Mending Fences

Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach

Recently there have been a number of accusations and bad blood involving myself, David Evans, Joanne Nova, Lord Christopher Monckton, and Leif Svalgaard. Now, I cannot speak for any of them, but on my part, my own blood ended up mightily angrified, and I fear I waxed wroth.

However, I see no point in rehashing the past. What I want to do is to return to the underlying scientific questions. In that spirit, I apologize sincerely and completely for wherever I put in “something extra” in the previous discussion. In Buddhism, there’s a concept called “something extra”, and one is enjoined to avoid putting in “something extra”.

It is explained in the following way:

If I say “I am angry” that is simply a true statement.

But if I say “You made me angry”, that is something extra.

So I ask any and all of you to please accept my sincere apologies for whatever what I said that was something extra, so that we can move past this difficult time and get back to discussing the science. Both sides have legitimate grievances, and I am happy to make the first move to get past all of them by apologizing to all of you for whatever my part was in the bad blood. I hope that the other participants accept my apology in the spirit of reconciliation in which it is offered, and that we can move forwards without rancor or recriminations.

Regarding the science, let me go back to the original question, and see what I can do in the way of making my claims in a more Canadian manner. I’ll start by looking at the recent record of the “TSI”, the total solar irradiance:

total solar irradiation ceres dataFigure 1. Monthly total solar irradiance as measured by the CERES satellite. Vertical blue line shows mid-2004.

Now, if you don’t like the data from the CERES satellite, here’s the SORCE satellite data:

sorce daily tsi 2003 2014Figure 2. Daily total solar irradiance as measured by the SORCE satellite. Vertical red line indicates mid-2004.  SOURCE

Note what is happening in both graphs after mid-2004 (vertical lines in both plots). As in every solar cycle, the TSI declines somewhat, and bottoms out. Then, it starts to rise again. And by the end of the datasets, in both cases the TSI is higher that it was in 2004.

So what was the scientific dispute all about, the discussion that underlies all of the bad feelings?

It revolved around the following graph from David Evans, referenced by both Leif Svalgaard and Lord Monckton, showing the basis of his predicted upcoming global cooling :

total solar irradiance david evansFigure 3. David Evan’s graph of TSI (gold line), along with a centered 11-year moving average of the TSI data (red, with dotted blue extension), and a 25 year unspecified smooth of temperature, presumably a trailing average (blue line). (Click to enlarge)

Now, as you can see, the bright red line basically falls off the edge of the earth around 2004. The note says “The recent falloff in solar radiation started somewhere in 2003-2005″.

However, a look at both the SORCE and the CERES data shows no such “falloff in solar radiation”, neither precipitous nor otherwise. In fact, both datasets agree that by 2013 the TSI was well above the level in mid-2004.

Since there is no fall in the underlying data of any kind, why does the red 11-year average line show abrupt cooling starting around 2004?

The answer lies in the various problems with the graph.

• The TSI data is a splice of three datasets, with two of them showing the post-2000 period. This is a huge source of potential error in itself. However, it gets worse.

• One of the spliced datasets is the Lean TSI reconstruction, an outdated dataset that the authors of the reconstruction themselves admit is inaccurate.

• Another is the PMOD dataset. It is known to be reading low by 0.2 W/ms at the solar minimum, introducing a spurious apparently strong recent “cooling” where none exists.

• The 11-year centered average is an extremely bad choice for a filter for sunspot/TSI data. Because the solar cycle varies both longer and shorter than 11 years, at times the 11-year average actually reverses the sense of the data, converting peaks into valleys and valleys into peaks. Look at the period from 1760-1800 in Figure 3, for example. What is happening is that the frequency data is getting strongly aliased into the amplitude data. As a result, the average can end up far from the reality, particularly at the ends of the dataset.

For another example, look at the period just after 1740 in Figure 3. The 11-year average takes a huge vertical jump … but meanwhile back in the real word, the TSI itself is not rising at all. It is falling. Clearly, the large vertical jump in the red line is totally spurious.

• The TSI data has had about 900 days of “data” added to it using an arbitrarily chosen value. This is shown by the blue dots which indicate a continuing drop in the temperature.

So regarding the question of why the red line is acting so strangely, the answer is that we have a perfect storm of spliced data, bad data, arbitrary “data” added to the spliced bad data, and an extremely poor filter choice.

And as a result, the red line doesn’t represent reality in any shape or form. There is no precipitous drop in TSI starting around 2004. It doesn’t exist. Sure, the 11-year average says clearly that there is a huge drop starting around that time … but the actual data says something entirely different, as shown in Figures 1 and 2.

Now, in the heat of the moment Leif described the red line as being “almost fraudulent”. I think this was an over-reaction, but perhaps an understandable one. After all, if the red line were flipped over vertically it would make a lovely hockeystick, and if someone claimed warming was coming based on that hockeystick, people would call them alarmists … and calling someone an alarmist is certainly a close relative of calling them “almost fraudulent”.

However, my guideline is, never ascribe to malice what is adequately explained by error and misunderstanding. So I do not call their red line fraudulent, nor did I do so in the original discussion. Instead, I say that it is an error resulting from a misunderstanding. In any case, let me suggest that we leave out all ascription of motive and intent, that goes nowhere, and that we return to the science.

A more scientifically neutral description of the red line is that it is highly inaccurate and potentially misleading, because the apparent drop starting in 2003-2005 is simply an artifact of a combination of bad data and bad filtering.

Finally, to the degree that David Evans’ model predicts future cooling based on the red line, it is already falsified.

That is what I was trying to say, and I believe (subject to correction) that was what Leif was pointing out as well.

In closing, I will endeavor in this thread to keep my comments on as scientific a basis as possible, to avoid any personal references, and to not ascribe motive or intent. I request that everyone do the same. Many toes have already been stepped on in this discussion. Let’s see if we can simply discuss the science.

