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
gnomish says:
July 8, 2014 at 4:02 pm
“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.”
Gnomish,
Willis has said he is not going there until “all is provided”, so maybe he shouldn’t be taking help from it either? Maybe let him dig it out on his own? After all, he was in such a hurry to make a post of his “problems”, he obviously didn’t have time to think it through and dig a little first. Oh wait, he did go there to download the model, didn’t he. Hmmm…let me think about that logic for a little. (Love that hmmm thingy.)
Hip-shooting…:) Sometimes you get shot in the foot.
No matter what the end result may be (I have the model, it runs, but obviously have not had the time to wring it out, look at the the parameterization fits, or run validity tests (the Abomb thing is a bit worrisome as an alternative to natural variability) neither has anybody else.
The sniping that took place here previously was in my view disgraceful. Said so, and the worse WE got the more respect he lost in my eyes. And it continues here. lS doesn’t like the format. So what. Go put in a years work to reformat as you want, then run it. WE at a Heatland conference complaining it did not run on his Mac yet. Well, it did on mine- maybe time to upgrade. AW, our host, complaining about the timing of the release, when previously folks were complaining that it wasn’t yet released. I doubt that the Australians care very much about a two day conference hosted by Heartland in Vegas. Nor does it matter to the ultimate value of the thing.
What matters is what happens as people work with the thing, a novel top down ‘black box’ circuit analog model rather than a bottoms up finite element physical phenomena GCM doomed to failure if for no other reason than computing power–the smallest possible grid cells are still much larger than could ever hope to produce the essential convective cells. So after necessary hindcast parameterization of the most essential processes, they really are more top down data fits just pretending to be bottom up causal. And tuned to a partly natural warm phase, so run hot. And CMIP5 got aerosols wrong to cool them down. And CMIP5 is being falsified by Santer’s own published criteria.
Shooting first and aiming later, demonstrated both previously and here, is neither productive nor becoming. Skeptics should be polite, focus on substance more than form, and do their own testing before drawing snap conclusions. Anything less diminishes this site compared to others.
This is the truth about the measurements of the TSI. The most reliable ACRIM1, 2.3.
http://spot.colorado.edu/~koppg/TSI/TSI.jpg
This is from Joe Bastardi ‘s web-site on what is happening at the climate conference. The solar /climate connection theory is very much alive. These are little summaries of what points they are trying to drive across which are correct and will be proven as this decade proceeds.
I have talked with Joe Bastardi (a friend ) at length as well as Joe D’ Aleo about solar/climate connections. We are all on the same page.
Listing 10 problems with the IPCC report regarding their solar ideas
Terms it “anti-scientfic” Purposely chose to hide the facts
Reply Replied to 0 times
Retweet Retweeted 5 times 5
Favorite Favorited 1 time 1
More
Joe Bastardi @BigJoeBastardi · 41m
Dr Soon talk IPCC: Still the Gangster of Science
Reply Replied to 0 times
Retweet Retweeted 1 time 1
Favorite Favorited 0 times
More
Spring Valley, NV
Joe Bastardi @BigJoeBastardi · 42m
Dr. Abdussamatov, done. I think Wow sums it up.. Dr Willie Soon now on
Reply Replied to 0 times
Retweet Retweeted 2 times 2
Favorite Favorited 2 times 2
More
Joe Bastardi @BigJoeBastardi · 42m
have always felt sun is the conductor of the climate,but the “music” comes from the ocean..stochastic events the solos
#Triplecrownofclimate
Reply Replied to 0 times
Retweet Retweeted 3 times 3
Favorite Favorited 3 times 3
More
Joe Bastardi @BigJoeBastardi · 44m
Was @algore aware the 20th century was a “solar summer” warming observed on Mars! We are entering solar autumn. Solar winter by 2060
Reply Replied to 0 times
Retweet Retweeted 10 times 10
Favorite Favorited 4 times 4
More
Joe Bastardi @BigJoeBastardi · 46m
Attributes lack of warming to the decrease in TSI. I think its combination of factors, but this is an eye opening presentation
Reply Replied to 0 times
Retweet Retweeted 1 time 1
Favorite Favorited 1 time 1
More
Joe Bastardi @BigJoeBastardi · 48m
Graphic of solar cycle 24 compared to all others show this coming down big time. #startling
Reply Replied to 0 times
Retweet Retweeted 3 times 3
Favorite Favorited 0 times
More
Joe Bastardi @BigJoeBastardi · 49m
Decrease in TSI in cycle 22 ,007w/m2 23, .02 w/m2, current .1 w/m2 getting significant
Reply Replied to 0 times
Retweet Retweeted 3 times 3
Favorite Favorited 1 time 1
More
Joe Bastardi @BigJoeBastardi · 50m
Dr. Abdussamatov presenting compelling evidence, that I first read about in 1992 out of Russia, that little ice age is coming based on sun
Reply Replied to 0 times
Retweet Retweeted 8 times 8
Favorite Favorited 0 times
More
Joe Bastardi @BigJoeBastardi · 52m
Dr. Abdussamatov, from Russia, has no fears about speaking up about the scam co2 is. I guess times have changed
Reply Replied to 0 times
Retweet Retweeted 7 times 7
Favorite Favorited 1 time 1
More Spring Valley, NV
Joe Bastardi @BigJoeBastardi · 54m
The superstars of solar climate forcing have now taken the stage..Drs Sebastian Luning, Habibullo Abdussamatov, Willie Soon
Reply Replied to 0 times
Retweet Retweeted 0 times
Favorite Favorited 3 times 3
Rud Istvan at July 8, 2014 at 4:22 pm:
Thumbs up on this post!
