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
Bernie Hutchins says:
July 10, 2014 at 11:00 pm
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:
Bernie — thanks for the clarification…and I am familiar with the Briggs Declaration 🙂 However…
Electronic Engineers get used to filtering tine dependent data — sometimes in signals analysis it’s your only tool.
Like you my main question was the — use of/choice of — a filter style more than the padding.
While I do understand the objections, if electronic engineers followed those rules — then we might not have a lot of equipment — radios, MODEMS etc…Hence my recommendation that a filter specialist (signals specialist) might have a useful contribution to make.
I guess I would have done some things that Evans did — although with different tools — and people just don’t want to hear about those techniques — so Adios! There seems to be a “culture gap” here.
Cheers!
.
sergeiMK think about whether climate science should not place forecasts? How’s the weather FORMER everyone knows. CLIMATE SCIENCE IS FOR GOOD PEOPLE, NOT THEORY.
SergeiMK says
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/08/solar-notch-delay-model-released/#comment-1683221
henry says
Are you guys still on about a few dots on that TSI graph that is useless anyway?
Cannot believe it.
This graph
http://www.solen.info/solar/polarfields/polarfields.jpg
that was quoted by ren,
is much more interesting because you can pair it off with the drop in the speed of maximum temperatures, first table, on the bottom, here
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/files/2013/02/henryspooltableNEWa.pdf
Do you see the correlation between dropping field strengths and the deceleration of warming?
Maximum temperature is a good proxy for heat that is being allowed through the atmosphere.
TSI is rubbish because they simply cannot measure everything TOA. There are some nasty chemical reactions happening TOA.
Now, based on my own investigations, I predict that only from around 2016 will solar field strengths start to creep up again. Something has to switch on the sun by that time.. ANYONE here care to make a guess what that graph on solar field strengths will look like in 2060 (2016+44)?
Let me know if you figured it out as well.
Are approaching slowly to the next solar minimum. So we can safely assume that the TSI fall.
Henry P TSI is the totality solar radiation. It does not include changes in the fraction due to the lower magnetic field of the sun.
Is it necessary to provide? What will happen if the Gulf Stream is not strengthened? Will it be warmer in the north-east of North America? What will be the winter, if the pattern of circulation continue?
http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.gif
It was previously thought that the field was weakening by about 5 percent each century, LiveScience reports, pointing to a flip in about 2,000 years. But the new data shows a much more dramatic weakening, at a pace of 5 percent per decade — 10 times faster than previously thought.
The new data come from a trio of satellites collectively known as Swarm, launched by the ESA in November. The measurements show a dramatic weakening over the Western hemisphere, with some strengthening in other areas, like the southern Indian Ocean, according to a release.
I downloaded the link to “climate.xism” but it failed to load in LibreOffice Calc .(When Microsoft ended support to Office 2003 and XP I decided to save a few pence by using a free suite on my new PC with 64 bit Windows 7 ).So far Libre Office has been OK , like Open Office on my old PC , but not for this file . Any obvious reason?
NikFromNYC says:
July 10, 2014 at 1:32 pm
“Where the physical causality is claimed is moot when you merely call the interaction Force X (“from outer space”). Is it any more preposterous that an 11 year signal is perfectly delayed by an 11 year lag within the Sun itself? If it’s lagged exactly the same duration of the cycle claimed then the lag cancels out to no lag at all except that you can demonstrate peak to peak or valley to valley uniqueness to only the former instead of the current swing.”
I’m thinking the same thing. Is there a misinterpretation from their results wrt physicality? I have realized over the past six months by careful observations of solar and earth activity, that there is no 11-year lagged temperature response that makes any sense except from the ocean.
El Nino events regularly lead to step changes in the temp anomaly with each El Nino as Bob Tisdale has brilliantly described. The physical cause of El Nino would be sea surface turnover that releases built-up heat from ‘previous’ solar energy ‘deposits’ , increasing temps, always followed by a La Nina that exposes colder waters to the atmosphere from deeper depths, lowering temps. How ‘previous’ – is the real question – along with the amount of solar ‘deposit’ necessary over time.
But closer to your point is what happens every solar cycle on the Sun, as DE says, that causes the notch to occur. SOLAR MINIMUMS! The solar minimums clearly show up on temp anomaly graphs. There is a recurring dip in temps at solar mins in several upstanding temp time series. I dropped this idea off to their site and so far haven’t seen a response.
The notch is the time during the solar minimums when temps drop. If the input to the notch drops altogether (TSI, SSN, flux), as is expected by many as SC24 winds down and going into SC25, then temps will follow a downhill trajectory. Some clearly are still getting used to that idea.
When one looks at the data of global temperatures versus past solar activity the correlation is there. There is no doubt about it. I can not find a period of sustained high solar activity with a long period of falling global temperatures or a period of sustained very low solar activity with a long period of rising temperatures.