My best to all,

w.

VERY IMPORTANT: It is important in general, and in this discussion in particular, that you QUOTE THE EXACT WORDS THAT YOU DISAGREE WITH. Note that this doesn’t mean just referencing their entire comment. Quote the exact words of their comment that you think are in error, and tell us why you think those words are wrong. If you do not quote the exact words that you disagree with, none of us will know what you are referring to … and out of such misunderstandings grows animosity and misunderstanding.

Finally, please don’t delve into the rights and wrongs of what has happened in the previous discussions. I am not interested in the slightest in ascribing blame or responsibility. I have accepted my own responsibility for my own actions and apologized for wherever I was over the line. What I or the others did in the past is a blind alley, so please confine your comments to the science, and as the saying goes, “Let the dead past bury its dead”.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
611 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
norah4you
July 16, 2014 10:11 pm

“…bad data and bad filtering” a typicle phenomena in two cases:
* Either the person conterminated and or corrected “measured figures” with or without taking all need premisses for the proposed Thesis into consideration.
or
* The person using bad data and bad filtering misunderstood Theories of Science hanging on to Fallacies as if they were example of good trustworthy Science….
Chose which.

July 16, 2014 10:19 pm

This should be interesting reading while I wait for the RasPi to generate a Node.js install from source. I forgot how long files take to compile on what is equiv of a Pentium II.
I understand that Leif offered the correct data set. Has anyone spoken on the change in the model with the current generation data inputed into it? I havent followed this story since the last major round of exchanges, and as such am out of the loop of the commentary of the latest generation of the model.
Has the model been updated with new data?

July 16, 2014 10:20 pm

Well said, Willis. You and those you mention are all on the same side, being seekers after truth. Each of you have their own jigsaw pieces which they struggle to fit into the whole picture. Nothing is settled, everything is challengeable which is how real science is done, isn’t it?
Defending your own little patch of briars with loud discordant noises doesn’t actually achieve much apart from giving aid and comfort to the ungodly. I suggest that critical friendship is more productive than destructive defence of one’s own ideas.

July 16, 2014 10:22 pm

I see the point that Willis is making but differ as regards the vakidity and usefulness of the 11 year smoothing process.
Although the sudden drop around 2003/4 could be regarded as an artifact of the smoothing process it is nonetheless telling us something real about the underlying trend.
The sun has become significantly less active over nearly two decades now and the smoothing process just points out that statistically 2003/4 is a significant turning point which David Evans thinks should come through in a temperature change on Earth some 10 to 20 years later.

July 16, 2014 10:25 pm

I see the point that Willis is making but differ as regards the vakidity and usefulness of the 11 year smoothing process.
Although the sudden drop around 2003/4 could be regarded as an artifact of the smoothing process it is nonetheless telling us something real about the underlying trend.
The sun has become significantly less active over nearly two decades now and the smoothing process just points out that statistically 2003/4 is a significant turning point which David Evans thinks should come through in a temperature change on Earth some 10 to 20 years later.
l

Craig Landrith
July 16, 2014 10:30 pm

Rarely do I comment but very pleased to see the reaching out to the others, all of whom I have enjoyed reading and all of whom have taught me much and I respect. I was very dismayed to read the rhetorical war about Evan’s notch theory. Let’s let it play out with point and counterpoint. The truth will win out in the end. Isn’t that what science is all about?

Mike M.
July 16, 2014 10:41 pm

A typo in your VERY IMPORTANT paragraph at the end.
you have “If you do not quote the exact words that you disagree with, none of use will know what you are referring to”
I believe you mean “none of US will know…

July 16, 2014 10:43 pm

all this over 3 dots that aren’t used in the program.

July 16, 2014 10:43 pm

” look at the period just after 1740 in Figure 3. The 11-year average takes a huge vertical jump … but meanwhile back in the real word, the TSI itself is not rising at all. It is falling.”
But I see that it is followed by a temperature rise.
The 11 year smoothing gives the longer term trend despite being sometimes out of phase with short term TSI variations.
If one is working with a 10 to 20 year delay then the smoothed value is more useful for predictive purposes than the unsmoothed version.

ren
July 16, 2014 10:46 pm

Nothing that does not help, strong cooling is near. Polar vortex over Australia. In winter be held again over North America. I bet a beer.
http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/10hPa/equirectangular

July 16, 2014 10:47 pm

We should not use TSI as we truly don’t know really how big it is. It has a chi square distribution but I suspect that its top sometimes moves a bit, depending on the strength of the solar magnetic field. However, we cannot really test the extreme uv and x-ray streaming…..
6 minutes is not a very long time, is it?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/08/solar-notch-delay-model-released/#comment-1685562

dp
July 16, 2014 10:51 pm

Which faux pas are you apologizing for? You’re being too vague. This is not how you create closure.

Editor
July 16, 2014 10:54 pm

> “Finally, please don’t delve into the rights and wrongs of what has happened in the previous discussions.”
In my case, that’s easy – I managed to miss much of these discussions and completely missed the Monckton graph brouhaha until Mr. Watts summary post.
It does seem to me that there’s a palpable testiness in the air. I don’t have any hard data to support it, but it seems whenever I turn over a new rock or open a new web page I can find people bickering. I even got my very own post attacking my poor reading comprehension skills over at https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/06/30/reading-comprehension/ . I think I’ll leave out the “something extra” as that would just open old wounds for both Goddard and me.
I don’t really know where this testiness is coming from. My best guess is that the alarmists are seeing themselves retreating and are almost at the end of the gangplank. In a last chance bid to hold the world’s attention, their pronouncements and criticism may be changing from smug holier-than-thou to strident insistence that the world is still heading to hell in a hand basket or whatever conveyance we use now. And why am I writing in cliches? It’s nearly 0200, at least I think I’m still coherent.
At any rate, let’s try a bit harder to not get annoyed at other’s concepts, but take them down from the high road, it can be done. This is a very good time for both sides to show that scientific debate doesn’t have to be rancorous to be effective.
Besides, we’re winning and they are finally realizing it, they’re still partially in the denial phase and have a long way to got before getting to acceptance. Let’s make it easy for them. 🙂
It’ll be an interesting next five years or so. Don’t waste them.

