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
Apparently my copy of Excel is too antique to work properly.
Combative???COMBATIVE???? Is that what you call it???I think a better description would be DISGRACEFUL!
lsvalgaard says:
July 8, 2014 at 2:30 pm
milodonharlani says:
July 8, 2014 at 2:26 pm
Leif is convinced of his positions & his defenses of them might well sound initially sound dismissive or snide, but IMO “drive-by” doesn’t fit because he’s willing to follow up on objections to his views.
And the discussion should not be about me, but about the Newly Released Model, touted as ‘Big News’.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Some of you are apparently taking positions that support your salary/ego, with no room for possible alternate solutions?
The whole intent of David’s work, my understanding, is to show a plausible alternate reason for the climate changes we have seen, and provide short-term forecasts. (The AGW models have already failed, based primarily on CO2.) That is the biggest goal in my mind, to stop the CO2 madness that is gripping our governments. They are destroying the world’s economy now, and into the future, killing millions of people. I really don’t want that to be my generations legacy for my grand kids. Do you?
Brad says:
July 8, 2014 at 2:54 pm
That is the biggest goal in my mind, to stop the CO2 madness that is gripping our governments.
So the effort is agenda-driven [as I have said – good you agree] rather than science-driven.
Willis Eschenbach I believe in data, not models.
John Loop says:
July 8, 2014 at 9:31 am
Not a climate scientist, but an engineer. I have been closely watching the debates on the blogs- at least the blogs allowing a debate! This model seems open and falsifiable, and promulgated by reasonable people without an agenda! And speaking in GENERAL, and in the VERY VERY end, it is the sun, right? How can anybody say this is not true? We just have to find the correlation somehow. Maybe this is taking us there…. Would be nice. Do NOT look forward to the cold tho!
The problem is that this argument is similar to arguing that a landslide is caused by gravity. It is trivially true, but the events and conditions that go into the process of an individual slide are far more complex. It is impossible to predict the magnitude of a slide based on gravity alone. Depositional history, vegetation, material, particle size, lubrication and friction are just a few of the factors that create the slide. Gravity just supplies the energy. The sun without a doubt supplies some of the energy that drives climate, but planetary rotation, gravity, and coriolis force all have their influence and that is without invoking a single GHG or human influence.
lsvalgaard says:
July 8, 2014 at 2:38 pm
What did you not say? What did I misquote?
I was commenting on my failing to edit out one of my two uses of the word “sound”.
This discussion about faith, not fact.
Anthony, I find your arrogance in your introductory comments astonishing. Your failure to control the total negativity of both Leif and Willis diminishes your credibility further. I have no idea whether Dr Evans has produced something that has scientific legs but he at least deserves respect for what he has done even if it turns out to be much less than it seems at this point. You and your major contributors have failed badly to treat the work seriously.
REPLY: I’m not sure where you get “arrogant” from my brief note. It was written under pressure while at the conference, and please note I could have waited and run it next week when I return home, but hat would garner criticism too.
As for failure to “control negativity”…imagine this. I find your comment highly negative, should I delete it because it appears negative to me? I can imagine the flames you’d throw at me if I did so. I’d made it clear to Leif and Willis that I don’t like how they behaved on that thread, especially since I believe Jo and David are making an honest effort here. But, know this: I CANNOT READ AND POLICE EVERY COMMENT ON WUWT (over 1.3 million now). During that week I had to devote more time to my business, and so some folks got a bit out of hand. I can’t always be there to break up every fight, even though you seem to think so.
Comments like yours are the ones that make me think I should just shut off the blog and walk away some days. Walk a mile in my shoes, take the abuse I get from both sides of the climate wars, then maybe you’ll understand.
As skeptics we have to be doubly hard on each other, pal review has no place here. That said, I’ve asked for more courtesy.
Further, Jo and David and I are on quite good terms. I’ve sent them some tools to help, and offered some advice. All is well between me and them.
If you think you know what is going on between Jo, David, and I and want to lecture me further on “respect” …think again.
Anthony Watts
lsvalgaard says:
July 8, 2014 at 2:58 pm
Brad says:
July 8, 2014 at 2:54 pm
“That is the biggest goal in my mind, to stop the CO2 madness that is gripping our governments.”
LS _ So the effort is agenda-driven [as I have said – good you agree] rather than science-driven.
********************************************************************************************************
Leif,
Whose agenda are you referencing, mine or our governments?
Most people would respond “I agree with you” but you just can’t seem to get there can you? You always spin it so that people agree with you, good for the ego, right?
I advise you to carefully read and reflect on.
http://lasp.colorado.edu/home/sorce/science/?doing_wp_cron=1404857698.6750700473785400390625
At least it’s not one of those forecasts that predicts horrible things long after everyone living today will be gone. Looks like we’ll know within just a couple of years whether this model is any good or not, and I give the creators of it high marks for having the cajones to go out on a limb like this.
Now, they just need to hope that the sun doesn’t decide to geld them.
If the TSI at the edge of the Earth’s atmosphere is 1365 W/m2 and this is responsible for 288 K of warming, in a linear world the warming is 4.74 W/m2 per degree of warming. In a linear world an extra 0.5 W/m2 would increase the temperature of the Earth’s surface by 0.002 deg K.
Obviously we don’t live in a linear world, but given the small variation in TSI relative to its average value (+/- 0.04% variation) the Earth would have to be so non-linear with respect to warming due to TSI increase that I can’t see it being stable. Notch or otherwise.
