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:
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
Archibald??
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.
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…………
The model is not beLeifable. When it passes Leif-muster then perhaps it may offer some insight.
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.
@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.
Aside from the vindictive satisfaction that may be had watching the cagw crowd wither, cooling may not be so desirable for a pleasant existence.
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!
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.
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.
“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.
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”.
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.
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.
We must see that the ice in the south breaking records not only in winter, but in summer. This means only one thing: the temperature drop atmosphere.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.recent.antarctic.png
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_JFM_SH_2014.gif
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_ALL_SH_2014.gif
I think the Evanses have a sense of humor releasing this during the conference. 😉
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
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.
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/
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.
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.
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.
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
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
Only warm the oceans saves us from the sudden drop in temperature at the surface. More CO2!
Looks to me like it shows significant warming from 1940 to 1970. That didn’t happen. Seems to invalidate the model.
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.
So, it’s going to take us all the way back to the 1940s, when life on planet earth was barely possible.
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?
Sorry, this graph is of Ap.
http://www.leif.org/research/Ap-1844-now.png
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
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.
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.
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
Lsvalgarrd says, “Why didn’t he design it like I would have?”
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??
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
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!)
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.
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.
It is nice to see a verifiable/falsifiable prediction. Right or wrong, they’re doing science here.
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.
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.
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
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/
” 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?
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 🙂
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.
Skeptics being skeptical of skepticism. No better way to get to the truth.
Yes, a good comment on the ‘utility’ of consensus’.
This model has one advantage over the IPCC models, true or false will be soon, not 2100.
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
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.
It looks like the next 6 years should provide a good test.
Any error estimates for the model values?
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
If the climate science thing doesn’t work out, you could make a good living conducting MS Excel seminars.
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.
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.
El Niño will not develop.
http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/1000hPa/orthographic=-122.19,-4.98,553
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.
@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.
Murray says:
July 8, 2014 at 10:13 am
I have to agree. Even if its forecast proves valid, its hindcast sucks.
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.
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’
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.
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.
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 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?
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.
@Sherry Moore
Aw how sweet. LS has a groupie….
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.
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]
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.
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?
I admit I am also a LS groupie. Brilliant man.
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.
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.
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:
At that point I got the following error:
Searching the VBA code finds the following two lines in the module “CTimer”, which are the only two lines referencing the model:
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:
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.
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?
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
…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
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.
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.
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/
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.
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.
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. 🙂
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.
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’.
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.
lsvalgaard says:
July 8, 2014 at 2:30 pm
And I need to proofread before clicking “Post Comment”.
Brad says:
July 8, 2014 at 2:19 pm
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.
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.
Apparently my copy of Excel is too antique to work properly.
Combative???COMBATIVE???? Is that what you call it???I think a better description would be DISGRACEFUL!
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?
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.
Willis Eschenbach I believe in data, not models.
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.
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”.
This discussion about faith, not fact.
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
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?
I advise you to carefully read and reflect on.
http://lasp.colorado.edu/home/sorce/science/?doing_wp_cron=1404857698.6750700473785400390625
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.
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.
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.
>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.
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?
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/
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.
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…
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
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.
@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.
>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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
This is the truth about the measurements of the TSI. The most reliable ACRIM1, 2.3.
http://spot.colorado.edu/~koppg/TSI/TSI.jpg
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
Rud Istvan at July 8, 2014 at 4:22 pm:
Thumbs up on this post!
Thank you for being so clear in your explanation.
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.
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
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.
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
gnomish says:
July 8, 2014 at 4:02 pm
Thanks, gnomish. Do you have a link to the updated file, or to the page where it’s listed?
w.
John Eggert says:
July 8, 2014 at 3:54 pm
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.
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.
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.
Block Head says:
July 8, 2014 at 2:21 pm
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.
Rud Istvan says:
July 8, 2014 at 4:22 pm
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.
RE Rud Istvan and Willis.
I can’t get it to run on my Windows 7 PC machine either.
Reporting bugs help make the product better and give a broader experience with the user base. Some people have been able to get it to run.
Let’s all work on helping it have that broader appeal.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
sakhara says:
July 8, 2014 at 5:13 pm
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.
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.
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.
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…..
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.
Brad says:
July 8, 2014 at 5:51 pm
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.
Now we have sceptics that think they know there is enough human knowledge to know climate like warmists say…
What could be worse.?
Stupendus says:
July 8, 2014 at 6:07 pm
A perfect example of how little you actually know about the subject …
w.
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.
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.
Oops. I wrote “Poppy C***” with all the letters and now I am in potty mouth moderation. LOL!
[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]
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.
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.
Thank you Anthony,
Throwing out the baby with the bath water is never useful.
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
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”.
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.
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.
Hindcasting.
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.
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
@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.
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.
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
And UV is very good at killing stuff. Hell you can sterilize with the damn stuff.
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.
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?
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,
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?
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.
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?
is one to assume that the ONLY affect solar radiation can have is to heat things?
i think not.
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.
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.)
[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]
“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.
Steven Mosher:
How would one do out of sample testing of Dr. Evans’s model?
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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?
Pamela Gray says:
July 8, 2014 at 7:28 pm
“Right”? You are not even conversant.
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?
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?
@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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.”.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Chris Marlowe:
I don’t believe that the model is falsifiable. How would one falsify it?
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.
Terry Oldberg says:
July 8, 2014 at 8:36 pm
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:
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.
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.
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
TSI a graph corresponds exactly to the graph Ap.
http://ice-period.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/sun2013.png
This is the graph of Ap in the cycle.
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/Ap.gif
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/solar-radiation/tsi/tsi-global-temperatures-100-fig-2.gif
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?
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.
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.
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 🙂
“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
“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
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.
Now please look at the stratosphere over the South Pole.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_AMJ_SH_2014.gif
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 .
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?
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?????
“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
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)
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
“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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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/
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.
My work in Plasma Physics: Polywell Fusion
@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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
@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
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.
Talking about this is an exercise of futility. What will matter will be if the model is correct or no correct going forward.
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.
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?
@ Joanne Nova: You Rock, indefatigably. (willis got some splainin to do)
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.
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.
Is indeed the surface temperature does not drop?
http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.gif
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.
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.).
You can see why next season will be weak hurricanes.
http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.gif
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.
“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.
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.
“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.
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.
“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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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!
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.
joannenova says:
July 9, 2014 at 12:34 am
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.
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.
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.
No, because they are demonstrably true.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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 with the world’s worst smoother for the purpose, leading to
c) a wholly fictitious “fall” in TSI.
And while by that point in the discussion perhaps my adjectives were somewhat over the top, I make no excuses for the content of what I said, and despite all of your bluster, all of those are completely true.
I am widely known in the blogosphere for admitting that when I am wrong … but I cannot “correct” the true statements that I have made. And I do send you my best wishes. You have gotten yourselves into a terrible bind by your refusal to share your work. This is damaging to you and to the skeptic cause, and it saddens me to see it happening on both accounts.
I cannot speak for Leif. I am very interested in accuracy … which is why I don’t invent 900 days of data and paste them onto real data before doing my own analyses, and why I select my filters carefully rather than heedlessly using an 11-year boxcar smooth on sunspot data, which turns times of high solar activity into times of low solar activity and vice versa …
I’m sorry … but that’s a “newbie mistake”.
Joanne, you still seem to be holding on to the idea that your five years of hard work somehow buy you an exemption from the normal rules of scientific transparency followed by the rest of us. If I tried what you have just done, if I were to announce some great, earthshaking breakthrough and then when asked for details of data and code I’d said “Sorry, I worked really hard on this project, so you have no right to ask me for details. I’ll release the data and code when I’m damn good and ready, and not before, so don’t bother me” … well, I’d be attacked by everyone on both sides of the climate aisle, and I’d get my okole handed to me on a platter.
And rightly so. No code, no data, no science … and that is the position you now find yourself in. And that’s the other reason I’ve withdrawn from commenting at your site until you do finally release all the data and code … because I much prefer to comment at scientific sites.
In addition, at your site, due to the fact that you discussed your model and results for ten posts without providing data or testing, you have gathered around you an entire coterie of folks who already believe in your model despite the fact that they have neither seen any testing of the model nor have we been given the means to test it ourselves. This kind of “true believers” are very difficult to deal with, because like the brainless followers of climate alarmists, they believe without evidence … which makes them very unpleasant to deal with.
In closing, you said in an earlier comment:
joannenova says:
July 9, 2014 at 12:22 am
Of course not. All it means is that you can fit an elephant with five parameters. As a result, the fit between your model results and historical temperatures, which seems to impress you and the less-than-inquisitive folks at your site so much, is meaningless. The fact that you can fit the historical temperatures means nothing at all about the quality or strength of your model. With 11 parameters, I would be shocked indeed if you could NOT fit the temperature.
It also means that the only way to test such a model is by “out of sample” testing … but we can’t do that until you reveal how you calculated the values of your arbitrary parameters.
And of course, I’m also interested in the results of your own use of out-of-sample testing, which you previously assured me have already been done. Is there a timeframe for posting them as well?
My best regards to you, Joanne. I am not at all happy about this turn of events, but the rules of science apply to everyone, and they require complete transparency.
w.
Willis Eschenbach or “model” in its essence is not an attempt forecast? Only three years we have to wait, or a check. Do you have different forecast? If your a true, then you win.
For example, the forecast Vukcevic works much better than the forecast of NASA.
I may be missing something here, but it seems to me that the use of time-specific results (e.g. the atmospheric nuclear bomb test data) will make it difficult to do out of sample testing.
William Sears:
Good point. In the construction of a model, a situation to be overcome is that the events of the future differ from the events of the past when the various events are described in sufficient detail. Sometimes this problem is successfully addressed through abstraction: the descriptions of the various events are abstracted from details that distinguish the events of the past from the events of the future.
My solar/climate connection theory is easy to understand in that it has hard solar parameter numbers and says if those numbers are reached the climate will have an x response.
I do not place much faith in any models when it comes to predicting the climate because there are to many unknowns, data will never be complete enough, and the accuracy of the data will always be in question, not to mention getting the beginning state of the climate correct.
A great example of data being off is there are not any accurate records of what TSI has been over the last 100 years. I think there are as many as 14 different data sets. Logic then follows: which is how could one produce an accurate model if a major part of the puzzle(tsi ) is missing. This applies to the AGW models as well as this solar model we are all discussing. It does not make much sense to me . .
And if that is not bad enough there are thresholds which can throw everything off.
My approach is not to be bold but to take a more general approach saying if solar parameters reach x levels expect x secondary effects which will move the climate into an x direction due to solar variability and the secondary effects.
I also say random events such as Volcanic Activity or the current terrestrial situation such as OHC could to a varied degree cause projections to be off in time and degree of magnitude change.
If my solar projections are approached or better yet reached and the climate in general terms goes in the direction I predict I will have a very strong case for my theory which is the amount/duration of solar variability that is needed to have an impact on the climate. .
William Sears says:
July 9, 2014 at 11:49 am
I may be missing something here, but it seems to me that the use of time-specific results (e.g. the atmospheric nuclear bomb test data) will make it difficult to do out of sample testing.
I don’t think so as the model should work with whatever. But an issue is here do they get the extremely large effect of the atom bomb tests form? And it seems way too high.
This type of claim need be examined by its own authors for uniqueness and for physical reality of its parameters, neither of which has been offered, so it’s assumed by default scientific thinking to be not unique and that there is no physics behind the various parameters. In that situation, this is a classic exercise in just making a black box bet on the future, the likes of which cause various stock market gurus to become famous for a season or two. There is perfectly good chance of a sudden cooling plunge by chaotic statistical physics alone as revealed in the main Greenland ice core. Also, just how was that plunge achieved and how unique and robust is it to different parameter settings and what is the effect on it of just matching temperature without the massive nuclear testing correction to temperature? That is what should have been addressed in the initial release, since it’s the first questions asked by any trained scientist who has been disciplined by his elders.
How much harder will it now be to further expose a climate alarm hoax when instead of behaving as whistleblowers, mainstream skeptics are now seen as wiggle matching mavericks? The big red flag for me was the blunt claim that the future would tell but a plunge in no way supports such a model in the same way that lack of a plunge falsifies it. And of course the plunge could also be indefinitely extended beyond any further pause by simply re-running the training parameters. This just seems like a big PR stunt rather than a real model at all, a gimmick in order to claim an opposing model, to fire up the troops who can now claim an alternative model. The tell here is how unrealistically the authors didn’t expect criticism based on it being mere wiggle matching. That sounds now like political pandering for support against normal everyday scientific criticism.
The final quote from Lubos Motl towards a wiggle matching fiasco was: “Dear Jo, I won’t join you in that cesspool. Please ask someone else, like David. / This article was about a technical topic – why the “model” is self-evidently wrong. It’s unfortunate that by this kind of obstructionism and ad hominem attacks, you are trying to convert it to something completely different.”
http://motls.blogspot.com/2014/06/david-evans-notch-filter-theory-of.html#comment-1449463088
Joanne simply claims Lubos misunderstood the claim. I imagine he understood it only too well.
Terry Oldberg says:
July 8, 2014 at 9:30 pm
Thus, the climate sensitivity does not exist as a scientific concept.
I can think of an example of sensitivity. A creek can be sensitive to rainfall with flow rates jumping all over the place based on rainfall.
Tisdale has brought up the idea of step changes.
http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=15p4uia&s=7#.U72NzPldUV0
What could cause such steps? I think it would consistent with a system that is at times unstable or highly sensitive. Perhaps the problem with agreeing on what the climate sensitivity is is because it varies.
Ragnaar:
Your response to my post seems to pose a question. If so, thank you for posing it.
The flow of a stream is sensitive to the local flow of rain. Then why, you seem to ask, is it unscientific to claim that the change in the global temperature is sensitive to the change in the logarithm of the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration?
This, however, is not the claim that is unscientific. The unscientific claim is that the ratio of the change in the global temperature AT EQUILIBRIUM to the change in the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is CONSTANT. As the global temperature AT EQUILIBRIUM is insusceptible to being observed, that this ratio is CONSTANT is not falsifiable. As it is not falsifiable, the claim is not scientific.
Steven Mosher says:
July 8, 2014 at 8:03 pm
Maybe you should have asked Willis to help you.
Then again, maybe not.
Skeptikal says:
July 9, 2014 at 12:24 pm
My non-model predicts that 2009-38 will be 0.3 degrees C (+/-0.2) cooler than 1979-2008, using actual rather than adjusted data.
I think that at the conference there will be more persons who noticed a sudden drop in TSI in 2003-2005 and are able to properly assess it.
Abusamatow provides for the inertia of the oceans for 20-28 years, with a further decrease in the TSI.
Core Message: Interesting theory/idea this Notch Filter thing. Will be neat to see how it pans out since the “big-picture” falsifiable thing appears to be “big cooling drop in next 1-2 years”
Side-Message:
I have found after 15-years in the international semiconductor capital equipment industry (not a faux-bloodsport, rather a real bloodsport, punctuated by work force reductions culling the herd every 18-24 months with a near constant churn of employees) that responding to an email/eroom assault with excessive kindness goes a lot further toward achieving a goal than countering an assault with a deserved assault back.
Although everyone will agree the counter assault was an “eye-for-an-eye, tooth-for-a-tooth” spot on and deserved; what you achieved is a whole lot of nothing; although it is very entertaining for the audience. BTW, where have I heard that eye for an eye thing before? Some organizational behavior dude I think (grin).
If someone hands you a $hi7 sandwich then I strongly suggest you say “Thank You”, ask for some mustard, and move on. The North American cultural example I evoke is the Energizer Bunny, it just keeps on going (really awesome batteries). Do they have that Bunny down under? Hope you have mustard down there too. Just keep moving along on your schedule.
Easier to ignore the loons/cranks than to spend time firing off short notice complex rebuttals that will inevitably require a foot removal specialist for future extracting of your foot (and head) from a dark orifice on your body. Also amusing for the audience. Also easier to ponder, what might everyone be doing that prevents them from considering all the many details: might there be some big event distracting their attention, like maybe metric football?
Willis is correct on this.
And I am no fan of Willis.
My opinion is that it is a convoluted theory with too many unexplained variables. You could fit any past data with this “model”.
And if by flipping a coin the next 10 years work out…it means nothing.
No reason at all why everything was not released at the same time. Data, Code.
I think that solar cycles change climate. This work does not encourage that reasoning. Perhaps when everything is released it will.
It’s just another model, however if (a very big if) its predictions prove to be better (more accurate) than all the others then it might be worth doing a proper government funded development rather than what in Britain is known as a “Garden Shed Engineering” which it has been so far.
Are any other models predicting a drop in temperature in the next decade?
“””””…..
M Simon says:
July 9, 2014 at 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. ……”””””
Sorry, but a 0.1% TSI variation, if the sole reason for a Temperature change, based on a Black Body equilibrium Temperature change, would be a 0.025% Temperature change, which is only 75mdeg. C change. That’s if no negative feedback mechanism were in play to nullify the effect of the TSI change.
Hardly detectable, even, if no compensating changes occur.
Think cloud cover changes.
Mosher said:
Specifically, “Until he shows HOW he built it, nobody should care…”.
But you do care and in fact it is driving you w, and LS batschnitzel crazy trying to convince the rest of us we should also be batschnitzel crazy about it. We’re not crazy over it – we are reasonable customers of Dr. Evans. We can respect his time table because we know he is within his rights to set it. We accept his schedule and statements of what is in the package. What the hell’s the hurry? Your tortured appeals to what science is and is not is laughable. From Feynman I would accept such a definition. From a cowboy and a drive-by data cruncher, not likely. By your nonsense demands LOTR trilogy should have been released as a single book/movie.
It is also heinous how you imply Dr. Evans is unwilling to “show[s] HOW he built it’. You fraud! You have no basis to present your point in such a way that DE appears to be duplicitous or is in any way similar to Jones/Mann and others to actually do refuse to provide everything. He is not refusing to provide what you petulantly demand – he is on his schedule and you simply have to suck it up without further offending Dr. Evans and his hard working wife.
“””””…..M Simon says:
July 9, 2014 at 4:07 am
My work in Plasma Physics: Polywell Fusion……”””””
Well both the strong, and the weak, nuclear forces are off limits; and mother nature has control of gravity; which is by far the weakest of all forces, and far too weak for humans to build a gravity fusion reactor.
So that leaves Electromagnetism, as the only human accessible and controllable force to use in a fusion reactor.
So what exactly is “Polywell Fusion” having as a plan to circumvent Earnshaw’s Theorem ??
Until someone answers that question, I wouldn’t invest one brass razoo, in any controlled fusion scam; excuse me, that’s “scheme.”
Could it be that he threw a bunch of stuff at the wall and hoped some of it would stick? What worries me more is his search for a massaged statistical method that could demonstrate a preconceived idea. That’s biased research plain as day. Which could explain the slow trotting out of thoughts related to model development and the no trotting out of its final form, instead giving us the Excel calculator that runs it (a nod to Leif defining it as the model vehicle but not the model). He is likely fleshing that part out and finding it wanting. This is research work that should have been done before the run-up articles and the trotting out of the calculator.
In my opinion, the run-up was premature and the Excel calculator was very premature. Give us the background peer reviewed published research you did or depended on, for each of the 11 parameters, and how/why each is used in your model.
Suggestion: You should have trotted out 11 sections to your dissertation with each parameter section divided into the following subsections:
Introduction
Literature Review with Problem Statement
Methods
Statistical analysis and results
Discussion
Conclusion
Next Steps
If you did not do original research and are using someone else’s work regarding a parameter, your subsections should be:
Introduction
Literature Review with Problem Statement
Deeper Analysis of your supporting references
Discussion pertaining application to your model
Conclusion
Next Steps
The model’s calculator is just that. A small addition to the body of the work you should have done (or have done just haven’t shared). The calculator, as pretty as it is, is just a convenience.
Downloaded in 12 seconds and it works fine on my Windows 7 Professional 64bit and Excel 2010.
“I am widely known in the blogosphere for admitting that when I am wrong” said willis.
this might better go in the joke thread. “don’t you know my humility is what makes me a much better man than all the others?” lol- phony much?
or are you going to somehow correct those thousands of words of insult and libel you served up to me the other day. jerkwagon? thief?
i didn’t think so. because an honorable man would never have gone there in the first place.
fake.
M Simon says:
July 9, 2014 at 4:07 am
My work in Plasma Physics: Polywell Fusion
The article quotes you as a “contributor to a discussion forum” on Polywell Fusion.
@M Simon can you explain how this plasma is generated? http://m.youtube.com/results?q=plasmoid%20in%20a%20microwave&sm=3
bushbunny says:
July 8, 2014 at 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.
—————————————————————————————————————–
Indeed so was 48 and 49 when the canals in Amsterdam froze over. I remember that even when I was knee high to a grasshopper.
It’s an interesting hypothesis. Seems to me certain luminaries, and their lackeys, can’t see past their own field of expertise to give it the time of day.
It’s still early, D&J still have more data to throw out, and I don’t see the need for certain regulars to take to their trenches yet. As Melchett said in Blackadder IV – never poo poo the poo poo!
tl;dr it might be worth looking at this closer before dismissing it.
“quite combative”
Euphemism bordering on co-dependent enabling.
M Simon says:
July 9, 2014 at 4:21 am
Shaviv was second author years back of a paper that used PCA to pit Solar versus AGW with the latter described as being owed the preponderance of guilt for the warmening of the Twentieth Century.
Which bogus result only goes to prove GIGO. Perhaps it was his post-doc’s project.
William Astley says:
July 9, 2014 at 8:06 am
… http://news.yahoo.com/earths-magnetic-field-weakening-10-times-faster-now-121247349.html
“Earth’s Magnetic Field Is Weakening 10 Times Faster Now….
———————————————————————————
Incremental increases, to steady increases in Earth’s rotation will be felt sooner at the smaller core compared with lithosphere.
Hemispheric reorganization of outward moving core fluids through duct work. The image at the link looks like the fluids are moving back towards the eastern hemisphere duct work. Which side it may have preference to when the rotation rate is met. Western hemisphere duct work more used in the slower more wobbly rotation rate. The field image at the link is showing lower values for the western hemisphere but increasing values for the Eastern hemisphere.
Reorganization of fluids flow was evident when they told us a few years back that the N. magnetic pole was slowing down.
Motion of the Earth’s magnetic poles in the last decade
T. I. Zvereva
April 2012,
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1134/S0016793212020168
The north magnetic pole has traveled 400 km during this period. The velocity of its motion has increased up to the year 2003, reaching 62.5 km yr−1, and then started decreasing and reached 45 km yr−1 by the end of 2009. In addition, the direction of motion changed from north-northwestward to northwestward; i.e., the pole started turning slightly towards Canada. The south magnetic pole moved slower by an order of magnitude and has traveled 42 km during this period. The coordinates of the geomagnetic (dipole) poles and the eccentric dipole parameters have also been calculated..
Jeef says:
July 9, 2014 at 7:18 pm
Luminary, aka, TLDR?
My idea as a sometime observer of Academia is that the dynamic, productive authorities are tenured PIs at significant institutions, teaching doctoral candidates their specialty, editing a significant journal in their field, fledging PhDs in their labs, writing their papers, editing the post docs’, collaborating simultaneously with multiple other PIs, sitting on corporate and other boards, speaking at trade seminars on their current projects, generating grants and contracts for their institutions running in the millions of dollars, yada, yada.
Guess not.
To Jo and David, gud on yer! I hate graphs though, as sometimes they get my mind boggling. I was good at them when applying analysis to archaeological records though. And I got a 9/10 for a record of human communications (from rock art, writing and the change in technology from stone or more sophisticated tools) starting with hominids to modern day. I can assure you that the sun does make all the difference to this planet and those that exist here. And most of the advancement in technology and communications has arisen during interglacial/interstadials, not ice ages. We are an ice planet enjoying some warmth right now, but we are challenged during extreme weather, natural disasters, and God forbid another mini or glacial period. As the late Professor Mike Morwood told us students years ago, before he and his team uncovered the Hobbit in Flores, ‘HUMANS PROPOSE AND NATURE DEPOSES’. I am glad I live in Australia, not the Northern Hemisphere.
By the way folks we expect snow today in NSW. For those who think Australia doesn’t get snow, other than on the ski fields.
I’ve just thought with my feeble brain of course, that for the last ten years we are obsessed with temperature. I know the Brits were all complaining about the weather, as it was always cold and raining. One didn’t get a sun tan in UK often. But we adapted easily. Took an umbrella or PakMac, just in case. White fingers and toes were the norm returning from school, brown marks on ones legs where we sat near the fire, they disappeared in spring or summer. But if you are obsessed with a few degrees C + or – you would go crazy. All Carl Sagan said was if the planet warms from human made pollution, it could herald in another ice age. True – there was always a warming before an ice age. But that can be explained when the planet goes into a interglacial. Gore took up the reins then and got it all wrong of course. It is the sun’s orbit and activity that causes seasons and ice ages. We’ve just had a quick shower of sago snow here, and the temps outside have dropped to 5C. Yes its winter anyway. Just put on warmer clothes. Well folks I am going to attend my bonsai outside, make sure they are coping with the cold weather. Just remember there is one thing for sure, ‘Today it may be raining, snowing or sleeting, but the sun will shine tomorrow’ It is one constant for sure.
[Sago snow? .mod]
“Specifically, “Until he shows HOW he built it, nobody should care…”.
But you do care and in fact it is driving you w, and LS batschnitzel crazy trying to convince the rest of us we should also be batschnitzel crazy about it. We’re not crazy over it – we are reasonable customers of Dr. Evans. We can respect his time table because we know he is within his rights to set it. We accept his schedule and statements of what is in the package. What the hell’s the hurry?
########################
there is no hurry.
There is a simple statement of fact.
He makes two claims
Claim 1: I derived this model from that data and these methods
Claim 2. Said model predicts cooling
He has released the supporting information to claim 2
Until he releases the supporting information for claim 1, we are well within our rights to DISCOUNT HIS WORK ENTIRELY even if claim 2 turns out true.
Im in no hurry to see the stuff for claim 1 because I already know its bogus. by construction bogus.
Leif knows this as well
I will politely remind everybody that the “Observation” of tectonic plate movement (that the continental plate edges matched up with other continental edges) long preceded discovery of its “Symptoms” of its origin (the mid-Atlantic rift zone) and the “Results” (proof) of its “Effect” (the magnetic reversal zones changing uniformly with age on both sides of the rift across all latitudes and longitudes of the rift.)
Further, the original “Observation” was CORRECT – long before the mechanism was “found” and accepted by the general “science consensus” of the time. The “Observation” was CORRECT – even though it had NO “physics” explanation for how it worked when the “Observation” was made.
Further, the first few “assumptions” (explanations) of how the Observation could have occurred were dead wrong. But these errors were necessary to keep the discussion alive – although “prohibited” and censored in meetings and presentations in the “science” journals of the day.
However, EVEN THOUGH THE MECHANISM WAS UNKNOWN – “It still moved” to paraphrase Galileo after he was condemned by the consensus of his time for proposing something that could not be explained by the physics of his time.
Now, was the “consensus” correct in rejecting the “Observation”? Obviously not! but it still had to reject the theory until the theory could be explained by a workable process” – but still the “Consensus” could NOT reject the “Observation”.
