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
HenryP says:
July 11, 2014 at 11:27 am
Interesting description of some problems with computing TSI, let alone reconstructing it over 11,000 years:
Evolution of the solar irradiance during the Holocene
http://arxiv.org/abs/1103.4958
milodonharlani says:
July 11, 2014 at 11:35 am
Evolution of the solar irradiance during the Holocene
Thier conclusion:
“The reconstruction indicates that the decadally averaged total solar irradiance ranges over approximately 1.5 W/m2 from grand maxima to grand minima”
This is 0.11% corresponding to a temperature effect of 0.08C.
lsvalgaard says:
July 11, 2014 at 11:42 am
I know, but it’s hedged all around with caveats so can’t have a high degree of confidence in the conclusion, IMO.
The hardest thing about teaching and learning isn’t overcome by being the noted expert. If that were the case there would have been no Scopes Monkey trial. The human tendency is STILL to believe what isn’t there and what can’t be blindly tested rather than to believe in facts and unbiased research. To wit, I imagine that both sides of this debate, even in scientific circles, would rather that Leif and the SSN Workshops committee work more quietly and not disturb the rest of the world with inconvenient data.
milodonharlani says:
July 11, 2014 at 11:45 am
I know, but it’s hedged all around with caveats so can’t have a high degree of confidence in the conclusion, IMO.
I think it is a bit too high. I would rather prefer half of that, for a temperature difference of 0.04C
Pamela Gray says:
July 11, 2014 at 11:49 am
that Leif and the SSN Workshops committee work more quietly and not disturb the rest of the world with inconvenient data.</i
Now that our paper of the findings of the SSN workshop has been accepted, we have placed the preprint on arxiv.org where it will appear on Monday.
Pamela Gray says:
July 11, 2014 at 11:49 am
that Leif and the SSN Workshops committee work more quietly and not disturb the rest of the world with inconvenient data.
Now that our paper of the findings of the SSN workshop has been accepted, we have placed the preprint on arxiv.org where it will appear on Monday.
lsvalgaard says:
July 11, 2014 at 11:50 am
It can’t be too comforting that experts can’t agree on the value to within 100% or more, not that TSI is even the most important solar variable. Maybe order of magnitude is sufficient agreement.
milo, than you also have little confidence in Evans’ proposal? It too is “hedged all around with caveats”. In what I have read so far the paper you linked to,
http://arxiv.org/abs/1103.4958, has far more support statistically speaking and is girded with a MUCH stronger research base than the solar-notch proposal.
Sweet! I look forward to reading it! And congratulations. This work is important for the many reasons you have shared with us. So important that future space research is depending on your expertise. We who look to the stars and wonder have you and your colleagues to thank for helping us understand the one closest to us.
milodonharlani says:
July 11, 2014 at 11:57 am
It can’t be too comforting that experts can’t agree on the value to within 100%
They agree on a value to within 0.06%
leif says
This is 0.11% corresponding to a temperature effect of 0.08C.
henry says
pray do tell us
how you relate temp. on earth to a measurement TSI
Pamela Gray says:
July 11, 2014 at 12:02 pm
Sweet! I look forward to reading it! And congratulations.
Here is the abstract:
Revisiting the Sunspot Number
Frédéric Clette, Leif Svalgaard, José M. Vaquero, Edward W. Cliver.