Thank you for being so clear in your explanation.
Rud Istvan says:
July 8, 2014 at 4:22 pm
No matter what the end result may be
Rud:
Well said. I too have lost a lot of respect for Willis and Leif. Leif in particular. Steven Mosher has also disappointed. I can understand Anthony’s frustration with the release timing. There will be a tendency to attack this in other circles and those who provide a balance are otherwise engaged in Las Vegas. If you consider me to be part of the sniping problem, please say so.
Ren great data. TSI was down .015% during the most recent severe but short solar lull during the time period 2008-2010. It will likely go down by more then that when this prolonged solar minimum establishes itself in an even more significant way later this decade. Temperature decline /atmospheric circulation pattern more meridional along with a decline in OHC will be some of the effects amongst others. It is just around the corner.
IMF field will break 4.0nt
Looks like David Evan’s model will face an ordeal by fire, much more severe than faced by any of the mainstream models, which means that, unlike them, his theory could be refuted quickly by contrary evidence. But one thing he has done that may give him some protection, and that may be good for science, is to set things up so that the development of the theory turns into a community project. If, as seems likely, flaws turn up in the original model, the structure of the project makes it likely that improvements will lead to an “Evans-Nova” family of models of which one or more will turn out to be quite interesting.
John Eggert July 8 4:12 pm
You are taking me seriously. I am not use to that. I find it — disturbing.
Eugene WR Gallun
gnomish says:
July 8, 2014 at 4:02 pm
Thanks, gnomish. Do you have a link to the updated file, or to the page where it’s listed?
w.
John Eggert says:
July 8, 2014 at 3:54 pm
Certainly, it is Dr. Evans privilege to release the actual results and the full model next week, next month, or never if he “darned well pleases”.
Until he does so, however, it’s not science in any form, which is all that I said.
The result of his doing it the way he has, however, has been to gather around him a group of true-believer adherents, who have already staked out their position that his model is valid and correct without ever seeing the model, the tests, the results, or anything. People in that position are very difficult to get to change their minds, because everyone hates to be shown to be wrong. As a result, it is almost impossible to have a reasonable discussion of their work.
His choice, as you point out … but it is not science, it doesn’t advance his cause, and the optics of it are horrible.
w.
PS—I’m not waiting for the “main, long discussion paper”. I’m waiting, as is Steven Mosher, for the “science bits” … so discussion papers are useless.
Now wait a minute. Just wait a minute. If you smooth a signal that has a pretty good 11 year cycle visible just by lookin at it (and SSN along with all the other solar indices certainly do have close to that just by lookin at em), and then you take a N…O…I…S…Y data string and smooth it with an a set of box cars each 11 years long, you will find a match. Which also means you can match our noisy temperature data set with anything else that is about 11 units long, like the times table column for the 11’s. Don’t mean it’s connected. That is the evidence this model uses for a notch filter followed by an 11 year long lag.
I will leave it up to others here to comment because I fear mine will be quite unlady-like in estimating the knowledge and evidence that was sunk into that part of the model by the author. Charitable it is not.
Willis Eschenbach says:
July 8, 2014 at 5:01 pm
gnomish says:
July 8, 2014 at 4:02 pm
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.
Thanks, gnomish. Do you have a link to the updated file, or to the page where it’s listed?
w.
——————-
Willis, here is the link to the comment:
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/07/big-news-ix-the-model/#comment-1505102
Copy everything from the “#If” to the “#Endif” and then it can be pasted over the offending code in the spreadsheet.
I have heard that it works on Macs.
Block Head says:
July 8, 2014 at 2:21 pm
Thanks, Block. If David could not get a “good” hindcast using 11 arbitrary parameters, a full choice of model form, and a variety of data sets of his choice, I’d be shocked. A “good hindcast” of a tuned model of that type is meaningless, which is why we need to see the “out-of-sample” tests.
w.
