ourselves a pass and not do that?”
Pamela – have you read the 8 posts preceding the release to the Excel programme? You can start here: http://joannenova.com.au/2014/06/big-news-part-i-historic-development-new-solar-climate-model-coming/ At the bottom are links to the other posts. Stop knee-jerking – it’s unbecoming.

gary gulrud
July 8, 2014 9:21 pm

Not that I’ve done any, but principle component analysis, when employed with variables independent of the target, can be used to establish a weight of contribution to the whole.
I gather that is Evan’s endeavor.

Pamela Gray
July 8, 2014 9:51 pm

Gary, you said about yourself, “I had little confidence in a figger [sic] of 0.1% variance(a statistical measure) over the secular Solar cycle in TSI when the UV component is known to vary 100% between cycles.”
Now that is even further out there. Way out there. TSI does indeed vary about 0.1% from peak to trough. Peak to peak variation is rather consistent at plus/minus 0.1% (likely because of the “floor”). Yes UV varies greater than that but it is not reflected in the overall TSI variation because UV is a small part of the total solar irradiance spectrum. Similar in that regard to CO2 as a tiny portion of atmosphere. Yes CO2 has expanded percentage wise more than the atmosphere has but the atmosphere is so much bigger it does not feel any part of those extra CO2 molecules.
The cyclic TSI and UV variation is well understood, modeled, mathematically calculable, and verified with observations.
Logically, if you worry about UV trend/variation playing a large role in climate trend/variation, you should also be worried about CO2.
http://astro.ic.ac.uk/research/solar-irradiance-variation

July 8, 2014 9:56 pm

To me the novel and important point about this model is that it is falsifiable, and will soon either be falsified or not falsified.
If the model is not falsified then we can debate the question why it works. And if it is falsified we can inquire whether or not another empirical model is worth our time. Either way, we learn something.
Notice that I say this is an empirical model. If I understand correctly the no theory supports the model. This is the intention of the modeler.
In my opinion, the empirical approach is a reasonable way to study a system as complex and possibly chaotic as the climate system..We have only a few years to wait, whereas with the 100 or so models built on theory we have to wait 25 or 50 years to see if they work. And then the modelers will just tweak the models a little and ask us to wait another 25 to 50 years.

Reply to  Chris Marlowe
July 8, 2014 10:06 pm

Chris Marlowe:
I don’t believe that the model is falsifiable. How would one falsify it?

Dr. Strangelove
July 8, 2014 10:21 pm

Figure 5 – SORCE/TIM Reconstruction shows TSI in 1600-1800 lower by about 0.8 W/m^2 than in 1950-2000. That’s enough to cause a little ice age. Coincidence? I think not.

Editor
July 8, 2014 10:48 pm

Terry Oldberg says:
July 8, 2014 at 8:36 pm

Steven Mosher:
How would one do out of sample testing of Dr. Evans’s model?

Thanks, Terry. I’m not Mosh but as I’ve made the same point, let me explain how to do it.
You divide the data in half. Then you “train” the model on the first half, meaning that you use some kind of weighting process to determine the optimum value of the 11 arbitrary parameters.
Then, using that set of parameters, you see how well it performs on the other half of the data.
Next, you reverse the procedure. You train the model on the second half of the data, and see how well it performs on the first half.
It is generally the very first test done on such a model, because such “tuned” models are known to be generally very good at hindcasting (because they were trained on that very data), but very poor at forecasting the half of the data that that the model has never seen.
However, to do so, we have to know how David arrived at the values of the parameters … and that is the part which he has not yet revealed.
Now, Jo told me over at their blog that indeed, they had already performed that exact kind of out-of-sample test on the data. So if they wished to, they could publish the parameters that their training process gave them for the first half of the data, and show us the results using those same parameters on the second half of the data.
However, they have not revealed that either.
As a result, despite the fact that they have released the model, we’re no better off than before. We don’t have the code used to determine the values of the parameters. And we don’t have the results of the out-of-sample tests which they have done. So … we cannot do even the most basic test of the model.
Now, a number of people have said to just wait for three years, and if the temperature drops by a tenth of a degree the model is verified. There are two problems with that.
The first is that the threshold is extremely low, well within the natural swings of the data.
The second is, there is no reason to wait. If we try the model by testing it on half the data and it fails miserably on the other half, we can all go home. Since he claims that the model has passed the out-of-sample tests, then he could simply reveal them, as I requested that he do both here and at Jo’s site.
Finally, as Pamela Gray has expressed so eloquently above, the rules apply to all. I and many others have been very strong regarding the necessity of publishing the data and the code when you publish the study. And we have been cheered on by the skeptical community for standing four-square for transparent, honest science. As she said:

Priceless. People complain all the time about AGW paywalled studies and research by media. Or grey papers filled with unvetted sciency sounding proclamations with no research to back it up. We cheer when skeptics, after great effort, finally get the stuff needed from the AGW crowd for reproducibility, validity, and sound science critique of CO2 global warming. Apparently we can’t do that with our own side.

For me to not apply the same exact standards to Jo and David, merely because they are good folks (which they are), or because they are skeptical of AGW (which they are), or because they have put a commendably huge effort into their project (which they have), would be the height of hypocrisy.
I must confess, I am amazed by the resistance to a simple request for code and data, both from David and Jo, as well as from other skeptics. Foolish me, I thought the skeptics stood for solid science. Why should David and Jo be exempt from the normal rules of transparency in science? The rules are simple—no code, no data, no science.
Finally, I am not being hard on David and Jo as many have claimed. I am not asking them to do anything that I, or Steven Mosher, or Steve McIntyre, or any of a host of other skeptical scientists don’t do. We are all transparent regarding code and data. Mosh has written up an entire suite of R commands that will let you go step by step through the process used by Berkeley Earth. Steven McIntyre does the same.
And I publish the data and code for all of my work, to allow anyone to see if I’ve made any mistakes. Considering that I write a scientific investigation of some aspect of climate every week, I know exactly what is involved in transparency, and it’s not hard. Simply publish all of the code as used, and all of the data as used. Yes, some times I get bitten by it, when someone looks at what I’ve done and finds an error … but that is science at its finest. For me, this kind of instant peer review is extremely valuable, because it prevents me from spending weeks or months following a blind trail.
Are David and Jo free to not publish? Of course. They can publish as little of it as they wish, or none at all. But until and unless they publish all of it, it is not science of any kind.
w.

