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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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!