Rud Istvan says:
July 8, 2014 at 4:22 pm
I didn’t “complain” that it’s not running yet. I reported a bug, which I traced as far as I could to assist them in fixing it … is bug reporting now a crime? Would you prefer that folks don’t report bugs to them at all?
No pleasing some people …
w.
RE Rud Istvan and Willis.
I can’t get it to run on my Windows 7 PC machine either.
Reporting bugs help make the product better and give a broader experience with the user base. Some people have been able to get it to run.
Let’s all work on helping it have that broader appeal.
To those that have downloaded the spreadsheet, if you are running on a 64bit machine, 2 slight changes to the code must be done. The CTimer module has two “Declare Function” statements.
If you get a runtime error, change “Declare Function” to “Declare PtrSafe Function” in the CTimer module.
From there it works well.
To be doubtful is healthy for good science and enhances credibility.
To pile straight in stinking of testosterone and hurt pride with guns blazing is a problem and helps nobody.
This is going to be tough for some people, either way.
Lets not make it tough for all. Give it time. It is a thesis from a hypothesis and needs more careful study.
.
Nobody knows if this is a big set up (Using a mathematical trick) to kill off the credibility of the people on this side of the fence.
.
If this thesis runs true. We are not only going to win the battle it is going to win all wars for good.
If I was a mind to, I could say that we have a 60 year AMO cycle (or a 30 year PDO metric) and then take that noisy temperature data string and smooth it with 60 box cars, or 30 box cars. I would likely get a pretty good match. Do you see the weakness of the 11-year solar cycle with an 11 year smoothed temperature data series? It’s a parlor trick, whether meant or not. I would hate to find out the author was not able to understand the weakness of that kind of comparison between a fairly well defined cyclic entity and a noisy data string smoothed to the same cycle.
Thanks Willis.
I made it clear at David’s that I thought his use of bad tsi data to derive his model was the first choice I would want to test.
The spreadsheet is useless to investigate the actual scientific decisions he made.
Willis,
Please provide backup that provided direct contact with either David or Jo.
I don’t think you did either action, otherwise you would have posted there or emailed them directly.
You waited for gnomish to post a comment before responding.
64-bit fix:
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/07/big-news-ix-the-model/#comment-1505102
Code:
#If VBA7 Then
Private Declare PtrSafe Function QueryPerformanceCounter Lib “kernel32″ (lpPerformanceCount As LARGE_INTEGER) As Long
Private Declare PtrSafe Function QueryPerformanceFrequency Lib “kernel32″ (lpFrequency As LARGE_INTEGER) As Long
#Else
Private Declare Function QueryPerformanceCounter Lib “kernel32″ (lpPerformanceCount As LARGE_INTEGER) As Long
Private Declare Function QueryPerformanceFrequency Lib “kernel32″ (lpFrequency As LARGE_INTEGER) As Long
#Endif
Willis:
I disagree with your opinion that his method is “not science”. How Dr. Evans chooses to publish his work is entirely up to him. I see that you haven’t taken my advice to “stop, breath, be calm and think a bit” about why his method may be a good way of doing things. Indeed, I believe when this whole thing is done, thinking people will see that his method may be THE way to publish in the internet age. When he finishes, I may expound on this. Then again I may not.
To your credit, you are certainly much more circumspect than Leif today.
Anthony,
Willis did not investigate the problem or post a comment on Jo’s website. How is that “reporting”?
Willis has no intention of helping David make this work based on all his attacks both, here and there.
Neither does Leif or Mosher for that matter.
All drive-by hip-shooters, IMO.
I have supported your website and referenced it often but this latest set of derogatory comments have soured my stance.
As requested earlier, can you explain why this release was bad for you, time wise?
Brad
REPLY: Because I’m in the middle of ICCC9, and I have other duties that prevent me from able to give my full attention. Do you expect me to drop everything? Two of WUWT’s moderators are also at the conference. They can’t help either.
I can’t please everybody, and I can’t watch comments in the middle of a conference. Perhaps I should have waited until next week…but that would get criticism too….so there’s no easy option for me at this time. Anthony
This is going to be very easy and there should not be any argument whatsoever. It is going to be proved out by purely empirical means. Sit back, relax, and see what happens.
Brad says:
July 8, 2014 at 5:51 pm
Willis has no intention of helping David make this work based on all his attacks both, here and there. Neither does Leif or Mosher for that matter.
Oh, but you are quite wrong there. I have supplied David with a much more realistic data file for the solar input. This should be of help to David. If he wants help is another matter.