July 8, 2014 10:50 pm

For Gary Gulrud re principal components analyis (PCA)
We can be a little more specific about what PCA does. The computation methodology takes a number of measured variables that may be correlated among each other (multicollinear) and transforms them into a set of orthogonal (uncorrelated) components.(PCs)
The number of principal components is equal to the number of the original data variables, Thus the new components (PCs) together represent a multidimensional Euclidean space with the original variables projected onto the new variables (PCs).
(Engineers do the same with force vectors when designing roof trusses and bridges. They decompose force vectors into vertical and horizontal components.)
Imagine that the axes of the original multidimensional data space forming angles, the size of the angles given by the correlation coefficients among the variables. (The higher the correlation between two variables, the smaller the angle.). PCA rotates the original space to get a set of new variables (components) that are at right-angles to each other. The original correlated variables are decomposed into vectors that form right angles. The PCs are not correlated with each other but they are linear combinations of the original variables.
One of the algorithms used for PCA rotates multidimensional space in a way that maximizes the total variance on the 1st component (PC), and then maximizes the remaining variance on the 2nd PC and so on until all the variance has been accounted for.
You may recall the critiques of the mathematical procedure that Michael Mann used. One criticism was that Dr Mann did not follow the correct procedure for standardizing the variables. The standard method relates the value of a data variable to the mean plus or minus a multiple or fraction of the standard deviation. Dr Mann used an unconventional method not related to the means of the original data….
Another criticism was that PCA may not have been an appropriate model because PCA loads variance on a succession of PCs. This could produce a Hockeystick shape from a very small subset of the data, in effect from outliers. As the critics showed, using PCA in a certain way enables the modeler to produce “hockey-sticks” from random data values.
Several years ago, I discussed this problem of statistical modeling with a senior Singaporean statistician who had 40 years experience in medical statistics. He said that the biggest problem was spurious correlation:finding correlation purely by chance where there is no causality.
The point he made has stuck with me. He said that we should rely on statistical models only if we know the data very well and we know the theory that relates the variables. My impression was that he did not believe that statistical correlation alone can support the claim that a theory has been proven.

ren
July 8, 2014 11:15 pm

This is the truth of the TSI and the effects are already visible in the atmospheric temperature. These are the temperature changes ozone.
http://oi58.tinypic.com/2m5cls5.jpg
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/5/3/034008/pdf/1748-9326_5_3_034008.pdf

ren
July 8, 2014 11:22 pm

TSI a graph corresponds exactly to the graph Ap.
http://ice-period.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/sun2013.png

July 8, 2014 11:59 pm

Thanks to Anthony for updating the post and adding links to our detailed replies to Willis and Leif.
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/07/the-solar-model-finds-a-big-fall-in-tsi-data-that-few-seem-to-know-about/
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/07/more-strange-adventures-in-tsi-data-the-miracle-of-900-fabricated-fraudulent-days/
Despite being abjectly wrong, and in a documented and obvious way, neither man has acknowledged, let alone apologized, for their disgraceful behaviour.
It all got a bit overexcited on the “bermuda-triangle” thread where logic and manners disappeared without a trace. Leif exclaimed David’s work was “almost fraudulent ” and a “blatant error” because Leif didn’t realize Davids graph was 11 year smoothed (which was written on the graph). Willis repeated Leif and called the data “bogus”. So David graphed Leif’s own data and showed the fall in the 11 year smoothed TSI was there, and apparently news to Leif. What ho! Are we having fun?
Willis says:” …. it’s not science in any form, which is all that I said.” Steady on, Willis, you also said we “made a wildly incorrect claim”, are like “pseudo-scientists”, who made a “horrendous newbie mistake” and we “invented data” too. You were wrong about all these, which was obvious to anyone who read the graph or reads my site. Have you made any effort to correct your false statements? I have not seen it. Willis went on to say David is “hiding everything he can from public view”, and “taking up the habits of Mann and Jones”. Just a bit of false equivalence there.
Lief went on to misread three small dots and claim the dataset was “doctored” and the” fabrication” of data was a “fact”. Furthermore, “Mr Evans did not intend to have anybody discover his little ‘trick’.” All of which was also false, but somehow very convincing to Willis.
Willis is now repeatedly saying we haven’t released the full model, except we have. Not only does the spreadsheet contain all the data and code, but the attachment linked in the post http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/cfa/excerpts.pdf contains all the equations and information needed to run the model. The only parts not yet released from the full paper are not things the model depends on, though they corroborate the model and we’ll be discussing them soon.
Willis claims it’s not worth commenting on my site because the readers there are an “infestation” of stupid “true-believer adherents” and “credulati”. (Does he mean like someone who believes everything Leif Svalgaard says?) It couldn’t possibly be that Willis is afraid to comment on my site (where everyone knows how wrong he was) could it?
No doubt he will find a reason to say I have taken these phrases out of context (I quote the exact words with links on my site, see the links above). He may also quote his “best wishes” or “sincere congratulations” as if these neutralize the baseless insults. But what do sincerity and wishes mean from someone who repeatedly make false statements and won’t correct them?
Anthony and I have had a long friendly conversation which I’m grateful for. As a fellow blogger, I am sympathetic to the impossible task of stopping long comment threads from degenerating into name-calling. Everyone would help Anthony if they were careful to write accurately, and understand what they talked about before they made definitive claims.
Both men have my email and access to freely comment on my site. Do either care about accuracy?

July 9, 2014 12:02 am

Steve from Rockwood says:
July 8, 2014 at 3:21 pm
Steve I think you made an error in your calculation. I came up with .1 deg K using your numbers.
I’m going to repeat what you did in a slightly different way assuming a 300K earth for convenience. Solar output = 100% = 300K. A .1% Solar variation translates into a .3K temperature variation.
You might want to recheck your calculation. Your 0.002 deg K is wildly off. For a .5W/m^2 variation which translates to .5/1365 *300 I also get .1K variation confirming the correctness of your w/m^2 per degree number which I used at the top of this comment.

tonyM
July 9, 2014 12:05 am

lsvalgaard says:
July 8, 2014 at 7:46 pm
“To claim success if the drop is at least 0.1C is meaningless as such a small change is well within random fluctuations.”
…………………………..
There is quite a difference between “claiming success” and not being able to falsify a hypothesis. The latter is not the same as claiming success (unless one repeats this a number of times).
The “0.1C is meaningless” is trite given it is a walk away falsifiability criterion in absolute terms as I understand it. I imagine it already incorporates all sorts of errors such as timing within three years (Evans says the range of timing impact is from 10 to 20 years), measurement errors of Avg T etc. A walk away falsifiability test is not the same as an expectation of outcome.
If you have a better suggestion please put it forward; that is the purpose of having an open discussion.
Your question of what Dr Evans learns if it fails is open ended and does cover a lot of science. If an idea looks plausible, is subjected to “testing” on past data (I imagine it has been tested blind on different periods) and holds up then it would indeed qualify for testing in real time.
Science would be pretty dead if we then never took it to this stage or that the prospect of failure is the impediment to testing simply because we can’t learn much more by a failure other than confirm the IPCC analysis of little effect from TSI. Such a criterion would cut out a lot of hypothesis testing in science.