FergalR
July 16, 2014 11:09 pm

“One of the spliced datasets is the Lean TSI reconstruction, an outdated dataset that the authors of the reconstruction themselves admit is inaccurate.”
Have the authors admitted it is inaccurate? It was certainly fed into the models for AR5.
It’s my understanding that the models can’t reproduce the Little Ice Age without it so I guess that would keep it alive. A source of the admission would be nice though.

u.k.(us)
July 16, 2014 11:13 pm

Can’t believe I caught a Willis typo:
“….none of use will know what you are referring to …”
====================
It appears you don’t know “use”, none of use, nor our references.
Or was that cowboy talk ?

Truthseeker
July 16, 2014 11:16 pm

I have a lot of confidence that David and Jo will take your apology in the spirit that it was meant.
I also feel that there has been a few niggling behaviours in past (totally unrelated to David and Jo) by a few of WUWT regular contributors that built up a bit of angst over time and this latest episode effectively “blew the valve” and the contents of this simmering pot ended up all over the kitchen ( … how far can I take this analogy? …).
I also think a similar statement should come from some other parties, but as you say that is not up to you and you cannot speak for anyone else.

John Slayton
July 16, 2014 11:17 pm

I’ve mentioned this before (somewhere) so sorry if it’s old. Ferdinand de Saussure was an eminent European linguist at the beginning of the 20th century. Story goes something like this: Professor de Saussure invited a clerical friend to attend a meeting of professional organization (may have been the Societe de Linguistique de Paris). At this particular meeting, the discussion concerned some abstract point of phonology and generated a great deal of heat but very little light.
Professor de Saussure was embarrassed and afterward apologized to his friend for the deportment of his colleagues. To which the good reverend replied that he need not apologize. He was in fact not at all upset when the speakers raised their voices and pounded the podium, because only then could he be sure that they really believed the ridiculous things they were saying.
Sometimes being cool really indicates indifference.

Truthseeker
July 16, 2014 11:19 pm

Willis,
With regard to your reply to “dp” … you are spot on. The last paragraph nails the point precisely.

dp
July 16, 2014 11:20 pm

Willis – if you want to know who I am, just ask. I’ve shared this information here in the past and will do so again. But please, think about this:

In fact, I couldn’t tell you exactly what it was that I said that got folks upset

Because it means your apology is empty. I didn’t do that.
REPLY: “dp” whoever you are…you really ought to just stop commenting, because you really don’t have a clue what went on behind the scenes over several days. I pushed the publish button here tonight, not Willis, and I only did so because I saw that he made efforts over several days, at my behest, to workout if the drop in TSI was real or not. All the while this post was on hold, and he’s done what I consider honest work to produce it, and his opinion and apology are honest as well. Otherwise, I would not have pressed the publish button tonight and sent him and email to his current abode in a motel in Whitefish, MT. to let him know I decided to publish it.
So, “tough noogies” if the post doesn’t meet your expectations. But see, here’s the thing, and there’s really no way around this…this isn’t about you or your opinion, so your complaint doesn’t concern me, and it certainly doesn’t concern Willis. – Anthony

July 16, 2014 11:23 pm

Misdirection and crocodile tears.

dp
July 16, 2014 11:25 pm

[snip – read the reply to your comment above, then take a time out to consider your words before you comment again, I’m not going to let this thread be all about your opinion/sniping – Anthony]

July 16, 2014 11:34 pm

“If I say “I am angry” that is simply a true statement.
But if I say “You made me angry”, that is something extra.”
No one can make you angry but yourself?

ren
July 16, 2014 11:35 pm

Figure F10, 7 represents the variation of UV radiation. Clearly a sharp drop in radiation in December 2003.
http://oi57.tinypic.com/jqg961.jpg
This decrease in UV refers to the discussion on the decline of the TSI, in 2003. Sorce has data from 2003 and that’s the problem.
http://lasp.colorado.edu/home/sorce/data/#chart
Please see F 10.7 (respectively UV) and index of the El Niño.
http://oi58.tinypic.com/aze78l.jpg

ren
July 16, 2014 11:39 pm

The part of the spectrum immediately to the left of blue, between 200 and 400 nm is the ultraviolet light (UV). The UV is usually divided into three components, with increasing energy:
UV-A: 320-400 nm
UV-B: 280-320 nm
UV-C: 200-280 nm
http://www.temis.nl/uvradiation/info/figs/fig1-01_sm.gif
During low solar activity decrease of UV radiation and cosmic rays increase progressing in parallel. This is the reason for the strong reaction of the stratosphere for long periods of low solar activity (solar cycles long).
Both of types of radiation are strongly ionizing radiation the ozone layer,
because changes occur in the amount and distribution of ozone in the stratosphere.
Stratospheric waves are then cause changes in circulation in the troposphere.

ren
July 16, 2014 11:40 pm

Us see the excess ozone near the southern magnetic pole.
http://www.temis.nl/protocols/o3field/data/omi/forecast/today_wd.gif
But at an altitude of about 45 km whatsoever lack of ozone in the area of ​​the magnetic pole. This means only one thing: a strong ionization of GCR from 10hPa down.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_a_f/gif_files/gfs_t01_sh_f00.gif
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_a_f/gif_files/gfs_t10_sh_f00.gif
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_a_f/gif_files/gfs_t100_sh_f00.gif