Sure the temperatures will fluctuate as they do now when ever the earth is in a particular climate regime, but over the periods of time when ever solar activity enters a very low activity period or high activity period one will always see that the range in global temperatures will drop or rise to a new range which will correlate with the level of solar activity over the globe as a whole. Still some parts of the globe will always run counter due to ocean currents and atmospheric changes..
IT IS A 100% OCCURENCE.
TSI is but one small part of this and we saw again when solar activity was very low around 2008-2010 that the same processes were occurring once again with the earth and the climate(such as a more meridional atmospheric circulation, high cosmic ray counts, an increase in geological activity ,ocean heat content leveling off, more La Ninas) only to be temporarily held back due to the maximum of solar cycle 24.
With the maximum of solar cycle 24 about to end and being very weak and with more or less 10 years of sub-solar activity the next solar lull will likely be much longer then the short 2008-2010 lull and will exert much more of an influence on the climate through primary and secondary solar effects. This will start to become more evident later this year and will help set the stage for an extreme N.H. winter season this season .
The weakening magnetic field of the earth will only enhance the solar effects.
I have laid out the solar variability which is needed to accomplish this , now it is wait, watch and see. Historical data supports all that I have laid out. I feel the use of past data versus the climate is the way to go when trying to project the climate going into the future. I don’t care for the model approach due to the fact they will never have complete or accurate enough data to work with not to mention all of the unknowns.
The TSI saga of no consensus on the data for this item is a great example of what I am talking about. Very foolish to argue over something (tsi data) which for all intents and purposes is unknown.
14 DIFFERENT DATA SETS! NOT JUST TWO OR THREE BUT 14!
Sunspot data is also very subjective data in my opinion and I don’t use it.
To clarify the solar lull period I mentioned runs from the start of year 2008 to the end of year 2010.
lsvalgaard says:
July 10, 2014 at 10:29 am
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”
Leif, I started seeing a graph like you linked to about 12 years ago or more, and it made me wonder if there really was something influencing temps besides the sun. Now I see that graph as an immature look at solar influence. It is a overly-simplistic view on the sun-earth connection that does not incorporate the cumulative solar influence over time on temperatures. The solar radiant influence is instantaneous yes, however, like the pot on your stove that stays hot for a while after the burner is turned low or off, global SSTs take time to cool off from the more active solar seasons, the oceans release of that heat partly offsets lower solar activity periods – but not completely.
The 0.1% solar variation you often cite is an over-simplified look at solar variability. The warmists are right there with you on that.
Leif, Pamela, have you taken the time to read David Stockwell’s work at Niche Modelling? It seems you’re both set in your ways, unwilling to see solar action in a different light than what your present predisposition allows.
gary gulrud says:
July 10, 2014 at 8:49 am
“When did science become data mining looking for anomalies rather than establishing relations of cause and effect. Why is selecting a proper filter and correcting data gathered by outdated methods more important than having an idea?”
I hear you gary! From the looks of things cause and effect follow “form” in importance for many. It’s because some people, too set in their ways, completely invested in their own opinions, have a hard time seeing things from new perspectives. Look at the warmists for example, and now, the ‘solar deniers’, as David Archibald calls ’em.
lsvalgaard says:
July 10, 2014 at 7:05 pm
Mike Jowsey says:
July 10, 2014 at 7:01 pm
Why does it cause you to foam at the mouth so much?
“Scientific fraud can have that effect on me. A PR-stunt with all attendant tricks and fabrications not so much.”
Leif, DE is entitled to be wrong in his good faith effort, and you are entitled to point out errors as you see them, however, your calling him a fraud crosses the line. If he is mistaken, then that is all.
Leif, if it turns out that your views on the solar variability and tempertures are wrong, by your own standards we’ll soon be calling you a “scientific fraud”, right? What’s good for the goose is good for the gander, right? Science is a bloodsport, right?
lsvalgaard says:
July 10, 2014 at 11:43 am
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”
That’s how many in the world feel about you Leif, only your pride is in the way of you seeing that. I’m starting to think you’re worried about some of your positions holding up. Was it you who gave Stephen Schnieder the idea to stick with the 0.1% solar variation that allowed him and other climate modellers to carry on with the GHG-CAGW charade? Is that how you landed at Stanford? Is that why you’re here everyday, to maintain that line of thinking, to save face?
NikFromNYC made good comments and provided a beautiful graphic July 11, 2014 at 2:22 am
Excellent – Thanks for that. My affection for S-G is mostly related to its Butterworth-like passband in steady-state applications. As for transient behavior, non-engineers tend to expect magic from EEs and statisticians.
FIR filtering being convolution, truncations of the time series or the impulse response ends are quite capable of giving nasty transients (as you know and show). Tapered windows give the illusion of helping.
I really like that FFT smoothing you did. I think I understand the 10% cutoff idea, but am not sure how you got that linear trend through. Is there a reference to this?