farmerbraun
July 9, 2014 12:09 am

Willis Eschenbach says:
July 8, 2014 at 10:48 pm
Willis , if you start to get a bit tired, I’ve got a spare 20 ton excavator that I could lend to you 🙂

ren
July 9, 2014 12:10 am

“A UV index of 11 is considered extreme, and has reached up to 26 in nearby locations in recent years,” notes Cabrol. “But on December 29, 2003, we measured an index of 43. If you’re at a beach in the U.S., you might experience an index of 8 or 9 during the summer, intense enough to warrant protection. You simply do not want to be outside when the index reaches 30 or 40.”
High elevation, thin ozone layer, and clear sky produce intense ultraviolet (UV) radiation in the tropical Andes. Recent models suggest that tropical stratospheric ozone will slightly decrease in the coming decades, potentially resulting in more UV anomalies. Data collected between 4300 and 5916 m above sea level (asl) in Bolivia show how this trend could dramatically impact surface solar irradiance. During 61 days, two Eldonet dosimeters recorded extreme UV-B irradiance equivalent to a UV index (UVI) of 43.3, which is the highest ground value ever reported. If they become more common, events of this magnitude may have societal and ecological implications, which make understanding the process leading to their generation critical. Our data show that this event and other major UV spikes were consistent with rising UV-B/UV-A ratios in the days to hours preceding the spikes, trajectories of negative ozone anomalies (NOAs), and radiative transfer modeling.
http://journal.frontiersin.org/Journal/10.3389/fenvs.2014.00019/abstract

ren
July 9, 2014 12:20 am

“A UV index of 11 is considered extreme, and has reached up to 26 in nearby locations in recent years,” notes Cabrol. “But on December 29, 2003, we measured an index of 43.”
http://oi60.tinypic.com/8w0aid.jpg
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/Ap.gif

joannenova
July 9, 2014 12:22 am

A reply to NikFromNYC: July 8, 2014 at 8:18 pm
Exhibit A — so any model with five parameters is thus “proven wrong”? Does it mean all models can only be right if they use 4 or less… ?
Exhibit B — Lubos didn’t understand the main point of David’s theory and didn’t read the email where David explained that. See our reply. http://joannenova.com.au/2014/06/lubos-and-a-few-misconceptions/
The notch implies an 11 year delay. Other independent researchers corroborate that. http://joannenova.com.au/2014/06/big-news-part-iii-the-notch-means-a-delay/
As for Chester? The solar assumption was only temporary, and we drop it and test it openly. http://joannenova.com.au/2014/06/big-news-part-vii-hindcasting-with-the-solar-model/
We might be wrong, but not from any of these points.

ren
July 9, 2014 12:28 am
jmorpuss
July 9, 2014 12:33 am

As the Earths 6000 C core radiates geoneutrinos http://www.sci-news.com/physics/article01040.html and http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoneutrino I see the crust acts like a Faraday cage to this negative charge build up and releases it to the atmosphere as point charge . A high pressure system is driven by positively charged aerosols (+ Ions) and this positive and negative charge interact to create what we call weather . “Radiogenic heatingEdit
Radiogenic heating occurs as a result of the release of heat energy from radioactive decay[2] during the production of radiogenic nuclides. Along with heat from the outer core of the Earth, radiogenic heating occurring in the mantle make up the two main sources of heat in the Earth’s interior.[3] Most of the radiogenic heating in the Earth results from the decay of the daughter nuclei in the decay chains of uranium-238 and thorium-232, and potassium-40.[4] ” How much Radon is emitted to the atmosphere as uranium decays to lead . I read somewhere that radon 222 is responsible for half the lung cancers patients ,this is the escape goat for the tobacco industry litigation .

joannenova
July 9, 2014 12:34 am

I tried to post this earlier but it seems to have disappeared. Delete if it’s a repeat.
Thanks to Anthony for updating the post and adding links to our detailed replies to Willis and Leif.
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/07/the-solar-model-finds-a-big-fall-in-tsi-data-that-few-seem-to-know-about/
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/07/more-strange-adventures-in-tsi-data-the-miracle-of-900-fabricated-fraudulent-days/
Despite being abjectly wrong, and in a documented and obvious way, neither man has acknowledged, let alone apologized, for their disgraceful behaviour.
It all got a bit overexcited on the “bermuda-triangle” thread where logic and manners disappeared without a trace. Leif exclaimed David’s work was “almost fraudulent ” and a “blatant error” because Leif didn’t realize Davids graph was 11 year smoothed (which was written on the graph). Willis repeated Leif and called the data “bogus”. So David graphed Leif’s own data and showed the fall in the 11 year smoothed TSI was there, and apparently news to Leif. What ho! Are we having fun?
Willis says:” …. it’s not science in any form, which is all that I said.” Steady on, Willis, you also said we “made a wildly incorrect claim”, are like “pseudo-scientists”, who made a “horrendous newbie mistake” and we “invented data” too. You were wrong about all these, which was obvious to anyone who read the graph or reads my site. Have you made any effort to correct your false statements? I have not seen it. Willis went on to say David is “hiding everything he can from public view”, and “taking up the habits of Mann and Jones”. Just a bit of false equivalence there.
Lief went on to misread three small dots and claim the dataset was “doctored” and the” fabrication” of data was a “fact”. Furthermore, “Mr Evans did not intend to have anybody discover his little ‘trick’.” All of which was also false, but somehow very convincing to Willis.
Willis is now repeatedly saying we haven’t released the full model. David tells me the spreadsheet contains all the data and code, and the 34page attachment linked in the post http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/cfa/excerpts.pdf contains all the equations and information needed to run the model. The only parts not yet released from the full paper are not things the model depends on, though they corroborate the model and we’ll be discussing them soon.
Apparently its not worth commenting on my site because the readers there are an “infestation” of “true-believers”, “adherents” and “credulati”. (Does he mean like someone who believes everything Leif Svalgaard says?) It couldn’t possibly be that Willis is afraid to comment on my site (where everyone knows how wrong he was) could it?
No doubt he will find a reason to say I have taken these phrases out of context (I quote the exact words with links on my site, see the links above). He may also quote his “best wishes” or “sincere congratulations” as if these neutralize the baseless insults. But what do sincerity and wishes mean from someone who repeatedly makes false statements and won’t correct them?
Anthony and I have had a long friendly conversation which I’m grateful for. As a fellow blogger, I am sympathetic to the impossible task of stopping long comment threads from degenerating into name-calling. Everyone would help Anthony if they were careful to write accurately before they made definitive claims.
Both men have my email and access to freely comment on my site. Do either care about accuracy?