Our knowledge of the long-term evolution of solar activity and of its primary modulation, the 11-year cycle, largely depends on a single direct observational record: the visual sunspot counts that retrace the last 4 centuries, since the invention of the astronomical telescope. Currently, this activity index is available in two main forms: the International Sunspot Number initiated by R. Wolf in 1849 and the Group Number constructed more recently by Hoyt and Schatten (1998a,b). Unfortunately, those two series do not match by various aspects, inducing confusions and contradictions when used in crucial contemporary studies of the solar dynamo or of the solar forcing on the Earth climate. Recently, new efforts have been undertaken to diagnose and correct flaws and biases affecting both sunspot series, in the framework of a series of dedicated Sunspot Number Workshops. Here, we present a global overview of our current understanding of the sunspot number calibration. While the early part of the sunspot record before 1800 is still characterized by large uncertainties due to poorly observed periods, the more recent sunspot numbers are mainly affected by three main inhomogeneities: in 1880-1915 for the Group Number and in 1947 and 1980-2014 for the Sunspot Number. The newly corrected series clearly indicates a progressive decline of solar activity before the onset of the Maunder Minimum, while the slowly rising trend of the activity after the Maunder Minimum is strongly reduced, suggesting that by the mid 18th century, solar activity had already returned to the level of those observed in recent solar cycles in the 20th century. We finally conclude with future prospects opened by this epochal revision of the Sunspot Number, the first one since Wolf himself, and its reconciliation with the Group Number, a long-awaited modernization that will feed solar cycle research into the 21st century.
leif & (Pam)says
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/08/solar-notch-delay-model-released/#comment-1683604
henry says
again,
a waste of time
HenryP says:
July 11, 2014 at 12:05 pm
pray do tell us how you relate temp. on earth to a measurement TSI
Have done that MANY times. Here is one more for people with problems:
dT/T = dTST/TSI / 4. insert T = 288K, dTSI = 1 W/m2, TSI = 1361 W/m2
HenryP says:
July 11, 2014 at 12:09 pm
again, a waste of time
Pearls for swine…
Leif. Just WOW! Like I have said many times, a tiny piece of the Sun is of far greater brilliance to me than a flashy diamond set upon my finger.
Now that I am back working full time, I am contemplating whether or not to buy a house or get a solar telescope so I can see sunspots. I’ve never seen one other than in pictures. I think a tent and a telescope would make me very happy.
@leif
your formula does not work out for me and my own observations, namely
-0.015 x 14 = -0.2K down since 2000
2nd table, for Means, on the bottom
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/02/21/henrys-pool-tables-on-global-warmingcooling/
I also think we have not even reached the bottom yet?
Pamela Gray says:
July 11, 2014 at 12:15 pm
Now that I am back working full time, I am contemplating whether or not to buy a house or get a solar telescope so I can see sunspots.
Cheaper than a house: http://www.sciencefirst.com/Sunspotter.html
HenryP says:
July 11, 2014 at 12:17 pm
your formula does not work out for me and my own observations
Perhaps your ‘own observations’ are not so good as you think they are…
leif says
Pearls for swine…
henry says
mmm….
interesting
you seem to be remembering Jesus’ words when it fits you…
HenryP says:
July 11, 2014 at 12:23 pm
you seem to be remembering Jesus’ words when it fits you…
Or rather the words of the man who wrote that [not named Jesus].
lsvalgaard says:
July 11, 2014 at 1:36 am
Sparks says:
Leif are you suggesting that this “dynamo” is the cause of the suns polar field?
Leif: “Yes, and the polar fields are the ’cause’ of the dynamo.”
The polar field is not produced by surface Magnetic field activity or the result of sunspots then? I’m just making sure.
Lets see!
Leif: “A better way of saying it is that circulation of solar plasma drives the dynamo which produces sunspots.” T
Wrong.. The Polar fields circulates the sun, rotating approximately every 22 or so years for one field reversal..
This drives the surface activity on the sun.
Leif: “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.”
Absolute balder dash nonsense..
Leif: “So polar fields => sunspots => polar fields => sunspots => polar fields etc, etc.”
Here you are implying that the magnetic interaction of the suns polar field on the suns surface produces the suns polar field.
I’m at awe every time I read some of your comments.
Awesome! Just what I need right when I need it! My new job allows me the latitude I need to wake students up! I’m gonna write this up in a grant so I can get that solar viewing apparatus. Thanks!
leif says
Perhaps your ‘own observations’ are not so good as you think they are…
henry says
as I was saying
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/08/solar-notch-delay-model-released/#comment-1683496
show me your results?