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
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?
@ur momisugly 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.