Brad
July 9, 2014 12:45 am

lsvalgaard on July 8, 2014 at 6:00 pm
Brad says:
July 8, 2014 at 5:51 pm
Willis has no intention of helping David make this work based on all his attacks both, here and there. Neither does Leif or Mosher for that matter.
Oh, but you are quite wrong there. I have supplied David with a much more realistic data file for the solar input. This should be of help to David. If he wants help is another matter.
************************************************
Leif,
You are flat wrong in your statement. You provided your “guess”, remember? We had this discussion on Jos website, and you said all TSI data was bad, and that your “guess” was the most accurate, remember?
How did that help David?
He ran your data and posted the results but you didn’t like it.
Remember?????

ren
July 9, 2014 12:46 am

“A UV index of 11 is considered extreme, and has reached up to 26 in nearby locations in recent years,” notes Cabrol. “But on December 29, 2003, we measured an index of 43.”
Let’s see what happened in the stratosphere over the equator in December 2003.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_ALL_EQ_2003.gif

Brad
July 9, 2014 12:50 am

farmerbraun on July 9, 2014 at 12:09 am
Willis Eschenbach says:
July 8, 2014 at 10:48 pm
Willis , if you start to get a bit tired, I’ve got a spare 20 ton excavator that I could lend to you 🙂
************+***********************************
I’d be happy to pay for the diesel! Sarc off. ( just to be clear)

ren
July 9, 2014 12:54 am

The question is whether Ap fell sharply, or not. If so, the temperature dropped sharply stratosphere and troposphere temperature drops.
http://www.climate4you.com/images/Ap-Index%20Since199001.gif

Peter Sable
July 9, 2014 1:05 am

“Sit back, relax, and see what happens.”
We all need to read “Fooled By Randomness”: http://www.amazon.com/Fooled-Randomness-Hidden-Markets-Incerto/dp/0812975219
Simple way of stating this kind of fallacy: A broken clock is right twice a day.
More complex: If we make 10,000 models or parameter choices by sheer chance one might be right. for a while…
Making a magic formula that predicts the next 7-10 years is not falsifiable. It tells us little about the underlying physical mechanisms. If the model appears to be correct it could just mean you got lucky. With all the modeling going on someone is going to get lucky…
Now if you can find a system of models and determine how many parameter combinations result in the same prediction (or within a certain error bar), you might have something to be able to say about such a system of models (e.g. how many can get lucky by chance). That kind of math is a bit beyond most of us I bet.

Peter Sable
July 9, 2014 1:06 am

A further nitpick is when training a model, you should keep half the data set of training and half for testing. From what I can tell the entire temperature history is used as the training set. It’s not fun to have to wait 10 years to see if the model matches any sort of reality when that could have been done with existing data. Or not. There’s probably not enough existing data to actually do proper modeling – too many low frequency components and not enough time to see multiple periods.

ren
July 9, 2014 1:22 am

This is unexpected, because TSI is the energy input that warms the Earth. The TSI peaks every 11 years or so, yet there is no detected corresponding peak in the temperature, even using our new low noise optimal Fourier transform!
(To put some numbers on it: TSI typically varies from the trough to the peak of a sunspot cycle by about 0.8 W/m2 out of 1361 W/m2. At the surface of the Earth, this is about 0.14 W/m2 of unreflected TSI. If this was a long term change, the Stefan-Boltzmann equation would imply a change in radiating temperature of about 0.05°C, which would result in a change in surface temperature of about 0.1°C. The peaks only last for a year or two, so the low pass filter in the climate system would reduce the temperature peak to somewhat below 0.1°C. The error margin of the temperature records is generally about 0.1°C, but Fourier analysis will usually find repetitive bumps down to a small fraction of the error margin, maybe a tenth. However these bumps are not quite regularly spaced, so the threshold of detectability would be a bit higher. In any case, we’d expect the temperature peaks to be detectable using the data and methods we have employed, though not by a huge margin. Later in post IV of this series we propose a physical interpretation of the notch that implies a countering of the TSI warming, but of course such a countering would be very unlikely to completely cancel out the temperature effects of the TSI peak. But given that the margin for detection for the TSI peak alone is not great, it is credible that the mainly-countered TSI peaks are indeed not detectable.) This paragraph was corrected. **
This is an important clue. It’s the absence of something expected. (Like the “curious incident of the dog in the night-time”, in Silver Blaze, a Sherlock Holmes story. The clue was that the dog did nothing. The dog did not bark when the crime was being committed in the house, indicating that the dog was familiar with the criminal, which was a vital clue to their identity.)
In electronics, a filter in audio equipment that removes the hum due to mains power is called a notch filter. It removes a narrow range of frequencies, which looks like a notch on a frequency graph. Without a notch filter, the mains hum at 50 or 60 Hz would often be audible. It appears that something is removing the 11 year “solar hum” from the temperature, so we call this phenomenon “the notch”.
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/evans/art/evans-fig-15-tsi-v-temp-datasets.gif

July 9, 2014 1:40 am

Brad says:
July 9, 2014 at 12:45 am
He ran your data and posted the results but you didn’t like it. Remember?????
No, I don’t remember, because he didn’t. Provide a link or quote to where he did. And what he should have done is to construct the 11 parameters using my dataset, then run the model. He did not do that. Evans say that that was too much work and it might take him some weeks to get around to do it. Bottom line: he didn’t do it.

Rogueelement451
July 9, 2014 3:47 am

The criticism of too many parameters reminds me of the comment about Mozart’s music…”too many notes!”
In the context of a chaotic ,little understood atmosphere the more parameters the better.,in fact if you started with 54 parameters , then you could play a game of Jenga , remove one at a time till it falls over.
That is actually not a bad idea , I would pull CO2 from the tower as my first go.

July 9, 2014 3:57 am

All this climate stuff and David Evan’s model plus my work in plasma physics got me looking into the electric universe theories. http://classicalvalues.com/2014/07/the-electric-universe/

redcords
July 9, 2014 4:05 am

People are talking about how they chose the parameters for the model.
The answer is they used a random number generator (which they call the “monkey” as in infinite monkeys with infinite typewriters) to come up with possible parameter sets which are then subject to an optimization criteria.
The exact line of code is:
.stValueOL = .loBoundOL + Rnd() * (.hiBoundOL – .loBoundOL)
Why did they use parameter set 25 (P25)? Appendix L.3 states:
“It is emphasized that choosing this particular set was ad hoc and arbitrary, and the true values may well lie elsewhere in the range of possible parameters.”
Good luck doing sensitivity testing with that.

July 9, 2014 4:07 am

My work in Plasma Physics: Polywell Fusion

Agnostic
July 9, 2014 4:09 am

@Willis:
I must confess, I am amazed by the resistance to a simple request for code and data, both from David and Jo, as well as from other skeptics. Foolish me, I thought the skeptics stood for solid science. Why should David and Jo be exempt from the normal rules of transparency in science? The rules are simple—no code, no data, no science.
You are confusing “resistance to a simple request for code and data” with objections that the “resistance” of which you speak does not exist!
The whole thing will, according to Jo and David, be released in due course. Why can you not take them at their word? They have taken great pains to prepare it in such a way as to be as transparent as possible.
You are perfectly entitled to say:
– “There are important parts of the study missing for me to make an objective assessment of their work.”
– “They should have waited and published everything at the same time, rather than the drip feed method.”
– “They should not have used this data set or that data, this would have been better or that would have been better”
– “Until this sort of information is made available I can’t run what I consider to be fundamental tests.”
You could go on and be really critical that they should have foreseen that that is what anyone wanting to test the model would want to do and it should have been made easier (or possible) from the outset.
What you can’t say is that they have provided “no code, no data, no science”, because it patently and demonstrably not correct.
You can say it is incomplete at present and that until you get the bits you need you aren’t in a position to say anything further about it. People supporting the model over confidently and over credulously (and i really don’t see too many of those if you look honestly) can be rebutted with a “well, we don’t know one way or the other yet because we need to run these tests on the model and presently can’t”.
To me Willis, you aren’t coming over as properly skeptical, you are coming over obstinate and obtuse. Be the layman’s champion and get stuck in to the new model, but honestly and without bias. I’m curious to know how it stacks up.

bit chilly
July 9, 2014 4:09 am

many claims relating to tsi in the comments. did anyone watch the Solar Science and Climate presentation by sebastian luning, habibullo abdussamatov, and willie Soon from the conference ?
http://climateconference.heartland.org/breakout-1-streaming/
i would be particularly interested in lief,s comments in relation to this, the figures presented by dr willie soon and habibullo abdussamatov suggest a major drop in tsi.