An excusable error perhaps. But it was still an error – as wrong as the theory of phlogiston or the aether resting between planets that allowed light waves to vibrate. In EACH case the “consensus science” needed to catch up with the real world – which was merrily proceeding along ignoring the best efforts of the “consensus”.
Here’s an idea of equilibrium I can go with:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/54/Bistability.svg/350px-Bistability.svg.png
Also this one from Ghil noted by Ellison:
http://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/presentation13.jpg
The funny Y is sensitivity which while at times appearing almost constant or linear does some interesting things near the tipping point. I think there is a chance this idea of sensitivity is possible. It’s just slope changes. As far as CO2 goes, I tend towards low sensitivity. The sensitivity that some say is higher, might just be CO2 plus everything else that really isn’t been driven by CO2. That the system is sensitive to all changes. Now if this is so, the kind of solar influence Evans has suggested might be more plausible.
In 2003, many people ridiculed model Vukcevic. What’s happening now with the magnetic field of the sun? TSI also must respond.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GandF.htm
AJB says:
July 9, 2014 at 8:23 am
http://s29.postimg.org/4i3yngh1h/PFS.png
http://s29.postimg.org/rialzsev9/NMS.png
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/magbfly.jpg
RACookPE1978 says:
July 9, 2014 at 9:05 pm
However, EVEN THOUGH THE MECHANISM WAS UNKNOWN –
However, the issue is not about mechanism, but about the lack of a model.
“but still the “Consensus” could NOT reject the “Observation”.”
Last I checked model outputs were not observation.
I think the science world has not yet grappled with the problem that it’s very easy to generate millions of models/parameters, and this capability has happened only in the last 30 years or so. Just be sheer chance (and usually something resembling simulated annealing or other machine learning methods) some of those models/parameters will be made to fit the data. They are still often meaningless models, and their outputs are not observations.
“see if it’s correct in 10 years” is necessary, but not sufficient, for validating a model. And with the computational power widely available, a model can be made to fit random noise, work for 10 years, and then still fail to mean anything.
A new method of thinking about complex systems needs created, with rules on qualifying when a model is useful or not. I think there are rules already, but far too many don’t know them.
I also think in there’s a bit of emotional response to bad science in this thread. Rather than getting emotional, provide a checklist of modeling process items that were not followed, along with links to educational literature on what those items mean and why they are important. Here’s some basics I learned while doing modeling and signal processing for profit 16 years ago.
(1) test models against data not used in training said model.
(2) test any signal processing methods with white and pink noise to see if expected output results.
(3) test any signal processing methods with sweeps of sine waves to look for aliasing or other unexpected behavior.
(4) don’t use ancient signal processing methods like boxcar filters. Demonstrate knowledge of windowing, anti-aliasing, frequency resolution, sampling theory, etc. I expect to see such text in a paper such as “we picked a kaiser filter with parameters xyz for reasons abc and tested against the expected frequency components to verify anti-aliasing and spectrum bleed properties. See test code src/tests/test-window.m and test output output/tests/test-window-*.jpg”.
(5) the more variables used, the more degrees of freedom, and the more suspect the model is. Each variable has to be justified. Analyze taking variables out to see how sensitive the model is to their removal.
(6) provide error bars on model output.
(7) inject noise equivalent to the error bars in input measurements and see how sensitive output is to this noise.
(8) provide code, input and, output data for ALL steps above. There are tons of places to put this – dropbox, github, google drive, etc. – with gigabytes of free space. Pick one. If you are not using a revision control system such as git you are following terrible software engineering practices – the entire history of your code and data should be up for review. I expect and get no less at work where we do these kind of things for profit, not just fun. (I’ll note here 8that Excel is terrible for revision control)
I’m sure I’m missing a few checklist items.
It’s telling that there isn’t a single checklist page to go to for this process.
I note the author of the work being reviewed here has followed some of these steps, but not a majority of the steps, and all steps are important, because any missed step means a greater chance for garbage in, garbage out.
Peter Sable:
Long ago the science world grappled successfully with the problem that you describe. The product of this work was then ignored or misunderstood by most intellectuals.
A tutorial and bibliography are available at my Web site: http://www.knowledgetothemax.com. Recently, a WUWT blogger described this Web site as a “treasure trove.”
I’d like to alert you to a mistake in your check list. The theory of relativity yields an assymmetry between communications and control. While signal and noise are valid concepts for communications they are invalid concepts for control because the “signal” and “noise” would have to travel at superluminal speeds to reach the present from the future but this is not possible for an object having mass or energy. One of the consequences is for the “anthropogenic signal” of the climatological literature to not exist in relation to the problem of controlling the climate.
While an anthropogenic signal cannot reach us from the future, relativity theory does not bar receipt of information from the future for information does not have mass or energy. That we can receive this information is what allows us, sometimes, to control systems.
A model that conveyed information to us about the global temperatures of the future would be of a somewhat different character than the ones that have thus far been constructed by climatologists. Circa 1980, a number of models of this character were built by Ron Christensen and his colleagues at Entropy Limited in a successful attempt at predicting weather outcomes at long range. Two of the participants were physicists, one was a psychologist and one was a sociologist. There were no climatologists, meteorologists or atmospheric physicists.
Willis ,Mosher et al founders of the lost snark..
Most posters at Jo Nova are waiting for expert analysis of “the model” and will continue to do so.
Where you failed ,along with others ,was demanding ,insisting like a spoiled brat ,that you be given data NOW! When it had been stated all along ,that ALL data was going to be released in due course.
I cannot recognise even 1 % of the habitues being credulous of “the model” : like true skeptics , nothing is taken on faith. There is some hope and expectation ,but no blind faith ever.
Your further failures were ,that upon being advised that you would have to wait ,you resorted to name calling ,you along with Leif have been far too quick on the trigger and have indiscriminately
labelled many really nice people as being beyond the pale.
People there are not attacking you for your scientific views ,neither are they defending “the model” ,they are attacking you here ,there and everywhere for being an extremely rude and petulant P%&^£.
I hope that you realise that your credibility is shot and that you have done a great disservice to the sceptic community. and to WUWT in particular. Your hubris ,in your semi apology is quite revolting to see.You have zero contrition, zero empathy and should refrain from saying “I,m Sorry” unless you actually mean it.
Like many hundreds of JN habitues ,I await your further scientific comment and would request that until you can get the model working (PICNIC?) you refrain from accusatory rhetoric.
I’ve looked for the money shot
The graphed results. Maybe overlaid with actual.
Where is it?
NikfromNY: “Joanne simply claims Lubos misunderstood the claim. I imagine he understood it only too well.”
Instead of imagining what is happening, try reading the post I linked. Here it is again: http://joannenova.com.au/2014/06/lubos-and-a-few-misconceptions/ I explained with detailed quotes and links how lubos thought the notch was “on Earth” when we suggest it’s on the Sun, I demonstrated he did not know what he was talking about and his post was irrelevant. I quote the email we sent him on April 11 showing we tried to correct that misunderstanding 3 months ago.
PS: The ad hom’s were all from him. See my emails which I published in full.
Lubos had a bad day.
” I explained with detailed quotes and links how lubos thought the notch was “on Earth” when we suggest it’s on the Sun”
‘Well, that’s very different.’ — Emily Litella.
RE: Willis Eschenbach July 9, 2014 at 10:14 am
Willis, you are making false defamatory statements here, which you refuse to correct despite your obvious errors. We’ve provided all the data, all the methods, and been open and honest. Lately at every opportunity where you could have asked politely, you’ve leapt to a malicious interpretation instead, (and then paradoxically wished us well at the same time). The bad-will suggests the conversation is a waste of time. You don’t seem to be reading my answers?
I have already explained your mistakes on my site and in detail. You refuse to acknowledge them. You have full access to commenting on my site where plenty of people understand what we are doing and could answer your questions. Instead you comment here where many of the crowd have not already read the details. Strange choice? If I remain largely silent here, it’s because clearly nothing I say will make you happy.
I repeat, quote:
Willis Eschenbach:”they have made a wildly incorrect claim that the TSI has fallen precipitously since about 2004. ”
/Willis Eschenbach:”he’s using a bogus set of TSI data.”
Both are false, as we explained at length, along with other mistakes you and Leif make: http://joannenova.com.au/2014/07/the-solar-model-finds-a-big-fall-in-tsi-data-that-few-seem-to-know-about/. Obviously Watts Up readers need to visit our site if they want the plain truth.
The TSI fall was always about 11-year smoothed trends. Leif and yourself continue to attack the strawman that it does not exist in monthly or daily data. See the graph below. The fall from 2004 is undeniable and obvious. It is also obvious to we “newbies” with eyes that those trends end in late 2008 which requires no extension of current TSI. We used published data, as is, from every set available. (Willis reposted this graph in comments on WUWT himself. He’s seen it. What else can I say?)
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/solar-radiation/tsi-datasets-ls.gif
Quote Willis:
*Eschenbach 5: That quote from the graph itself clearly says that they have invented the data from March of 2013 to December of 2015, which is the 900 days of data that Leif mentions. Now, I’ve used the word “invented” for that data. The graph itself uses the word “assumed” for that data. And Leif used the word “fabricated” for that data.”/
We have not now or ever invented or falsified data. See here:
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/07/more-strange-adventures-in-tsi-data-the-miracle-of-900-fabricated-fraudulent-days/
You ought apologize and retract that claim. Being realistic, I now don’t expect you to.
The largely irrelevant 3 dots are clearly listed on the graphs as an “assumed average” extension. They have no impact on the model (they are not used in it). They have little impact on the graph (except to make the fall slightly less dramatic by indicating it is ending). Furthermore, the 11 year box smoothing is not used in the model either. It is only used to make a graph which is itself an aside — an indicative secondary check that the model is responding to a real fall in TSI.
2. There are many incorrect statements in Willis’s current reply. Life is too short. I’ve replied to Willis on my site. He failed to read what we said then, and repeated his questions on Watts up, as if he didn’t read our replies. eg http://joannenova.com.au/2014/06/big-news-part-vi-building-a-new-solar-climate-model-with-the-notch-filter/#comment-1491684
3. We have released all the code, the data, and the full methods. If you can’t follow it, just ask politely. (It’s a big work. I would understand if you have not even tried to read the 34 page extension while you are at the Heartland conference, let alone use the model. Seriously? I do not understand why you risk your reputation for accuracy so casually?)
I’m still baffled, but getting bored with repeating the same information.
PS: You said: “Leif called this “almost fraudulent”, which as I stated in the other thread I though was an over-reaction”.
Not so. Quote Willis Eschenbach, (June 28, 2014 at 9:04 am) your reponse was ” as Leif points out, he’s using a bogus set of TSI data.”
Rogueelement451 says:
July 10, 2014 at 2:17 am
Neither Mosh nor I have “demanded” anything, nor are we in a position to do so.
All we’ve done is to point out that no data, no code, means no science.
I don’t care if David and Jo never post their data and code, or if they post it tomorrow. My only point is that until they do so, what they have done has no scientific value. They can postpone their work having scientific value as long as they wish.
w.
joannenova says:
July 10, 2014 at 5:19 am
The fall [of TSI] from 2004 is undeniable and obvious.
Not so:
http://www.leif.org/research/Monckton-Flaw-3.png
http://www.leif.org/research/Real-Trend-TSI-since-2003.png
@Willis
Neither Mosh nor I have “demanded” anything, nor are we in a position to do so.
Oh Come on. Alright then; “begged”. You “begged” “repeatedly” for the data and code and when it wasn’t immediately available you accused Evans and Nova of “hiding” their data and code and “refusing” to show it as being tantamount to behaving like Michael Mann or Phil Jones.
All we’ve done is to point out that no data, no code, means no science.
Which clearly hasn’t been the case, has it?
Because you do have the data, you do have the code, you therefore must have the “science”.
@Leif
The fall [of TSI] from 2004 is undeniable and obvious.
Not so:
Likewise, this was also thoroughly dealt with over at Jo’s. You have only showed the last 10 or so years of data, when they are looking at 11-year smoothed average. Why don’t you show the last 30 years, lest you be accused of cherry-picking?
Dr Evans is maintaining there is a lag in the response (which to my eyes looks like a low-pass filter, but I realize its more complicated than that) which is the reason for looking at trends over the course of decades rather than years as you have done with both of those graphics. Are you saying, for example, that TSI on average in the 1990s is less or the same as TSI during the 2000s?
What’s annoying is that there is plenty to be skeptical of with this work, but you and Willis keep distracting with irrelevant nonsense; you with the “there is no 11-year averaged declining trend theme”, and Willis with the protestations that there is no data or code and therefore no science.
It is really baffling.
Another thing is, if you spend time reading some of the comments over at Jo’s you will find plenty of skepticism and disagreement from people who are having a good look. Greg Goodman in particular is serving up some nice challenges, but there are others. Why not join in with something sensible? Presume that a smart guy like Dr Evans has thought of these things, or that you have missed something. If they can’t answer respectfully asked questions then you’ll have a case for dismissing the hypothesis.
Agnostic says:
July 10, 2014 at 7:39 am
they are looking at 11-year smoothed average.
Using the worst smoothing operator [boxcar] there is and fabricating 900 days of ‘data’.
That TSI and solar activity the last 30 years have been decreasing is well-known, but Jo starts out by claiming that ‘nobody knows about the fall in TSI’ so obviously cannot mean over the last 30 years. No, it is clear that they thought TSI now has fallen off a cliff.
Agnostic says:
You have only showed the last 10 or so years of data, when they are looking at 11-year smoothed average. Why don’t you show the last 30 years, lest you be accused of cherry-picking?
http://spot.colorado.edu/~koppg/TSI/TSI.jpg
ren says:
July 10, 2014 at 7:47 am
Why don’t you show the last 30 years, lest you be accused of cherry-picking?
http://www.leif.org/research/TSI_Composite-Kopp-with-TCTE.jpg
joannenova says:
July 10, 2014 at 5:19 am
The TSI fall was always about 11-year smoothed trends. Leif and yourself continue to attack the strawman that it does not exist in monthly or daily data. See the graph below. The fall from 2004 is undeniable and obvious.
The point that is made and which you refuse to recognize is that the 11 year smoothed trend is a result of the treatment of the end of the data and the method of smoothing. Inappropriate padding and a bad choice of smoothing can yield totally unrepresentative curves. Such treatment by Mann, for example, have been strongly criticized here and at CA for exactly the same reasons as your method has been here.
http://climateaudit.org/2007/06/09/mannomatic-smoothing-and-pinned-end-points/
It is becoming quite apparent that there is another agenda here ,has Dr Evans trodden on your toes in regard to an imminent release of a hypothesis ,featuring yourself and others , Masher ,Slasher and W,,er something that rhymes ? Do tell.
We’ve heard, ad nauseam, that billions of shekels hang in the balance, bet by communications and power consortia, on the auguries of Solar Scientists. This regarding an unchanging static phenomenon hanging in our sky.
Now we are to believe, that unless the global average temperature changes in a statistically significant measure, there can be no change in climate.
The tail wags the dog.
The TSI fall was always about 11-year smoothed trends. Leif and yourself continue to attack the strawman that it does not exist in monthly or daily data.
Quote from an earlier post the above is.
My commentary
This makes me laugh because there are no accurate records of TSI to begin with. So all the bickering is over data that we don’t even know is correct.
The model approach is not going to work because data is not accurate enough or complete enough not to mention unknowns.
.My approach is much better because I outline solar parameters which I feel need to be reached or approached (based on past prolonged solar minimum periods) that should impact the climate due to primary and secondary effects from those solar parameters.
My approach is clear cut and says if x solar parameters are reached the climate will move in this x direction.
Unlike the model approach which is based on so many factors and numbers and feedbacks which probably are not accurate or precise to begin with. In addition unknowns and thresholds are out there in the climate system that can tear the model prediction apart.
When it comes to climate prediction models are not the way to approach it. I much rather use past history and then come up with guide lines based on that past history and then draw conclusions from that source going forward.
My approach is easy to understand and easily falsified and gives a general direction for the climate. It is not so bold to say in x years the climate is going to change in this x amount due to all the data we threw into some model which is subjective not objective to begin with to one degree or another.
When did science become data mining looking for anomalies rather than establishing relations of cause and effect. Why is selecting a proper filter and correcting data gathered by outdated methods more important than having an idea?
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 .15% 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.
My approach gives hard numbers and says if reached the climate will do this. Easy to follow no tricks ,no having to spend hours and hours trying to figure out what I am trying to convey , no thousands of factors and how each has to work in order to get this or that.
I say a much more clear sensible approach then what any approach done with a model will result in. Again my approach is easily proven or falsified.
© 2014 Southwest Weather, Inc. All
Agnostic said in part July 10, 2014 at 7:39 am:
“Presume that a smart guy like Dr Evans has thought of these things, or that you have missed something. “
Well said – Quite true and fair. But the road runs in both directions does it not? Engineers learn the most and get things right precisely by calling BS on each other, laughing at our collective foolishness, and being thankful for each other’s help. Denial has no place in engineering.
David on June 21, 2014 replied “Bernie I’ve no idea and am not going to debug and figure out what you have done exactly.”
David’s theory was based on a notch filter and he did not understand notch filters at the level we expect a senior EE student to do so.
TSI follows the sunspot number
http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-Follows-the-Sunspot-Number.png which is why the long-term variation of TSI should also follow the sunspot number as in http://www.leif.org/research/Long-Term-TSI.png and not as in http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/solar-radiation/sorce_tsi_reconstruction_jan-feb2014-v2-sml.gif
David Evans and Joanne Nova have made it plain that the three dots on their graph at the end of the data were not, repeat not, used in any way in determining the sharp fall in 11-year-smoothed total solar irradiance. They were not used in the model. They were simply an indication that the sharp fall in TSI shown by the model might perhaps have come to an end. They were not, therefore, “fabricated”. Mr Svalgaard and Mr Eschenbach should apologize for having made this serious allegation of research misconduct, now that they know it to have been baseless,.
http://iceagenow.info/2014/07/earths-magnetic-poles-ready-flip-swarm-manager/
Another important factor which I venture to say not one climate model factors in when it comes to their climate projections. A perfect example of missing data or incomplete data which is the point I keep trying to drive home when it comes to climate models.
I do factor this item in when it comes to my climate projections going forward. A serious item to over look in my opinion.
Ren there is no reliable data on TSI . A point which was made crystal clear at the climate summit.
Monckton of Brenchley says:
July 10, 2014 at 9:12 am
They were not used in the model. They were simply an indication that the sharp fall in TSI shown by the model might perhaps have come to an end. They were not, therefore, “fabricated”.
If they were not used, why were they fabricated and shown? And there is no sharp fall in TSI see http://www.leif.org/research/Monckton-Flae-3.png so your allegations are indeed baseless. The scientific misconduct committed by Evans is plain for everyone to see. Now, if the whole thing is just a PR-stunt and not science, then, of course, there is no scientific misconduct, just regular PR-misconduct. You tell us which it is.
I agree with this also and this is why I do NOT like the model approach regardless if the model is solar or AGW in nature. It is an exercise in futility in my opinion. We just do not know enough about the inner workings of the climate system to model it.
blue sky says:
July 9, 2014 at 1:22 pm
Willis is correct on this.
And I am no fan of Willis.
My opinion is that it is a convoluted theory with too many unexplained variables. You could fit any past data with this “model”.
And if by flipping a coin the next 10 years work out…it means nothing.
No reason at all why everything was not released at the same time. Data, Code.
I think that solar cycles change climate. This work does not encourage that reasoning. Perhaps when everything is released it will.
“Engineers learn the most and get things right precisely by calling BS on each other, laughing at our collective foolishness, and being thankful for each other’s help. Denial has no place in engineering.”
I am an engineer and I can say without fear of contradiction, Bernie is hopelessly self-deluded. Not a word of the foregoing is true.
Monckton of Brenchley says:
July 10, 2014 at 9:12 am
Mr Svalgaard and Mr Eschenbach should apologize for having made this serious allegation of research misconduct, now that they know it to have been baseless,.
It seems to me that Mr Monckton should rather apologize for his slew of defamatory comments, but that would not be his MO, so I don’t expect any [and don’t really childishly demand any].
I have a feeling that LS and WE are treating DE with the same (maybe worse?) contempt they’d treat any run-of-the-mill graduate student who was doing research for them. This might be why so many academics have a tough time in the business world – where soft skills are a necessity. It’s just hard to watch someone with so many academic credentials get treated so much like they were an inexperienced undergraduate intern.
Richard Case says:
July 10, 2014 at 9:49 am
I have a feeling that LS and WE are treating DE with the same…</i?
People should be treated according to the quality of their work, which in DE's case is below par.
Richard Case says:
July 10, 2014 at 9:49 am
I have a feeling that LS and WE are treating DE with the same…
People should be treated according to the quality of their work, which in DE’s case is below par.
gary gulrud said first quoting me: July 10, 2014 at 9:27 am
“Engineers learn the most and get things right precisely by calling BS on each other, laughing at our collective foolishness, and being thankful for each other’s help. Denial has no place in engineering.”
Then gary says for himself:
“I am an engineer and I can say without fear of contradiction, Bernie is hopelessly self-deluded. Not a word of the foregoing is true.”
NOW – isn’t this an example of one engineer (Gary) calling BS on another (me)!
Gary – sorry that your work experience is so different from mine. You can’t be having much fun at your job.
NOW – did we, together, get it right ?
according to willie soon ,no ne even knows if tsi is measured in its entirety or correctly as there is a serious problem with the equipment used. he also demolished the graphs lief has posted at the conference .
as the opinions of two experts in the field differ so greatly,i will now assume we know very little about tsi,hell ,by the looks of it,even the temperature record is more accurate.
bit chilly says:
July 10, 2014 at 10:06 am
according to willie soon ,no one even knows if tsi is measured in its entirety or correctly as there is a serious problem with the equipment used
The actual measurements don’t look too bad
http://www.leif.org/research/TSI_Composite-Kopp-with-TCTE.jpg
So Soon’s comment seem overblown.
Exactly bit chily and this is why al this bickering about data we don’t really know is correct(TSI) is essentially a waste of time.
Willie Soon showed as many as 14 different data sets for TSI which is equivalent to having no data when it comes to TSI /climate correlations. Which do you use? I say toss a coin.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
July 10, 2014 at 10:17 am
Willie Soon showed as many as 14 different data sets for TSI which is equivalent to having no data when it comes to TSI /climate correlations.
Yet he has no qualms cherry-picking one that fits his purpose: http://www.leif.org/research/Temp-Track-Sun-Not.png
note the graph at the bottom of my minima table:
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/files/2013/02/henryspooltableNEWa.pdf
ergo
1) it is getting cooler
2) there is no man made warming, whatsoever…
@Leif:
Using the worst smoothing operator [boxcar] there is and fabricating 900 days of ‘data’.
That TSI and solar activity the last 30 years have been decreasing is well-known, but Jo starts out by claiming that ‘nobody knows about the fall in TSI’ so obviously cannot mean over the last 30 years. No, it is clear that they thought TSI now has fallen off a cliff.
Well, it looks a lot like to me that it has:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/pmod/from:1970/to:2014
The ‘fabricating’ data ‘issue’ has been dealt with and is clearly an irrelevance but you keep bringing it up. People like myself with sufficient technical knowledge and background to be able to follow discussions between specialists such as yourself (but not enough to delve or comment deeply) are looking to see discussions and arguments about pertinent issues relating to new ideas such as this one. One does not require any technical expertise to be able to see that you constantly miss arguing the relevant issues. You described incorrectly that Dr Evans use of a certain TSI data set as being ‘near fraudulent’ and continued to beat that drum long after it was made perfectly clear it was not.
I asked for a representation comparable to the one you are objecting to (I didn’t word it that way exactly but it would be good to be able to compare apples of at least the same species) and the best you showed was this:
http://www.leif.org/research/Long-Term-TSI.png
which shows a drop at the end as well, although it is not the period in question and its hard to see. Since Dr Evans is maintaining that were climatology contingent on changes in TSI trends after a lag, a model describing that would look like the one he published, it remains for you to say why he shouldn’t say that TSI averaged over an 11 year period (smoothing) is showing a decline. If you are saying it is not, because the data is unreliable, then make the case. Would you then say it is not declining over the period of 20-30 years?
There are still lots of open questions on this model. It’s interesting, and an interesting exercise, but I cannot fathom why you don’t take it on and frame what appear to be short comings as questions to be resolved. Presume they have been addressed at some stage in the study until you have evidence they have not been, such as an admission or an insubstantial response.
lsvalgaard
TSI fractions are closely related with the magnetic field of the sun, and not the number of spots.
http://wso.stanford.edu/gifs/Polar.gif
As one can see TSI values are unknown and TSI values are but a small part of the solar/climate connection.
Agnostic says:
July 10, 2014 at 10:32 am
Well, it looks a lot like to me that it has:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/pmod/from:1970/to:2014
The PMOD team itself has shown that the decrease from the previous minimum in 1996 to the minimum in 2008 did not happen and that the measuremets had a calibration problem: http://www.leif.org/research/No-TSI-Difference-Between-Minima.pdf
The ‘fabricating’ data ‘issue’ has been dealt with
No, it most certainly has not been dealt with. They have unsuccessfully tried to spin this and you just gobble up their spin.
TSI averaged over an 11 year period (smoothing) is showing a decline.
His very first Figure shows yearly values, not 11-yr averages. The smoothing issue is just spin.
There are still lots of open questions on this model.
No model has been presented, only a vehicle to run an unknown model.
ren says:
July 10, 2014 at 10:46 am
TSI fractions are closely related with the magnetic field of the sun, and not the number of spots. http://wso.stanford.edu/gifs/Polar.gif
The graph you show is of the polar fields. TSI follows the sunspot number very closely
http://www.leif.org/research/TSI_Composite-Kopp-with-TCTE.jpg
lsvalgaard
Here is more closely.
http://spot.colorado.edu/~koppg/TSI/TSI.jpg
http://wso.stanford.edu/gifs/Polar.gif
Especially exactly since 2003.
ren says:
July 10, 2014 at 11:30 am
Here is more closely.
This is nonsense. You are more dense today than usual.
Maybe this chart will be good.
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/bfly.gif
ren says:
July 10, 2014 at 11:40 am
Maybe this chart will be good.
Or this one http://www.leif.org/research/Frustration.gif
My word, but this is getting tedious. One can only despair at the entire LS WE saga, with both of these gentlemen jerking in the same spot like a broken record, seemingly incapable of extracting themselves from their groove. Questions have been asked and answered, but it seems to make no difference. One could be forgiven if one were to come to the conclusion that they have given David’s work no more than a cursary glance, decided that it was above their paygrade and embarked on obtuse spoiler tactics to mask their own lack of ability to think outside the box. Furthermore, if I am to see one more of WE’s bleats about what is “science” and what is not according to the gospel of the anointed one himself I shall be grabbing for a barfbag… Jees… enough is enough. Let these two lecture to their own groupies…. can’t see anyone else getting any value here on this thread.
lsvalgaard
Although I am an old fool, and you’re receiving a great scientist, but still I’m not blind.
ren says:
July 10, 2014 at 11:52 am
I’m not blind
You make a good impersonation of one who is.
Peter Sable says:
July 9, 2014 at 11:28 pm
that was the post the made the entire thread worth reading.