Agnostic
July 16, 2014 11:48 pm

Willis, I am sorry (I take your attempt at reconciliation on its face) but I still think you are missing the point. As far as I understand it, the TSI is merely an indicator of something else that Evans/Nova that effects climate and that appears when looking at longer term trends indicated by the 11 year smoothing. I also don’t think you have read and fully parsed what it is that they are trying to so and show by the model.
And I also don’t agree that if the direction was reversed and showing a ‘hockey stick’ it would be invalid either. Looking back over the whole of the series you could point to periods where there are steep rises and steep falls. In and of itself that doesn’t say anything remarkable. That’s why Mann tried to eliminate the MWP and the LIA, so that the uptick in the modern era did say something remarkable.
Can I ask you to characterise Dr Evans justification for using an 11 year smoothing and then outline in that context why you don’t agree that is appropriate?
Because for the purposes of understanding what it is they are trying to get at, it is not the 2000s and the relative differences in maxima that are interesting it is the difference between the 90s and the 2000s.

dp
July 16, 2014 11:50 pm

Willis sez:

You don’t like that? So what?

You involved me and everyone else when you posted your what ever you call it in a public forum. That makes it mine to respond to because you put it under my gaze. No, it wasn’t directed to me, but it was available to me by your hand. So I’m what? Responding? Oh hell yes.
So You’ve had my reaction and you don’t care. Well I’m over that and it doesn’t change anything, of course. That you don’t care means your posting it in a public forum was another meaningless thing to do. I didn’t do that. If your apology were important between you and your antagonists I’d have never known about it, but that is not what you chose to do. So here we are having this conversation about your bad behavior and you are apologizing for something you can’t identify and I am being vilified. I never expected less.
Never the less, I love reading your travelogues. Ok, I’m weak.

July 16, 2014 11:50 pm

We have already responded to most of these points, and in depth:
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/07/the-solar-model-finds-a-big-fall-in-tsi-data-that-few-seem-to-know-about/
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/07/more-strange-adventures-in-tsi-data-the-miracle-of-900-fabricated-fraudulent-days/
In particular see this graph:
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/solar-radiation/tsi-datasets-ls.gif
All the data and calculations and graphs are available here:
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/07/big-news-ix-the-model/
If Willis had followed his own principle of quoting accurately, the bad blood might have been avoided.

Reply to  JoNova
July 16, 2014 11:54 pm

Thanks Jo Nova for responding.
Just a small niggle, you’ve accidentally misspelled Leif’s name in the graph here: http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/solar-radiation/tsi-datasets-ls.gif

ren
July 16, 2014 11:51 pm

[snip – this thread isn’t about cosmic rays, but TSI. please post relevant comments only -mod]

Greg
July 16, 2014 11:52 pm

Willis :

In Buddhism, there’s a concept called “something extra”, and one is enjoined to avoid putting in “something extra”.It is explained in the following way:
If I say “I am angry” that is simply a true statement.
But if I say “You made me angry”, that is something extra.
So I ask any and all of you to please accept my sincere apologies for whatever what I said that was something extra, so that we can move past this difficult time and get back to discussing the science.

Good man Willis. Looks like your vacation is doing you some good.
That little gem of buddhist philosophy can be applied to more than the comments on the “notch-delay”. I hope you will be able to apply it more broadly. 😉

Agnostic
July 16, 2014 11:55 pm

One other thing – could you please, please, please (I am officially ‘begging’ you) stop responding to those who are merely trying to provoke you? Or if you must, with the utmost delicacy? Because then the tone of thread turns into more mud slinging and we have to wade through metres of excremental trying to get to any interesting points you or others make regarding the actual science. What would a Canadian do? 🙂

dp
July 16, 2014 11:56 pm

JoNova says:
July 16, 2014 at 11:50 pm
If Willis had followed his own principle of quoting accurately, the bad blood might have been avoided.

Window dressing. It isn’t what he does. Love your blog – keep doing it.

Denver C Fletcher
July 16, 2014 11:57 pm

“You just want to snipe from the sidelines and cause trouble … sorry, not buying.”
So, that thing about not ascribing motive? How long did that last?
I take your apology as totally serious in intent, but I also think that habits of thought that get us into such situations are easy to apologise for, harder to break.
The real test of whether or not the apology is sincere, is not anybody elses feelings about it, or even your own.
It’s whether or not you stop the behaviour.
You know, the ascribing motive to other people’s words when there is no realistic chance you can possibly know their motives?
Yeah, that thing.
Now, you have a simple choice. You can take my words as “sniping from the sidelines” or you can take them as pertinent advice given in good faith. You have no way of knowing which they’re intended as, but your choice tells your readers about you, not about me or my words.

Greg
July 17, 2014 12:04 am

Willis:

Stephen Wilde says: The 11 year smoothing gives the longer term trend despite being sometimes out of phase with short term TSI variations.
No, it doesn’t. That’s the point. It totally munges the data, turning peaks into valleys and valleys into peaks. And if it is falling when the temperature is rising, as in 1740, then it is NOT giving the “longer term trend”:

Thanks Willis, saved me the effort.
That sudden drop is an artefact of the boxcar, running mean. There is a marked drop in SSN compared to the last cycle but it did nothing to do with 2003. I’m surprised that that some like Dr David Evans, with engineering training, does not question why there is a sudden drop in the data when he has imagines he has removed all the high frequency signal with a low pass filter.
@ Stephen Wilde, I suggest you read this explanation of the problem with running average “smoothers”:
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/2013/05/19/triple-running-mean-filters/

July 17, 2014 12:08 am

Being angry means loosing active control of your brain and going auto. My sister was an expert on this topic and used it actively as a ruler technique.
First she attacks you in a rude way verbally with the object to have the victim loose his mind.
If that did not work she would attack physically until the victim responded physical back.
Then she would fall to the ground crying claiming the “victim” had been very bad to her.
Absurd but it worked for her most of the times and she is still using this technique today 🙂
Willis you should have fallen to the ground crying claiming they had treated you badly?