July 9, 2014 4:21 am

Terry Oldberg says:
July 8, 2014 at 10:06 pm
Chris Marlowe:
I don’t believe that the model is falsifiable. How would one falsify it?

It makes bad predictions. Same way the AGW models were falsified.
BTW Nir Shaviv confirmed David’s central points in 2007:
http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/07/nir-shaviv-why-is-lockwood-and-frohlich.html
First, the response to short term variations in the radiative forcings are damped. This explains why the temperature variations in sync with the 11-year solar cycle are small (but they are present at the level which one expects from the observed cloud cover variations… about 0.1°C). Second, there is a lag between the response and the forcing. Typically, one expects lags which depend on the time scale of the variations. The 11-year solar cycle gives rise to a 2-year lag in the 0.1°C observed temperature variations. Similarly, the response to the 20th century warming should be delayed by typically a decade.
================
Nir thinks that the response pattern (also noted by David) is caused by the ocean. David is of the opinion that it is (unspecified) solar effects. We shall see. If it is the sun we do have enough instruments to detect its signature. BTW the most likely solar candidate is the solar magnetic field and its modulation of cloud albedo through deflection (or not) of cosmic rays. You will note Nir does tag clouds in passing.

Reply to  M Simon
July 9, 2014 11:15 am

M. Simon:
Thanks for sharing. Problems relating to your response that are of a logical nature are: 1) “bad” is a polysemic term (a term with several meanings) and 2) “prediction” is a polysemic term. That they are polysemic makes of your response an equivocation. By logical rule, one cannot properly draw a conclusion from an equivocation. Thus, for example one cannot properly draw the conclusion that “the AGW models were falsified.” Further information on equivocation in global warming arguments is available in the peer reviewed article at http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=7923

Reply to  Terry Oldberg
July 9, 2014 11:55 am

Terry,
Thank you so much. I appreciate that it is impossible to divine any meaning from what I said. So I withdraw my non-prediction. I await further events. If any. If there are no further events you can ignore them. If there are further events you may ignore them.
I hope that clarifies my position. If not ignore it.
Best wishes and kindest regards in all your future endeavors and untold happiness,
Simon

Anto
July 9, 2014 4:29 am

Willis Eschenbach
It is the height of rudeness to refuse to discuss your concerns directly on Jo and David’s site.
I believe that there are legitimate reasons for scepticism about David’s model, however if you are really interested in answers to your questions, you will get them more quickly and more directly by engaging over there.

jmorpuss
July 9, 2014 5:34 am

@M Simon
Have you had anything to do with this research and what is your opinion on it. http://www.everythingselectric.com/forum/index.php?topic=245.0

July 9, 2014 6:53 am

jmorpuss says:
July 9, 2014 at 5:34 am
I have had nothing to do with that research. I do think there is something to it. Lightning is a frequently noticed side effect of earthquakes.
I have a design for a very low cost instrument for measuring such things (earthquakes vs magnetic field changes) and would like to get it crowd funded so it could be widely deployed esp in active earthquake zones.
Any one who would like to help with that can contact me at http://spacetimepro.blogspot.com/ my e-mail is on the sidebar.

July 9, 2014 7:16 am

Talking about this is an exercise of futility. What will matter will be if the model is correct or no correct going forward.

ferdberple
July 9, 2014 7:16 am

Once the model appears to track, only THEN do we start to look at mapping the model components to physical causes, or groups of related physical causes.
============
We learned to predict the seasons long before we knew about the inclination of earth’s axis.
We learned to predict the orbit of the planets long before we knew about gravity.
We still don’t understand how gravity works, or even how fast it propagates.
insistence on a “mechanism” as a condition of successful prediction is the nonsense of modern science. the history of science shows that “cause and effect” is determined more by the equipment used to measure than by any absolute truth. each generation of science redefines cause and effect as our instruments gain greater precision.

July 9, 2014 7:22 am

ferdberple says:
July 9, 2014 at 7:16 am
insistence on a “mechanism” as a condition of successful prediction is the nonsense of modern science.
This is a common straw man. The issue here is not about ‘mechanism’, but about the lack of description of how the parameter set is derived. That is: given solar input, temperature, ‘atomic tests’, volcanic activity, and a range of years, how does one derive the parameter set?

Mike Jowsey
July 9, 2014 7:22 am

@ Joanne Nova: You Rock, indefatigably. (willis got some splainin to do)

July 9, 2014 7:32 am

bit chilly says:
July 9, 2014 at 4:09 am
To get the correct video from your link: http://climateconference.heartland.org/breakout-1-streaming/ look for the video with a length of 58:28. Willie Soon makes a very interesting critique of the current TSI instrumentation. He begins his presentation at about 34:29.

ferdberple
July 9, 2014 7:37 am

another nonsense in science is the notion that we “know’ almost all there is to know about any one subject. in reality, the more science learns about a single subject, the more questions that are raised.
Consider for example, the sun. Does anyone suggest that there are less questions about the sun today than there were 500 years ago? Go back 500 years and ask a scientists about the sun. he would have told you that just about everything there was to know was already known.
In contrast, today we have a great many questions about the sun that were not even dreamed of 500 years ago. The same will be true 500 years from now. we will know a great deal more about the sun, but for every question answered, two more will take its place.

ren
July 9, 2014 8:03 am

Is indeed the surface temperature does not drop?
http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.gif

