Solar Notch-Delay Model Released

Now we have sceptics that think they know there is enough human knowledge to know climate like warmists say…
What could be worse.?

When I heard that Phil Jones did not know how to do a linear regression my first reaction was SHAME! but then I wondered if it meant he did not know how to calculate squared error, take derivatives, and solve equations for a line (true SHAME) or if he simply did not know how to use Excel to do it. My Microsoft Office has Excel but I have never used it. I don’t know how, and I am honest-to-goodness too old to take the time. [I do know how to write my OWN equations to fit least-squares curves in a language of my choice (Matlab for myself).]
So David’s Excel spread sheet does me no good. That’s my failing of course. But in a community that does well in R, Matlab, C, and even Fortran, why take the Excel route? In a model that supposedly uses signal processing, why not Matlab, C, or R? The point being that if we must work in what is not a familiar software platform, we need considerable incentive that something very good is being revealed for our efforts, and I don’t think we have this here as a viable potential. What is needed is a regular “scientific paper” of perhaps a max of 5 pages and 5 illustrations. Of course, it need not be peer reviewed. How hard is that? Yes – I know, it’s NOT easy!
When I first saw the release of the notch-filter model I was quite enthusiastic to have an engineer, an EE in fact, and a DSP engineer making an offering. Here was something I should be able to understand. I was amazed however to find a proposal for a physically generated notch (very unlikely), and that the notch was non-causal (quite absurd) and watched for explanations, and even asked questions at Jo’s site. Two things were (sadly) apparent:
David’s notch was inferred from a suspect ratio of Fourier transforms, and David did not really understand filters. In addition, he doubled down on Jo’s site with regard to the non-causality [“It is well known that notch filters are non-causal,” June 20, 2014, and “The step response of the complete model above, in Figure 4, is causal — but without the delay it is not.” June 21] This despite protests from myself and other engineers, and even my photo of a scope trace:
http://electronotes.netfirms.com/NotchStep.jpg
to which David replied, June 21, “Bernie I’ve no idea and am not going to debug and figure out what you have done exactly.” What it was was a simple experiment! I wasn’t asking him to “debug” my work, but rather his own. Neither, by the way, does his added delay make HIS non-causal notch causal, as his had neither the symmetry nor the asymptotic properties to do so. (If he needs a delay for his model, just use a delay, but don’t blame it on a notch.) David further said things (like Butterworth was only low-pass) which indicated to me that he did not know filters very well. My sincere efforts (and the sincere efforts of others) were apparently not appreciated at Jo’s. It’s just engineering after all.
Then along came “Force X” and nuclear winter, and so much playing with tiny effects, and fine tuning.
I like Jo and David, and have three or four times supported Jo’s site “tip jar”, and expect to do so more in the future.

Thank you Anthony,
Throwing out the baby with the bath water is never useful.

Pamela Gray says:
July 8, 2014 at 6:11 pm
If you can’t stand the heat of laser beamed scrutiny of skeptic proposals that is as good as we give to the AGW side, you should just be a spectator.
Well. That gave me pause. I don’t have a come back for that. I will say this (and make the previous assertion false). Dr. Evans is not the one who “can’t stand the heat of lase(r) beamed scrutiny”. It is dolts like me that are arguing here. Anyway. He and his wife have held their fire until the next phase of their phased publication. This is a brilliant procedure. Start with the hypothesis (the previous 7 posts about the “big discovery”). Look at the critiques. Pay special attention to those who should know what they are talking about and (the following is “step a”) see if the hypothesis crumbles. If yes. Oh crap. Look the fool don’t I. If no. (end “step a”) publish the algorithm, go to step a. Still not the fool? Publish the derivations and methods for developing the parameters in the equations. Go to step a. In the mean time, address all of the legitimate issues with each step. It is crowd sourced science and it is brilliant. Who needs peer reviewed literature? We have Willis, Leif and Steven to hold the author’s feet to the fire and that is at the friendly site. I have no idea whether Dr Evans’ work is gold or total crap. I can assure you that if it passes muster with the critics here, it is indeed gold and much more credible than anything published in “Science” or other “peer reviewed literature”.

@Leif
Even if the forecast turns out to be in the ballpark, that does not prove anything at all, as Evans could be right for the wrong reason.
Dr Evans said as much himself. What he says is that if the global temp does not drop by at least 0.1C, starting at around 2017, the model is falsified and it should be thrown away, but if they do then the model has not been falsified.
And why this is interesting is because the CO2 model is roughly similar to the solar-notch model but suggests that temps should continue to go up. From the late 20C to now, the solar model would have predicted temps to go up, meaning there would have been no way of telling the CO2 model or the solar model apart. But now, the two models definitely diverge, and he makes a definite prediction that could falsify the model – and really soon.
I really don’t sere why you don’t seem to grasp how he is approaching this. He is not using the model to assert “this is how the climate system works”, he is using at as an instrument to see if there is a solar factor influencing the climate worth identifying and investigating. Which is why he invokes ‘force x’ an unknown factor that influences the climate. And it’s why the model is relatively insensitive to the accuracy of TSI data sets used as they merely need to agree on timing and trend. It’s not about getting a perfect measurement, but to see if there is signal/relationship at all.
He knows the model is wrong. It has to be. He has made assumptions in creating the model he himself is skeptical of, for example, treating the climate system as if it has a linear response to external forcings. But it might be linear enough, he thinks, modelling it that way could tell us something useful. He knows it has to be wrong because it takes no account of GHG changes, or internal natural variability that might be at play.
He said himself, in the first blog post, that even if temps drop as the model predicts, all he will be able to say is that the model is not falsified, which is a long way from saying he is right…or that the model is validated.