Steve (Paris)
July 17, 2014 12:09 am

The sheer intensity of the work done on this blog and Joe Nova’s, etc, etc, is obviously telling, fraying nerves. You guys are world class heros, stop a minute and contemplate that.

MikeUK
July 17, 2014 12:16 am

I think this question of the display processing of TSI data is a red herring, the real issue is the total implausibility and lack of evidence for a “notch” filter in the climate system.
To establish such a notch you have to demonstrate that global temperatures are responding to oscillations faster than the 11-year cycle, maybe the second harmonic of that cycle (period around 5.5 years).
Heck, people have struggled to show the tiny variations expected from the 11-year oscillations, and the second harmonic is way smaller than that.
The reality is that the high frequency parts of TSI and Temp are just 2 unrelated time series, and David Evans has made a major error in dividing their spectra and claiming that the result is a transfer function.
Another point: global mean temperatures are actually the MEDIAN of all the data, the point halfway up the list after ordering. Solar effects could well be having a measurable effect on tropical temperatures, but at the same time very little effect on the median, because those tropical temps are already in the upper half of the data. Long-term trends will eventually show up in the median as heat flows to the poles, but not the rapid oscillations that David Evans is claiming.

u.k.(us)
July 17, 2014 12:23 am

Title of the post: “Mending fences”
So much for that idea …….
Maybe next cycle.
There are cycles, right ?

Rocky
July 17, 2014 12:24 am

Does Evans have any chance of being correct in the main albeit with some errors in presentation and some errors in the graph ?

thingadonta
July 17, 2014 12:30 am

“Sure, the 11-year average says clearly that there is a huge drop starting around that time … but the actual data says something entirely different, as shown in Figures 1 and 2.”
You’ve lost me here.
Peaks and troughs are not really the issue, (we had a similar discussion with regards to peaks and troughs in relation to solar irradiation in a previous post about temperature changes over the LIA (Maunder and Dalton Minimums)); these effects tend to average out because there isn’t enough time for the earth to respond to large magnitude, but short period, irradiance changes.
What happens is that the earth responds to the 8-14 year solar cycle in a manner more akin to momentum in physics, it takes a while for earth temperatures to trend in one direction and once in place tends to follow in such a direction, at least for a period of decades after a peak. Slow ocean heat transfer means there is a lag period to solar changes, data from the past suggests this is of the order of decades.
I cant believe people are still arguing about what is essentially a simple matter. Has average TSI dropped over the last 10 years or so, or hasn’t it?
This argument will keep going round in circles until the extraneous factor of whether there is, and to what length and degree, a lag time in response to TSI changes is recognised, I suspect this factor is the core of the disagreement over TSI.

Denver C Fletcher
July 17, 2014 12:34 am

I was happy before, Willis.
I love this website and I think you guys (all of the parties to this recent contretemps) do great work.
But you dont seem very happy …
Be that as it may, I will go back to lurking and enjoying the scientific discussion.
My sincerest regards to you, sir.

dp
July 17, 2014 12:38 am

Anthony wrote:

So, “tough noogies” if the post doesn’t meet your expectations.

The greater concern is that the post does meet your expectations. That presages a crisis. If there is a justifying subtext to it that the larger audience of which I am a part are not to know about then it is upon you to forgive our voiced rejections as we don’t have, by your choice, the rest of the story. That in itself is an interesting problem in communication. I don’t accept your criticism of my reaction.

Jarryd Beck
July 17, 2014 12:38 am

I find it hard to compare graphs when the scales are so different (and different, one uses total, the other uses deltas), and when one graph is for 200 years whilst the other two are for 15 years.
That said, I find your argument interesting. Next I go read again what David Evans said and see his take on it. If you have any solutions to the smoothing problem, that would be nice.

Greg Goodman
July 17, 2014 12:39 am

Willis: “Now, in the heat of the moment Leif described the red line as being “almost fraudulent”. I think this was an over-reaction, but perhaps an understandable one. ”
Rather than being a reaction, I think that was the comment that created much of the heat. I don’t think it was justified or understandable.
David Evan’s analysis was very poorly done and should be criticised on that basis as you have done here. Accusing him of being “almost fraudulent” was unfounded and inappropriate.
It would be good if David Evans resonded to some of the technical criticism but I don’t see much evidence of that happening. I raised several of these issues over a Jonova’s ( in a non provocative way ) and got no response.
This whole ‘model’ is dead in the water as far as I can see.
The notch filter idea is a misinterpretation of FT analysis and is physically unreal
The ‘nuclear winter’ term is a massive fudge.
The sudden drop is a data processing error.
The initial idea of creating an alternative model, without AGW is a good one. He should probably forget the notch-delay and try again. It should not be too hard to construct something that fits better and GCM output.
Even Scafetta’s curve fitting has proved to be notably better than climate models.

Rod
July 17, 2014 12:42 am

Personally I think TSI is an averaged value of sun output and would be more interested in variations of magnetic field strength, UV ad extreme UV which I feel are more likely to be affecting our climate than straight TSI.
On another note, but relevant to the research topic is that I’ve been reading with interest about the Electric Sun. See:
http://electric-cosmos.org/sun.htm and
http://www.electricuniverse.info/Electric_Universe_theory
Haven’t decided how much I agree with it, but it certainly explains a few things a nuclear sun cannot.