William Astley
July 9, 2014 8:06 am

Observations are moving the solution and the consequences of the solar magnetic cycle interruption along.
http://news.yahoo.com/earths-magnetic-field-weakening-10-times-faster-now-121247349.html
“Earth’s Magnetic Field Is Weakening 10 Times Faster Now
…Previously, researchers estimated the field was weakening about 5 percent per century, but the new data revealed the field is actually weakening at 5 percent per decade, or 10 times faster than thought. As such, rather than the full flip occurring in about 2,000 years, as was predicted, the new data suggest it could happen sooner.
Floberghagen hopes that more data from Swarm will shed light on why the field is weakening faster now….”
The Swarm satellite analysis (Based the analysis of six months of data. Swarm is a set of three satellites that were launched in November, 2013 to study unexplained recent rapid changes to the geomagnetic field) has found that the earth’s magnetic field is weakening ten times faster than it has in the recent past (last 1000 years): 5% per decade (over the last 6 months) rather than 5% per century over the last 1000 years or so. (Note the north geomagnetic pole drift velocity suddenly increased by a factor of ten, starting in the 1990s which theoretically supports the assertion that a geomagnetic excursion is taking place. The sudden change in the Northern magnetic pole drift velocity was one of the reasons the EU space agency found the half billion dollars funding for the Swarm satellite mission.)
This is a big deal for a dozen different reasons. (Assuming I understand the cause of the cyclic abrupt climate change in the proxy record and understand what is currently happening to the sun.) There will be significant high latitude cooling (what is causing the geomagnetic field change, inhibited the solar magnetic cycle modulation of planetary clouds). The fun is not limited to a 180 degree change in the climate crisis. The physics as to why and how a solar core changes causes and modulates planetary magnetic fields will have a profound effect on cosmology and fundamental physics.
Leif, as it appears you have spent zero time study planetary magnetic paradoxes and astronomical paradoxes (which is not unusual as specialists, specialize) and you appear to be incapable of thinking outside of your group’s paradigm, your comments based on an incorrect paradigm (as it is inconceivable for almost everyone who works in a paradigm that some of their fundamental beliefs could be incorrect there is a real mental barrier to address paradoxes, to even discuss paradoxes, to label an anomaly a paradox, and so on), concerning this subject are almost irrelevant. This is not a theoretical problem (assuming I understand what is happening), this is a significant issue (and there will be more observational evidence to support what I am asserting) that will need to be addressed.
Comment: There must be a physical explanation for why the geomagnetic field intensity is suddenly decreasing 10 times faster than expected. A paradox is created when there is no physical explanation for what is observed. The solution to this paradox is that the assumed model of the sun (As most are aware, it is not possible with current technology to send probes into a star, a magtar, a neutron star, a super massive ‘black’ hole, and so on so, therefore what is believed to physically occur when a very, very large body collapses is assumed and what is assumed can be incorrect) and the stars is fundamentally incorrect. There are piles and piles of astronomical anomalies that are explained by what happens when very, very, large bodies collapse.
It is not possible for a field intensity change of the current measured rapidity (5% decline in the geomagnetic field intensity per decade) to occur if the physical cause of the geomagnetic field is thermal motion of the liquid core. Electric currents are induced in the liquid core (counter EMF is produced when there is a change in a magnetic field that resists field changes, as per Maxwell’s equations applied to a conductive liquid) and there is no core change that can suddenly occur in the last decade to cause an increase by a factor of ten in the reduction of the intensity of the geomagnetic field.
The above statement is supported by a half dozen additional fundamental paradoxes concerning the ‘standard’ theory for the generation of the planetary magnetic field (another example is the magnetic field orientation of Uranus and Neptune) and a couple of dozen astronomical paradoxes. For example, the standard planetary magnetic field model requires turbulence caused by a significant thermal gradient. A significant thermal gradient is generated when a pot of water is placed on a stove element. A significant thermal gradient does not occur if the boiling water is placed in an insulated thermos. The core thermal gradient is theoretically believed to be caused by the latent heat that is released when the liquid core solidifies. The problem is (the paradox) calculations indicate that the earth’s solid core is 800 million to at most a billion years old. Calculations indicate that without the latent heat generated at the liquid core/solid core interface that the thermal gradient due to heat loss to the surface of the planet is roughly a factor of 10 less than the thermal gradient generated by the liquid core solidifying. This is not sufficient to create the necessary thermal motion to create the geomagnetic field. No thermal motion no geomagnetic field if the cause of the geomagnetic field is thermal motion of the conductive liquid in the earth’s core. It is know the earth has had a magnetic field (by proxy measurements) for at least 4 billion years. The geomagnetic field also must be of sufficient strength to protect water from being stripped from the atmosphere by the solar wind (calculations indicate that without a magnetic field the water is stripped from the atmosphere in a couple of million years). As we know the planet is 70% covered by water there must have been a strong magnetic field protecting the earth for almost all of the geological past.

July 9, 2014 8:09 am

Pamela Gray says:
July 8, 2014 at 9:51 pm
You have left out an important possibility. It is not TSI but something correlated with TSI.
Lets try a gedanken experiment.
Solar magnetic field —> cosmic rays (charged particles) —> clouds.
That is one possibility. Another is
UV –> atmospheric chemistry –> clouds.
There may be other possibilities. David will be asking in a future post for those with understanding in the many areas possible for inputs that may help resolve the issue. I’m just an amateur in the area and my math is no where near as good as David’s. But I do get the general drift of what he proposes and is trying to accomplish. Part of the reason I get it is that I have had almost 60 years of experience in electronics. (I started my studies at age 10 and got my first amateur license – Technician and Novice – at age 13. Note – the Technician test was the same as the General test. I got my Radiotelephone 1st Class [commercial] at age 17 1/2 – the youngest age allowed. During my career as a contract engineer I spent almost 5 years in aerospace.).

ren
July 9, 2014 8:11 am

You can see why next season will be weak hurricanes.
http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.gif

July 9, 2014 8:29 am

I listened to Willie Soon, and he hit a home run in showing how ridiculous much of the data on solar activity is in that none of the data from the various sources show any degree of consistency on what levels TSI has been at over the past . It is as bad if not worse then the present way sunspots are counted, which is very subjective and not objective in the least.
This is why I am using solar criteria such as solar wind speed , ap index and solar flux in making a determination at what point the sun’s variability will have a significant impact upon the climate. I have listed the criteria many times..
Willie Soon, like myself is also of the opinion due to the study of other sun like stars that are sun is much more variable then what mainstream wants you to believe and this variability was clearly present during the Maunder Minimum and more recently the Dalton Minimum.
The climate summit has been great and it just reinforces all of my thoughts about the sun the climate and the connections.

July 9, 2014 8:30 am

“This is a common straw man. The issue here is not about ‘mechanism’, but about the lack of description of how the parameter set is derived. That is: given solar input, temperature, ‘atomic tests’, volcanic activity, and a range of years, how does one derive the parameter set?”
I think we could say this a hundred times and they still would not get it.

July 9, 2014 8:35 am

It is all going (climate/solar ) so far the way I expected. Still have to wait a few months down the road to see if extremes or persistence in weather patterns pick up once again as the maximum of solar cycle 24 ends and if the temperature decline starts to be more definitive in response to the expected low solar activity.
Ocean Heat Content will play a role in holding temperatures higher then they might be but volcanic activity if it is to pick up would aid in the decline so there are unknowns that will make it hard to pin down by how much the temperature decline may be.

July 9, 2014 8:41 am

“Salvatore Del Prete says:
July 9, 2014 at 7:16 am
Talking about this is an exercise of futility. What will matter will be if the model is correct or no correct going forward.”
##########################3
My model is that temperature in 10 years will be the same as today. +-.2C
what will matter will be is the model is correct going forward?
well Salvatore that is a pile of crap.
If you ask me how I came up with this model and I said, I’m not going to show you, you are well within your rational rights to say “well mosher, show how you did it or nobody cares”
We can and we should investigate HOW a model is created before we test it. Its well known that wrong models can give the right answer, only to fail spectacularly at some point.
Second, Suppose a climate scientist came up with a new GCM that hindcast perfectly and predicted 3X the warming of old models. And suppose he told you that he built his model by
twisting 11 knobs to hindcast. And suppose he told you, well wait 20 years to see if my model is right. You’d laugh, Why? because thats no way to build a model.
Like I said, I have a model. temperature will be the same 10 years form now +-.2C
When I show you how I built it, you will laugh. and you wont spend time waiting to see if its true or not. Same with David. Until he shows HOW he built it, nobody should care, and if it turns out right, people will still be within their rational rights to say “so what?” Until he shows how he built it, it doesnt matter whether it is “right” or “wrong.” because it can be right or wrong by pure chance.

