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
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?