July 17, 2014 12:44 am

Willis said:
“for sunspot data, the 11-year boxcar smooth is likely the worst possible choice of filters, because it inverts the data part of the time and emphasizes the data the rest of the time. ”
I don’t think David Evans claims it as the perfect solution. He accepts that the delayed thermal response of the Earth system is smeared across 4 to 15 years and he additionally accepts that the length of the solar cycle and hence the ideal length of the smoothing period is also variable.
Other factors are also involved and need to be separated out.
The thing is that around 2003/4 the averaged effect of the changes in TSI from the peak of cycle 23
start to kick in and David’s proposal that the smoothed pattern has some predictive capability will not be falsified for at least another 5 years.
I think you have been making unreasonable demands of the smoothing process at this early stage of its application to the TSI / temperature relationship.

July 17, 2014 12:56 am

Greg says:
July 17, 2014 at 12:04 am
Like Willis, I think you are expecting too much of the smoothing process.
As you point out, it does produce artifacts in both directions as a by product of the process.
However, where lagging effects are involved, smoothing does help to bring out the timing of longer term inflection points.
It isn’t perfect, especially if the underlying physical processes are themselves variable but it helps.
The smoothing applied by David Evans suggests that around 2003/4 a barrier was crossed which should result in a change in temperature trend around (not precisely at) 11 years later with that change in temperature trend itself being smeared across 4 to 15 years subject to interference from other factors such as ocean cycles that may be in or out of phase with the solar cycle to varying degrees.
It isn’t perfect but it is a legitimate starting point.

July 17, 2014 1:03 am

“If Willis had followed his own principle of quoting accurately, the bad blood might have been avoided.”
We are all entitled to our own opinions. We all make mistakes, sooner or later. The scientific method is not about making people angry or about bad blood.
Please stick to the scientific argument?

July 17, 2014 1:05 am

Rod said:
“Personally I think TSI is an averaged value of sun output and would be more interested in variations of magnetic field strength, UV and extreme UV which I feel are more likely to be affecting our climate than straight TSI.”
That is the idea that is emerging but it may involve the entire suite of chemical processes in the atmosphere.
The question then is whether TSI variations are related to wavelength variations at a later date which requires closer consideration of the relationship between TSI and magnetic field strength since the latter seems to be involved in the wavelength variations.
That is where it becomes necessary to try and identify ‘force x’ which David Evans sees as the relevant non TSI solar parameter driving changes in Earth’s climate system.
My view is that force x is the effect of wavelength and particle variations having a different effect on ozone amounts at different heights and at different latitudes.

Joel O'Bryan
July 17, 2014 1:08 am

waxing one’s wroth sounds unnecessarily painful.

July 17, 2014 1:10 am

“You are just sniping from the sidelines and causing trouble … sorry, not buying”.
Or
You are just shooting chaff and flares to distract or derail the scientific debate.
?

July 17, 2014 1:14 am

Willis,
As you are well aware I was in the thick of all that as well. I am beyond my anger and owe you an apology.
BTW I’m extremely glad you have looked into the splicing problem Willie Soon pointed out.

gnomish
July 17, 2014 1:15 am

you called me quote ‘jerkwagon’.
you called me quote ‘a thief’
you called me boring and ignorant- and if you’re so senile you don’t remember, i’ll happily get you your quotes, verbatim.
now, i can question authority without being a terrorist; i can question a monopoly without being a thief and i can question willis without being an anonymous coward.
you have a long list of apologies owed because of a long list of offenses.
now, i want to know what is your motive for it?

July 17, 2014 1:21 am

JoNova on July 16, 2014 at 11:50 pm
We have already responded to most of these points, and in depth:
. . .
If Willis had followed his own principle of quoting accurately, the bad blood might have been avoided.

– – – – – – – –
JoNova,
I thank you. It seems that instead of mending fences you have chosen, in your wonderful consistent civil way, a strategy of attempting removal of the fences in the dialog. Good.
Your energy level on the ‘notch’ project inspires.
John

July 17, 2014 1:22 am

We have graphed smoothed 11 year trends in TSI accurately. Anyone can replicate it.
There are no errors in the graphs.
The graph of smoothed TSI is merely a check to explain why there was a steep fall in the model. The model does not use 11 year smoothing, nor does it use the “red line” as Willis claims (“…David Evans’ model predicts future cooling based on the red line”):. I have explained this before, here on WUWT and to Willis. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/08/solar-notch-delay-model-released/#comment-1682221
I also said: “The TSI fall was always about 11-year smoothed trends. Leif and (Willis) continue to attack the strawman that it does not exist in monthly or daily data.”
It would surely be a sign of “good spirit” to actually read what we write. Hm?

July 17, 2014 1:24 am

Rocky says:
July 17, 2014 at 12:24 am
Does Evans have any chance of being correct in the main albeit with some errors in presentation and some errors in the graph ?

Solar scientist Habibullo Abdussamatov (who comes at it from a different direction) seems to think so.
This seems to provide supporting evidence. http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/analysis-solar-activity-ocean-cycles.html
CO2 is an effect of climate – not a cause. IMO.

Agnostic
July 17, 2014 1:28 am

Willis, there are 2 issues here:
1. Use of a faulty data set.
2. Use of 11 year smoothing,
On point 1, I am completely agnostic. You may be very well right and that could be a fatal issue for the model and it’s ability to say anything about future temps. I am not convinced either way.
On point 2, you still haven’t made your objections in the context of Dr Evan’s justification. I will allow that you very well be right, but you actually haven’t made a case at all. All you have said that it is inappropriate to use on TSI, but I have read their justification and it seems completely reasonable to me. This is something familiar to me from my line of work and I don’t see why you think it is inappropriate. Furthermore, Dr Evans ought to be given the benefit of the doubt in terms knowing what he is talking about as a respected electrical engineer and modeller. I’m not saying that means he is right, so if you see something that makes you go “hang on – this doesn’t look right” I’d try to get to the bottom of why he has done it. Having “no idea” why he has done it but proclaiming it as inappropriate doesn’t really further discussion.
So, with the greatest of respect, and in the spirit of polite scientific inquiry, I would love for you to characterise what you think Dr Evans is trying to do, or what you think his justifications are for using the 11 year smoothing, and then discuss why you don’t think it is the right way of determining long term trends in TSI. And what method do you think he should have used?