I’ve checked out JoNova’s site and have to say they are very polite defenders of their theory.
Is the relationship of OHC to atmospheric effects considered as a fixed value or a function of temperature difference? Ie., Warm air and cold water having a more significant interaction than warm air and warm water.
>lsvalgaard says:
>July 8, 2014 at 12:32 pm
>Brad says:
>July 8, 2014 at 11:57 am
>And please explain how you can forecast “volcanic activity” and its impact on changes in the >climate. I’d love to see that crystal ball.
>Evans’ ‘model’ uses volcanic activity….and worse ‘atomic bomb tests’
Just . . . Wow . . . Person asks how you forecast and you deride actual data used by someone else to forecast.
>lsvalgaard says:
>July 8, 2014 at 2:58 pm
>Brad says:
>July 8, 2014 at 2:54 pm
>That is the biggest goal in my mind, to stop the CO2 madness that is gripping our >governments.
>So the effort is agenda-driven [as I have said – good you agree] rather than science-driven.
Just . . . Wow . . . Person speculates about another’s motives and you ascribe that speculated motive to the other person.
This is an indication of the quality of your reasoning though lack of quality is closer to the mark. I must assume that other things you reason about, such as the study of the sun, are as poorly grounded. The logical conclusion is your “authoritative” statements have a high probability of being wrong.
Please be clear that I am NOT saying that David and Jo have evinced bad faith in this. From everything I’ve seen, they are honest people working to understand a most complex system, and they have put a huge amount of time and effort into the project.
….from the post in question regarding tunable parameters, and the bug in the code running on a mac as well out of sample tests, and their results. That’s great feedback for them, and a good post (IMHO). Have you let them know?
Prior to the SOlar Radiation and Climate Experiment (SORCE) Science Team Meeting, experts in measuring solar spectral irradiance (SSI) from around the world met on September 17, 2012 in Annapolis, MD to discuss the recent SSI observations. The primary topic of interest is that the SORCE measurements show larger solar variability in the descending phase of solar cycle 23 (i.e. from mid-2003 to the end of 2008) than most other previous instruments in solar cycle 22. This workshop was the sequel to a workshop held at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in February 2012 which was described in Harder et al., SORCE SSI Workshop Summary, The Earth Observer, August 2012, p 17. The ultimate goal of these SSI workshops is to understand the uncertainties in the comparisons to previous and overlapping datasets and to validate the SORCE measurements.
http://lasp.colorado.edu/home/sorce/2013/10/23/2012-sorce-science-team-meeting-summary/
Steven Mosher (Willis too):
You (Steven) said “That’s NOT what we want to see. We want to see the SCIENCE BITS.. that is how did he derive the model.”
Did you go to Jo’s site? Did you read that bit “The main, long discussion paper is still to come.”?
When Dr. Evans started this he stated he would be releasing things in stages. His work, his money, his privilege to do things however he darned well pleases. If you and Willis don’t like it. Well that’s just too bad. When everything has been released, on Dr. Evan’s schedule, then I’ll see if you have anything intelligent to say. Until then, as I say to my daughter when she is having a similar tantrum, suck it up buttercup. Regarding the strategy of release in bits. I can see very good reasons for doing so. If you can’t, you need to stop, breath, be calm and think a bit.
John says: “suck it up buttercup”
Haven’t heard that term in years!! Thanks for making me smile…
My favorite response to my kids when they whined and wanted me to solve their problems was “Bummer, Sorry about that but I know you can figure it out on your own. Let me know when you do…Love you” Got to the point that when they saw the “B” start to form on my lips they walked away and solved it themselves.
Kids these days…
Steven Mosher July 8 11:37am
This is where the real issue is because the model was derived from questionable data …..
I don’t understand. Are you saying all this data that government funded climate scientists have produced and used to predict global catastrophe is questionable? So it is questionable that CO2 is dooming the world to heat exhaustion? The work of Mann, Jones, Trenberth etc. is all questionable? Or do you have some specific data in mind – because some data can be questioned but other data cannot be questioned?
Could you provide me with two lists — one of data that can be questioned and one of data that cannot be questioned. That would help me think more clearly.
Eugene WR Gallun
willis – check the comments at jo’s- the problem you describe with running the spreadsheet appears to occur with 64 bit computers and the fix has been posted.
@pamela gray and leif svaalgard
I note that you both in the past have supported and endorsed crap models that have been proven wrong. Take your piece of humble pie and chew silently. Leif gave one of the worst explanations of CO2 residence times I have ever seen, just a few months ago. The current temp and atmospheric co2 levels are the lowest in 800 million years. A significant cooling is likely.
>Eugene WR Gallun says:
>July 8, 2014 at 4:02 pm
>Steven Mosher July 8 11:37am
>
>This is where the real issue is because the model was derived from questionable data …..
Eugene:
Steven is speculating. The details of how the model was derived have not yet been fully explained. As he would know if he read the post about the release of the spreadsheet at Jo’s site. Not reading the reference is something Steven (rightly) hammers others about, so I’m disappointed to see him fall into the same trap.
Jo and David are to be commended. They kept their word. Good for them. The Excel spreadsheet is awesome and is easy to play with.
The data supports solar/climate connections as recently as the period from 2008-the end of 2011.
Much less the last two prolonged solar minimums the Maunder Minimum and Dalton Minimum.
It is going to happen again in a more substancial way once this prolonged solar minimum establishes itself and starts going toward the solar parameters I have called for.
Unlike the use of a model which I do not find attractive I am depending on data.