LT
July 9, 2014 8:44 am

Pamela Gray says:
July 8, 2014 at 7:28 pm
“And UV is very good at killing stuff. Hell you can sterilize with the damn stuff.”
Including ozone in stratosphere which changes the radiative properties of the atmosphere, which is one of the many feedbacks that are not modeled by solar variability.

July 9, 2014 8:58 am

“Peter Sable says:
July 9, 2014 at 1:06 am
A further nitpick is when training a model, you should keep half the data set of training and half for testing. From what I can tell the entire temperature history is used as the training set. It’s not fun to have to wait 10 years to see if the model matches any sort of reality when that could have been done with existing data. Or not. There’s probably not enough existing data to actually do proper modeling – too many low frequency components and not enough time to see multiple periods.
##############
that is in fact what Willis and I and others have asked for. Either
1. Davids results of this testing, which he promised but hasnt delivered OR
2. The code used to build the model which would allow us to do that work for ourselves.
He is obligated to provide both. When Mann build a model we demand BOTH.
Willis is being consistent and principled, as I noted at joNova. That is he is demanding the same things demanded of Mann and Santer. The difference is we could FOIA Santer, we cant FOIA David.
It’s sad that skeptics have lost sight of the fundamentals of science. it was one the one area where they held some High ground.
Witness this. As the AWG story comes under pressure as it comes under pressure because of the free release of code and data, we see some skeptics stepping up with their own science.
and what do we see?
1. creating a phony pal reviewed journal
2. arguing about the free release of all the data and code for their own science.
In short, the skeptics steeping forward to replace or improve the old science.. are going backwards with respect to the principles they espoused before.

July 9, 2014 9:08 am

Willis Eschenbach:
Thanks for sharing. I’m intimately familiar with the steps that must be taken in designing a model for falsifiability having made my living as a model builder and tester over a period of 11 years. In AR5, Chapter 11 of the report of Working Group 1 sketches out some of the steps. Prior to AR5, none of the models referenced by IPCC assessment reports were designed for falsifiability. Thus, none of these models were “scientific” as this term is defined by the federal government in its Daubert standard.
For falsifiability, there have to be the entities that are called “observed independent events.” Each such event has to be “out-of-sample” meaning that it was not used in the construction of the model. I’ll call the set of these events the “out-of-sample sample.”
Each event in the out-of sample-sample has to have an outcome (called a “bin” in Chapter 11) that belongs to the set of all possible outcomes; in the test of the model of Chapter 11, there are 10 possible outcomes. In statistical jargon, the count of the events in the out-of-sample sample having a particular outcome is called the “frequency” of this outcome. The ratio of the frequency of a particular outcome to the frequency of events of all descriptions in the out-of-sample sample is called the “relative frequency” of this particular outcome.
The model is run under the conditions that pertain to each of the events in the out-of-sample sample with the result that the relative frequency of each outcome that will be observed in the out-of-sample sample is predicted. The predicted relative frequencies are compared to the observed relative frequencies with respect to each of the possible outcomes in the set of them. If the predicted relative frequencies do not match the observed relative frequencies with respect to a particular outcome, a false claim has been made. One or more false claims falsifies the model.
That’s the process in a nutshell. There are complications owing mostly to sampling error that I’ve glossed over for brevity.
When this process has been or is about to be conducted this leaves telltail signs. Thus, far, I’ve not detected these signs in Dr. Evans’s writeup on his model. It seems more likely that rather than test his model for falsity he has already or is about to conduct an IPCC-style “evaluation” of it. In an “evaluation” one or more predicted global temperature time series are made visually comparable to an observed global temperature time series by plotting the various time series on the same X-Y coordinates. This comparison cannot result in falsification of the model.

July 9, 2014 9:13 am

Terry Oldberg says:
July 9, 2014 at 9:08 am
This comparison cannot result in falsification of the model.
And more seriously, there is no description of how the parameter set is constructed [and that is the real Model – what has been ‘revealed’ is just a vehicle to run the model], so no sensitivity test is possible and thus no confidence interval can be computed.

Pamela Gray
July 9, 2014 9:30 am

My musings:
A. Cyclic, yearly, and daily TSI variation are germane here (long term trend is not an issue with regard to Evan’s 11 yr notch delay proposal). So let’s get some numbers under our belt from the following link:
1. “The change in the Sun’s yearly average total irradiance during an 11-year cycle is on the order of 0.1 percent or 1.4 watts per square meter.”
2. Average TSI yearly value is 1,368 W/m2
3. Average cycle change value is 1.4 W/m2
4. “Daily variation in solar output is due to the passage of sunspots across the face of the Sun as the Sun rotates on its axis about once a month. These daily changes can be even larger [IE -3.0 W/m2] than the variation during the 11-year solar cycle. However, such short-term variation has little effect on climate.”
Link: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/SORCE/sorce_03.php
B. However, clouds have a much greater effect.
1. From the simple presentation linked just below you can begin to see the effects of clouds on incoming radiation.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CEEQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ccfg.org.uk%2Fconferences%2Fdownloads%2FP_Burgess.pdf&ei=l129U8_yFYizyATBk4Iw&usg=AFQjCNHOUw7QdkPJHfZYkBOzpl6AZ2eG9w&sig2=KkFCrkM4j3v3dAco6FwgXg&bvm=bv.70138588,d.aWw
2. Clive Best (see the link at the end of this section) has been working hard on this issue, and talking with NASA about cloud data. He says this:
“…recent measurements from the Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System CERES [5] show that the net average cooling effect of clouds is larger (-21 W/m2)…”
That’s a whole lot more than what the Sun does in terms of W/m2 variations. Recent developments and data is cementing in this issue. Clouds, as whispy as they are, beat the Sun by more than a length as they say in horse race language.
3. Clive goes on to say:
“The fall in cloud cover coincides with a rapid rise in temperatures from 1983-1999. Thereafter the temperature and cloud trends have both flattened. The CO2 forcing from 1998 to 2008 increases by a further ~0.3 W/m2 which is evidence that changes in clouds are not a direct feedback to CO2 forcing.”
I find this to be compelling evidence of an intrinsic null hypothesis that is fully capable of checkmating CO2 driven or solar driven weather pattern trends in global temperature data.
http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=5694
C. My take is that what is happening here on Earth regarding temperature trends is intrinsic in Earth’s own highly variable systems. Our own atmosphere and oceans are far more capable of driving trends and creating lags than anything variation the Sun can throw at us at the top of the atmosphere. In addition this hypothesis is measurable and has a plausible intrinsic mechanism.
D. But can intrinsic mechanisms be used to determine long term (IE longer than seasonal predictions but less than a Milankovitch Cycle) weather pattern variations without regard to catastrophic events (IE super equatorial volcanic eruptions http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/IVI2/)? Broadly I think yes with a more complete understanding of oceanic and atmospheric oscillations and their interactions. Eventually I see a suite of variously weighted and combined statistical/dynamical (some more statistical, others more dynamical) ENSO coupled with GCM models (with no CO2 global warming or aerosol or solar fudge factors) that allows various resettings (some more often than others) based on current conditions (especially of cloud data) to more narrowly define the prediction as we get nearer to the designated predicted time

Pamela Gray
July 9, 2014 9:45 am

One more comment to my musings. As for ENSO model parts, I think they need to include calculations based on data obtained regarding oceanic absorption of surface solar insolation as well as heat loss via evaporation in that same band under clear sky and cloudy conditions based on oscillations calculated from MEI data.