July 17, 2014 1:32 am

ren says:
July 16, 2014 at 11:51 pm
[snip – this thread isn’t about cosmic rays, but TSI. please post relevant comments only -mod]

I can’t tell what was deleted. But if it was about TSI as measured on earth cosmic rays are likely an influence. Svensmark. And then you have temperatures on earth. Which this thread is also about… If the labeling on the graph is correct.

richard verney
July 17, 2014 1:37 am

Willlis
It is good to see you making an apology. I am not taking sides, both sides behavoir left much to be desired.
This is a blog, and people post without the care that they would take, if they were presenting a report or submission for work. Whilst people do not usually preface their comments as such, most comments here are simply an expression of opinion. Sometimes that opinion is backed up by data, and as we all know nearly all the data sets have issues (some serious) and usually there are other data sets which are to more or less extent conflicting, such that the presentation of any data is selective. It always surprises me how firm people are in their comments, since given the poor quality of the available data, the conflicting nature of much of the data, a firm conclussion about almost any issue (or sub issue) would seem impossible.
IMO you are too ready to jump to a conclussion that when someone disagrees with you, they are making an attack on you. That is easy for me to say, since you put yourself up, to be shot down. Rising to the bait, often distracts from the debate, and the comment section then becomes side tracked, rather than focusing on the science. All that I am saying is that (IMO) you need to be more thick skinned, and accept that criticism (sometimes unfounded criticism) and disagreement comes with the territory, and just ignore it and stick to the science. IMO, you are sometimes overly defensive. None of what I say is a personal criticism.
Moving on to this post, I am somewhat surprised by the way in which you have presented some of the data. IMO, I consider that you need to present the TSI data for the period well before 2000.
IF you are presenting data starting at around the year 2000, it appears to me that there is a drop in TSI almost immediately, ie., late 2000/early 2001. The suggestion that the decline is from around 2004, is not a reflection of the data set out in the two plots (figures 1 and 2).
The duration of the data set out in Figures 1 and 2 is too short to allow the reader to gain an impression as to whether anything unusual is happening as from 2000 onwards. One would have to see the data for prior periods to gain an impression as to whether the period post 2000 in some way appears unusual, and even if it was unusual that may not mean that there is anything of significance.
I agree with you that there are issues (significant issues at that) in the way the data is handled and presented in the Evan’s plot (figure 3). In particular, (IMO) it is always very dangerous to rely upon smoothed data, especially if you are looking at the end period of the smoothed data, and seeking to draw a conclusion as to what is happening in the final period of the smoothing.
Evans is using an 11 year smoothing; the final period of the data runs from 2003 to 2014, and he is trying to read something significant from that smoothing in the very final period that he has data for. However, 2004, 2005 and 2006 etc will look different as soon as data comes in for 2015, 2016, 2017 etc.
When the data comes in for say the period up to 2020, (IMO) it is almost certainly going to be the case that the smoothed data post 2000, will then no longer appear as if it has dropped off a cliff.
All of that said, whenever one discusses the influence of solar irradiance, one issue that remains is whether TSI is the relevanat metric. Matters could be much more subtle, such as responses to a change in wavelength distribution within TSI, and/or some coupled response with changes to the Earth’s magnetic field and its distribution (whether it is weakening or strengthening in localised areas of importance over the oceans, or land, the significance of which we do not yet appreciate still less understand).
Personally, I doubt that matters are so simple, and the reason why we cannot detect the presumed response is simply because we do not know or understand all the factors in play, and therefore we do not know what we are looking for.
But if CO2 continues to rise, and if the sun goes through a quiet period (whatever that might mean) and if temperatures do not rise, the case for suggesting that CO2 is the dominant driver of temperature will weaken, and the case that temperatures are driven largely by natural factors will strengthen. One of those natural factors is likely to be the sun, and/or clouds, and of course, it may well be that clouds have an unknown response to solar activity and subtle changes therein…

redcords
July 17, 2014 1:37 am

MikeUK says:
July 17, 2014 at 12:16 am
Exactly. In their world “correlation does not imply causation” becomes “non-correlation implies causation with a notch and a Force X”.
Credit to Willis for this post.

Greg Goodman
July 17, 2014 1:38 am

Here is SSN with 11y running mean and 11y triple running mean
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=983
Note the way the running mean inverts the solar cycle around 1990 !
Once you actually remove the 11y cycle there is just a slow decline.

July 17, 2014 1:39 am

It’s only the measurable Nature that can and will validate or falsify Evan’s theory.
Earth is a water planet. With so much more Sun energy in the oceans than in the atmosphere and with several ocean cycles spanning from a few years to thousands of years.
And it’s affected by the Sun and clouds in many ways.
Some claim that 90% of climate science is not known or badly known. When we don’t know how climate fundamentally ticks what is the scientific motivations for all the current climate models?

July 17, 2014 1:39 am

So, with the greatest of respect, and in the spirit of polite scientific inquiry, I would love for you to characterise what you think Dr Evans is trying to do, or what you think his justifications are for using the 11 year smoothing, and then discuss why you don’t think it is the right way of determining long term trends in TSI. And what method do you think he should have used?
The purpose of the 11 year smoothing is to look for an inflection point. Other than that it and the data added to the endpoints are not germane. Did it find the correct (if there was one) inflection point? I think so. The result is the same as Habibullo Abdussamatov (HA) found by different means. Although David gives a range of 2014 to 2018 while HA says definitely 2014.