Where ozone in the area of the magnetic pole? What we know about ozone and UV fractions?
http://www.temis.nl/protocols/o3field/data/omi/forecast/today_sp.gif
http://www.temis.nl/uvradiation/UVD/uvdef0_w.gif
It can be seen that the strongest ionization occurs at a height of 15 to 30 km.
http://www.temis.nl/profiles/gome2_orbits/daily/images/recent_OzoneProfile_Nadir_IIS_2.png
“the model is predicting a large drop in temperature from right about now:”
Doesn’t look bad:
“Poor man’s polar vortex to make shocking summer return in eastern U.S. next week” By Jason Samenow July 10 at 10:35 am
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2014/07/10/poor-mans-polar-vortex-to-make-shocking-summer-return-in-eastern-u-s-next-week/
Walter Sobchak look at the distribution of ozone, color brown.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_a_f/gif_files/gfs_t100_nh_f00.gif
You can also see cold in Europe. Yours.
JoNova nitpicked and whitewashed: “lubos thought the notch was “on Earth” when we suggest it’s on the Sun, I demonstrated he did not know what he was talking about and his post was irrelevant.” and “Lubos had a bad day.”
Yet it matters not one wit this nitpick to both the headline and the crux of Lubos’ post. Where the physical causality is claimed is moot when you merely call the interaction Force X (“from outer space”). Is it any more preposterous that an 11 year signal is perfectly delayed by an 11 year lag within the Sun itself? If it’s lagged exactly the same duration of the cycle claimed then the lag cancels out to no lag at all except that you can demonstrate peak to peak or valley to valley uniqueness to only the former instead of the current swing. His post was concerned with the algorithms being infinitely tuned and therefore meaningless as a model since by their very nature signal matching algorithms will match nearly any two signals together, which only works well for isolated causally entrained electronic circuits. You are not admitting this clearly at all to explain how your matching system is in any way unique rather than purely arbitrary. Lubos, a former Harvard professor, mentions that he, a string theory level mathematical savant that places him among the top hundred million people most mathematically able, stated that he spent hours delving into the nature of your system, having had access to the details. He acted as a peer reviewer and you failed to pass peer review and now you self publish with magic parameters that create a classic black box. The work appears good as an extended thought experiment at best, and might be used in a textbook to demonstrate the foibles of wanton wiggle matching in the absence of actual physics. The medical field is still chock full of such data mining debauchery as Aussie John Ray pointed out for years on his Food & Health Skeptic blog.
I am perfectly capable of separating the obscure details of your claim with the central force of Motl’s argument against the overall exercise. That WUWT has already had an ongoing spat with career wiggle matchers at the Tallbloke’s Talkshop blog to the extent of moving his link in the blogroll here into the “Transcendent Rant and way out there theory” category means you were likely well aware that your own wiggle matching might get you put on probation here, and at this point your increasingly personal defense of it that focuses on minute details as if that cancels out the major structural and profound criticisms means you are rapidly heading into transcedent rant category yourself. The addition of a massive nuclear testing correction into a pattern matching exercise fails to pass the laugh test since it further obscures the algorithm from internal testing attempts using early/late comparison or arbitrary test data input.
Monckton came out swinging about a mere software setting that created an automatic infill over a gap in Leif’s data, yet now defends your own manual addition of a guesstimated extension so he clearly biased in this affair, but again such quibbles gloss over Motl’s and Willis’ main point that black boxes need be checked internally not turned into highly publicized bets on the future as if a future match proves you right, which it very much does not since you already have 33% odds in your favor towards obtaining a plunge instead of a further lull or a new peak.
You are jumping on techicalities in a way that speaks louder and louder that you in maverick fashion willfully refuse to address the Science 101 concerns about arbitrary wiggle matching which as if such concerns are obscure rather than fundamental.
See jetstream.
http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/250hPa/orthographic=-69.41,33.80,419
“Rogueelement451 says:
July 10, 2014 at 2:17 am
Willis ,Mosher et al founders of the lost snark..
Most posters at Jo Nova are waiting for expert analysis of “the model” and will continue to do so.
Where you failed ,along with others ,was demanding ,insisting like a spoiled brat ,that you be given data NOW! When it had been stated all along ,that ALL data was going to be released in due course.”
huh.
I dont demand the data or code now.
It is simple. Without data or code it is not worth the time I have already spent
Given the Little Ice Age and various other warm and cold periods in the past, I believe there is evidence that there is a link between temperature and periodic changes in the sun. Therefore, I believe that a reduction in solar activity is going to cause a reduction in temperature. How much of a reduction and how long it takes to happen are the questions.
For the model, I think the notch filter idea is interesting – but rather than thinking in terms of a notch filter, I think it should be a simple delay filter. In other words, between the change in TSI and the change in when a measurable change in temperature are seen will be the delay time.
For the delay time, I think the problem with coming up with a specific delay time is that this should vary depending on various other natural cycles, currents and etc. In other words, conceptually, it makes more sense to me that there is not a simple fixed delay. The 11 year sunspot cycle will complicate it further given TSI varies during solar cycles.
I will be curious to see more information released about the model. The entire discussion hear and on JoNova’s page have been very interesting. I think due to some of the comments, more details will be released about the notch filter model. I also think a number of people will come up with their own new and improved models based on what everyone learns from the discussion.
PROPOSAL: Time for an “Evans-Svalgaard wager” where Anthony puts a count-down clock in upper right corner of WUWT, ditto JoanneNova, ditto ClimateAudit, ditto … counting down to date at which David Evans’ model says XYZ will happen. Call it a beer wager akin to the “Simon–Ehrlich wager”, except call it the “Evans-Svalgaard wager”, maybe rig up a PayPal thing to let the audience participate with monies going to favorite charity of winner. Imagine there would have to be some negotiation of the terms: how measured, by whom, plus-minus predicted measurement, plus-minus time, who measures, exceptions like asteroid strike exceeding certain size, volcano eruption exceeding certain size, nuclear weapons exchange, man-made aerosol discharge by wealthy loony person delusional about saving world, war, etc etc etc)
MY TWO-CENTS:
($0.01) I have seen the TSI decline claimed by David Evans in Leif’s own PNG data graph. You too can see the TSI decline if you focus in on the 2003-2008 time frame of Leif’s own PNG data graph. There is a TSI decline shown both here … http://www.leif.org/research/Monckton-Flaw-3.png … and here … http://www.leif.org/research/Real-Trend-TSI-since-2003.png … NOTE: no claim made by me whether or not this obvious TSI decline is significant, meaningful or otherwise. Only saying there is an obvious TSI decline from 2003-to-2008. Not saying there is a TSI decline from 2003-to-2014
($0.02) I have seen the (never) missing model. Willis Eschenbach simultaneously claims David Evans has “not released … the model, ” then a few paragraphs later claims David Evans “posits an incredibly intricate model,” embedding a PNG schematic of the model block diagram in his own comment here … http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/28/a-cool-question-answered/#comment-1671519 … Although I make no claim that the David Evans’ Electrical Engineering block diagram representation of a model is complete; however, it is very similar to layout & construction to what the Controls Scientists (i.e. Matlab Nth degree warrior junkies) I have previously worked with would call “a model”. Ditto it being in a format that Electrical Design Engineers would use for constructing control systems and filter networks. David Evans obviously looses princess points for using Excel instead of Matlab to construct his model (commence Excel vs Matlab flame war … or should it be an Excel vs R flame war … hmm, maybe this is the real real real issue, a religious war over preferred data analysis software, I don’t want to slog through someone’s spreadsheet do I???, fate worse than death. We are truly fortunate at least all agree EMACS is the world’s absolute best text editor ;-);-);-).
FLAME WAR REVIEW: Flame wars are immensely entertaining to the audience; however, neither side has covered themselves with glory. With printouts of the various threads, both here at WUWT and over at JoanneNova, I can highlight the “tone” that various people have inadvertently used to stoke the fires: David Evans, Leif Svalgaard, Joanne Nova, Willis Eschenbach and others would all suffer hi-lighter marks on their comments. Y’all might have to go to South Park’s “Death Camp of Tolerance” (Season 6, Episode 14) … http://www.southparkstudios.com/full-episodes/s06e14-the-death-camp-of-tolerance
Bob G you are right on. This prolonged solar minimum will be no different then the previous ones in that the temperature trend for the globe will be down.
TSI which was off by.15% during the recent solar lull( 2008-2010 time period) will be off by at least that much if not more going forward into this decade.
It is not just the primary solar effects but the many secondary effects from solar variability that will impact the climate ranging from more clouds due to an increase in galactic cosmic rays, to a more meridional atmospheric circulation due to changes in ozone distribution/concentrations to an increase in volcanic activity due to extended periods of very quite solar activity.
I posted earlier and many times in the past a set of solar parameters and duration of time these parameters need to have in order for the sun to achieve a meaningful effect upon the climate.
Willis Eschenbach says:
July 9, 2014 at 10:14 am
joannenova says:
July 9, 2014 at 12:34 am
Thanks to Anthony for updating the post
It’s getting a little rambunctious here so I don’t want to get more involved than to say the output on your graph in the indicated post is exactly what I would expect to see from a low pass filter — and yes indeed it does “clip the fast peaks” and “fill in the valleys — but the actual content (energy?) remains constant — mostly. There are other issues with boxcars for low pass filters as the frequency response is not uniform — but since the peaks and valleys are relatively uniform it’s not likely an issue here…
The signal out indicates where to find the peaks and valleys and depending on the time constant will “hold” at a peak or a valley as long as the next pulse occurs withing a set time.
You may want to request an electrical engineer in the group to comment on the validity of the technique — for various purposes. On the face of the issue I see no problems with that output being used in certain circumstances.
…and yes padding at the end or beginning of a series of data points is (can be) a valid technique — otherwise you can get bogus output for the adjacent data. The only thing I would want to see is the justification for the padding… I would likely have run it through GNU Octave — and got similar results with the built in filter algorithms based on what your graph shows.
Since I don’t want to participate in the abuse, and I have enough to keep me busy for the next few weeks, may I again suggest an electrical engineer with a thick hide and a strong capability in filter design comment on this issue… and if I’m wrong I’ll need an even thicker hide.
Cheers!
Maybe I used some bad language as I have a comment in moderation — or maybe you are (wisely) moderating this thread.
Cheers all! This thread looks like a winner!
lukemullen indulges in the betting game: “PROPOSAL: Time for an “Evans-Svalgaard wager” where Anthony puts a count-down clock in upper right corner of WUWT, ditto JoanneNova, ditto ClimateAudit, ditto … counting down to date at which David Evans’ model says XYZ will happen.”
But if temperature plunges in what possible way does a wiggle matching algorithm become confirmed by it being that it’s a theory only in being called one rather than actually being one? Or if temperature soars again why not just tweak the parameters again and claim victory? That’s why internal testing is so important, for if the link to solar activity is real it should robustly survive all manner of testing, with future testing being rather irrelevant in comparison due to the 33% random chaotic chance of yet another plunge in temperature. And a real solar link certainly wouldn’t require such complex mathematics but be robust to different and possible much simpler formulations. If such a serious solar influence exists then there is no delay except in the inappropriate mathematical formulation, unless an actual *delay* is demonstrated in variation shape of solar output eleven years ago and temperature today. For now it seems the 11 year delay is but a mathematical kludge to escape falsification by non-causality in time, all to escape utter lack of solar correlation in the first place. The laugh test has been applied and this “model” that willfully lacks internal testing in favor of black box betting failed it. If the Evans really want to place a bet, let them publicly short sell green energy companies in the real stock market, eh, for indeed only a steep plunge will scare off their existing investors.
WillR said in part July 10, 2014 at 3:06 pm:
“ …and yes padding at the end or beginning of a series of data points is (can be) a valid technique — otherwise you can get bogus output for the adjacent data. The only thing I would want to see is the justification for the padding… “
Good question WillR,
But before asking how to justify padding, can you justify the smoothing in the first place! It depends on how much you admire hiding actual data and fooling yourself and other people! (Here we are talking specifically about looking for patterns in relatively clean data – not the removal of true noise.)
Under what circumstances can you justify padding the ends. Well – NEVER! Unless you prefer a guarantee of a “bogus output” to the mere possibility of one.
Svalgaard still goes on about “900 days of fabricated data”, despite clear and repeated variations on this quote from Joanne (emphasis mine):
Svalgaard:
Not spin – statement of fact = NOT USED IN THE MODEL (read my lips!).
Are you being deliberately obtuse, or does it come naturally?
Leif, that is funny as hell! I have felt that level of frustration.
Mike Jowsey says:
July 10, 2014 at 5:24 pm
“The largely irrelevant 3 dots are clearly listed on the graphs as an “assumed average” extension. They have no impact on the model (they are not used in it).
The important ‘spin words’ are ‘largely irrelevant’. If not used, why are they there? And they are used to calculate the smooth. And whether the fabricated data are used or not is actually irrelevant. They serve to fool the lay reader into accepting the graph and the [non-existing] sharp drop. Typical tricks in the PR-business.
Mike Jowsey says:
July 10, 2014 at 5:24 pm
“They have no impact on the model “
Furthermore, what has been ‘revealed’ [like tablets from the gods] is no model, just a means to run a model. The ‘model’ would be have to derive [and justify their existence] the 11 parameters that make up the ‘parameter set’. That is where the potential science would be. What we have now is no science, just black-box’ curve fitting. But, of course, the goal seems to be to run a PR-stunt rather than science, and in that respect they seem to have whipped their adherents into the required mouth-foaming frenzy.
NicFromNYC asked: “But if temperature plunges in what possible way does a wiggle matching algorithm become confirmed by it being that it’s a theory only in being called one rather than actually being one?”
Luke Mullen replies: In the same possible way that the commodity price plunge of the the famous Simon–Ehrlich wager confirmed Simon’s “cornucopian theory”. Note that I use the word “confirmed” loosely, aware of the ongoing debate about the significance of the Simon-Ehrlich wager since its 1990 payoff in favor of Simon.
NicFromNYC wrote: “If the Evans really want to place a bet, let them publicly short sell green energy companies in the real stock market, eh, for indeed only a steep plunge will scare off their existing investors.”
Luke Mullen replies: But we the audience would miss out on the open-source collective negotiation of the terms, seeing a counter counting down, watching a Skype Beer drinking event, seeing a virtual check being sent to [fill in name of favorite Evans charity or Svalgaard charity]. OBVIOUSLY Evans could still short appropriate industries; however, then we loose the benefit of the count down clock, the community spirit of opposing camps, watching the beer consumed on Skype, etc
Examples of wager escape clauses:
(a) any asteroid impact with Torino Scale 8,9,10 occurs
(b) Any one volcanic eruption with Volcanic Explosivity Index of 6 or higher (Mount Pinatubo)
(c) More than XYZ volcanic eruptions with Volcanic Explosivity Index of 5 (Mount St. Helens)
(d) Carrington Event
(e) others TBD by the community …
LSvalgaard says: The important ‘spin words’ are ‘largely irrelevant’. If not used, why are they there? “…to make the fall slightly less dramatic by indicating it is ending”, as Joanne said.
They have no impact on the data, it is merely a rounding by assumption, as indicated in the text box and by using a different colour and line type. Why does it cause you to foam at the mouth so much?
Mike Jowsey says:
July 10, 2014 at 7:01 pm
Why does it cause you to foam at the mouth so much?
Scientific fraud can have that effect on me. A PR-stunt with all attendant tricks and fabrications not so much.
The model does not forecast how the suns activity will behave in the future, because there has been no scientific mechanism put forward for this.
The premise that solar activity effects earth is especially interesting because of the fact that the sun drives our climate on various time scales, if I can put the understanding of the suns output in an easily understood way, it will be this;
What is the maximum potential of solar activity output?
What is the minimum potential of solar activity output?
You see? there’s a very straight forward question being asked!
As an Engineer David Evans has put forward his honest (for the lack of words) analysis of the sun-earth relationship, there is no issue with his engagement in understanding this area of science, I believe in his sincerity of his exploration of it..
I also agree with Leif, ideas can be “right for the wrong reason”, even with the best intentions. It should be acknowledged that David Evans may in fact be developing a tool for correctly analyzing solar activity, and further development of scientific tools by engineers for this area of science should be appreciated!
Sparks says:
July 10, 2014 at 8:12 pm
What is the maximum potential of solar activity output?
http://www.leif.org/research/Report-on-Extreme-Space-Weather-Events-2014.pdf
What is the minimum potential of solar activity output?
nothing at all.
cold fusion deja vu.
Moral of the story: Skeptics are very rare. Being against global warming does not make you a skeptic any more than it makes you a scientist.
lsvalgaard says:
July 10, 2014 at 8:17 pm
Big laugh there Leif, because you don’t know yet…
There is a particular area of your “blood sport” I’ve been looking into recently I’ve found very interesting.
😉
The steady state druids have not a hint of an explanation:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-07-10/polar-vortex-back-middle-july
Just put out the fires of disbelief and blind them with BS. That’s the game of the National Mascot, so who cares?
lsvalgaard says:
July 10, 2014 at 8:17 pm
“Sparks says:
July 10, 2014 at 8:12 pm
What is the maximum potential of solar activity output?
http://www.leif.org/research/Report-on-Extreme-Space-Weather-Events-2014.pdf
What is the minimum potential of solar activity output?
nothing at all.”
There is an enormous difference between “nothing at all” and an increase of solar energy over a certain amount of years and a decrease of solar energy over a certain amount of years.
Let’s say, for example, the scenario of no solar cycle activity could take place over an extended period of time. are you saying that this will not effect earth?
Sparks says:
July 10, 2014 at 9:10 pm
Let’s say, for example, the scenario of no solar cycle activity could take place over an extended period of time. are you saying that this will not effect earth?
Even during the Maunder Minimum the solar dynamo was still operating and the solar cycle was still going. My estimate of any effect on the climate would be something like 0.1C, noting to worry about.
Bernie Hutchins says:
July 10, 2014 at 4:34 pm
WillR said in part July 10, 2014 at 3:06 pm:
I’m not convinced that you actually read my comment…
This is something that slows down the effect of sun. According to me these are the changes in the ozone. Ozone is a layer which absorbs most of the UV. The ozone layer must possess certain limitations. I know this is speculation, but it is worth to investigate the behavior of ozone during the solar minimum.
Mod: Sago snow is uniform small round pellets but don’t float down. Down in the CBD they had snow flakes, but I live higher up the valley. It can settle if conditions are right like hail, but smaller particles. It is usually a precursor of flakes, sometimes mixed.
ren says
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/08/solar-notch-delay-model-released/#comment-1683068
Henry says: THE OX , HXOX AND NXOX CONNECTION
I figured that there must be a small window at the top of the atmosphere (TOA) that gets opened and closed a bit, every so often. Chemists know that a lot of incoming radiation is deflected to space by the ozone and the peroxides and nitrous oxides lying at the TOA. These chemicals are manufactured from the harmful UV coming from the sun. Luckily we do have measurements on ozone, from stations in both hemispheres. I looked at these results. Incredibly, I found that ozone started going down around 1951 and started going up again in 1995, both on the NH and the SH. Percentage wise the increase in ozone in the SH since 1995 is much more spectacular.
The mechanism? We know that there is not much variation in the total solar irradiation (TSI) measured at the TOA. However, there is some variation within TSI, mainly to do with the more energetic particles coming from the sun. It appears (to me) that as the solar polar fields are weakening,
http://ice-period.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/sun2013.png
more of these particles are able to escape from the sun to form more ozone, peroxides and nitrogenous oxides at the TOA. In turn, these substances deflect more sunlight to space when there is more of it. So, ironically, when the sun is brighter, earth will get cooler. This is a defense system that earth has in place to protect us from harmful UV (C).
Most likely there is some gravitational- and/or electromagnetic force that gets switched every 44 year, affecting the sun’s output. How? That is the question.
henry@ren
ren, do you understand the principle of absorption, re-radiation and subsequent back radiation?
Leif, California weather does not change. And you know why? Because it takes the same pattern of circulation.
Leif says
My estimate of any effect on the climate would be something like 0.1C, noting to worry about.(sic)
henry says
we already dropped -0.015/annum since 2000 = -0.2K , see 2nd table, here,
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/files/2013/02/henryspooltableNEWa.pdf
I am thinking we must expect to drop further,
anyone got any idea on where we go with the drop of maxima? see 1st table.
HenryP I do not know. But I think that within a few low cycles as a result of interaction of UV radiation and increased activities of galactic rays comes to serious changes in the ozone layer. In fact, it is very thin, which I showed above.
Henry P, for example, the galactic radiation is concentrated at the magnetic poles of the earth. It is known that after the entry into the atmosphere also produces electrons. The electrons produced by inhibition of photons that also will focus on at the poles.
@ren
above the oceans there is a preference for peroxides being formed rather than ozone.
Have you got the pictures for peroxides?
Leif are you suggesting that this “dynamo” is the cause of the suns polar field?
@ren
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2011/08/11/the-greenhouse-effect-and-the-principle-of-re-radiation-11-aug-2011/
can you read spectra for UV-Vis-IR absorptions?
For example, there is some absorption of CO2 in the UV, this is the way we can now detect CO2 on other planets, on account of the fact that that specific range of UV radiation is being deflected off the from the planet..
WillR said July 10, 2014 at 9:27 pm
“Bernie Hutchins says:
July 10, 2014 at 4:34 pm
I’m not convinced that you actually read my comment…”
I read it and it was a good comment – my response was way too sketchy for which I apologize.
First, there is the issue of whether or not to average at all, and this was famously discussed by Matt Briggs (self-described Statistician to the Stars!) in his “Do not smooth times series, you hockey puck!” at:
http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=195
from Sept. 2008, and that can’t be improved on.
Your actual question was about the issue of padding the time series in some manner to employ some sort of smoothing filter, said filter could be the rectangular “moving average” (also called a “running average” or “boxcar”) or sometimes better filter choices such as Savitzky-Golay smoothing. The point as you know is that the filter runs out of data at the ends. In my view (and others) it is probably best not to pad the sequence, as this ALWAYS gives a bogus result, guaranteed, because you are making up data. Typically the data is padded with a recent average value, or the data is “reflected” (time reversed) at the end, or it is reflected and inverted. These all do different things, and they can’t all be right. They are all wrong by definition.
My first suggestion is to stay away from the ends. Stop averaging when you don’t have enough data. If you really want to see averaging all the way to the end, then change the length of the average as you get to the end. Here is what you could do:
For example, if you have a length-100-year sequence and are averaging over 11 years (summing and dividing by 11), when you get to the point where you have only 10 points, divide by 10; 9 points, divide by 9, and so on. Eventually the last point stands by itself. This approach is one of “common sense” (not a true solution). But there is a problem with it if you are still thinking of it as filtering. The “filter” is now time varying (is not what engineers call LTI: Linear Time Invariant). It gets shorter as it is applied to the end, and the weighting increases (from 1/11 to 1/10 to 1/9 and so on to 1/1). So some engineers would protest that the cutoff frequency of the low-pass is changing – the frequency response cutoff is in fact going up. My response to the objection is that since the system is not LTI any longer, the concept of a frequency response was already gone. Different ballgame.
The use of averaging cannot possibly add information. What it may do is make a plot more “attractive” and easier to grasp. But it can also spuriously mislead, so never try “replacing” data with a smoothed version, but at the very least, keep both. This is particularly true if you attempt to think of smoothed data AS data (as better data!) and continue additional processing with that. If you intend to do something further (say look for Principal Components) then don’t even think about applying it to the smoothed data – only to original data.
Hence my short answer: don’t pad, don’t even smooth.
Henry P you are right that in the atmosphere with changes in solar activity changes must occur in chemical reactions in the atmosphere. I do not know of such studies, but they are necessary.
Henry P
I think the short solar cycles do not significantly affect changes in ozone, but in the long cycles of ozone regeneration may be more difficult.
Because the sun is behaving as you can see, the reality on the theory corrects.
http://www.solen.info/solar/polarfields/polarfields.jpg
Need to see you, what is the sunspot activity (number of spots 183).
Region Number of
sunspots Class
Magn. Class
Spot
2104 2 β DSO
2106 2 β CAO
2107 1 α HAX
2108 14 β – γ EKC
2109 17 β DKC
2111 8 β DSI
2113 6 β CAO
2114 4 β DAO
2115 2 α AXX
2116 3 β BXO
@ren
remember that ozone is just one component. There are also peroxides and nitrogenous oxides being formed. That is Trenberth’s missing energy. I agree that we need more studies on this. As it is they will keep ploughing around in the darkness, looking at ozone only. The atmosphere is designed to protect us from the sun. The sun is being kept together by its magnetic field. If it collapses, so will the sun. If its field is lower we get more of the very energetic harmful particles that would kill us if they did not react immediately with the oxygen, nitrogen/+oxygen and H-O. The sun has to switch and crank up again, to increasing solar polar field strengths, [I think] sometime in 2016, give or take a year.
Please note an increase of fast electrons (above 2 MeV) in 2003.
http://oi58.tinypic.com/14uw23a.jpg
http://polaris.nipr.ac.jp/~ryuho/pub0/MiyoshiKataoka2011JASTP_SolarCycle.pdf
@Leif
The PMOD team itself has shown that the decrease from the previous minimum in 1996 to the minimum in 2008 did not happen and that the measuremets had a calibration problem: http://www.leif.org/research/No-TSI-Difference-Between-Minima.pdf
Ok so you are saying there has been no decline in TSI (which correlates with global temps after an 11-year lag via a force x). Therefore the predicted drop in temps associated with a fall in TSI should not occur meaning (should what you say is correct) that if it does, that could represent a falsification of the model.
The ‘fabricating’ data ‘issue’ has been dealt with
No, it most certainly has not been dealt with. They have unsuccessfully tried to spin this and you just gobble up their spin.
Oh that is just ridiculous. Absolutely ridiculous. You really believe your own nonsense? Why should we not take them at their word? Even better, check out the model to see whether they have used the “fabricated” data in the model. If you can prove they have then go ahead and make your claim. You have no proof that they have used their estimated values inappropriately, why should we take you at YOUR word? They have given their reasons why it is there, it’s labeled clearly, and it’s entirely reasonable. I would have no objection to your taking a dim view on it, but you have yet to say what is actually wrong with it. Saying it is ‘fabricated’ with the implication that they are trying to deceive is utterly ridiculous, defamatory, and unnecessary. You are gobbling up your own spin matey.
TSI averaged over an 11 year period (smoothing) is showing a decline.
His very first Figure shows yearly values, not 11-yr averages. The smoothing issue is just spin.
Rubbish. The whole basis for the hypothesis is that there is some unknown factor for which TSI is just a proxy, or an interlinked mechanism on the sun that influences global temps. (In actual fact that is all the wrong way around, since he started off by treating the problem as a signal processing issue and ignored that it was the climate system). The point of showing the 11-year smoothing is to show the lagged effect. It’s for describing the concept, not as a metric. The smoothing is not “just spin”.
Look, my view on the model is that it is an interesting approach, but I have no idea whether it is valid. If the TSI data is as bad as you say then it seems unlikely it will tell us very much of anything, regardless of how well the model is constructed.
You would do well to go over to Climate Etc and have a look at Marcia Wyatt’s Memo taking on Mann et al’s rebuttal of the Stadium Wave hypothesis. Now THAT is how to write serious and sensible objections to someone else’s work.
Sparks says:
July 10, 2014 at 10:57 pm
Leif are you suggesting that this “dynamo” is the cause of the suns polar field?