Bernie Hutchins says:
July 11, 2014 at 9:39 am
NikFromNYC made good comments and provided a beautiful graphic
For me, the bottom line is [and has always been]: don’t do analysis on smoothed data
lsvalgaard says:
July 11, 2014 at 9:46 am
Bernie Hutchins says:
July 11, 2014 at 9:39 am
NikFromNYC made good comments and provided a beautiful graphic
“For me, the bottom line is [and has always been]: don’t do analysis on smoothed data”
Restated: “Don’t do climate models based on an average TSI value with a 0.1% variability.” Right!?
Bob Weber says:
July 11, 2014 at 9:31 am
The 0.1% solar variation you often cite is an over-simplified look at solar variability.
That is the variability of the energy we get from the Sun. There is no generally accepted theory that anything else [solar] influences the climate.
Leif, DE is entitled to be wrong in his good faith effort, and you are entitled to point out errors as you see them, however, your calling him a fraud crosses the line. If he is mistaken, then that is all.
No, there is much more to this:
1) using data that he should have known are incorrect
2) fabrication end-of-series data to do smoothing
3) analysing smoothed data
This is either fraud or incompetence. Take your pick.
Leif, if it turns out that your views on the solar variability and tempertures are wrong
The variability is ‘data’ and not my ‘view’. There is no demonstrated influence on temperatures above the 0.1C.
Was it you who gave Stephen Schnieder the idea to stick with the 0.1% solar variation that allowed him and other climate modellers to carry on with the GHG-CAGW charade? Is that how you landed at Stanford? Is that why you’re here everyday, to maintain that line of thinking, to save face?
No, to all of it. You are being presumptuous in the extreme. There is no evidence for a solar variation larger than the 0.1% [in cycle amplitude], so one must stick with the assumption that there is no such larger variation. To save face? Not at all, to provide what we have learned about the sun.
Bob Weber says:
July 11, 2014 at 10:03 am
Restated: “Don’t do climate models based on an average TSI value with a 0.1% variability.” Right!?
Wrong. An average is not the same as a smoothing. Don’t do models using an 11-yr smoothing of TSI.
Was it you {leif} who gave Stephen Schnieder the idea to stick with the 0.1% solar variation that allowed him and other climate modellers to carry on with the GHG-CAGW charade? Is that how you landed at Stanford? Is that why you’re here everyday, to maintain that line of thinking, to save face?
henry says
I do not trust TSI mainly because I don’t know exactly what it measures…
The sun shines a bit more than we think….I think.
I do find this particular remark intriguing though, since in all my encounters with Leif I find his stubborn persistence that it is “globally warming” or that for sure there is “man made global warming” quite peculiar and contradicting what everyone can see for himself [after a bit of work], namely that it is globally cooling
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/02/21/henrys-pool-tables-on-global-warmingcooling/
sorry I forgot to add to my last comment
“and that there is no man made global warming, whatsoever”
360 year CET record conclusively shows:
increased insolation suppresses the long term temperature up-trend .
Leif: I got yer solar variability….
The solar variability during cycles 19-24, as seen in cumulative F10.7 (observed – I’m adding the adjusted numbers into my model later tonight):
SC19 to SC20: -12% change
SC20 to SC21: +5%
SC21 to SC22: -5%
SC22 to SC23: +9%
SC23 to SC24: -55% (as of May 31, 2014)
And during the last 27 days, (one solar rotation), excluding today, from http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/ftpdir/indices/DSD.txt
June 15, 2014 to June 27, 2014; F10.7cm daily ave was 105 sfu.
June 27, 2014 to July 10, 2014; F10.7cm daily ave was 172, a 64% difference from one period to the next. Today the F10.7 is 177.
So much for a TSI with a 0.1% variance.
360 year CET record conclusively shows:
increased insolation suppresses long term temperature up-trend .
Bob Weber says:
July 11, 2014 at 11:16 am
The solar variability during cycles 19-24, as seen in cumulative F10.7
The energy in F10.7 [being itself a part of TSI] is many trillion times less than the energy in TSI,
So much for huge solar variability.
Bernie asked: “I really like that FFT smoothing you did. I think I understand the 10% cutoff idea, but am not sure how you got that linear trend through. Is there a reference to this?”
I was simply aware of FFT and dug into whatever PC plotting program I happened to be playing with around 2010 and found it in there, but no I didn’t take many notes. The software was Origin and their FFT filter info is here:
http://www.originlab.com/index.aspx?go=Products/Origin/DataAnalysis/SignalProcessing/FFT%20and%20IFFT
I believe I used a smoothing filter based on Fourier transform rather than a complete transformation from frequency to time domains.
leif says
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/08/solar-notch-delay-model-released/#comment-1683542
@Bob
TSI is a red herring, as is SSN, too many inconsistencies
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/08/solar-notch-delay-model-released/#comment-1683496
just leave it alone, go for some other proxy
like
maximum temperatures
on earth