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
Sparks says:
July 11, 2014 at 12:26 pm
Absolute balder dash nonsense..
Here, educate yourself http://solarphysics.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrsp-2010-3/
HenryP says:
July 11, 2014 at 12:30 pm
show me your results?
Of TSI: http://www.leif.org/research/Monckton-Flaw-3.png
I don’t do temperatures, but you can find those in many places [try Google]
Sparks, this will really get your knickers in an awesome twist. I propose that Earth’s oceanic/atmospheric teleconnections are similar in that one produces the other which produces the one, with produces the other, and so on, which ends up as a global temperature metric (caveat: outside the influence of overturned metal boats, BBQs, brick and blacktop, and air conditioner exhausts).
Leif says
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/08/solar-notch-delay-model-released/#comment-1683628
henry says
Mat 7:6 “Don’t give what is holy to dogs or throw your pearls to pigs. Otherwise, they will trample them and then tear you to pieces.
It was Jesus who said it first, you got that wrong; so very likely the rest you tell us is questionable as well…
HenryP says:
July 11, 2014 at 12:39 pm
Mat 7:6 “…pearls to pigs.”
It was Jesus who said it first,
No, a man named Matthew wrote it.
lsvalgaard says:
July 11, 2014 at 12:26 pm
Consensus biblical scholarship considers the “pearls before swine” passage genuine, ie probably actually uttered by the crucified, itinerant Essene-leaning preacher, Joshua, son of Joseph of Nazareth.
http://www.sermononthemount.org.uk/Authors/Vermes2004.html
FWIW, the legionary emblem of Legio X Fretensis, based in Syria & Palestine in the 1st Century, was a boar or pig.
Pamela. There’s no “what came first, the chicken or the egg” dispute here, The suns polar field came first.
lsvalgaard says:
July 11, 2014 at 12:42 pm
The historicity of a Matthew is questionable. Whoever he might have been, his name became attached at some point to the book now so known. But as to actually writing down the book, yes, that obviously was not done by Jesus, so the accuracy of his words, if any, remains disputable.
LOL! And there’s the first twist.
@Pamela
Oh ha ha frigging ha 🙂
Correct me if I’m wrong Leif but F10.7cm radio flux is used because it describes the overall spectrum fairly well, including UV. So it’s used as a proxy for that reason and was never meant to be considered by itself as containing all the energy the sun puts out, as TSI is supposed to do, so the energetic comparison you made is a moot point. The radio flux drops to a low of about 63-68 sfu during solar minimum periods, sometimes only briefly, during the sun’s quiescent state.
In my model F10.7cm is the independent variable, transformed across the spectrum, giving a different picture of solar variability than you describe. It’s not always obvious when the amount of solar flux changes the temps because of atmospheric processes mixing or driving cold air masses from the north or above that work against solar warming during higher solar flux periods. There are overlapping influences all the time to sort through.
sfu/day Min Ave Max
SC19: 63 139 383
SC20: 66 113 262
SC21: 66 135 375
SC22: 66 123 370
SC23: 65 122 315
SC24: 65 100 262 (as of yesterday, July 10)
So unless SC24 activity stays high for some time before the minimum, we are looking at a solar flux average for this cycle to be less than 100, less than the average for SC20, during the 1970’s, when leading scientists back then were clamoring about the next mini-ice age.
My analysis, based first on no lag in temps, is a sfu average of 120 as the threshold between warming and cooling, based on SST and F10.7 from 1961 to yesterday. I am working on the lag now, which will affect the threshold value some. There is a difference in my value and Salvatore’s and also David Archibald’s threshold. I’d like to know how they derived their numbers.
Is too!
Bob Weber says:
July 11, 2014 at 1:01 pm
Correct me if I’m wrong Leif but F10.7cm radio flux is used because it describes the overall spectrum fairly well, including UV.
Correction: F10.7 does not describe the overall spectrum well, TSI does. F10.7 is a proxy for the FAR ultraviolet which is a tiny, tiny fraction of the energy we receive.