Yes, and the polar fields are the ’cause’ of the dynamo. A better way of saying it is that circulation of solar plasma drives the dynamo which produces sunspots. The magnetic field of the spots drift to the poles and from there back into the sun where the dynamo produces a new batch of sunspots. So polar fields => sunspots => polar fields => sunspots => polar fields etc, etc.
Agnostic says:
July 11, 2014 at 1:10 am
Look, my view on the model is that it is an interesting approach, but I have no idea whether it is valid.
since they have not told us what the model actually is [but only how to run it] we cannot say anything meaningful about their ‘approach’. The critical issue is how to produce the ‘parameter set’ in the model and that is not described.
HenryP’s ozone mention reminded me of a recent blunt claim that warming and the lull were better associated with ozone than carbon dioxide:
“Global warming caused by chlorofluorocarbons, not carbon dioxide, new study says”
http://phys.org/news/2013-05-global-chlorofluorocarbons-carbon-dioxide.html
The cfc scare was also a hoax
Bernie Hutchens considered: “Your actual question was about the issue of padding the time series in some manner to employ some sort of smoothing filter, said filter could be the rectangular “moving average” (also called a “running average” or “boxcar”) or sometimes better filter choices such as Savitzky-Golay smoothing.”
I learned about the notorious S.-G. filter the hard way, as climate alarm activists pooh poohed my exposure of the alarm busting Central England world’s oldest real thermometer record, since Tamino had turned it into a hockey stick using S.-G. as had Phil Jones temporarily bumped up his own IPCC plots with it due to its severe end effects that mean recent results can drastically change when future data comes in. So I ran test data into it:
http://s1.postimg.org/9luuxrqm7/TAMINO_FINAL_FINAL_FINAL_FINAL.gif
The point Leif tries to make so strongly though is merely how an unchanging recent decade of solar output that forms a shallow bowl cannot somehow be also totally compatible with that low lying bowl further pulling down the simple 11 year average? Either the solar link is real or not and if its real then it would show up robustly instead of in a way that pivots completely upon such arcane technicalities.
Monckton of Brenchley says: July 10, 2014 at 9:12 am
David Evans and Joanne Nova have made it plain that the three dots on their graph at the end of the data were not, repeat not, used in any way in determining the sharp fall in 11-year-smoothed total solar irradiance. They were not used in the model. They were simply an indication that the sharp fall in TSI shown by the model might perhaps have come to an end. They were not, therefore, “fabricated”. Mr Svalgaard and Mr Eschenbach should apologize for having made this serious allegation of research misconduct, now that they know it to have been baseless,.
———————-
SMK
As everyone knows there is a fly problem in Aus. So…
Perhaps these dots, which not being fabricated, could be explained as dead flies unfortunately resting on the document?
Bernie Hutchins says:
July 10, 2014 at 11:00 pm
WillR said July 10, 2014 at 9:27 pm
“Bernie Hutchins says:
July 10, 2014 at 4:34 pm
I’m not convinced that you actually read my comment…”
I read it and it was a good comment – my response was way too sketchy for which I apologize.
First, there is the issue of whether or not to average at all, and this was famously discussed by Matt Briggs (self-described Statistician to the Stars!) in his “Do not smooth times series, you hockey puck!” at:
Bernie — thanks for the clarification…and I am familiar with the Briggs Declaration 🙂 However…
Electronic Engineers get used to filtering tine dependent data — sometimes in signals analysis it’s your only tool.
Like you my main question was the — use of/choice of — a filter style more than the padding.
While I do understand the objections, if electronic engineers followed those rules — then we might not have a lot of equipment — radios, MODEMS etc…Hence my recommendation that a filter specialist (signals specialist) might have a useful contribution to make.
I guess I would have done some things that Evans did — although with different tools — and people just don’t want to hear about those techniques — so Adios! There seems to be a “culture gap” here.
Cheers!
.
sergeiMK think about whether climate science should not place forecasts? How’s the weather FORMER everyone knows. CLIMATE SCIENCE IS FOR GOOD PEOPLE, NOT THEORY.
SergeiMK says
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/08/solar-notch-delay-model-released/#comment-1683221
henry says
Are you guys still on about a few dots on that TSI graph that is useless anyway?
Cannot believe it.
This graph
http://www.solen.info/solar/polarfields/polarfields.jpg
that was quoted by ren,
is much more interesting because you can pair it off with the drop in the speed of maximum temperatures, first table, on the bottom, here
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/files/2013/02/henryspooltableNEWa.pdf
Do you see the correlation between dropping field strengths and the deceleration of warming?
Maximum temperature is a good proxy for heat that is being allowed through the atmosphere.
TSI is rubbish because they simply cannot measure everything TOA. There are some nasty chemical reactions happening TOA.
Now, based on my own investigations, I predict that only from around 2016 will solar field strengths start to creep up again. Something has to switch on the sun by that time.. ANYONE here care to make a guess what that graph on solar field strengths will look like in 2060 (2016+44)?
Let me know if you figured it out as well.
Are approaching slowly to the next solar minimum. So we can safely assume that the TSI fall.
Henry P TSI is the totality solar radiation. It does not include changes in the fraction due to the lower magnetic field of the sun.
Is it necessary to provide? What will happen if the Gulf Stream is not strengthened? Will it be warmer in the north-east of North America? What will be the winter, if the pattern of circulation continue?
http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.gif
It was previously thought that the field was weakening by about 5 percent each century, LiveScience reports, pointing to a flip in about 2,000 years. But the new data shows a much more dramatic weakening, at a pace of 5 percent per decade — 10 times faster than previously thought.
The new data come from a trio of satellites collectively known as Swarm, launched by the ESA in November. The measurements show a dramatic weakening over the Western hemisphere, with some strengthening in other areas, like the southern Indian Ocean, according to a release.
I downloaded the link to “climate.xism” but it failed to load in LibreOffice Calc .(When Microsoft ended support to Office 2003 and XP I decided to save a few pence by using a free suite on my new PC with 64 bit Windows 7 ).So far Libre Office has been OK , like Open Office on my old PC , but not for this file . Any obvious reason?
NikFromNYC says:
July 10, 2014 at 1:32 pm
“Where the physical causality is claimed is moot when you merely call the interaction Force X (“from outer space”). Is it any more preposterous that an 11 year signal is perfectly delayed by an 11 year lag within the Sun itself? If it’s lagged exactly the same duration of the cycle claimed then the lag cancels out to no lag at all except that you can demonstrate peak to peak or valley to valley uniqueness to only the former instead of the current swing.”
I’m thinking the same thing. Is there a misinterpretation from their results wrt physicality? I have realized over the past six months by careful observations of solar and earth activity, that there is no 11-year lagged temperature response that makes any sense except from the ocean.
El Nino events regularly lead to step changes in the temp anomaly with each El Nino as Bob Tisdale has brilliantly described. The physical cause of El Nino would be sea surface turnover that releases built-up heat from ‘previous’ solar energy ‘deposits’ , increasing temps, always followed by a La Nina that exposes colder waters to the atmosphere from deeper depths, lowering temps. How ‘previous’ – is the real question – along with the amount of solar ‘deposit’ necessary over time.
But closer to your point is what happens every solar cycle on the Sun, as DE says, that causes the notch to occur. SOLAR MINIMUMS! The solar minimums clearly show up on temp anomaly graphs. There is a recurring dip in temps at solar mins in several upstanding temp time series. I dropped this idea off to their site and so far haven’t seen a response.
The notch is the time during the solar minimums when temps drop. If the input to the notch drops altogether (TSI, SSN, flux), as is expected by many as SC24 winds down and going into SC25, then temps will follow a downhill trajectory. Some clearly are still getting used to that idea.
When one looks at the data of global temperatures versus past solar activity the correlation is there. There is no doubt about it. I can not find a period of sustained high solar activity with a long period of falling global temperatures or a period of sustained very low solar activity with a long period of rising temperatures.
Sure the temperatures will fluctuate as they do now when ever the earth is in a particular climate regime, but over the periods of time when ever solar activity enters a very low activity period or high activity period one will always see that the range in global temperatures will drop or rise to a new range which will correlate with the level of solar activity over the globe as a whole. Still some parts of the globe will always run counter due to ocean currents and atmospheric changes..
IT IS A 100% OCCURENCE.
TSI is but one small part of this and we saw again when solar activity was very low around 2008-2010 that the same processes were occurring once again with the earth and the climate(such as a more meridional atmospheric circulation, high cosmic ray counts, an increase in geological activity ,ocean heat content leveling off, more La Ninas) only to be temporarily held back due to the maximum of solar cycle 24.
With the maximum of solar cycle 24 about to end and being very weak and with more or less 10 years of sub-solar activity the next solar lull will likely be much longer then the short 2008-2010 lull and will exert much more of an influence on the climate through primary and secondary solar effects. This will start to become more evident later this year and will help set the stage for an extreme N.H. winter season this season .
The weakening magnetic field of the earth will only enhance the solar effects.
I have laid out the solar variability which is needed to accomplish this , now it is wait, watch and see. Historical data supports all that I have laid out. I feel the use of past data versus the climate is the way to go when trying to project the climate going into the future. I don’t care for the model approach due to the fact they will never have complete or accurate enough data to work with not to mention all of the unknowns.
The TSI saga of no consensus on the data for this item is a great example of what I am talking about. Very foolish to argue over something (tsi data) which for all intents and purposes is unknown.
14 DIFFERENT DATA SETS! NOT JUST TWO OR THREE BUT 14!
Sunspot data is also very subjective data in my opinion and I don’t use it.
To clarify the solar lull period I mentioned runs from the start of year 2008 to the end of year 2010.
lsvalgaard says:
July 10, 2014 at 10:29 am
Salvatore Del Prete says:
July 10, 2014 at 10:17 am
Willie Soon showed as many as 14 different data sets for TSI which is equivalent to having no data when it comes to TSI /climate correlations.
“Yet he has no qualms cherry-picking one that fits his purpose: http://www.leif.org/research/Temp-Track-Sun-Not.png”
Leif, I started seeing a graph like you linked to about 12 years ago or more, and it made me wonder if there really was something influencing temps besides the sun. Now I see that graph as an immature look at solar influence. It is a overly-simplistic view on the sun-earth connection that does not incorporate the cumulative solar influence over time on temperatures. The solar radiant influence is instantaneous yes, however, like the pot on your stove that stays hot for a while after the burner is turned low or off, global SSTs take time to cool off from the more active solar seasons, the oceans release of that heat partly offsets lower solar activity periods – but not completely.
The 0.1% solar variation you often cite is an over-simplified look at solar variability. The warmists are right there with you on that.
Leif, Pamela, have you taken the time to read David Stockwell’s work at Niche Modelling? It seems you’re both set in your ways, unwilling to see solar action in a different light than what your present predisposition allows.
gary gulrud says:
July 10, 2014 at 8:49 am
“When did science become data mining looking for anomalies rather than establishing relations of cause and effect. Why is selecting a proper filter and correcting data gathered by outdated methods more important than having an idea?”
I hear you gary! From the looks of things cause and effect follow “form” in importance for many. It’s because some people, too set in their ways, completely invested in their own opinions, have a hard time seeing things from new perspectives. Look at the warmists for example, and now, the ‘solar deniers’, as David Archibald calls ’em.
lsvalgaard says:
July 10, 2014 at 7:05 pm
Mike Jowsey says:
July 10, 2014 at 7:01 pm
Why does it cause you to foam at the mouth so much?
“Scientific fraud can have that effect on me. A PR-stunt with all attendant tricks and fabrications not so much.”
Leif, DE is entitled to be wrong in his good faith effort, and you are entitled to point out errors as you see them, however, your calling him a fraud crosses the line. If he is mistaken, then that is all.
Leif, if it turns out that your views on the solar variability and tempertures are wrong, by your own standards we’ll soon be calling you a “scientific fraud”, right? What’s good for the goose is good for the gander, right? Science is a bloodsport, right?
lsvalgaard says:
July 10, 2014 at 11:43 am
ren says:
July 10, 2014 at 11:40 am
Maybe this chart will be good.
“Or this one http://www.leif.org/research/Frustration.gif”
That’s how many in the world feel about you Leif, only your pride is in the way of you seeing that. I’m starting to think you’re worried about some of your positions holding up. Was it you who gave Stephen Schnieder the idea to stick with the 0.1% solar variation that allowed him and other climate modellers to carry on with the GHG-CAGW charade? Is that how you landed at Stanford? Is that why you’re here everyday, to maintain that line of thinking, to save face?
NikFromNYC made good comments and provided a beautiful graphic July 11, 2014 at 2:22 am
Excellent – Thanks for that. My affection for S-G is mostly related to its Butterworth-like passband in steady-state applications. As for transient behavior, non-engineers tend to expect magic from EEs and statisticians.
FIR filtering being convolution, truncations of the time series or the impulse response ends are quite capable of giving nasty transients (as you know and show). Tapered windows give the illusion of helping.
I really like that FFT smoothing you did. I think I understand the 10% cutoff idea, but am not sure how you got that linear trend through. Is there a reference to this?
Bernie Hutchins says:
July 11, 2014 at 9:39 am
NikFromNYC made good comments and provided a beautiful graphic
For me, the bottom line is [and has always been]: don’t do analysis on smoothed data
lsvalgaard says:
July 11, 2014 at 9:46 am
Bernie Hutchins says:
July 11, 2014 at 9:39 am
NikFromNYC made good comments and provided a beautiful graphic
“For me, the bottom line is [and has always been]: don’t do analysis on smoothed data”
Restated: “Don’t do climate models based on an average TSI value with a 0.1% variability.” Right!?
Bob Weber says:
July 11, 2014 at 9:31 am
The 0.1% solar variation you often cite is an over-simplified look at solar variability.
That is the variability of the energy we get from the Sun. There is no generally accepted theory that anything else [solar] influences the climate.
Leif, DE is entitled to be wrong in his good faith effort, and you are entitled to point out errors as you see them, however, your calling him a fraud crosses the line. If he is mistaken, then that is all.
No, there is much more to this:
1) using data that he should have known are incorrect
2) fabrication end-of-series data to do smoothing
3) analysing smoothed data
This is either fraud or incompetence. Take your pick.
Leif, if it turns out that your views on the solar variability and tempertures are wrong
The variability is ‘data’ and not my ‘view’. There is no demonstrated influence on temperatures above the 0.1C.
Was it you who gave Stephen Schnieder the idea to stick with the 0.1% solar variation that allowed him and other climate modellers to carry on with the GHG-CAGW charade? Is that how you landed at Stanford? Is that why you’re here everyday, to maintain that line of thinking, to save face?
No, to all of it. You are being presumptuous in the extreme. There is no evidence for a solar variation larger than the 0.1% [in cycle amplitude], so one must stick with the assumption that there is no such larger variation. To save face? Not at all, to provide what we have learned about the sun.
Bob Weber says:
July 11, 2014 at 10:03 am
Restated: “Don’t do climate models based on an average TSI value with a 0.1% variability.” Right!?
Wrong. An average is not the same as a smoothing. Don’t do models using an 11-yr smoothing of TSI.
Was it you {leif} who gave Stephen Schnieder the idea to stick with the 0.1% solar variation that allowed him and other climate modellers to carry on with the GHG-CAGW charade? Is that how you landed at Stanford? Is that why you’re here everyday, to maintain that line of thinking, to save face?
henry says
I do not trust TSI mainly because I don’t know exactly what it measures…
The sun shines a bit more than we think….I think.
I do find this particular remark intriguing though, since in all my encounters with Leif I find his stubborn persistence that it is “globally warming” or that for sure there is “man made global warming” quite peculiar and contradicting what everyone can see for himself [after a bit of work], namely that it is globally cooling
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/02/21/henrys-pool-tables-on-global-warmingcooling/
sorry I forgot to add to my last comment
“and that there is no man made global warming, whatsoever”
360 year CET record conclusively shows:
increased insolation suppresses the long term temperature up-trend .
360 year CET record conclusively shows:
increased insolation suppresses long term temperature up-trend .
Leif: I got yer solar variability….
The solar variability during cycles 19-24, as seen in cumulative F10.7 (observed – I’m adding the adjusted numbers into my model later tonight):
SC19 to SC20: -12% change
SC20 to SC21: +5%
SC21 to SC22: -5%
SC22 to SC23: +9%
SC23 to SC24: -55% (as of May 31, 2014)
And during the last 27 days, (one solar rotation), excluding today, from http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/ftpdir/indices/DSD.txt
June 15, 2014 to June 27, 2014; F10.7cm daily ave was 105 sfu.
June 27, 2014 to July 10, 2014; F10.7cm daily ave was 172, a 64% difference from one period to the next. Today the F10.7 is 177.
So much for a TSI with a 0.1% variance.
Bob Weber says:
July 11, 2014 at 11:16 am
The solar variability during cycles 19-24, as seen in cumulative F10.7
The energy in F10.7 [being itself a part of TSI] is many trillion times less than the energy in TSI,
So much for huge solar variability.
Bernie asked: “I really like that FFT smoothing you did. I think I understand the 10% cutoff idea, but am not sure how you got that linear trend through. Is there a reference to this?”
I was simply aware of FFT and dug into whatever PC plotting program I happened to be playing with around 2010 and found it in there, but no I didn’t take many notes. The software was Origin and their FFT filter info is here:
http://www.originlab.com/index.aspx?go=Products/Origin/DataAnalysis/SignalProcessing/FFT%20and%20IFFT
I believe I used a smoothing filter based on Fourier transform rather than a complete transformation from frequency to time domains.
leif says
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/08/solar-notch-delay-model-released/#comment-1683542
@Bob
TSI is a red herring, as is SSN, too many inconsistencies
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/08/solar-notch-delay-model-released/#comment-1683496
just leave it alone, go for some other proxy
like
maximum temperatures
on earth
HenryP says:
July 11, 2014 at 11:27 am
Interesting description of some problems with computing TSI, let alone reconstructing it over 11,000 years:
Evolution of the solar irradiance during the Holocene
http://arxiv.org/abs/1103.4958
milodonharlani says:
July 11, 2014 at 11:35 am
Evolution of the solar irradiance during the Holocene
Thier conclusion:
“The reconstruction indicates that the decadally averaged total solar irradiance ranges over approximately 1.5 W/m2 from grand maxima to grand minima”
This is 0.11% corresponding to a temperature effect of 0.08C.
lsvalgaard says:
July 11, 2014 at 11:42 am
I know, but it’s hedged all around with caveats so can’t have a high degree of confidence in the conclusion, IMO.
The hardest thing about teaching and learning isn’t overcome by being the noted expert. If that were the case there would have been no Scopes Monkey trial. The human tendency is STILL to believe what isn’t there and what can’t be blindly tested rather than to believe in facts and unbiased research. To wit, I imagine that both sides of this debate, even in scientific circles, would rather that Leif and the SSN Workshops committee work more quietly and not disturb the rest of the world with inconvenient data.
milodonharlani says:
July 11, 2014 at 11:45 am
I know, but it’s hedged all around with caveats so can’t have a high degree of confidence in the conclusion, IMO.
I think it is a bit too high. I would rather prefer half of that, for a temperature difference of 0.04C
Pamela Gray says:
July 11, 2014 at 11:49 am
that Leif and the SSN Workshops committee work more quietly and not disturb the rest of the world with inconvenient data.</i
Now that our paper of the findings of the SSN workshop has been accepted, we have placed the preprint on arxiv.org where it will appear on Monday.
Pamela Gray says:
July 11, 2014 at 11:49 am
that Leif and the SSN Workshops committee work more quietly and not disturb the rest of the world with inconvenient data.
Now that our paper of the findings of the SSN workshop has been accepted, we have placed the preprint on arxiv.org where it will appear on Monday.
lsvalgaard says:
July 11, 2014 at 11:50 am
It can’t be too comforting that experts can’t agree on the value to within 100% or more, not that TSI is even the most important solar variable. Maybe order of magnitude is sufficient agreement.
milo, than you also have little confidence in Evans’ proposal? It too is “hedged all around with caveats”. In what I have read so far the paper you linked to,
http://arxiv.org/abs/1103.4958, has far more support statistically speaking and is girded with a MUCH stronger research base than the solar-notch proposal.
Sweet! I look forward to reading it! And congratulations. This work is important for the many reasons you have shared with us. So important that future space research is depending on your expertise. We who look to the stars and wonder have you and your colleagues to thank for helping us understand the one closest to us.
milodonharlani says:
July 11, 2014 at 11:57 am
It can’t be too comforting that experts can’t agree on the value to within 100%
They agree on a value to within 0.06%
leif says
This is 0.11% corresponding to a temperature effect of 0.08C.
henry says
pray do tell us
how you relate temp. on earth to a measurement TSI
Pamela Gray says:
July 11, 2014 at 12:02 pm
Sweet! I look forward to reading it! And congratulations.
Here is the abstract:
Revisiting the Sunspot Number
Frédéric Clette, Leif Svalgaard, José M. Vaquero, Edward W. Cliver.
Our knowledge of the long-term evolution of solar activity and of its primary modulation, the 11-year cycle, largely depends on a single direct observational record: the visual sunspot counts that retrace the last 4 centuries, since the invention of the astronomical telescope. Currently, this activity index is available in two main forms: the International Sunspot Number initiated by R. Wolf in 1849 and the Group Number constructed more recently by Hoyt and Schatten (1998a,b). Unfortunately, those two series do not match by various aspects, inducing confusions and contradictions when used in crucial contemporary studies of the solar dynamo or of the solar forcing on the Earth climate. Recently, new efforts have been undertaken to diagnose and correct flaws and biases affecting both sunspot series, in the framework of a series of dedicated Sunspot Number Workshops. Here, we present a global overview of our current understanding of the sunspot number calibration. While the early part of the sunspot record before 1800 is still characterized by large uncertainties due to poorly observed periods, the more recent sunspot numbers are mainly affected by three main inhomogeneities: in 1880-1915 for the Group Number and in 1947 and 1980-2014 for the Sunspot Number. The newly corrected series clearly indicates a progressive decline of solar activity before the onset of the Maunder Minimum, while the slowly rising trend of the activity after the Maunder Minimum is strongly reduced, suggesting that by the mid 18th century, solar activity had already returned to the level of those observed in recent solar cycles in the 20th century. We finally conclude with future prospects opened by this epochal revision of the Sunspot Number, the first one since Wolf himself, and its reconciliation with the Group Number, a long-awaited modernization that will feed solar cycle research into the 21st century.
leif & (Pam)says
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/08/solar-notch-delay-model-released/#comment-1683604
henry says
again,
a waste of time
HenryP says:
July 11, 2014 at 12:05 pm
pray do tell us how you relate temp. on earth to a measurement TSI
Have done that MANY times. Here is one more for people with problems:
dT/T = dTST/TSI / 4. insert T = 288K, dTSI = 1 W/m2, TSI = 1361 W/m2
HenryP says:
July 11, 2014 at 12:09 pm
again, a waste of time
Pearls for swine…
Leif. Just WOW! Like I have said many times, a tiny piece of the Sun is of far greater brilliance to me than a flashy diamond set upon my finger.
Now that I am back working full time, I am contemplating whether or not to buy a house or get a solar telescope so I can see sunspots. I’ve never seen one other than in pictures. I think a tent and a telescope would make me very happy.
@leif
your formula does not work out for me and my own observations, namely
-0.015 x 14 = -0.2K down since 2000
2nd table, for Means, on the bottom
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/02/21/henrys-pool-tables-on-global-warmingcooling/
I also think we have not even reached the bottom yet?
Pamela Gray says:
July 11, 2014 at 12:15 pm
Now that I am back working full time, I am contemplating whether or not to buy a house or get a solar telescope so I can see sunspots.
Cheaper than a house: http://www.sciencefirst.com/Sunspotter.html
HenryP says:
July 11, 2014 at 12:17 pm
your formula does not work out for me and my own observations
Perhaps your ‘own observations’ are not so good as you think they are…
leif says
Pearls for swine…
henry says
mmm….
interesting
you seem to be remembering Jesus’ words when it fits you…
HenryP says:
July 11, 2014 at 12:23 pm
you seem to be remembering Jesus’ words when it fits you…
Or rather the words of the man who wrote that [not named Jesus].
lsvalgaard says:
July 11, 2014 at 1:36 am
Sparks says:
Leif are you suggesting that this “dynamo” is the cause of the suns polar field?
Leif: “Yes, and the polar fields are the ’cause’ of the dynamo.”
The polar field is not produced by surface Magnetic field activity or the result of sunspots then? I’m just making sure.
Lets see!
Leif: “A better way of saying it is that circulation of solar plasma drives the dynamo which produces sunspots.” T
Wrong.. The Polar fields circulates the sun, rotating approximately every 22 or so years for one field reversal..
This drives the surface activity on the sun.
Leif: “the magnetic field of the spots drift to the poles and from there back into the sun where the dynamo produces a new batch of sunspots.”
Absolute balder dash nonsense..
Leif: “So polar fields => sunspots => polar fields => sunspots => polar fields etc, etc.”
Here you are implying that the magnetic interaction of the suns polar field on the suns surface produces the suns polar field.
I’m at awe every time I read some of your comments.
Awesome! Just what I need right when I need it! My new job allows me the latitude I need to wake students up! I’m gonna write this up in a grant so I can get that solar viewing apparatus. Thanks!
leif says
Perhaps your ‘own observations’ are not so good as you think they are…
henry says
as I was saying
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/08/solar-notch-delay-model-released/#comment-1683496
show me your results?
Sparks says:
July 11, 2014 at 12:26 pm
Absolute balder dash nonsense..
Here, educate yourself http://solarphysics.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrsp-2010-3/
HenryP says:
July 11, 2014 at 12:30 pm
show me your results?
Of TSI: http://www.leif.org/research/Monckton-Flaw-3.png
I don’t do temperatures, but you can find those in many places [try Google]
Sparks, this will really get your knickers in an awesome twist. I propose that Earth’s oceanic/atmospheric teleconnections are similar in that one produces the other which produces the one, with produces the other, and so on, which ends up as a global temperature metric (caveat: outside the influence of overturned metal boats, BBQs, brick and blacktop, and air conditioner exhausts).
Leif says
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/08/solar-notch-delay-model-released/#comment-1683628
henry says
Mat 7:6 “Don’t give what is holy to dogs or throw your pearls to pigs. Otherwise, they will trample them and then tear you to pieces.
It was Jesus who said it first, you got that wrong; so very likely the rest you tell us is questionable as well…
HenryP says:
July 11, 2014 at 12:39 pm
Mat 7:6 “…pearls to pigs.”
It was Jesus who said it first,
No, a man named Matthew wrote it.
lsvalgaard says:
July 11, 2014 at 12:26 pm
Consensus biblical scholarship considers the “pearls before swine” passage genuine, ie probably actually uttered by the crucified, itinerant Essene-leaning preacher, Joshua, son of Joseph of Nazareth.
http://www.sermononthemount.org.uk/Authors/Vermes2004.html
FWIW, the legionary emblem of Legio X Fretensis, based in Syria & Palestine in the 1st Century, was a boar or pig.
Pamela. There’s no “what came first, the chicken or the egg” dispute here, The suns polar field came first.
lsvalgaard says:
July 11, 2014 at 12:42 pm
The historicity of a Matthew is questionable. Whoever he might have been, his name became attached at some point to the book now so known. But as to actually writing down the book, yes, that obviously was not done by Jesus, so the accuracy of his words, if any, remains disputable.
