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
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