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
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