LOL! And there’s the first twist.
@Pamela
Oh ha ha frigging ha 🙂
Correct me if I’m wrong Leif but F10.7cm radio flux is used because it describes the overall spectrum fairly well, including UV. So it’s used as a proxy for that reason and was never meant to be considered by itself as containing all the energy the sun puts out, as TSI is supposed to do, so the energetic comparison you made is a moot point. The radio flux drops to a low of about 63-68 sfu during solar minimum periods, sometimes only briefly, during the sun’s quiescent state.
In my model F10.7cm is the independent variable, transformed across the spectrum, giving a different picture of solar variability than you describe. It’s not always obvious when the amount of solar flux changes the temps because of atmospheric processes mixing or driving cold air masses from the north or above that work against solar warming during higher solar flux periods. There are overlapping influences all the time to sort through.
sfu/day Min Ave Max
SC19: 63 139 383
SC20: 66 113 262
SC21: 66 135 375
SC22: 66 123 370
SC23: 65 122 315
SC24: 65 100 262 (as of yesterday, July 10)
So unless SC24 activity stays high for some time before the minimum, we are looking at a solar flux average for this cycle to be less than 100, less than the average for SC20, during the 1970’s, when leading scientists back then were clamoring about the next mini-ice age.
My analysis, based first on no lag in temps, is a sfu average of 120 as the threshold between warming and cooling, based on SST and F10.7 from 1961 to yesterday. I am working on the lag now, which will affect the threshold value some. There is a difference in my value and Salvatore’s and also David Archibald’s threshold. I’d like to know how they derived their numbers.
Is too!
Bob Weber says:
July 11, 2014 at 1:01 pm
Correct me if I’m wrong Leif but F10.7cm radio flux is used because it describes the overall spectrum fairly well, including UV.
Correction: F10.7 does not describe the overall spectrum well, TSI does. F10.7 is a proxy for the FAR ultraviolet which is a tiny, tiny fraction of the energy we receive.
Bob Weber, There is a reason we don’t argue about TSI…
@Pamela… Shut it you… 🙂
lsvalgaard says:
July 11, 2014 at 12:07 pm
Congrats. That was a lot of work. But just so you know, your recontruction doesn’t change my outlook one bit because in the modern era since 1947, F10.7cm works better! That doesn’t mean your SSN series won’t be used for comparison. Essentially,as long as the SSN/Flux relationship doesn’t change terribly much, your recontruction can be used to estimate F10.7 pre-1947.
lsvalgaard says:
July 11, 2014 at 1:04 pm
Bob Weber says:
July 11, 2014 at 1:01 pm
Correct me if I’m wrong Leif but F10.7cm radio flux is used because it describes the overall spectrum fairly well, including UV.
“Correction: F10.7 does not describe the overall spectrum well, TSI does. F10.7 is a proxy for the FAR ultraviolet which is a tiny, tiny fraction of the energy we receive.”
F10.7 is representative across the spectrum based on empirical data by the IPS here in figure 1: http://owenduffy.net/calc/qsrf/index.htm
Bob Weber says:
July 11, 2014 at 1:11 pm
lEssentially,as long as the SSN/Flux relationship doesn’t change terribly much, your recontruction can be used to estimate F10.7 pre-1947.
A much better reconstruction that does not rely on the SSN is shown in slide 20 or
http://www.leif.org/research/SSN/Svalgaard14.pdf
Bob Weber says:
July 11, 2014 at 1:15 pm
F10.7 is representative across the spectrum based on empirical data by the IPS here in figure 1: http://owenduffy.net/calc/qsrf/index.htm
Apart from your statement being false, your link makes no such claim.
Bob, here is a link regarding basic knowledge about F10.7 flux, and all the other frequencies.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.astro.ethz.ch%2Fpeople%2Fpdf_files%2Fbenz%2FLBReview_thermal.pdf&ei=80PAU5XUK4KkyAT4k4KoBA&usg=AFQjCNGF7paylzhC1p6f7vu-3g1982Td9Q&sig2=vHaQvF11EzMLMmlGcU4Odw&bvm=bv.70810081,d.aWw
lsvalgaard says:
July 11, 2014 at 12:30 pm
“Here, educate yourself http://solarphysics.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrsp-2010-3/“
Absolute ‘complicated self assuring’ Balder dash nonsense! 🙂
Sparks, you are supposed to say, “Is not!” Geesh. Haven’t you ever ridden in the back of a car with your sibling?
Sparks says:
July 11, 2014 at 1:22 pm
“Here, educate yourself http://solarphysics.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrsp-2010-3/“
Absolute ‘complicated self assuring’ Balder dash nonsense! 🙂
Pearls before swine, again.
Don’t make a mistake about whose side Leif is on
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/11/the-climate-consensus-is-not-97-its-100/#comment-1683533
HenryP says:
July 11, 2014 at 1:26 pm
Don’t make a mistake about whose side Leif is on
On the side of righteousness:
http://www.lbible.org/files/img/slides/rick08.jpg
Pam I have all the major sources from all around the world regarding F10.7 and every aspect of what we’re talking about, the data, everything, in my collection, including dozens upon dozens if not hundreds of papers on this subject and others. Get back to me after you’ve read and understood David Stockwell’s work.
Leif, you’re pushing it now mister. From http://owenduffy.net/calc/qsrf/index.htm
“Fig 1 compares the interpolations published by Australia’s IPS for its Learmonth observations on 22/08/2007 with a cubic spline interpolation. The maximum difference between the IPS interpolation and cubic spline is 0.09dB in this sample set.”
Look at figure 1. Based on their empirical observations at various frequencies, they were able to create a cubic spline interpolation that fits the data they recorded. This means nothing to you? You ought to know photon energy is a function of wavelength, and that’s what this graph indicates.
By the way Leif, your page 20 is awesome! from http://www.leif.org/research/SSN/Svalgaard14.pdf
lsvalgaard says:
July 11, 2014 at 1:23 pm
“Pearls before swine, again.
Really? I’m just warming up for the “blood sport” Olympics.
@Pamela.. What could I ever possibly say to make you happy 🙂
@leif
If you were righteous you would say:
there is no man made warming
because you know full well that all warming and cooling
is natural.
You are exactly not what you say you are
@Pamela Is Not! 🙂
Bob Weber says:
July 11, 2014 at 1:41 pm
Look at figure 1. Based on their empirical observations at various frequencies, they were able to create a cubic spline interpolation that fits the data they recorded. This means nothing to you? You ought to know photon energy is a function of wavelength, and that’s what this graph indicates.
Yes, over that very limited wavelength range out in the microwave spectrum. I am somewhat of an expert on F10.7. Here are a few pointers:
http://www.leif.org/research/SHINE-2010-Microwave-Flux.pdf
http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Microwaves-at-23-24-Minimum.pdf
http://www.leif.org/research/Waldmeier.pdf
Bottom line: F10.7 is a proxy for the magnetic field in spots and for the density of the corona [both related to FAR UV], but the variation of F10.7 is not ai direct measure of the variation of the energy we get from the Sun
Bernie asked: “I really like that FFT smoothing you did. I think I understand the 10% cutoff idea, but am not sure how you got that linear trend through. Is there a reference to this?”
It was just a software setting I found, having been aware of something called FFT smoothing already. The software I had briefly installed was from OriginLab.com.
Then Bob, I would ask you what the heck does F10.7 have to do with Earth’s weather pattern variation trends?
Love the wavelet study.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDwQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fpdf%2F1401.7033&ei=gE7AU6CUAsmzyASG1ILIBQ&usg=AFQjCNEc9m_5ZiiO5qsykLsOQLJgVeg59w&sig2=kGToIMbGm3yPsHMw2k2z8A&bvm=bv.70810081,d.aWw
HenryP says:
July 11, 2014 at 1:26 pm
“Don’t make a mistake about whose side Leif is on”
What side is this? no one told me that we could pick sides!
I want a do over-… lol
I’m on the side of a highly variable, very observably noisy planet Earth whose atmosphere and oceans create several oscillating systems that go in and out of phase with each other while also being teleconnected. Due to the size and stubbornness of its intrinsic systems, planet Earth is not very sensitive to rather tiny extrinsic variations.
Ms Gray
I have yet to see one quote of your mysterious ‘teleconnecting atmosphere and oceans oscillating systems’.
To help you along the way, you might consider this:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/AMO-AAP.htm
but no ‘teleconnecting oscillation’ there, just a strait forward ‘cause-consequence’ quasi-periodic variability.
NikFromNYC suggested Originlab July 11, 2014 at 11:26 am
Thanks for the lead Nik. This led me to:
http://www.originlab.com/www/helponline/origin/en/UserGuide/Algorithm_(Smooth).html
and their method:
• Calculate the mean of the first 1% data points and the mean of the last 1% data points.
• Construct a straight line throught these two points and subtract the input data by this line.
• Perform FFT on the dataset acquired in last step.
• Apply filtering with the low-pass parabolic filter.
• Perform IFFT on the filtered spetrum.
• Add the baseline to the dataset acquired in last step.
So they are first extracting the linear trend, subtracting it, and adding it back after the FFT-Filter-IFFT. So that’s how they did it.
Worth looking at.
lsvalgaard says:
July 11, 2014 at 1:54 pm
“Bottom line: F10.7 is a proxy for the magnetic field in spots and for the density of the corona [both related to FAR UV], but the variation of F10.7 is not ai direct measure of the variation of the energy we get from the Sun”
No it is not a direct measure, and I didn’t say it is a DIRECT measure – it is a proxy measure of the sun’s electric field, as is SSN.
The F10.7 flux – all photon flux at all frequencies are by definition proportional to the Sun’s electric field, and brightness. Since F10.7cm is proportional to a high degree to SSN, the SSN is therefore proportional to the sun’s electric field. My paper will show the how the sun’s electric and magnetic fields – the electromagnetic spectrum, warmed the planet during the modern era. The warming change in SST from 1961 to now is about 0.35 degrees net, during which time a quantifiable amount of photon energy reached the Earth. The amount of photon energy across the spectrum is relatable to the F10.7 flux. It’s no different than your equating the sun’s magnetic field to the SSN. You are essentially relating the sun’s magnetic field to the sun’s electric field.
Pamela – thank you for the link
Link above bad?
Here it is again:
http://www.originlab.com/www/helponline/origin/en/UserGuide/Algorithm_(Smooth).html
Or just Google “fft smoothing algorithm”
Bob Weber says:
July 11, 2014 at 2:55 pm
it is a proxy measure of the sun’s electric field, as is SSN.
No, the Sun does not have an electric field. It is electrically neutral.
You are essentially relating the sun’s magnetic field to the sun’s electric field.
The Sun does not have an electric field in the frame of the Sun. And you would have to specify in which reference frame, i.e. by which observer, that field would be seen.
Pamela Gray says:
July 11, 2014 at 2:01 pm
“Then Bob, I would ask you what the heck does F10.7 have to do with Earth’s weather pattern variation trends?”
Pamela, I am glad you asked that question. Since I’ve been typing all day, I’ve give my fingers a rest and copy a comment I left the other day to ren:
“Along with Arthur, this typhoon [Neoguri] was powered up by recently intensified solar-driven tropical evaporation. The sun went from very quiet activity two weeks ago to a steady climb up to a current level of output that is higher and sustained longer than the solar input that preceded typhoon Haiyan last November.
On June 25, the SSN was 37 and the F10.7cm “radio” flux was at 94, and after that steady increase, they peaked yesterday June 7 at SSN = 256, and F10.7 = 201 sfu.
Las Vegas has felt the heat too during this recent solar blast, along with many places in the south and southwest over the past week. Did anyone see this coming?
Look at the USAF F10.7 forecast as of today here, posted below the link:
http://origin-www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/usaf-45-day-ap-and-f107cm-flux-forecast
“:Product: 45 Day AP Forecast 45DF.txt
:Issued: 2014 Jul 07 2052 UTC
# Prepared by the U.S. Air Force.
# Retransmitted by the Dept. of Commerce, NOAA, Space Weather Prediction Center
# Please send comments and suggestions to SWPC.Webmaster@noaa.gov
# 45-Day AP and F10.7cm Flux Forecast
45-DAY AP FORECAST
08Jul14 010 09Jul14 012 10Jul14 007 11Jul14 007 12Jul14 008
13Jul14 008 14Jul14 005 15Jul14 012 16Jul14 008 17Jul14 008
18Jul14 005 19Jul14 005 20Jul14 005 21Jul14 005 22Jul14 005
23Jul14 005 24Jul14 005 25Jul14 005 26Jul14 008 27Jul14 005
28Jul14 005 29Jul14 005 30Jul14 005 31Jul14 005 01Aug14 005
02Aug14 005 03Aug14 005 04Aug14 005 05Aug14 008 06Aug14 008
07Aug14 008 08Aug14 008 09Aug14 008 10Aug14 008 11Aug14 012
12Aug14 008 13Aug14 008 14Aug14 005 15Aug14 005 16Aug14 005
17Aug14 005 18Aug14 005 19Aug14 005 20Aug14 005 21Aug14 005
45-DAY F10.7 CM FLUX FORECAST
08Jul14 200 09Jul14 200 10Jul14 190 11Jul14 170 12Jul14 160
13Jul14 140 14Jul14 140 15Jul14 120 16Jul14 110 17Jul14 110
18Jul14 110 19Jul14 105 20Jul14 100 21Jul14 100 22Jul14 095
23Jul14 095 24Jul14 100 25Jul14 110 26Jul14 125 27Jul14 135
28Jul14 140 29Jul14 160 30Jul14 160 31Jul14 170 01Aug14 175
02Aug14 185 03Aug14 205 04Aug14 205 05Aug14 205 06Aug14 190
07Aug14 170 08Aug14 160 09Aug14 140 10Aug14 135 11Aug14 120
12Aug14 110 13Aug14 110 14Aug14 110 15Aug14 105 16Aug14 100
17Aug14 100 18Aug14 095 19Aug14 095 20Aug14 100 21Aug14 110″
See that for 08Jul14 the F10.7 forecast is “200″ and then tapers off, then ramps back up over the 27 day solar rotation period, back up to an even higher value of “205″. The same forecast made on June 29 was:
“:Product: 45 Day AP Forecast 45DF.txt
:Issued: 2014 Jun 29 2051 UTC
# Prepared by the U.S. Air Force.
# Retransmitted by the Dept. of Commerce, NOAA, Space Weather Prediction Center
# Please send comments and suggestions to SWPC.Webmaster@noaa.gov
# 45-Day AP and F10.7cm Flux Forecast
#————————————————————-
45-DAY AP FORECAST
30Jun14 005 01Jul14 005 02Jul14 008 03Jul14 008 04Jul14 005
05Jul14 005 06Jul14 005 07Jul14 005 08Jul14 005 09Jul14 005
10Jul14 005 11Jul14 008 12Jul14 005 13Jul14 005 14Jul14 008
15Jul14 012 16Jul14 008 17Jul14 008 18Jul14 005 19Jul14 005
20Jul14 005 21Jul14 005 22Jul14 008 23Jul14 008 24Jul14 005
25Jul14 005 26Jul14 005 27Jul14 005 28Jul14 005 29Jul14 005
30Jul14 005 31Jul14 005 01Aug14 005 02Aug14 005 03Aug14 005
04Aug14 005 05Aug14 005 06Aug14 005 07Aug14 008 08Aug14 005
09Aug14 005 10Aug14 008 11Aug14 012 12Aug14 008 13Aug14 008
45-DAY F10.7 CM FLUX FORECAST
30Jun14 130 01Jul14 130 02Jul14 140 03Jul14 145 04Jul14 140
05Jul14 145 06Jul14 155 07Jul14 140 08Jul14 135 09Jul14 130
10Jul14 130 11Jul14 125 12Jul14 120 13Jul14 120 14Jul14 115
15Jul14 110 16Jul14 105 17Jul14 105 18Jul14 105 19Jul14 105
20Jul14 100 21Jul14 095 22Jul14 100 23Jul14 105 24Jul14 105
25Jul14 110 26Jul14 115 27Jul14 115 28Jul14 120 29Jul14 125
30Jul14 135 31Jul14 130 01Aug14 130 02Aug14 135 03Aug14 140
04Aug14 135 05Aug14 130 06Aug14 130 07Aug14 125 08Aug14 120
09Aug14 120 10Aug14 115 11Aug14 110 12Aug14 105 13Aug14 105″
Notice for June 7, the F10.7 forecast originally was set for “140″, not “201″!?
That means they got it wrong by a long shot, and then they figured that out – ie they learned from reality, and changed their forecast for the next rotation accordingly. Now, will that forecast be right? Since NOAA and NASA recently proclaimed solar cycle 24 had peaked or was peaking back in May or early June, and given this unexpected solar uptick, I’d have to say the solar max is either here now, or will be in August, or perhaps even the next rotation in September! Who knows!?
So my point is that higher solar activity this summer and possibly beyond will drive higher sea surface temps, land temps, more evaporation, power more hurricanes & typhoons, and possibly lead to an El Nino. If the sun’s activity does taper off in the next rotation or two, then we’ll see about all that, won’t we? In June, after they announced the solar max, I was thinking we’d see the downhill slide sooner than later. See, that Sun has a mind of it’s own!”
***
Pamela, I noticed the week this solar uptick started that the Weather Channel was forecasting a heat wave for Las Vegas for the following Monday/Tuesday which came to pass… do you think it is possible they use USAF F10.7cm forecasts to predict the temperatures? If they do, why do they keep talking about CO2-caused warming?
Bob Weber says:
July 11, 2014 at 3:16 pm
Pamela, I am glad you asked that question. Since I’ve been typing all day, I’ve give my fingers a rest and copy a comment I left the other day to ren
Even if the Sun is direct controlling the temperature from day to day [and where?] it would not be because of F10.7 which is just a proxy for solar activity in general. All solar indices vary in sync over time scales of a month or longer, so if there is a force ‘x’ that does it, F10.7 would likely just be varying like ‘x’. It is like this: there is a strong correlation between shoe size and reading ability for children. Do you think that bigger feet makes you read better?
lsvalgaard says:
July 11, 2014 at 3:01 pm
Bob Weber says:
July 11, 2014 at 2:55 pm
it is a proxy measure of the sun’s electric field, as is SSN.
“No, the Sun does not have an electric field. It is electrically neutral.”
So then you don’t buy into Maxwell’s electromagnetic equations? Do you think everyone else is wrong when they define the sun’s irradiance as proportional to the sun’s electric field? Is everyone else wrong when they say irradiance is also a function of photon flux?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irradiance
“The irradiance of a monochromatic light wave in matter is given in terms of its electric field by
I ~ cnϵ0/2 * the absolute value of E squared
where E is the complex amplitude of the wave’s electric field, n is the refractive index of the medium, c is the speed of light in vacuum, and ϵ0 is the vacuum permittivity. (This formula assumes that the magnetic susceptibility is negligible, i.e. where is the magnetic permeability of the light transmitting media. This assumption is typically valid in transparent media in the optical frequency range.)
Irradiance is also the time average of the component of the Poynting vector perpendicular to the surface.”
If you’re trying to say the sun’s light isn’t a function of it’s electric field you’d better pony up quick or forever hold your piece, because as far as this electrical engineer is concerned, you’re afraid to say the word “electric”. Notice that irradiance is the time AVERAGE.
From wiki: “The integral of solar irradiance over a time period is solar irradiation or insolation. Insolation is generally measured in J/m2 and is represented by the symbol H.”
The integral. The area under the F10.7 or SSN curves is representative of the integral of solar irradiance over a time period, and most definitely is a function of the sun’s electric field.
Leif,
Force “x”, not to be confused with force “xxx”, is the solar electric field, and it varies mathematically from quiescent state represented by the proxy F10.7cm at about 65-66 during the solar minimum to a maximum near 400 at times. By the way your magnetic field-F10.7 reconstruction curve indicates the inseperable relationship between the sun’s electric and magnetic characteristics. Can we agree that whatever varies with F10.7cm is what does it then, and that it is the sun’s electric field as well as it’s magnetic field? Can we agree then that your magnetic equation as a function of SSN really means the magnetic field is a function of it’s electric field?
Bob Weber says:
July 11, 2014 at 3:30 pm
Do you think everyone else is wrong when they define the sun’s irradiance as proportional to the sun’s electric field?
If they say they would definitely be wrong, but they are not saying that. The flux is proportional to the electric field of the light, not of the Sun. Light is consists of a wave of electric field that generates a magnetic field that generates an electric field that generates a magnetic field and so on as the wave propagates.
Bob Weber says:
July 11, 2014 at 3:43 pm
Can we agree then that your magnetic equation as a function of SSN really means the magnetic field is a function of it’s electric field?
No, that is completely wrong. There is electricity involved but not in way you think. Here is what happens: The solar plasma is an electrical conductor. On the Sun there are always magnetic fields somewhere. When you move a conductor in a magnetic field you create an electric current [that is how an old-fashioned bicycle dynamo works, and just about all power plants]. The electric current has a magnetic field of its only, so if you continue to move the plasma you get more electric current and therefore more magnetic field and so on, a process called dynamo amplification. This takes place inside the sun and plasma with a strong magnetic field results. That plasma rises to the surface and you see the magnetic field as sunspots that eventually fall apart and their magnetic debris form the seed for the next batch of sunspots in cycles of 11-yrs duration. But there is no such thing as ‘the sun’s electric field’.
@lsvalgaard…in looking at your ssn chart that starts in 1875 I have noticed that there is a change in how many years each minimum stays close to 0 count. The first 6 minima are an average of 4 years +/- 1 year. Then after cycle 17 the next 6 minima have a range around 2 years of close to 0 count. The last minimum was a four year event. The second set of 6 cycles, where the minima are at 2 years at the bottom, coincidently correlates with the global warming period. Is it possible that when a solar minimum lasts 4 years vs 2 years close to 0 count that this causes the warming/cooling change? ie…the Earth gets 2 years of extra increasing solar effects.
ps…would you happen to have an updated version of your ssn chart? The one which I am using ends in 2012. I am very curious to look at the next installment, and many thanks for your fine work.
goldminor says:
July 11, 2014 at 4:06 pm
Is it possible that when a solar minimum lasts 4 years vs 2 years close to 0 count that this causes the warming/cooling change? ie…the Earth gets 2 years of extra increasing solar effects.
I don’t think it is that simple.
ps…would you happen to have an updated version of your ssn chart?
Which one are you thinking about? I have many such plots, and would like to show you one that is close to what you have already.
@ Bob I thought this is a good starting point to help create understanding http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_field It starts out by saying “A magnetic field is the magnetic influence of electric currents and magnetic materials. ” so electric currents strengthen magnetic fields . The suns magnetic field and the electric universe interaction keeps the sun rotating . Why is fe left out of the explanation regarding electromagnatisium ?
The chart is called A-solar-activity-mod-1. It runs from 1875 to the beginning of 2012. It has great resolution which greatly aids me in my thoughts.
Yes, I wouldn’t think it that simple either regarding the length of minima events. Still, there it is plain to see that it does coincide with the warming. It could be a piece of the puzzle.
I used that chart to make a forecast back in early March that the developing positive ENSO would peak at the end of May or by June. Since June 25th it has become clear to see that day by day the heat has been steadily dissipating in the ENSO regions. I just looked at today,s ssta and the pattern remains. This could all be a great coincidence. However, to my mind I see so many connecting points that I will persist with these thoughts until nature shows that I am not right in holding them. I note Bob Weber,s comment above with the 45 day solar forecasts. The second version of that is close to what I foresee as happening. My forecast points to a decline starting in mid July approx and running through August/September. Late September into October should be an Indian summer and then it will be cold after that.
I think all models should undergo vigorous testing & peer review before publish. Nevertheless, this could be the outcome given SC predictions.
These kind of models make for interesting viewings, but it is important to “entertain” the idea and then verify the model, this I believe this article tries to convey in it’s discussion, thank you for it 🙂
goldminor says:
July 11, 2014 at 5:09 pm
The chart is called A-solar-activity-mod-1. It runs from 1875 to the beginning of 2012. It has great resolution which greatly aids me in my thoughts.
I’m afraid I don’t recognize this chart as mine. Could you give me a link to it?
jmorpuss says:
July 11, 2014 at 5:07 pm
The suns magnetic field and the electric universe interaction keeps the sun rotating .
No, this is total nonsense. The sun rotates because of its intrinsic rotational angular momentum and does not need any to help keep going. Quite the opposite happens: the sun sheds angular momentum because of the solar wind, so over millions and billions of years, the Sun’s rotation will slow down [as it has been since the sun was born].
The sun’s initial angular momentum has been decreasing, perhaps on account of the solar wind, but also perhaps because of magnetic force interacitons, the latter becoming more dominant as the star ages. So “they” say.
mrmethane says:
July 11, 2014 at 5:46 pm
The sun’s initial angular momentum has been decreasing, perhaps on account of the solar wind,
This part is correct, but
also perhaps because of magnetic force interactions, the latter becoming more dominant as the star ages.
this part is not. The magnetic activity is also decreasing with age, because it is powered ultimately by solar rotation.
Leif I hope you’re not trying to disconnect the Sun’s electric-magnetic plasma activity from the Sun’s light-heat electromagnetic activity. Think about what Biermann said.
You get no magnetism without the motion of charged particles! Without the motion of charged particles, there is no electric field, no magnetism, and no light. They go together.
The Sun is electric because of localized plasma buildups of electrons and protons, that cause differential forces. It’s magnetic because of the motion of those charged particles. It’s electromagnetic because of the light and heat spectrum we get from the Sun’s photosphere and coronal electrons and protons activity.
The Sun is electric, magnetic, and electromagnetic simultaneously. It’s the Sun’s photons, protons, and electrons that do the work that ultimately cause climate change. Solar change drives climate change. Active Sun = Active Earth.
Bob Weber says:
July 11, 2014 at 5:53 pm
Leif I hope you’re not trying to disconnect the Sun’s electric-magnetic plasma activity from the Sun’s light-heat electromagnetic activity.
Yes, I am. The latter is generated deep in the Sun’s core by gravity and nuclear fusion. The former is driven by the sun’s magnetic field.
Think about what Biermann said.
Biermann was concerned with generating the very first magnetic fields. That is all that is needed. Since then the dynamo process keeps things going http://www.leif.org/research/The-Origin-of-Magnetic-Fields.pdf
There is no generally accepted theory that anything else [solar] influences the climate.
=========
history shows that generally accepted theories are almost always wrong, when looked at a few hundred years later. especially theories that seek to explain “why” or “how’.
Lol! Head. Wall.
Vuk, not mysterious. Proposed, observed, and modeled in peer reviewed literature.
One sample:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDwQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.esrl.noaa.gov%2Fpsd%2Fpeople%2Fmichael.alexander%2Fliu_alexander.rg.6-07.pdf&ei=VovAU5bzLJKOyATzrYKoAw&usg=AFQjCNGMzQyLGePkNWtqQX1oz9gB275byQ&sig2=6NISVDochR46PUQVh0mqwA&bvm=bv.70810081,d.aWw
ferdberple says:
July 11, 2014 at 6:10 pm
history shows that generally accepted theories are almost always wrong, when looked at a few hundred years later.