Bob Weber, There is a reason we don’t argue about TSI…
@Pamela… Shut it you… 🙂
lsvalgaard says:
July 11, 2014 at 12:07 pm
Congrats. That was a lot of work. But just so you know, your recontruction doesn’t change my outlook one bit because in the modern era since 1947, F10.7cm works better! That doesn’t mean your SSN series won’t be used for comparison. Essentially,as long as the SSN/Flux relationship doesn’t change terribly much, your recontruction can be used to estimate F10.7 pre-1947.
lsvalgaard says:
July 11, 2014 at 1:04 pm
Bob Weber says:
July 11, 2014 at 1:01 pm
Correct me if I’m wrong Leif but F10.7cm radio flux is used because it describes the overall spectrum fairly well, including UV.
“Correction: F10.7 does not describe the overall spectrum well, TSI does. F10.7 is a proxy for the FAR ultraviolet which is a tiny, tiny fraction of the energy we receive.”
F10.7 is representative across the spectrum based on empirical data by the IPS here in figure 1: http://owenduffy.net/calc/qsrf/index.htm
Bob Weber says:
July 11, 2014 at 1:11 pm
lEssentially,as long as the SSN/Flux relationship doesn’t change terribly much, your recontruction can be used to estimate F10.7 pre-1947.
A much better reconstruction that does not rely on the SSN is shown in slide 20 or
http://www.leif.org/research/SSN/Svalgaard14.pdf
Bob Weber says:
July 11, 2014 at 1:15 pm
F10.7 is representative across the spectrum based on empirical data by the IPS here in figure 1: http://owenduffy.net/calc/qsrf/index.htm
Apart from your statement being false, your link makes no such claim.
Bob, here is a link regarding basic knowledge about F10.7 flux, and all the other frequencies.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.astro.ethz.ch%2Fpeople%2Fpdf_files%2Fbenz%2FLBReview_thermal.pdf&ei=80PAU5XUK4KkyAT4k4KoBA&usg=AFQjCNGF7paylzhC1p6f7vu-3g1982Td9Q&sig2=vHaQvF11EzMLMmlGcU4Odw&bvm=bv.70810081,d.aWw
lsvalgaard says:
July 11, 2014 at 12:30 pm
“Here, educate yourself http://solarphysics.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrsp-2010-3/“
Absolute ‘complicated self assuring’ Balder dash nonsense! 🙂
Sparks, you are supposed to say, “Is not!” Geesh. Haven’t you ever ridden in the back of a car with your sibling?
Sparks says:
July 11, 2014 at 1:22 pm
“Here, educate yourself http://solarphysics.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrsp-2010-3/“
Absolute ‘complicated self assuring’ Balder dash nonsense! 🙂
Pearls before swine, again.
Don’t make a mistake about whose side Leif is on
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/11/the-climate-consensus-is-not-97-its-100/#comment-1683533
HenryP says:
July 11, 2014 at 1:26 pm
Don’t make a mistake about whose side Leif is on
On the side of righteousness:
http://www.lbible.org/files/img/slides/rick08.jpg
Pam I have all the major sources from all around the world regarding F10.7 and every aspect of what we’re talking about, the data, everything, in my collection, including dozens upon dozens if not hundreds of papers on this subject and others. Get back to me after you’ve read and understood David Stockwell’s work.
Leif, you’re pushing it now mister. From http://owenduffy.net/calc/qsrf/index.htm
“Fig 1 compares the interpolations published by Australia’s IPS for its Learmonth observations on 22/08/2007 with a cubic spline interpolation. The maximum difference between the IPS interpolation and cubic spline is 0.09dB in this sample set.”
Look at figure 1. Based on their empirical observations at various frequencies, they were able to create a cubic spline interpolation that fits the data they recorded. This means nothing to you? You ought to know photon energy is a function of wavelength, and that’s what this graph indicates.
By the way Leif, your page 20 is awesome! from http://www.leif.org/research/SSN/Svalgaard14.pdf