Pamela Gray
July 9, 2014 9:48 am

Terry, I know it has taken some time to break into my hard head, but I am finally coming round to your falsification comments as being quite reasonably supported and exacting.

Reply to  Pamela Gray
July 9, 2014 11:34 am

Pamela Gray:
It’s been hard to get this across to our colleagues in the climate blogs. To hear that my message has reached you is quite heartening!

July 9, 2014 9:56 am

William Astley says:
July 9, 2014 at 8:06 am
Observations are moving the solution and the consequences of the solar magnetic cycle interruption along.
There has been and will not be a solar magnetic cycle ‘interruption’ [with the usual meaning of that word]. Apart from the fact that you have not defined what that means.

Editor
July 9, 2014 10:14 am

joannenova says:
July 9, 2014 at 12:34 am

Thanks to Anthony for updating the post and adding links to our detailed replies to Willis and Leif.
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/07/the-solar-model-finds-a-big-fall-in-tsi-data-that-few-seem-to-know-about/
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/07/more-strange-adventures-in-tsi-data-the-miracle-of-900-fabricated-fraudulent-days/
Despite being abjectly wrong, and in a documented and obvious way, neither man has acknowledged, let alone apologized, for their disgraceful behaviour.

Joanne, first, my thanks for coming here to defend your model. That’s what science is about. Were my comments true? I think they were. Were they over-the-top? Quite possibly, I get passionate about these matters, and I sincerely apologize to you for any excesses of tone and style in my comments wherever that occurred.
However, I make no apology for their content.

It all got a bit overexcited on the “bermuda-triangle” thread where logic and manners disappeared without a trace. Leif exclaimed David’s work was “almost fraudulent ” and a “blatant error” because Leif didn’t realize Davids graph was 11 year smoothed (which was written on the graph). Willis repeated Leif and called the data “bogus”. So David graphed Leif’s own data and showed the fall in the 11 year smoothed TSI was there, and apparently news to Leif. What ho! Are we having fun?

Both Leif and I pointed out that to get your precipitous drop in the results you had invented 900 days worth of data and tacked it on to the end of the real data before running the 11-year smooth. Leif called this “almost fraudulent”, which as I stated in the other thread I though was an over-reaction. It is NOT, however, standard scientific practice in any form.
As to the “newbie mistake”, you invented data, tacked it on to the end of real data, and used the world’s worst smoothing for solar data (an 11-year boxcar) on the result. This gave results which show a precipitous fall at the end, purely due to your methods. If you look at the underlying data, you’ll see that no such fall exists. It is created by a combination of adding invented data (which I correctly described as “bogus”) and a really bad choice of smoothing method. Regardless of the words used to describe it, it is hardly defensible science.

Willis says:” …. it’s not science in any form, which is all that I said.” Steady on, Willis, you also said we “made a wildly incorrect claim”, are like “pseudo-scientists”, who made a “horrendous newbie mistake” and we “invented data” too. You were wrong about all these, which was obvious to anyone who read the graph or reads my site.

Joanne, you made up 900 days of “data” and tacked them onto the end of the real data. I fail to see how that is not “inventing” data.
And in my book, anyone who refuses to publish the data and code when they publish the study and the results is a “pseudo-scientist”. If you don’t want the label, don’t hide your work.

Have you made any effort to correct your false statements? I have not seen it.

No, because they are demonstrably true.

Willis went on to say David is “hiding everything he can from public view”, and “taking up the habits of Mann and Jones”. Just a bit of false equivalence there.

You still don’t get it, I guess. You think that because you are on the side of the angels you get to hide your data and code from public view and still call it science.

Lief went on to misread three small dots and claim the dataset was “doctored” and the” fabrication” of data was a “fact”. Furthermore, “Mr Evans did not intend to have anybody discover his little ‘trick’.” All of which was also false, but somehow very convincing to Willis.

Again, when you make up data, giving it an arbitrary value, and add it to real data, that is doctoring the data and it is fabrication. I did not say, nor do I agree with, Leif’s contention that “Mr. Evans did not intend …”, because I don’t have any information as to David’s intent. I try to avoid commenting on motive and intent because often I’m not clear on my own motives and intentions, so how could I know David’s?

Willis is now repeatedly saying we haven’t released the full model. David tells me the spreadsheet contains all the data and code, and the 34page attachment linked in the post http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/cfa/excerpts.pdf contains all the equations and information needed to run the model. The only parts not yet released from the full paper are not things the model depends on, though they corroborate the model and we’ll be discussing them soon.

Please re-read what I have said. I have never said that you haven’t released the “full model”. Both Steven Mosher and I agree that you have released the model … but we also agree that it is of no use. We still cannot test the model, because you have not released the code for determining the values of the arbitrary parameters. Without that information, your model is not testable.
We need that information to do “out-of-sample” tests, the simple tests that I described as “grade-school stuff”. At the time I made the comment, you assured me that the tests had already been done … so where are they? That is the other part that you have not yet released.

Apparently its not worth commenting on my site because the readers there are an “infestation” of “true-believers”, “adherents” and “credulati”. (Does he mean like someone who believes everything Leif Svalgaard says?) It couldn’t possibly be that Willis is afraid to comment on my site (where everyone knows how wrong he was) could it?

Joanne, when I was commenting at your site, over and over you, David, and other people kept saying some variation of “Wait until it’s all released before you comment on it” … so that is what I’ve done with regards to your site. Now, having specifically told me to hold my comments until all is revealed, and my complying with your request at your site, you claim I’m “afraid to comment” because I’ve done exactly what you and the others at your site asked me to do?
When and if you do get around to revealing it all, and give up this game of revealing it in dribs and drabs, then we’ll have something to discuss at your site. Until then, I’ll comment here, thanks.

No doubt he will find a reason to say I have taken these phrases out of context (I quote the exact words with links on my site, see the links above).

As you can see by my response above, I have done no such thing as claiming I was quoted out of context. I said that
a) you invented 900 days of imaginary data and added it to the real data, and then
b) smoothed the combination of real and imaginary data