Not so. newer theories usual expand the domain of validity of the older ones. Newton’s laws are still good for almost all purposes. Darwin’s Evolution theory is still the foundation of biology. Steno’s law about sedimentation is still good after 500 years. Huygen’s wave theory of light is still good today. Ampere, Coulomb, and Faraday are still good, etc. Once fundamental insight has been reached that stays as the bedrock of science.
HenryP says:
July 11, 2014 at 1:26 pm
“Don’t make a mistake about whose side Leif is on”
——————————————————————————————————————-
Pretty obvious to me he is not on anyone’s “side”:
lsvalgaard says:
February 20, 2013 at 1:24 pm
“Climate is driven by a combination of many processes. Some drivers [in decreasing order of significance] are; (0) non-linear combinations of the following: (1) the Sun [its output has increased 30% over the history of the Earth, and will eventually fry us], (2) plate tectonics [enabling ice sheets to form if land is near the poles, or creating vast deserts in the interior of equatorial mega-continents], (3) Jupiter [through its influence on the orbit of the Earth – Milankovitch cycles], (4) greenhouse gases [massive volcanic emissions, e.g. the Deccan Traps], (5) biosphere [changing albedo of the surface], (6) ocean circulation, (7) solar activity [causing a 0.1 degree solar cycle variation], and last [and probably least] (8) human activity [land use and CO2 emissions].”
how about this:
Leif Svalgaard says:
June 18, 2011 at 4:15 pm
“I don’t think that your analysis and Bart’s will lead to savings of billions of dollars and any lives saved, because the AGW threat is political and not scientific”
or this:
Leif Svalgaard says: September 29, 2012 at 11:31 am
“On human time scales, I don’t think any single cause can be singled out. Any sufficiently complex system can have internal, natural cycles and climate seems to fit that bill.”
Here is another one. WUWT is familiar with one of the authors.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=8&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CHUQFjAH&url=http%3A%2F%2Fpielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com%2F2010%2F01%2Fcb-48.pdf&ei=VovAU5bzLJKOyATzrYKoAw&usg=AFQjCNFZ30WsPadGl1XDY-OeOw27cLviwQ&sig2=BF_vVLtgFwzTaM_uJGbvaA&bvm=bv.70810081,d.aWw
My speculation is that under the current conditions (this interglacial’s placement of continents, etc), these teleconnections form a dynamic system that perpetuates a noisy self-correction to imbalance to self-correction to imbalance, etc. That noise is created because Earth’s energy-using systems are not steady state (IE sometimes it uses up and even stores energy and sometimes it reflects or leaks it out to space), but its energy source, the Sun, is a relatively steady source of energy at the top of the atmosphere. Thus I speculate that we have an oceanic/atmospheric climate dynamo.
@ lsvalgaard….here is a link to my WordPress…http://goldminor.wordpress.com/2014/07/12/ssn-chart/
goldminor says:
July 11, 2014 at 6:34 pm
here is a link to my WordPress…http://goldminor.wordpress.com/2014/07/12/ssn-chart/
OK, I’ll make you a new one – up-to-date and more spacing on the x-axis. Stay tuned.
Leif,
The Sun’s output is light/heat and particles. Stepping back from the Sun’s internal dynamics and looking at how it is characterized from the outside, it is pretty easy to make an electrical, magnetic, and electromagnetic analogy from the solar parameters used by yourself and others – and it’s appropriate.
The physics that Biermann cited that started things off as you say with seed field still is valid today. The dynamo is still operating according to electrodynamic principles – magnetohydrodynamics is the official term, controlled by the electric and magnetic forces generated by the motion of said electrons and protons – hydrogen plasma, and other ionic constituents. The dynamo behaves according to Maxwell’s equations, and so does the light/heat spectrum. Solar dynamo action both results from and causes motion of charged plasma.
The Sun’s polar fields and the solar wind component of the IMF are both characterized in magnetic terms – terms that would not be possible without the motion of electrons and protons, the Sun’s electric current carriers/creators.
The very definition of light is that it is electromagnetic. By virtue of the dual nature of light, wave and particle, the Sun’s radiant output is characterized by both frequency and wavelength, and by photon energy. The photon flux for any wavelength of light is calculated using electron-volt energy levels. Total solar irradiance is the integrated photon flux across the spectrum that is by definition related to its electric field. That is the way light is handled in many fields of science and technology, including the solar cell power industry. Solar cell output is directly a function of solar flux – the photoelectric effect in solar cells is proportional to the photon flux energy it receives.
So when you say “the Sun’s magnetic field” you are talking about the Sun’s electric field too. When you are talking about the Sun’s light/heat, you are talking about the Sun’s electric field too. It’s the electrical power in the plasma that generates the radiation caused by the motion of charged particles. Let’s not forget that electrical power, P, equals voltage times current, P=VI. The Sun’s electrical power & irradiance goes up when its electric & magnetic fields go up. That’s why TSI changes at all.
Solar minimums are times when the Sun’s electrical and radiant power output is lower, and vice versa. The Sun’s action could be likened to an electric lamp heater that cycles between a fairly stable minimum value, up to an ever-changing maximum output power level throughout the solar cycle, with each cycle having its own power curve, and resultant temperature signature. My SST-10.7 data show that very clearly. In fact, you don’t have to wait through whole cycles to see the effect on temps from the Sun’s variable output.
Ample evidence for that occurred during the previous 27 days, and the Sun will not dissapoint as the year progresses. The moon in its declination cycle is directly out of phase with the Sun’s output now and will be throughout this summer, mitigating the solar extremes for the next several rotations. Especially since this is happening: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1KKpeW231Y . It’s going to be an interesting ride through this summer and into winter.
lsvalgaard says:
July 11, 2014 at 6:38 pm
goldminor says:
July 11, 2014 at 6:34 pm
“here is a link to my WordPress…http://goldminor.wordpress.com/2014/07/12/ssn-chart/”
OK, I’ll make you a new one – up-to-date and more spacing on the x-axis. Stay tuned.
Here is a new one: http://www.leif.org/research/Sunspot-Nbr-since-1875.png
Note that this is the sunspot number. The plot you had was of the sunspot areas and those I don’t have yet past 2012. I’m not sure what difference it makes to you. The areas vary non-linearly with the sunspot number so the peaks in your plot look a nit more ‘ragged’.
Bob Weber says:
July 11, 2014 at 6:55 pm
The Sun’s output is light/heat and particles. Stepping back from the Sun’s internal dynamics and looking at how it is characterized from the outside, it is pretty easy to make an electrical, magnetic, and electromagnetic analogy from the solar parameters used by yourself and others – and it’s appropriate.
The physics that Biermann cited that started things off as you say with seed field still is valid today. The dynamo is still operating according to electrodynamic principles – magnetohydrodynamics is the official term, controlled by the electric and magnetic forces generated by the motion of said electrons and protons – hydrogen plasma, and other ionic constituents. etc, etc, etc
No, you are totally wrong. But, I can see that you are too far gone and that no explanation of the way things really work will make any difference to you, so I shall refrain from trying. A very short summary, though: The electric currents are generated by changes in the magnetic field caused by movement of neutral plasma. The original magnetic field was generated 13 billion years ago, possibly by Biermann’s process, which does not work anymore in the present solar system. That field is still around [in a certain sense] and is the main ingredient in the solar dynamo, being kneaded into sunspot flux ropes in every cycle.
lsvalgaard says:
July 11, 2014 at 6:56 pm
“Here is a new one: http://www.leif.org/research/Sunspot-Nbr-since-1875.png“
Leif, very nice.. fade those lines to gray on the X and you’ll have yourself a work of art there!
So are you saying the laws of physics changed from then to now? How and why? I am not wrong. YOU are too far gone. You are projecting. The magnetism of the Sun today results from the electric currents that are created by the charged particles that comprise the solar plasma. Look around the internet, you’ll find ample references to what I just said in all kinds of literature, including from NASA. You just don’t want to admit to being wrong. Just look up “electric currents” “solar plasma” or just about anything relating to solar magnetism and/or the IMF.
The IMF wouldn’t be there if it weren’t for the solar wind, cosmic rays, and particles accelerated away from planets – charged particles creating an electrical current in space. The solar wind electrical current induces an electric field across the Earth’s poles, and merges with or otherwise influences the Earth’s magnetic field. But you know all that. You helped figure all that out.
What you’re refraining from doing is thinking through the definitions for things and misdirecting away from the truth that no matter what caused the Sun and Universe to exist, the laws of physics are still the same today. Electrodynamics, magnetohydrodynamics, and electromagnetics are all wrapped up in solar activity and there is no way for Leif Svalgaard to undo that truth.
The plasma is neutral? What difference does that make when the charges separate? The charges are separated in the Sun’s flux tubes. There will be a local electric and magnetic field created in each flux tube dependent upon the local flux density of charged particles, electrons and protons, within that tube. The superposition of the electric and magnetic fields from each flux tube across the face of the Sun constitute the Sun’s total earth-facing electric field, in addition to all photospheric and coronal particle electric and magnetic field contributions. All because of charge separation. The plasma is overall neutral – so what.
@ leif
I think most understand how important the sun is to life here on earth . So what really controls earth natural climate is what the sun is conected to, as it also rotates around what? I see a universal fight between the proton and the neutron which are trying to create mass and the much smaller electron trying to create seperation. Because of the electrons small size and it’s negative charge and it’s the electrons job to create seperation, it has to work hard and fast , if they touch a small spark is emitted ,a photon of light is born . The reason why the universe is so big is because of the tiny electron creating seperation, the electric potential is mind blowing. If there really is a God I bet his last name is Electron .And no disrespect there Mr Electron sir.
Sparks says:
July 11, 2014 at 7:32 pm
“Here is a new one: http://www.leif.org/research/Sunspot-Nbr-since-1875.png“
Leif, very nice.. fade those lines to gray on the X and you’ll have yourself a work of art there!
Faded to light green
Bob Weber says:
July 11, 2014 at 7:35 pm
The solar wind electrical current induces an electric field across the Earth’s poles, and merges with or otherwise influences the Earth’s magnetic field. But you know all that. You helped figure all that out.
This is a microcosmos of the problem. The correct view is that ‘the solar wind magnetic field induces an electric field across the poles”. The same goes for all your other examples.
Here is more on that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_induction
As I said, you are probably too far gone to accept this, so I shall not try much further.
@Pamela
Face slap comes back with a bat…
Leif, .Spot on.. but take my advice, gray looks a whole lot better.
lsvalgaard wrote ““The reconstruction indicates that the decadally averaged total solar irradiance ranges over approximately 1.5 W/m2 from grand maxima to grand minima” This is 0.11% corresponding to a temperature effect of 0.08C.”
What I think you mean is that you believe that the direct thermal impact on temperature of the 1.5 W/m^2 you have guesstimated from reconstructions is that this should have a temperature impact of 0.08C.
You actually don’t know anymore than the rest of us do what the actual impact of changes in the sun will have given there are possible feedbacks to such things as changes in ultraviolet.
My understanding is that the reconstructions also don’t show changes in ultraviolet in a deep minimum.
My understanding is that you are guessing on a lot of things. You believe that if the number of sun spots drop, that irradiance from the sun drops with it in a more or less linear fashion. However, this is a guess that could very well be incorrect in which case your whole idea about the 1.5 W/m^2 is wrong. Or do you have direct evidence of how TSI changed in the last grand minimum as well as how the solar spectrum changed when there were no sun spots visible for an extended period? My view is that if you are in fact guessing at the linear changes (you don’t have data), that this is an extremely weak guess that is almost meaningless.
BobG says:
July 11, 2014 at 8:15 pm
My understanding is that you are guessing on a lot of things.
To further your understanding perhaps this paper will help:
http://www.leif.org/EOS/2011GL046658,pdf
“Therefore, the best estimate of magnetic activity, and presumably TSI, for the least‐active Maunder Minimum phases appears to be provided by direct measurement in 2008–2009”
BobG says:
July 11, 2014 at 8:15 pm
My understanding is that you are guessing on a lot of things.
To further your understanding perhaps this paper will help:
http://www.leif.org/EOS/2011GL046658.pdf
“Therefore, the best estimate of magnetic activity, and presumably TSI, for the least‐active Maunder Minimum phases appears to be provided by direct measurement in 2008–2009″
lsvalgaard says:
July 11, 2014 at 6:56 pm
==================================
Thanks much. It will be interesting to see the differences.
I see main components that tie the two together, and then there are unique differences between the sets. It will take some time to get used to this. This will keep me occupied for a week or two.
Leif I know you don’t want to try any harder, because you are resting on your laurels. So now you are resorting to semantics to brush me off.
The solar wind “magnetic” field originates from the motion of electrons and protons, the motion of said particles itself creates an electric current, a fact also brought out numerous times. The concentration of charge within a local field is proportional to the amount and energy level of the charged particles within a local field, whether you’re talking about the Sun or the Earth, which is why we say the Earth has an electric field too – a global electric circuit that is influenced by solar activity in several ways.
There is no magnetic anything without charged particles in motion, even if it’s just electrons and protons spinning in place. The number of charged particles and their energy levels amount to the local electric field, with the overall electrical energy level measured in electron volts (eV) or volts. The magnetic field within that motion in that local field in the heliosphere is a combination of the particle field contributions from the solar wind, cosmic rays, and planetary particle emissions. You can’t change the laws of physics Leif to avoid the Sun’s electric field and all it’s ramifications. Good luck trying.
By the way, photon flux energy in the solar irradiance over the past decades caused “global” warming of a mere few tenths of a degree, proven with electromagnetic laws of physics. By the same principle, lack of photon flux energy as compared to today’s levels caused the little ice age when sunspot numbers were low or non-existent for a long time, a sign of low F10.7 flux and low solar electric field strength, and lower irradiance and luminosity (brightness).
Has anybody noticed how much brighter the sun has been for the past ten days or so while solar flux has been higher? Several people mentioned this to me without any prompting.
Bob Weber says:
July 11, 2014 at 8:33 pm
The solar wind “magnetic” field originates from the motion of electrons and protons, the motion of said particles itself creates an electric current
Not at all, the electrons and protons move together [as they attract each other so strongly] so there is no net current and hence no magnetic field from that. The solar wind flows simply because the corona is so hot that the particles move with speed higher than the escape velocity. The solar wind is neutral [as Lindeman showed already in 1919]. Its electrical conductivity is so high [essentially infinite] that the magnetic field in the corona becomes ‘frozen into’ the expanding solar wind plasma and is thus carried out into the solar system. That is where the magnetic field comes from, and it is still connected to the sun all the way out to 100 AU as measured by the Voyager spacecraft. You have this electric field – magnetic field exactly backwards. As you said, I was one of the pioneers in this field and our knowledge has grown enormously since the 1970 when all this was figured out, but the physics has not changed. It is as I tell you.
The end of sham science is near:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-07-11/number-us-firms-willing-trade-chinese-yuan-has-tripled-year
And food stamps, and public pensions, and roads sans potholes, etc.
lsvalgaard says:
July 11, 2014 at 8:52 pm
Plasma neutrality is a side issue for one thing. The electric field of the sun is created by electrons and protons, as is the magnetic field. You are obfuscating the reality that charged particles in motion cause magnetic fields and that charged particles in concentration create electric fields. You are obfuscating the reality that concentrations of charged particles separated within flux tubes both on the Sun and in Earth’s local space environment have local electric fields that add in superposition just as the magnetic fields do.
You are making a big deal out of nothing – its a diversion from the main story here. Nothing you are saying to refute me changes the laws of physics that govern the electric, magnetic, and electromagnetic activity of the Sun’s plasma as I described, nor does it matter to any solar photon energy analysis.
Don’t you get it, plasma neutrality in the solar wind isn’t the issue. The issue is whether the photon energy output of the Sun varies enough to change temperatures here. Why don’t you tell me why that isn’t of interest to you?
Leif, what makes the conditions Biermann set down explaining the creation of magnetic fields from the motion of charged particles any different from the time of the supposed seed field creation and now? If the motion of particles created magnetic fields way back as Biermann said, why are you saying it doesn’t happen now the same way when all the evidence still supports magnetic fields being created by the motion of primarily electrons and protons? Explain please.
Bob Weber says:
July 11, 2014 at 9:27 pm
lThe electric field of the sun is created by electrons and protons
The sun does not have an electric field.
The issue is whether the photon energy output of the Sun varies enough to change temperatures here.
If that is the issue why obfuscate it with babbling about the non-existing solar electric field? The ‘photon energy output’ is called TSI.
Why don’t you tell me why that isn’t of interest to you?
TSI is of great interest to me, and its variations change the temperature on the order of 0.1 degree.
Bob Weber says:
July 11, 2014 at 9:34 pm
If the motion of particles created magnetic fields way back as Biermann said, why are you saying it doesn’t happen now the same way
If you would care to even look at the Biermann link I gave you, you would find [on slide 11] that it would take the Biermann process 100,000 years to generate a magnetic field of 10^(-19) Gauss which is 10,000,000,000,000,000 times weaker than that of an average sunspot. That is why the process is not a factor anymore.
Bob Weber says:
July 11, 2014 at 9:27 pm
The electric field of the sun is created by electrons and protons
An electric field created by a charge separation of protons and electrons would short out immediately because the electrical conductivity of the plasma is very high. You need an ongoing process to maintain the electric field, to continue to separate the charges. What would that process be? If you have an existing magnetic field, then you could separate the charges by shooting the plasma beam though the magnetic field which would deflect protons one way and electron in the opposite direction. This is what happens when the solar wind meets the magnetic field of the Earth. But without the magnetic field you get no charge separation and hence no electric field. Bottom line: everything interesting is caused by electric currents that are generated by plasma moving across magnetic fields. No magnetic fields, no currents.
Isn’t the light of the Sun directly caused by the Sun, Leif?
The sunlight – solar radiance – is characterized by its electric field by definition, by the electromagnetic laws of physics. Look it up. You are arguing against Maxwell here, not me.
Do you really think the definition for irradiance that includes proportionality with the electric field produced by solar activity is wrong? Do you really think that professionals in the solar cell industry are wrong when they use solar flux calculations in their power system designs that are explicitly relate the electric field strength of sunlight and the photoelectric effect output of solar cells?
What you seem to be trying to do is declare the electromagnetic energy in sunlight has nothing to do with the Sun’s magnetic state, and also deny every photometric and radiometic measure developed through history that relates the photon flux generated in the Sun’s radiant output – in it’s light – to the electric field of that SUN light. The Sun’s photon flux at every wavelength that comprises TSI is a function of that electric field, you can’t change that. Solar radiance, sunshine, sunlight, is caused by the acceleration of charged particles, you can’t change that, and that light is defined as a function of the electric field that you don’t want to talk about.
Referring back to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irradiance , I believe it might have been clearer for wiki to define E as the complex amplitude of the wave’s ELECTROMAGNETIC field, but considering that irradiance can also be defined as the time average of the component of the Poynting vector perpendicular to the surface, which is the cross product of the electric and magnetic fields, you really can’t escape that electric field component, can you?
I hope you can live with that Dr. Svalgaard, because you can’t change those things unless you go about reconstructing the laws of physics to suit your need to avoid using the word “electric”.
Bob Weber says:
July 11, 2014 at 10:40 pm
The sunlight – solar radiance – is characterized by its electric field by definition
Yes, the elctric field of the light, but that is not the electric field of the Sun.
The Sun’s photon flux at every wavelength that comprises TSI is a function of that electric field, you can’t change that
The electric field of the light, not of the Sun.
Solar radiance, sunshine, sunlight, is caused by the acceleration of charged particles
Actually not. Light is emitted when an electron jumps from an higher orbit to a lower orbit around the nucleus. Has nothing to do with acceleration of charged particles as that term is usually understood.
Leif is surfing.
Leif, light is caused by either acceleration or deceleration of charged particles, typically electrons:
Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light , also see ‘Cyclotron radiation’, ‘synchrotron radiation’, and ‘Bremsstrahlung’ on wikipedia, respectively:
“Cyclotron radiation is electromagnetic radiation emitted by moving charged particles deflected by a magnetic field. The Lorentz force on the particles acts perpendicular to both the magnetic field lines and the particles’ motion through them, creating an acceleration of charged particles that causes them to emit radiation as a result of the acceleration they undergo as they spiral around the lines of the magnetic field.”
“The electromagnetic radiation emitted when charged particles are accelerated radially is called synchrotron radiation.”
“Bremsstrahlung (German pronunciation: [ˈbʁɛmsˌʃtʁaːlʊŋ] ( listen), from bremsen “to brake” and Strahlung “radiation”, i.e. “braking radiation” or “deceleration radiation”) is electromagnetic radiation produced by the deceleration of a charged particle when deflected by another charged particle, typically an electron by an atomic nucleus. The moving particle loses kinetic energy, which is converted into a photon, thus satisfying the law of conservation of energy. The term is also used to refer to the process of producing the radiation. Bremsstrahlung has a continuous spectrum, which becomes more intense and whose peak intensity shifts toward higher frequencies as the change of the energy of the accelerated particles increases.”
You can’t change that no matter how hard you try.
Qouting you quoting me when I said “Solar radiance, sunshine, sunlight, is caused by the acceleration of charged particles” –
Where you said
“Actually not. Light is emitted when an electron jumps from an higher orbit to a lower orbit around the nucleus. Has nothing to do with acceleration of charged particles as that term is usually understood.”
…. Has nothing to do with acceleration of charged particles …. yea, right….
Bob Weber says:
July 12, 2014 at 12:03 am
Leif, light is caused by either acceleration or deceleration of charged particles, typically electrons: Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light , also see ‘Cyclotron radiation’, ‘synchrotron radiation’, and ‘Bremsstrahlung’ on wikipedia, respectively:
Acceleration of a charged particle can,, indeed, give rise to emission of light, but we were discussing sunlight, which is not like the examples you found on wikipedia.
Leif, Are you kidding me?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiant_heat
“Thermal radiation is electromagnetic radiation generated by the thermal motion of charged particles in matter. All matter with a temperature greater than absolute zero emits thermal radiation. When the temperature of the body is greater than absolute zero, interatomic collisions cause the kinetic energy of the atoms or molecules to change. This results in charge-acceleration and/or dipole oscillation which produces electromagnetic radiation, and the wide spectrum of radiation reflects the wide spectrum of energies and accelerations that occur even at a single temperature.
Examples of thermal radiation include the visible light and infrared light emitted by an incandescent light bulb, the infrared radiation emitted by animals and detectable with an infrared camera, and the cosmic microwave background radiation. Thermal radiation is different from thermal convection and thermal conduction—a person near a raging bonfire feels radiant heating from the fire, even if the surrounding air is very cold.
Sunlight is part of thermal radiation generated by the hot plasma of the Sun.”
This is the good part: “This results in charge-acceleration and/or dipole oscillation which produces electromagnetic radiation”
So it looks like charge-acceleration does the job after-all!
Back at ya Leif! have a good one, it’s been great, it’s way past my bedtime.
Bob Weber says:
July 12, 2014 at 12:31 am
“Thermal radiation is electromagnetic radiation generated by the thermal motion of charged particles in matter.
Sunlight is not produced that way, and in any case, the particles are not accelerated in an electric field of the sun. Here is a [somewhat lengthy] description of the process of producing light http://staff.on.br/jlkm/astron2e/AT_MEDIA/CH04/CHAP04AT.HTM
Instead of reading it all you might just search [in vain] for ‘acceleration’
Talk about splitting hairs. Solar activity does control our climate and so does its orbit and length of sunshine. The latter being the more north or south you are from the equator, winter is almost sunless and we get lands of the midnight sun. What creates it is – If the sun donna shine it is colder than when it does. Gee this website is getting argumentative for the wrong reasons.
It’s time to say no to this not-even-wrong theory, culture war and all being played against us, except for those who wish to commit intellectual suicide in some tribal quest to support insanity just because a former ally has turned into a clown.
bushbunny says:
July 12, 2014 at 1:20 am
“Talk about splitting hairs. Solar activity does control our climate and so does its orbit and length of sunshine. The latter being the more north or south you are from the equator, winter is almost sunless and we get lands of the midnight sun. What creates it is – If the sun donna shine it is colder than when it does. Gee this website is getting argumentative for the wrong reasons.”
—————————————————————————————————————————
I believe you are addressing insolation not solar output. The difference is not splitting hairs. It is what confuses many people. Right now on the central west coast of Florida it is 7:38 and the Sun has just risen. It is humid but not very hot. In a few hours the temperature will rise but that is not due to any change in the output of the Sun. It is an insolation change. Later when the clouds and thunderstorms move in it will cool. But once again that is an insolation change not a change in the output of the Sun. Insolation controls climate.
To investigate the 2011 Arctic ozone loss, scientists from 19 institutions in nine countries (United States, Germany, The Netherlands, Canada, Russia, Finland, Denmark, Japan and Spain) analyzed a comprehensive set of measurements. These included daily global observations of trace gases and clouds from NASA’s Aura and CALIPSO spacecraft; ozone measured by instrumented balloons; meteorological data and atmospheric models. The scientists found that at some altitudes, the cold period in the Arctic lasted more than 30 days longer in 2011 than in any previously studied Arctic winter, leading to the unprecedented ozone loss. Further studies are needed to determine what factors caused the cold period to last so long.
“Day-to-day temperatures in the 2010-11 Arctic winter did not reach lower values than in previous cold Arctic winters,” said lead author Gloria Manney of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif., and the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology in Socorro. “The difference from previous winters is that temperatures were low enough to produce ozone-destroying forms of chlorine for a much longer time. This implies that if winter Arctic stratospheric temperatures drop just slightly in the future, for example as a result of climate change, then severe Arctic ozone loss may occur more frequently.”
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/arctic20111002.html
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_ALL_SH_2014.gif
Leif and Bob, I much appreciated your back and forth discussion. It opened a window onto the solar process that has been difficult for me to understand, a mere mortal, when there has been no decently presented alternate view. Until now that is. Bob’s view is clearly educated, though apparently wrong on important details. Having read Leif’s peer-reviewed work (most of which was muddy to me due to my lack of the necessary academic background in this subject), I will have to side with Leif. However, due to this current back and forth, I am a bit more educated and some of Leif’s articles are now clearer to me. So thanks.
Pamela Gray says:
July 12, 2014 at 7:00 am
Leif and Bob, I much appreciated your back and forth discussion. It opened a window onto the solar process that has been difficult for me to understand
And that is the whole purpose of continuing so far.
ren says: July 12, 2014 at 6:35 am
[“]To investigate the 2011 Arctic ozone loss, scientists from 19 institutions in nine countries (United States, Germany, The Netherlands, Canada, Russia, Finland, Denmark, Japan and Spain) analyzed a comprehensive set of measurements.[“]
ren, you are quoting in your first paragraph. If you are quoting someone else’s written introduction to the abstract, please site the source and use quotation marks.
“How the solar wind is formed and powered has been the subject of debate for decades. Powerful magnetic Alfvén waves in the electrically charged gas near the sun have always been a leading candidate as a force in the formation of solar wind since Alfvén waves in principle can transfer energy from the sun’s surface up through its atmosphere, or corona, into the solar wind.
In the solar atmosphere, Alfvén waves are created when convective motions and sound waves push magnetic fields around, or when dynamic processes create electrical currents that allow the magnetic fields to change shape or reconnect.”
“Until now, Alfvén waves have been impossible to observe because of limited resolution of available instruments,” said Alexei Pevtsov, Hinode program scientist, NASA Headquarters, Washington. “With the help of Hinode, we are now able to see direct evidence of Alfvén waves, which will help us unravel the mystery of how the solar wind is powered.”
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2007/dec/HQ_07264_Hinode_Waves.html#.U8FGm1V_sup
Bob Weber, past history as already PROVEN our case to be correct. This is why I am not going to hold conversations on a subject that already is closed which is solar variability controls the climate.
The solar variability is greater then what mainstream keeps trying to say but more importantly it is the secondary effects which really matter.
Notice how there is yet to be a temperature graph produced which shows the range of global temperatures INCREASING during a prolonged solar minimum period or the range in global temperatures DECLINING during a period of prolonged maximum solar activity.
Guess what the same thing is going to happen once again going forward into this decade. Global temperatures will be falling in response to weak solar conditions and the associated secondary effects.
I would bet my last dollar that if my solar criteria is approached never mind met that the climate will respond. I am very confident in my position probably more now then ever.
The most important factors in my opinion in determining the climate are as follows:
Initial Sate Of The Climate
How far from glacial if in inter-glacial and vice versa which means the given variability of an item that causes the climate to change does not have to be as large when the initial state of the climate is near threshold inter-glacial/glacial values or conditions.
Milankovitch Cycles –
Where the earth is in relation to these cycles. Low obliquity, low eccentricity and precession (when earth is closest to sun during N.H summer) all favor colder conditions. Milankovitch Cycles are favorable for cooling and should remain so for the next 4000 years.
Earth’s Magnetic Field Strength –
The weaker the more it will enhance solar effects. A weakening earth magnetic field /solar magnetic field favoring a colder climate. We have at present a weakening earth magnetic field.
Solar Variability –
Through primary and secondary effects. Solar variability already recently showing quite a range in the brief but severe solar lull from 2008 through the end of 2010. Solar activity going forward looking quite weak.
I have listed the many secondary effects and studies which support those effects many times.
Ranging from a solar/volcanic connection, to ozone /solar connection and thus atmospheric circulation changes, to cosmic rays /solar connection and thus low cloud formations to solar irradiance changes tied into ocean heat content changes to site a few examples.
correction when the earth is farthest from the sun during N.H. summer it should be. thanks
“Figure 4. Variations of mean UV spectral irradiance in 3 wavelength bands: FUV, 120–200 nm (left); MUV, 200–270 nm (centre) and NUV,
270–400 nm (right) (respectively, SFUV, SMUV, and SNUV): the monthly means shown in the top panels in black are composites using only
zero-level offset corrections to the raw data (as illustrated by figure 1), whereas those shown in mauve use an additional gain calibration for
the SORCE SIM instrument (as illustrated by figure 3). The mauve curves are also shown by the grey filled areas in the lower panels. The
lower panels also show the best least-squares linear regression fits of the McMurdo neutron monitor GCR counts, M (in orange); the open
solar flux FS (in blue) and F10.7 (in mauve). Correlation coefficients,r (with significance levels in parentheses) with F10.7, FS and M
respectively, for SFUV are 0.95 (99.9%), 0.71 (87.4%) and −0.89 (94.4%); for SMUV are 0.81 (92.9%), 0.80 (92.2%) and −0.89 (94.2%); and
for SNUV are 0.82 (99.6%), 0.83 (89.8%) and −0.87 (99.7%).”
http://pl.tinypic.com/view.php?pic=svj6g5&s=8#.U8Fw91V_suo
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/5/3/034008/pdf/1748-9326_5_3_034008.pdf
Joe D released this today – http://icecap.us/index.php/go/in-the-news/welcome_back_to_the_1950s_and_soon_the_1960s_70s_and_then_18001/
His view on imminent long-term cooling and my view are similar. Yesterday I provided an analysis of previous solar cycles to give perspective to the amount of recent solar variability, cycle to cycle, and indicated that SC24, with an average daily F10.7 flux of 100 so far, is headed towards being the least energetic cycle in my lifetime. Should that come to pass, we will cool, and many have claimed we are already are cooling.
At this point we know at least some things for sure: the sun’s output varies a lot over time, and is the source of heat and light we survive on, and we should therefore strive to understand it all more, for our own good.
From Leif’s light link: “How can atoms become excited? Generally, in one of two ways: They can become radiatively excited by absorbing some light energy from a source of electromagnetic radiation, or they can become collisionally excited by colliding with another particle–an atom or a free electron, for example.”
It begs the question, “where does the energy come from that creates the light that atoms absorb that in turn create more light, or causes atoms or free electrons to move & collide in the first place?”
So while the word “acceleration” was not used in the article, the phrase “they can become collisionally excited by colliding with another particle” is another way of saying the particles are moving before they collide, and movement is always associated with acceleration/deceleration.
So the point I made about charge acceleration causing light still stands. That light causes more light can be construed as circular thinking, on the face of it. Where and how did the first ray of light ever come into existence?
@ lsvalgaard
Thank you for responding. Since already the thread moved forward a lot, I’ve copied your reply: #BobG says:
#July 11, 2014 at 8:15 pm
#My understanding is that you are guessing on a lot of things.
lsvalgaard replied: “To further your understanding perhaps this paper will help:
http://www.leif.org/EOS/2011GL046658.pdf
“Therefore, the best estimate of magnetic activity, and presumably TSI, for the least‐active Maunder Minimum phases appears to be provided by direct measurement in 2008–2009″”
I actually read this paper before from your website. I don’t think it addresses my point. The point is that 2008-2009 is a minimum in recent history. It is not all that low when compared to the years 1650 to 1700 within the Maunder Minimum. The paper you cite presumes that TSI during the Maunder Minimum can be estimated based on the 2008-2009. Going through the paper, there are so many guesses made by the author that the paper in my opinion is completely worthless to use in estimating what TSI actually was. The first guess is, “Therefore,the best estimate of magnetic activity, and presumably TSI, for the least‐active Maunder Minimum phases appears to be provided by direct measurement in 2008–2009.”
You know much better than I do that some aspects of the recent minimum were not predicted by anyone such as changes in solar magnetism and the solar conveyor. I’ve never seen a paper that had any good theoretical explanation for why solar activity becomes very low during periods like the Maunder Minimum. The lack of theoretical understanding of the sun means to me that predictive skill is very low.
I can provide a counter hypothesis to the paper. Changes in sun spots can be used to estimate TSI until the number of sunspots drop below X over a Y months period . At which case the drop in TSI is non-linear to changes in sun spots. Why would this possibly be? If there are many spot free days, ability to use sun spots as a reference to solar activity necessarily becomes less accurate. In other words, solar activity could drop much more than current solar physicists think it did and historical sun spot numbers can’t be used to determine if it did or didn’t due to the lack of sufficiently consistent reference (sun spots). When there are long periods of no sun spot, there might be chaotic events that happen in the sun that give rise to the occasional small sun spot or small cluster of spots. This chaotic activity does not provide all that much information as to how active on average the sun is during that period when it is very inactive especially given there was no one with good instruments monitoring the sun in 1650 to 1700. Therefore, when the number of sun spots drop below X for Y time the ability to estimate solar activity based on sun spots is not good. Perhaps the number X and Y will be determined by observation if the next solar cycle is smaller.
I am in complete agreement with Joe D’ Aleo and yourself.
Joe Bastardi also of Weatherbell Inc. is in agreement.
As he has said the triple crown of climate change – solar-volcanic – oceans.
It is very apparent from many studies that solar variability during the Maunder Minimum was much greater then the 2008-2010 solar lull.
It was much longer and the depth of solar readings such as the aa index, solar wind speed ,IMF were greater then what occurred during this recent solar lull.
ren says
Abstract
During the descent into the recent ‘exceptionally’ low solar minimum, observations have
revealed a larger change in solar UV emissions than seen at the same phase of previous solar
cycles. This is particularly true at wavelengths responsible for stratospheric ozone production
and heating. 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. In
addition, we find that both stratospheric and tropospheric winds and temperatures show stronger
regional variations with those solar indices that do show long-term trends. A top-down climate
effect that shows long-term drift (and may also be out of phase with the bottom-up solar forcing)
would change the spatial response patterns and would mean that climate-chemistry models that
have sufficient resolution in the stratosphere would become very important for making accurate
regional/seasonal climate predictions
henry says
interesting paper!
I am amazed that somebody [besides myself] had it also figured out.
Just remember that ozone is only one of many chemicals produced TOA which differ from place to place, i.e. more peroxides above the oceans, more ozone above the mountains, etc.
it is quite a mix up there
It is those chemical reactions TOA that protect us from any harmful radiation coming from the sun. It is a firm reminder [again] of intelligent design
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/03/01/where-is-your-faith/
Below are the most recent findings by professor Lockwood which confirm much of what we have been pointing out when it comes to solar variability. I am in complete agreement.
I am giving a summary and introduction. Read below.
The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 781:L7 (5pp), 2014 January 20 doi:10.1088/2041-8205/781/1/L7
C
2014. The American Astronomical Society. All rights reserved. Printed in the U.S.A.
IMPLICATIONS OF THE RECENT LOW SOLAR MINIMUM FOR THE
SOLAR WIND DURING THE MAUNDER MINIMUM
M. Lockwood and M. J. Owens
Department of Meteorology, University of Reading, Earley Gate, RG6 6BB, UK; m.lockwood@reading.ac.uk
Received 2013 November 18; accepted 2013 December 5; published 2013 December 23
ABSTRACT
The behavior of the Sun and near-Earth space during grand solar minima is not understood; however, the recent long
and low minimum of the decadal-scale solar cycle gives some important clues, with implications for understanding
the solar dynamo and predicting space weather conditions. The speed of the near-Earth solar wind and the strength
of the interplanetary magnetic field (IMF) embedded within it can be reliably reconstructed for before the advent
of spacecraft monitoring using observations of geomagnetic activity that extend back to the mid-19th century. We
show that during the solar cycle minima around 1879 and 1901 the average solar wind speed was exceptionally
low, implying the Earth remained within the streamer belt of slow solar wind flow for extended periods. This is
consistent with a broader streamer belt, which was also a feature of the recent low minimum (2009), and yields a
prediction that the low near-Earth IMF during the Maunder minimum (1640–1700), as derived from models and
deduced from cosmogenic isotopes, was accompanied by a persistent and relatively constant solar wind of speed
roughly half the average for the modern era.
Key words: solar–terrestrial relations – solar wind – Sun: activity – Sun: corona – Sun: magnetic fields
Online-only material: color figures
1. INTRODUCTION
During the Maunder minimum (MM), almost no sunspots
were detected, as shown by Figure 1. In recent years we have
started to gain some insight into the space weather conditions
during this interval and that is helping to inform predictions
for the future (Barnard et al. 2011). That solar activity was
very low in the MM has been confirmed by observations of
high abundances of cosmogenic isotopes, namely 14C and 10Be
stored in terrestrial reservoirs (Usoskin 2013). These isotopes
also show that this was the most recent of a series of “grand
solar minima” (Steinhilber et al. 2010) and our understanding
of the solar dynamo will be inadequate until we understand how
these grand minima arise. The cosmic ray flux that generates
cosmogenic isotopes is higher when the open solar magnetic
flux (OSF, the magnetic flux leaving the top of the solar corona
and filling the heliosphere) is lower and so also varies inversely
with the heliospheric magnetic field. From the theory of this
relationship, the average near-Earth interplanetary magnetic
field (IMF) in the MM has been estimated to have been B =
1.80 ± 0.59 nT (Steinhilber et al. 2010), considerably smaller
than the average observed by spacecraft over the last four solar
cycles (≈6 nT). Models using the sunspot number to quantify
the emergence rate of open magnetic flux from the Sun (Solanki
et al. 2000) reproduce the variation deduced from geomagnetic
observations (Lockwood et al. 1999; Lockwood et al. 2009), and
Figure 1 shows a modeled variation, Bm, that averages about 2 nT
in theMM(Owens & Lockwood 2012). This model allows for a
base-level emergence of OSF in continued coronal mass ejection
(CME) release during the MM at the rate that was observed
during the recent long and low minimum to the decadal-scale
solar cycle. In addition, a cycle-dependent loss rate of open flux,
set by the degree of warping of the heliospheric current sheet
(Owens et al. 2011), explains an otherwise anomalous phase
relation between the isotopes and sunspot numbers at the start
and end of theMM(Owens et al. 2012). However, none of these
studies tell us about the speed of the solar wind, VSW, which
was incident on the Earth during the MM.
2. RECONSTRUCTION OF THE IMF AND
SOLAR WIND SPEED SINCE 1868
A variety of geomagnetic indices have been derived which
monitor different parts of the magnetosphere–ionosphere current
system induced by the flowof magnetized solarwind plasma
past the Earth (see recent review by Lockwood 2013). An important
insight is that a dependence of geomagnetic activity on
the solar wind speed VSW is introduced by the substorm current
wedge (Finch et al. 2008), a fact well explained by the
effect of solar wind dynamic pressure on the near-Earth tail of
the magnetosphere (Lockwood 2013). Consequently, geomagnetic
indices such as aa and IHV that are strongly influenced
by substorms, vary as BV n
SW with n close to 2. On the other
hand, interdiurnal variation indices such as IDV and IDV(1d)
(recently introduced by Lockwood et al. 2013a) are dominated
by the ring current and give n ≈ 0. These differences in n
are statistically significant (Lockwood et al. 2009) and hence
combinations of indices can be used to infer both B and VSW
(Svalgaard et al. 2003; Rouillard et al. 2007; Lockwood et al.
2009). The interplanetary data used here are for 1966–2012,
inclusive, and correlations are carried out on annual means.
The geomagnetic indices used are aaC, IDV, IDV(1d), and IHV
(see descriptions by Lockwood 2013). Svalgaard (2013) has
pointed out that the IDV(1d) index for much of solar cycle 11
is too small and we here use the IDV(1d) series presented by
Lockwood et al. (2014) that uses St Petersburg data and a comparison
of k indices with the aa index to make the required
correction.
The peak linear correlations of each index with BV n
SW, r,
and the optimum n values, are given in Table 1. The largest
correlation possible for annual means and n = 0 is 0.95 (and
for n = 2 is 0.97) because geomagnetic activity is driven by the
1
The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 781:L7 (5pp), 2014 January 20 Lockwood & Owens
Bm (nT) & R/30
R/30
Bm
MM −4
−3
−2
−1
1
Therefore we conclude that solar wind speeds
would be relatively uniform in theMM(between about 250 and
275 km s−1, i.e. roughly half the average seen in modern times).
The above is the conclusion from Professor Lockwood (his 2014 conclusion) of what the likely solar wind speeds were during the Maunder Minimum. I concur completely and have maintained this to be the case for many years.
This is great news for us who believe in solar variability.
Bob Weber says:
July 12, 2014 at 10:41 am
At this point we know at least some things for sure: the sun’s output varies a lot over time
It varies a few tenths of a percent, which is not a lot.
It begs the question, “where does the energy come from that creates the light that atoms absorb that in turn create more light, or causes atoms or free electrons to move & collide in the first place?”
That energy comes from the nuclear fusion in the core of the Sun, from where it after a journey of hundred of thousands of years finally arrive at the surface.
another way of saying the particles are moving before they collide, and movement is always associated with acceleration/deceleration.
At the atomic level Maxwell’s laws don’t apply. This was Niels Bohr’s great discovery. What happens is that when an electron moves from a higher orbital to a lower one, a photon is emitted with an energy equal to the energy difference between the orbitals. If the matter is not a plasma then the electrons are ‘bound’ and only discrete values of energy differences are possible and we get a spectrum with lines only at discrete frequencies. In a plasma some electrons are not bound, but are free to move around. They can therefore have any energy [depending on the temperature] and when they settle onto a lower orbital [and becoming bound for a very short time] the photons emitted do not have only certain discrete frequencies but can have any frequency and so form a continuous spectrum which we call ‘sunlight’.
Where and how did the first ray of light ever come into existence?
Everywhere at 13.6 billion years ago. It is still around [called the Cosmic Microwave Background]. How: “let there be light”.
BobG says:
July 12, 2014 at 10:45 am
@ lsvalgaard
The paper you cite presumes that TSI during the Maunder Minimum can be estimated based on the 2008-2009.
No, it shows by physical arguments that it can.
You know much better than I do that some aspects of the recent minimum were not predicted by anyone such as changes in solar magnetism and the solar conveyor.
I don’t think there were any changes that were not predicted. The recent minimum was just like minima in 1901 and 1912, and the prediction of the current maximum is spot on.
I’ve never seen a paper that had any good theoretical explanation for why solar activity becomes very low during periods like the Maunder Minimum.
We know from cosmic ray modulation that the solar dynamo was still active and that the solar magnetic field cycled as usual. So ‘solar activity’ cannot be used as a broad term. The correct question would be: “why in spite of observed solar magnetic activity were there no visible sunspots?” Today we know that sunspots form by the re-assembly and compaction of the many small pores and magnetic elements that resulted from the shredding of magnetic flux tubes by the convection in the outermost solar layers as they rose to the surface. One possible explanation of the lack of visible spots could be that the process that compacts those magnetic elements was not operating as efficiently during Grand Minima as now. Granted that we do not [yet] why, this is a very plausible explanation. In this way the sunspot number then was no longer a good measure of ‘solar activity’. What is comparable, though, is the situation when there are no spots now. This is then no different from the situation then. The paper also calls attention to observations of the sun’s emission [measured by the temperature] from areas where there are no spots. Livingston found [Figure 2] that that was constant [does not vary with the solar cycle] and there is no reason to believe that this was any different during the Maunder Minimum. So we do not need to determine any X and Ys.
Let’s look at last month of solar activity. Especially at FORCE flares.
http://www.solen.info/solar/indices.html
Please note the chart F10 7, which corresponds to UV radiation.
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/f10.gif
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=lockwood+implicatins+of+recetn+low+solar+activity
The Lockwood study 2014
Bob says
..is headed towards being the least energetic cycle in my lifetime. Should that come to pass, we will cool, and many have claimed we are already are cooling.
Henry says
Hi Bob, fancy meeting you here. You are right what you said there. From 1972 until 2016 is straight down. I say it is cooling [from 2000].
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/02/21/henrys-pool-tables-on-global-warmingcooling/
Don’t trust all the official results, especially not anything related to BEST. They are all trying their best to try and hide that is in fact already cooling.
They had not even seen that it is significant cooling in Alaska as well
http://oi40.tinypic.com/2ql5zq8.jpg
-0.5K/decade
Leif is right, the variability of the sun is small. What he means [to say] is that the variation in the distribution of radiation from the sun under curve is small [talking about the surface under the curve, i.e. the integral of the function for that curve]. But there is some apparent shift of that curve, due to declining solar polar field strength, which results in relatively somewhat more energetic particles leaving the sun. These are [luckily] caught in the upper atmosphere, causing ozone, HxOx and NxOx compounds. In turn, these deflect more light to space, when there is more of it, hence the cooling effect.
Have you figured out yet what this graph
http://ice-period.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/sun2013.png
will look like in the next 5 decades?
Have you figured out yet what this graph
http://ice-period.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/sun2013.png
will look like in the next 5 decades?
Perhaps better not to know, but if you insist ….
Salvatore Del Prete says:
July 12, 2014 at 12:49 pm
The Lockwood study 2014
is seriously flawed, see Confronting-Models-with-Reconstructions-and-Data.ppt
http://www.leif.org/research/Confronting-Models-with-Reconstructions-and-Data.ppt
@vukcevic
Your mathematics is good! I could not do that – trigonometry was not my strongest subject
I am sure the function is correct, at least until 2015/2016.
However, my investigations seem to suggest that all the functions will come to a dead end stop in or around 2016. I am expecting to see something special on the sun, 2015/16, like another polar switch. From then onward the function must go opposite, like a mirror. Same function with a negative sign [if that is possible] ?
Pam – thanks for being there and paying attention. No one is perfectly right or wrong, but we try.
Henry – nice compilation of temp data done even-handedly in the spirirt of truth.
ren- if we could all just speak the same language communication would go easier! thanx for being persistent in showing cosmic ray/ozone/stratosphere/solar and temp info in a way no one else does.
vuk – that graph is scary man! if we all live long enough to see that come to pass- you get the prize!
Leif – see http://www.amazon.com/The-Earths-Electric-Field-Sources/dp/0123978866 – If the Earth can have both a magnetic and an electric field, why can’t the Sun?
Salvatore – how did you arrive at the various solar output criteria you often post? Are you the “Southwest Weather”-man?
Personally I hope the sun has reached it’s last peak for SC24, but it has a mind of it’s own.
Leif – “It varies a few tenths of a percent, which is not a lot.” Let’s say it varies downward to MM levels in 10-20 years, is that only a few tenths of a percent variation? How do you know that for sure? If TSI is the time average of the spectrum’s electromagnetic field, what are it’s peak values, and how can they be fitted in mathematically accurately under a mere 0.1% variation?
If I can develop a bottom-up F10.7cm model that closely estimates the measured TSI, I’ll buy in to the TSI measures. Until then I’m skeptical. If it’s “good”, then it will incorporate all changes of F10.7. I am skeptical of how a fairly invariant TSI incorporates accurately an F10.7cm flux magnitude that varies considerably over many time scales.
Bob Weber says:
July 12, 2014 at 3:54 pm
If the Earth can have both a magnetic and an electric field, why can’t the Sun?
Because the Earth’s atmosphere is an insulator that does not conduct electricity and thus prevents shorting out the electric field, and the Sun is conducting plasma that instantly would short out any electric field. We see that in solar flares which are precisely what happens when an electric field builds up as a result of twisting magnetic fields.
Let’s say it varies downward to MM levels in 10-20 years, is that only a few tenths of a percent variation?
Yes, there seems to be general agreement on this.
If TSI is the time average of the spectrum’s electromagnetic field, what are it’s peak values, and how can they be fitted in mathematically accurately under a mere 0.1% variation?
The yearly averaged peak values are around 1362 W/m2 from a low of 1360.5 W/m2 which is 0.18%, with a more typical variation over the cycle of less than that, see e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/Long-Term-TSI.png we are resonably sure of that as throughout the space age meausrements of TSI varies pretty much as the sunspot number [or F10.7] does.
Bob Weber says:
July 12, 2014 at 3:54 pm
If I can develop a bottom-up F10.7cm model that closely estimates the measured TSI, I’ll buy in to the TSI measures.
See for yourself on this compilation of several solar indices since 1960
http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Indices-1960-2014.png
They all vary in sync. As they all are simply different manifestations of the Sun’s magnetic field.
Bob Weber says:
“It varies a few tenths of a percent, which is not a lot.” Let’s say it varies downward to MM levels in 10-20 years, is that only a few tenths of a percent variation? How do you know that for sure? If TSI is the time average of the spectrum’s electromagnetic field, what are it’s peak values, and how can they be fitted in mathematically accurately under a mere 0.1% variation?
“The difference from previous winters is that temperatures were low enough to produce ozone-destroying forms of chlorine for a much longer time. This implies that if winter Arctic stratospheric temperatures drop just slightly in the future, for example as a result of climate change, then severe Arctic ozone loss may occur more frequently.”
Is sufficient to low radiation continued long enough.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/PFex.htm
You can already see the effects.
ren says
Is sufficient to low radiation continued long enough.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/PFex.htm
You can already see the effects.
henry says
Vuk’s graph can also be summarised (averaged) by a polynomial of the second order [i.e. a normal quadratic function] and I am sure it will show that we will come to the bottom [of solar polar field strengths] somewhere around 2016. My initial results for the drop in maxima showed a sine wave type of curve which was confirmed by another set of data I had from Anchorage going back to 1942. Maxima are read only once per day and there is not much that can wrong with that.
Note the 2 [two] graphs here:
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
It looks like every place on earth is on its own sine wave curve depending on the compostion prevalent TOA.
Warming started decelerating in 1972, and, looking at energy in, we started cooling in 1995.
There was a 5 year delay before average temperatures [energy out] started falling as well.
What I have been saying is that you can correlate the deceleration of warming [maxima] exactly with falling solar polar filed strength.
So, come 2016, we will start the uphill battle again. Unfortunately it will not start warming until at least 2038. Hence, the weather from 2016-2038 will be similar to the weather from 1927-1951
To those actively involved in trying to suppress the temperature results as they are available on-line from official sources, I say: Let fools stay fools if they want to be. Fiddling with the data they can, to save their jobs, but people still having to shove snow in late spring, will soon begin to doubt the data…Check the worry in my eyes when they censor me. Under normal circumstances I would have let things rest there and just be happy to know the truth for myself. Indeed, I let things lie a bit. However, chances are that humanity will fall in the pit of global cooling and later me blaming myself for not having done enough to try to safeguard food production for 7 billion people and counting.
It really was very cold in 1940′s….The Dust Bowl drought 1932-1939 was one of the worst environmental disasters of the Twentieth Century anywhere in the world. Three million people left their farms on the Great Plains during the drought and half a million migrated to other states, almost all to the West. http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/drought/dust_storms.shtml
I find that as we are moving back, up, from the deep end of the 88 year sine wave, there will be standstill in the change of the speed of cooling, neither accelerating nor decelerating, on the bottom of the wave; therefore naturally, there will also be a lull in pressure difference at that > [40 latitude], where the Dust Bowl drought took place, meaning: less weather (read: rain). However, one would apparently note this from an earlier change in direction of wind, as was the case in Joseph’s time. According to my calculations, this will start around 2020 or 2021…..i.e. 1927=2016 (projected, by myself and the planets…)> add 5 years and we are in 2021.
Danger from global cooling is documented and provable. It looks we have only ca. 7 “fat” years left……
WHAT MUST WE DO?
We urgently need to develop and encourage more agriculture at lower latitudes, like in Africa and/or South America. This is where we can expect to find warmth and more rain during a global cooling period.
We need to warn the farmers living at the higher latitudes (>40) who already suffered poor crops due to the droughts that things are not going to get better there for the next few decades. It will only get worse as time goes by.
We also have to provide more protection against more precipitation at certain places of lower latitudes (FLOODS!), <[30] latitude, especially around the equator.
HenryP
Farmers in the high latitudes should be high be insured. An example is the sudden snowstorm in October 2013 in South Dakota. Such sudden waves jetstreamu can destroy the crops even in summer.
In Australia, will still be very cold.
http://earth.nullschool.net/#2014/07/17/0900Z/wind/isobaric/10hPa/orthographic=130.48,-64.82,365
Polar vortex at an altitude of 26500 m.
“Over the 11 or so year solar cycle, solar irradiance changes by typically 0.1%. i.e., about 1 W/m2 relative to the solar constant of 1360 W/m2. Once one averages for the whole surface of earth (i.e., divide by 4) and takes away the reflected component (i.e., times 1 minus the albedo), it comes out to be about 0.17 W/m2 variations relative to the 240 W/m2. Thus, if only solar irradiance variations are present, Earth’s sensitivity has to be pretty high to explain the solar-climate correlations (see the collapsed box below).
However, if solar activity is amplified by some mechanism (such as hypersensitivity to UV, or indirectly through sensitivity to cosmic ray flux variations), then in principle, a lower climate sensitivity can explain the solar-climate links, but it would mean that a much larger heat flux is entering and leaving the system every solar cycle. ”
http://www.sciencebits.com/calorimeter
ren says
However, if solar activity is amplified by some mechanism (such as hypersensitivity to UV, or indirectly through sensitivity to cosmic ray flux variations), then in principle, a lower climate sensitivity can explain the solar-climate links, but it would mean that a much larger heat flux is entering and leaving the system every solar cycle. ”
http://www.sciencebits.com/calorimeter
henry says
good show! this is the crux of the whole matter.
First of all: don’t confuse cause and result. As the temperature differential between the poles and equator grows larger due to the cooling from the top, very likely something will also change on earth. Predictably, there would be a small (?) shift of cloud formation and precipitation, more towards the equator, on average. At the equator insolation is 684 W/m2 whereas on average it is 342 W/m2. So, if there are more clouds in and around the equator, this will amplify the cooling effect due to less direct natural insolation of earth (clouds deflect a lot of radiation). Furthermore, in a cooling world there is more likely less moisture in the air, but even assuming equal amounts of water vapour available in the air, a lesser amount of clouds and precipitation will be available for spreading to higher latitudes. So, a natural consequence of global cooling is that at the higher latitudes it will become cooler and/or drier.
As the people in Alaska[must] have noted,
http://oi40.tinypic.com/2ql5zq8.jpg
It is almost one K or whole degree C since 1998. And it seems NOBODY is telling the poor farmers there that it is not going to get any better. NASA also admits now that antarctic ice is increasing significantly.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/22/nasa-announces-new-record-growth-of-antarctic-sea-ice-extent/#more-96133
So we know we are cooling from the top latitudes down, as my results and those of others are showing.
How do we know it is because of what happens TOA?
I have analysed results of ozone [which is only one of many compounds formed TOA by the sun’s ultra short wave radiation]
Both NH and SH.
NH: On the best polynomial fit it showed general declining trend from 1951 and a general increasing trend from 1995. On the SH there are no results before 1980, but here too the graph available from the SS showed an inclining trend from 1995…..
There is also the flooding of the Nile, max. flooding 1950, min. flooding 1995. There is also the configuration of the planets to consider. The ancients reported celebrating every 7 x 7 years (Jubilee year) which cycle time would be correct [as observed from earth]
Note that a full solar cycle is the so-called Hale cycle of 22 years.
2 of these cycles make a half Gleissberg cycle. Every half Gleissberg cycle we are back to the beginning……
Hence my insistence that something switched on the sun in 1972 and it will/must switch back in 2015-2016.
The whole system works like a clock, to protect life…..against overheating.
Amazing, is it not?
Leif says, “At the atomic level Maxwell’s laws don’t apply. This was Niels Bohr’s great discovery. What happens is that when an electron moves from a higher orbital to a lower one, a photon is emitted with an energy equal to the energy difference between the orbitals. If the matter is not a plasma then the electrons are ‘bound’ and only discrete values of energy differences are possible and we get a spectrum with lines only at discrete frequencies. In a plasma some electrons are not bound, but are free to move around. They can therefore have any energy [depending on the temperature] and when they settle onto a lower orbital [and becoming bound for a very short time] the photons emitted do not have only certain discrete frequencies but can have any frequency and so form a continuous spectrum which we call ‘sunlight’.”
Thank you! Much clearer now with regard to plasma and why Maxwell’s laws don’t apply at the atomic level.
I had the chance to sub in a high school science class and was shocked by the rather simple chapter on electrons. So I immediately sent the kids to the computer bank to read this instead:
http://www.chemguide.co.uk/atoms/properties/atomorbs.html
Of course I have the same disregard for the counting to 100 chart posted everywhere in every kindergarten and 1st grade room. I would love to burn those charts up in one hell of a bon fire. Our counting system is NOT pendular, or circular, or spiral-like. It is linear. If there are two things I would chuck into the round file in lower education (and sometimes at the higher education college intro class!) it would be the count to 100 chart and the horribly miss-drawn atom picture.
And I would turn the multiplication chart into a geometric area form that they build like a puzzle one row and column at a time from the corner out as kids learn why 1 X 1 = 1, 1 X 2 = 2, and so on. There is so much about math that was turned upside down when we thought rote learning instead of problem solving was the proper way to build math sense. That same wrong headed thinking invaded science such that we “stylized” the atom into rote memory/wrong headed thinking as well.
HenryP, if you speculate that the Earth may be hypersensitive to say, averaged (not smoothed) UV variability, or has some other amplifying response to a small solar component, you must also logically say that it would show up in concert with that solar variation in the averaged (not smoothed) temperature series, IE the averaged trace should have similar statistically significant periodicity regardless of any lag. You would also have to say that this correlation would exist at least at the 11 year cycle, and if at the 11 year cycle, surely in incrementally smaller ways over longer periods. You must admit, based on your speculation, that if it is sensitive to smaller incremental changes, it would be easily sensitive to larger 11 year changes. If you say it is so only to incremental changes over a long period of time you fail in your speculation regarding the underlying premise you propose. If you say it cannot be easily detected because of Earth’s own variability, you fail in your speculation as to which is the more powerful source of variability.
Pamela Gray says:
July 13, 2014 at 8:10 am
…….
Bohr’s atom model (in parts) is outdated. You should recommend The Feynman Lectures on Physics which introduces more realistic ‘electron cloud’ model.
@pamela
I have stated several times that you can pair the deceleration of maximum temps. with declining solar polar magnetic fields.I suspect a [small] shift to the left of the chi type distribution of TSI, not affecting total TSI much.
I invite you again to look at the graph on the bottom of the minima table
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/files/2013/02/henryspooltableNEWa.pdf
;;;;////
there is no room for any man made global warming or earthly variables? Minima is [apparently] controlled solely by the sun.
Now you tell me or you can guess where that minima graph is going to go for the next 40 years?
Henry, ren – astounding! You guys have a real heart for humanity. I think the same as you about food & energy production as you so adequately explained. When I get my website up I’d like you guys to feel free to write and post articles on these topics if you wish.
This constant BS about imminent warming caused by CO2 has got to stop so humanity’s attention and energy can be directed to supporting our needs for food and energy during what we expect and what the warmists have no clue about – cold times ahead. I’d rather be over-prepared for cold times than caught empty-handed because of ill-thought plans due to ill-thought science contradicted by all real observations and evidence.
Joe D’Aleo has two great articles here from July 11 &12: http://icecap.us/images/uploads/HLN_Weather_Whys_July11.pdf and from July 12, “Polar Vortex summer version prelude to brutal winter and potential major energy issues” (see http://icecap.us)
The ozone layer has a limited ability to prevent major changes the amount of ozone in the case of long-term decline in solar activity.
The explanation is simple – a decrease in the UV.
“Variations in constituents such as ozone and aerosols affect air quality, weather and climate. Atmospheric composition is central to Earth system dynamics because the atmosphere integrates spatially varying surface emissions globally on time scales from weeks to years. NASA works to provide monitoring and evaluation tools to assess the effects of climate change on ozone recovery and future atmospheric composition, improved climate forecasts based on the understanding of the forcings of global environmental change, and air quality modeling that take into account the relationship between regional air quality and global climate change. Achievements in these areas via advances in observations, data assimilation, and modeling enable improved predictive capabilities for describing how future changes in atmospheric composition affect air quality, weather, and climate. NASA draws on global observations from space, augmented by suborbital and ground-based measurements to address these issues.”
http://science.nasa.gov/earth-science/focus-areas/atmospheric-composition/
HenryP, there are several issues with your data.
1. Not long enough sample to say anything but coincidence (indeed is it really even that?) between temp and field. If you have not sufficient statistical power, your speculation is unjustified.
2. What does the noisy average say? Is your decline buried in the series? The thing with white noise is that you can also have trends. Again, your speculation is unjustified if white noise can produce the same appearance.
3. Absolutely no plausible mechanism undergirded with calculable physics in terms of solar energy required and energy available (in any frequency) to drive temperature trends. Plausibility.
4. Is the reverse true? Does an Increasing field mean hotter temps? Every condition must be explained by your proposal, not just a declining acceleration.
5. What other mechanisms are capable of such a temp change? If there is an equal mechanism, your speculation changes. Anything that has an equal chance means your speculation does not have a chance. And it only takes one incident.
@pam
you did not answer my post
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/08/solar-notch-delay-model-released/#comment-1685099
surely the [global] cooling cannot go on forever?
Something has to switch.
As far as I know there is only one man who figured it out right. That is William Arnold and it was before they started with the carbon dioxide nonsense.
http://www.cyclesresearchinstitute.org/cycles-astronomy/arnold_theory_order.pdf
The heat coming through the atmosphere behaves like an a-c wave
The wheel simply has to turn back up again. Your friend Leif says the paper is nonsense but my own subsequent investigations find the paper’s conclusions to be largely correct except for a 5-7 year error on the actual switch times.
The variation in TSI is too small to cause the average global temp. change currently standing at -0.015K/annum since 2000. So there is amplification. To understand how the amplification works you have to understand that if there is more ozone & others TOA, more UV is deflected to outer space. That means less heat in the oceans. There is also amplification due to a shift in cloud formation. No need for any GR etc. Everything starts and ends at the sun and starts again…we hope…
First, HenryP, I have cited article after article in peer reviewed literature about intrinsic factors (oceanic-atmospheric teleconnections) that have both long and short term mechanisms, and the energy necessary, to drive temperature change. They have been well researched, observed to be reflected in the temperature series, and modeled. Your speculation has not received that triplet set of attention. Second, I offer no guess. I can only formulate scenarios based on a priori conditions. I cannot predict when those a priori conditions fall into place in a pattern conducive to a slide into much colder temperatures.
We appear to be at a knee and will either go up again in a step, stay in a noisy stable conditions, or start a slide down irrespective of solar insolation (IE considering the entire spectrum in total and in parts) at the top of the atmosphere. I do not predict another little ice age unless we have a series of stratospheric injections of sulfur and ash, on top of oceanic atmospheric teleconnections that would lead to cooling.
@ lsvalgaard
Leaf:” What is comparable, though, is the situation when there are no spots now. This is then no different from the situation then.”
In the Maunder Minimum, the solar activity did change quite a bit from now. One proof of that is that radiocarbon C14 came to have a 22 year cycle but cosmogenic isotope Be10 still had a 11 year cycle and was not strictly in antiphase with the 11 year sunspot cycle http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/2000JA000105.pdf. No similar changes were seen in the last solar minimum. The situation then with no spots does seem different to me.
Leaf wrote, “The paper also calls attention to observations of the sun’s emission [measured by the temperature] from areas where there are no spots. Livingston found [Figure 2] that that was constant [does not vary with the solar cycle] and there is no reason to believe that this was any different during the Maunder Minimum. ”
I can think of a good reason that there is reason to believe that the temperature of the sun or at least TSI does vary more during a grand minimum. The reason to believe that it did is the temperature of the earth did in fact drop quite a bit during the Maunder Minimum. Unless you are willing to believe that the small change in TSI is responsible, then something else changed.
Looking at the graph of TSI on page 33: http://www.leif.org/research/SSN/Svalgaard14.pdf
That graph shows that TSI is very flat from around 1650 to 1700. An alternative view is that TSI did continue to drop below the flat area.
BobG says:
July 13, 2014 at 6:15 pm
In the Maunder Minimum, the solar activity did change quite a bit from now. One proof of that is that radiocarbon C14 came to have a 22 year cycle but cosmogenic isotope Be10 still had a 11 year cycle and was not strictly in antiphase with the 11 year sunspot cycle
That just shows how poor the data is as the two records should show the same variation being due to the same cause [cosmic rays].
Here are two papers that touch upon the quality of the isotope records:
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1003/1003.4989.pdf
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1004/1004.2675.pdf
The reason to believe that it did is the temperature of the earth did in fact drop quite a bit during the Maunder Minimum.
As the temperature of the earth is not very dependent on variations of the solar output, your logic is circular.
@lsvalgaard
Leif wrote, “That just shows how poor the data is as the two records should show the same variation being due to the same cause [cosmic rays].”
Or alternatively, it shows incomplete understanding. The fact that local concentrations of Be10 are greatly impacted by local climate – and that there seems to still be a 11 year modulation of concentration that is more in phase and stead of anti-phase, indicates that solar minimum and solar maximum has an impact on how this is deposited – in the Maunder Minimum. There is an alternative view – as their always is when there is too little data and the theory is not nailed down.
Leif wrote, “As the temperature of the earth is not very dependent on variations of the solar output, your logic is circular.”
I believe that the temperature of the earth is mostly dependent on changes in the Sun. Your point though is I assume mainly that the earth’s temperature can vary quite a bit even when the sun’s output changes little. The counter point to that is the cold period is correlated to the grand minimum of the sun. No one can yet prove that the grand minimum caused the cold period. But the hypothesis seems equally as plausible as those you have put forth.
BobG says:
July 13, 2014 at 7:16 pm
But the hypothesis seems equally as plausible as those you have put forth.
No, that is false. It is as saying that either I win the lottery or I do not, so it is equally plausible that I win as I lose.
BobG says:
July 13, 2014 at 7:16 pm
cold period is correlated to the grand minimum of the sun.
Here is an argument [and a good one] that TSI during a Grand Minimum might be higher than today: Sunspots are dark and thus diminish TSI. If no dark sunspots, there is nothing to diminish TSI…
It is clearly visible blockade ozone in the region of Australia. Lows arctic and jetstream will move north. Ice stopped.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_a_f/gif_files/gfs_o3mr_50_sh_f00.gif
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/blocking/real_time_sh/500gz_anomalies_sh.gif
Sun also inhibited. UV radiation is correlated (opposite) of cosmic rays.
http://oi61.tinypic.com/amef7a.jpg
http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/monitor.gif
http://soho.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime/hmi_igr/1024/latest.jpg
Mistake, should be lows Antarctic. In the Arctic is so.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/arctic.sea.ice.interactive.html
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/blocking/real_time_nh/500gz_anomalies_nh.gif
“The first part of this week will feel more like September than the middle of July, typically the hottest time of year, throughout the Midwest.
The unseasonably cool air is arriving via a piece of the polar vortex.
That does not mean that kids across the Midwest will be trading their swimming gear for sled and skis.
As AccuWeather.com Senior Meteorologist Alex Sosnowski first reported last week, this is a summertime version of the polar vortex that has broken off from the Arctic and is dropping southward.”
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_a_f/gif_files/gfs_z100_nh_f00.gif
leif says
Here is an argument [and a good one] that TSI during a Grand Minimum might be higher than today: Sunspots are dark and thus diminish TSI. If no dark sunspots, there is nothing to diminish TSI…
henry says
now this is what I have been saying all along.
There is a small shift in the chi square distribution [of TSI] to the left making TSI somewhat bigger – but not much- and this releases [somewhat] more of the smallest [most energetic] particles.
That this happens clearly has to do with the declining solar magnetic field.
Again, in its turn this extra [harmful] radiation reacts TOA to form extra ozone, peroixides and nitrogenous oxides. Again in its turn, more ozone & others deflect more UV from the sun to space due to absorption, re-radiation and subsequent back radiation. More back radiation from earth to space:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solar_Spectrum.png
i.e. the red part becomes a bit less, especially on the left hand side, when there is more ozone & others..
[note that Trenberth only mentioned ozone, making the white area, hence the missing energy, did he not know that there are others too?]
Less UV in the oceans means less warmth, eventually.
Hence it is cooling
@pam
are you not convinced that it is in fact cooling ..globally?
80-90 year cycle are reported by many people, e.g.
http://www.nonlin-processes-geophys.net/17/585/2010/npg-17-585-2010.html
live with it.
For comparison, UV index in July 2002 and July 2014.
http://www.temis.nl/uvradiation/archives/uvief/2002/07/uvief20020713_w.gif
http://www.temis.nl/uvradiation/archives/uvief/2014/07/uvief20140712_w.gif
ren says
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/08/solar-notch-delay-model-released/#comment-1685525
henry says
just so we are all on the same wavelengths – no pun intended
the pictures show that there is less UV being allowed through the atmosphere July 2014 compared to July 2002.
[because somewhat more of it is sent back to space, i.e. more UV is back radiated]
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/08/solar-notch-delay-model-released/#comment-1685477
“On July 14, 2014, a sounding rocket will be ready to launch from White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico a little before noon local time. Soaring up to 180 miles into Earth’s atmosphere, past the layers that can block much of the sun’s high energy light, the Degradation Free Spectrometers experiment will have six minutes to observe the extreme ultraviolet and soft x-rays streaming from the sun, in order to measure the sun’s total energy output, known as irradiance, in these short wavelengths.
The total solar irradiance, and to an even greater degree, irradiance at high energy wavelengths is known to change over time in conjunction with the sun’s approximately-11-year solar cycle. How it changes over longer periods of time, however, is less certain – but fairly important if we’re going to understand how solar variability affects Earth’s space environment.”
http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/mission-to-study-the-suns-energy/#.U8PJf1V_sup
Henryp, what cooling? I think we are currently in a phase that allows a noisily balanced stored energy release from the oceans (in an on/off pumping fashion), which once in the atmosphere heats the air in an on/off fashion. Some of that warmth will be used up by flora and fauna, some of it will be lost to space, and some of it will stick around until the oceans belch another amount of it out. There is only one real mechanism that allows us to trend cool. It is when the oceans (and in particular the equatorial band) experience fewer clear sky oceanic recharging solar heating days and months. In other words, it runs out of gas.
Dr. Spencer’s global temperature series demonstrates that we are in a fairly stable yet noisy knee in terms of temperature. I don’t know if a cooling trend will begin or we experience another step up, or we stay in this knee. Nothing drastic has to change for any one of these three scenarios. The mechanisms (oceanic/atmospheric teleconnections) are there and Earth has a random-walk mind of its own as to what and when things happen to drive weather pattern variation trends. Variation in human-related CO2 and solar related TOA insolation need not apply.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/
It seems you are the one that may need to learn to live with Earth’s fickle behavior.
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=lockwood+implicatins+of+recetn+low+solar+activity
The Lockwood study 2014
This study is right on and is a great read. Chances are extremely good that solar wind speeds going forward will be averaging around 300 km/sec , and much of my solar criteria is going to be met which I will post once again.
This study has big implications for it shows solar variability is much more then what mainstream keeps trying to convey to the public.
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 .15% 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.
Bob Weber and Ren thanks for your contributions. I am in complete agreement.
I hope you read Professor Lockwood’s latest paper which I posted. Extremely good and represents the latest research which supports the earlier research.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/07/sorry-warmists-strong-el-nino-in-2014.html
Notice how there is yet to be a temperature graph produced which shows the range of global temperatures INCREASING during a prolonged solar minimum period or the range in global temperatures DECLINING during a period of prolonged maximum solar activity.
Guess what the same thing is going to happen once again going forward into this decade. Global temperatures will be falling in response to weak solar conditions and the associated secondary effects.
What is being missed by many read below.
The point is the temperatures of earth will always vary even when solar output is constant, due to random, chaotic climate changes within the climate system of the earth. What solar variability determines is what range the temperatures of the globe will be in ,not the random temperature changes up/down once the climate is in a given climate regime.
Next one has to take into the account the initial state of the climate. How close to glacial if in interglacial and vice versa, which will determine how much of an influence GIVEN solar variability will have on the climate. Given solar variability effect on the climate , will always vary depending on what the initial state of the climate is at the time the sun is exhibiting variability. This is why solar/climate correlations tend to get obscure at times. The climate system has much noise in the system and unless solar activity changes from a distinct prolonged active to a distinct prolonged minimum phase of activity solar/climate trends are hard to see. The initial state of the climate again also obscuring the solar/climate connection at times.
This is why this period of time is so great. We have switched from an very active sun last century to a very quiet sun post 2005 and the given state of the climate is such that it should respond to solar variability to one degree or another.
Look for exciting times ahead including the winter of 2014-2015 .
ren says (quote)
the Degradation Free Spectrometers experiment will have six minutes to observe the extreme ultraviolet and soft x-rays streaming from the sun, in order to measure the sun’s total energy output, known as irradiance, in these short wavelengths.
henry says
so, we don’t really know TSI
NOW, do we?
This is what I [also] suspected
Bob I think past history proves grand solar minimums will cause global temperatures to fall into a lower temperature range. Again consideration must be taken into account for the initial state of the climate and the duration/depth of the grand minimum, but there is no doubt about it.
Bob if this were not so there would be examples of the global temperature range rising during a prolonged solar minimum period and falling during a prolonged solar maximum period. There are no such examples. The same thing will happen with this current prolonged solar minimum which is the global temperature range in response is going to be down.
I just said it but I will repeat. The temperature can vary when solar output is constant due to the random chaotic nature of the climate system but it is the range that matters not the up/down temperature variations from year to year. The range in temperatures will NOT vary under constant solar output. The climate will stay in the same climate regime which it has done since post Dalton Solar Minimum times. Going forward the range in temperatures is gong to step downwards to at least Dalton Solar minimum times in response to this prolonged solar minimum due to primary /secondary solar climate effects.
That is a very IMPORTANT distinction.
WHAT BOB HAD SAID BELOW MY RESPONSE ABOVE.
I believe that the temperature of the earth is mostly dependent on changes in the Sun. Your point though is I assume mainly that the earth’s temperature can vary quite a bit even when the sun’s output changes little. The counter point to that is the cold period is correlated to the grand minimum of the sun. No one can yet prove that the grand minimum caused the cold period. But the hypothesis seems equally as plausible as those you have put forth
Pamela Grays says
Henryp, what cooling?
Henry says
You believe dr Roy
here is his data set
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:2002/to:2015/plot/uah/from:2002/to:2015/trend
note the trend from 2002 is [a bit] up
here are the other 4 major data sets
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1987/to:2015/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/to:2015/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1987/to:2015/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2002/to:2015/trend/plot/rss/from:1987/to:2015/plot/rss/from:2002/to:2015/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1987/to:2015/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2002/to:2015/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/rss/from:1987/to:2002/trend
note the trend from 2002 is [a bit] down.
Now, I have pointed dr Roy to this and suggested he might have a [calibration] problem especially with zero point calibration.He updated his set, but it did not come right, did it?
Never mind the 4 official data sets that all show [global] cooling from 2002,
I still prefer my own three data sets because I know that I used a sampling technique that was thoroughly thought through by balancing on latitude and other factors.
see here
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/02/21/henrys-pool-tables-on-global-warmingcooling/
Basically, I say all the other data sets are still muck, even if they do show it is globally cooling, because they are not properly balanced.
My data set says it is cooling at a rate of -0.015K/annum since 2000
Minima are currently falling at a rate of -0.01K/annum since 2000 and the curve [I found] is absolutely perfect for a random sample…..[100% correlation]
[see graph at the bottom of the minima curve]
So the whole world is cooling. We are cooling from the top latitudes down.
http://oi40.tinypic.com/2ql5zq8.jpg
Antarctic ice is increasing.
I know you are one of those who think that [somehow] I cooked my [own] results and that it is not random. I challenge you on that. Either you admit that the world is cooling or we agree to disagree and part our ways.
All the best,
H
@lsvalgaard says:
BobG says:
July 13, 2014 at 7:16 pm
cold period is correlated to the grand minimum of the sun.
Leif says: “Here is an argument [and a good one] that TSI during a Grand Minimum might be higher than today: Sunspots are dark and thus diminish TSI. If no dark sunspots, there is nothing to diminish TSI…”
But what if the output of the sun varies more than expected and in the grand minimum it goes lower than your new TSI graph indicates? The reason to question the TSI graph is that the temperature did vary more than usual and the temperature remained cool for longer than typical from volcanic or other typical sources. This might be a result of changes in TSI. Another reason to question the TSI graph is simply that it goes “flat”. This implies that there is a minimum TSI value – which should set an upper limit to variability. This does not seem consistent with similar stars. “Ground-based photometric surveys of solar-like stars find that the solar irradiance is a factor of 2 to 3 times more stable than the sample stars of similar spectral type and activity index (Radick et al. 1998).” http://kepler.nasa.gov/Science/about/targetFieldOfView/stellarVariability/
Also: “Whether the range of solar variation has been significantly greater in the past remains a matter of some debate; Lean et al. (1995) estimated that at the time of the Maunder Minimum (1645 to 1715) the TSI may have been 0.24% lower than its present value.” http://iopscience.iop.org/0067-0049/171/1/260/pdf/71056.web.pdf (Page 260).
The last link provided above has a tentative conclusion indicating in part that solar variation of the sun based on the limited data that they have is probably low.
“Because of selective absorption and scattering processes in the Earth’s atmosphere, different regions of the solar spectrum affect Earth’s climate in distinct ways. Approximately 20-25% of the Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) is absorbed by atmospheric water vapor, clouds, and ozone, by processes that are strongly wavelength dependent. Ultraviolet radiation at wavelengths below 300 nm is completely absorbed by the Earth’s atmosphere and contributes the dominant energy source in the stratosphere and thermosphere, establishing the upper atmosphere’s temperature, structure, composition, and dynamics. Even small variations in the Sun’s radiation at these short wavelengths will lead to corresponding changes in atmospheric chemistry. Radiation at the longer visible and infrared wavelengths penetrates into the lower atmosphere, where the portion not reflected is partitioned between the troposphere and the Earth’s surface, and becomes a dominant term in the global energy balance and an essential determinant of atmospheric stability and convection.”
http://lasp.colorado.edu/home/sorce/data/ssi-data/
BobG, you should spend time reading all of Lean’s work. She no longer subscribed to her 1995 estimates.
@Pamela Gray
Pamela said: “BobG, you should spend time reading all of Lean’s work. She no longer subscribed to her 1995 estimates.”
Thanks. I will look for it.
My overall point – and there are other sources of data is that we only have a relatively short (in time) amount of data showing how variable our star is and how TSI varies. I don’t think the proxy data showing changes in cosmic rays shows the exact magnitude of change back during the Maunder Minimum and prior solar minimums. Therefore, I believe it is reasonable to believe that TSI dropped more than various estimates show for the Maunder Minimum.
I think we will get more data in solar cycle 25.
The latest research from Professor Lockwood supports Leans earlier findings and just gives more support that the sun is more variable then what mainstream is trying to convey.
In addition Willie Soon’s latest research is showing many sun like stars exhibit Maunder Minimum type of activity just like our sun. Our sun is most likely a typical variable star which we know varies by more then .1 In-fact during the short recent solar lull solar irradiance was off by .15
During the Maunder Minimum I estimate solar irradiance was off any where from .25 to maybe .6 %
Solar wind speeds were in the 200’s km/sec
http://www.spaceandscience.net/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/ssrcresearchreport1-2010geophysicalevents.pdf
This shows much evidence that a solar/volcanic connection does exist and this is a part of my global cooling scenario associated with prolonged solar minimum periods. One of the many associated secondary effects.
BobG says
But what if the output of the sun varies more than expected and in the grand minimum it goes lower than your new TSI graph indicates?
henry says
You did not get it
When the sun goes “hotter”, earth goes cooler
leif says
and this is a part of my global cooling scenario associated with prolonged solar minimum periods
henry says
Occasionally I watch some of the US s TV serials here
Most recently it strikes me that most are showing real cold and heaps of snow around living areas.
……/////
I am thinking about that now
…../////
truly, it seems to me that the USA is probably going to be more affected by global cooling than any other country, and by my account it won’t stop cooling until 2038,
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/04/29/the-climate-is-changing/
so remember, that day, when you stand there and curse the cold [and God]
that it is [really] just there to protect us from the heat……
Go figure.
God bless you all
Henry