July 17, 2014 1:42 am

Jo Nova said:
“The graph of smoothed TSI is merely a check to explain why there was a steep fall in the model. The model does not use 11 year smoothing, nor does it use the “red line” as Willis claims ”
Good point, I’d missed that amongst the wealth of material.
Willis should just have apologised and left it at that rather than trying to explain further.

thingadonta
July 17, 2014 1:42 am

When two people argue over something that is relatively simple, there is usually some other factor involved.

Greg Goodman
July 17, 2014 1:43 am

Agnostic: “Dr Evans ought to be given the benefit of the doubt in terms knowing what he is talking about as a respected electrical engineer and modeller.”
There is not doubt to benefit form, this is science. Dr Evans “as a respected electrical engineer” should have questioned himself how he had such a sharp step in the data after passing an 11y low-pass filter.

Greg Goodman
July 17, 2014 1:47 am

Santa Baby says: “It’s only the measurable Nature that can and will validate or falsify Evan’s theory.”
If his processing has major flaws, he is wrong even if climate dips anyway. ( N.B. I’m not taking a stance on whether there is a solar signal here, )

July 17, 2014 1:49 am

redcords says:
July 17, 2014 at 1:37 am
With all due respect I do not think your conclusion is correct. The Bode Plot (you do know what a Bode plot is? From long experience?) shows a notch. That means a filter. To make the filter causal (math artifacts can create non-causal filters from sampled data) it needs an 11 year delay. Which is probably significant. Now what in the solar spectrum is delayed 11 years from TSI? Is that “what” possibly the required cause? If not? Dead end.
But we are not there yet. We don’t know if the cat is dead or alive. Yet.

Greg Goodman
July 17, 2014 1:51 am

M Simon. “The purpose of the 11 year smoothing is to look for an inflection point. ”
NO, the point of a “smoother” is to _remove_ “inflections” and smooth the data. Nowhere does Dr. Evans suggest that “smoother” is intended to detect inflection points, that’s nuts, you just made it up.
If you want to do that you design some kind of processing that _does_ detect such features, not chose one that spuriously creates them.

July 17, 2014 1:58 am

“JoNova
It would surely be a sign of “good spirit” to actually read what we write. Hm?”
It could be caused by human factors?
Like we are unable to see the vase or the two faces at the same time?
http://www.123opticalillusions.com/pages/Facevase.php
Having. been a pilot for over 40 years my life have depended on always having an alternative plan to my ongoing current plan. “My plan is to land safely, if it becomes less safe outside preset parameters I make a go-around.
The same when driving my car. I am going to pass here, but if a car comes head on early around that corner I will stop passing and go back to start. I have the right of way or a green light and will cross if all the cars on red accept my right of way… Etc etc..
They have already an idea how it should be so it’s very difficult to sell your own idea to them?

July 17, 2014 1:59 am

Greg Goodman said:
“NO, the point of a “smoother” is to _remove_ “inflections” and smooth the data”
The point of a ‘smoother’ is to remove short term ‘noise’ in order to reveal the longer term trends and inflection points in those longer term trends.
Taken to the extreme one can observe Leif’s progressive ‘ironing flat’ of the historical TSI record 🙂
In that case one smooths out everything including the long term trends and inflections therein.
“If you want to do that you design some kind of processing that does detect such features,”
Such as?

July 17, 2014 1:59 am

Rod says:
July 17, 2014 at 12:42 am
Personally I think TSI is an averaged value of sun output and would be more interested in variations of magnetic field strength.
As far as I understand it, the TSI changes (relatively minor and most likely irrelevant) are a direct product of the solar magnetic activity, but not necessarily representation of it. However, solar magnetic activity impact is measured down here on the earth by the annual number of magnetic storms http://www.geomag.bgs.ac.uk/images/image022.jpg hitting polar regions. That is not all, some of the storms are of same polarity as the Earth’s field, and others of the opposite; polarity is critical for the impact of the interactions. To make things worse (from statistical point of view), geomagnetic storms arrive at 27.2 days rate, while the climate data is presented at the variable monthly rate.

redcords
July 17, 2014 2:01 am

M Simon says:
July 17, 2014 at 1:49 am
“With all due respect I do not think your conclusion is correct.”
————-
You’re correct, my mistake:
In their world “correlation does not imply causation” becomes “non-correlation implies causation… and a notch… and a delay… and a Force X… and a nuclear test fudge factor scaled high”.

Velcro
July 17, 2014 2:01 am

Willis if you are ever in New Zealand aka Aotearoa aka Land of the Long White Cloud, I would enjoy meeting up with you. And that goes too for Jo and David and Leif and Chrostopher, whose insightful analyses and comments I have enjoyed, whole not always agreeing with, over the last few years. Amongst other things I teach ina course on energy in society, and am always struck by how vulnerable our up and coming leaders are.

July 17, 2014 2:02 am

TSI is measured by satellites since only 1978 (http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic=tsi/composite/SolarConstant), this is hardly long enough for any climate related consideration.
All other pseudo-precise W/m2 TSI graphs are reconstruction models, mostly based on reinterpretation of solar spots counts that are made since the 18th century. Spot counts are simple, and therefore an rather accurate story about what the sun has shown of its face.
Analysing the data, the famous 11 year cycle is also intertwined with an approx. 108 years oscillation, although the latter fails on statistical evidence for such a short observation period.
See the graph at: https://db.tt/LXTS9pfx

Agnostic
July 17, 2014 2:06 am

@Greg
I have been following your comments with great interest Greg. IMO you are doing a pretty good job of making a challenge.
There is not doubt to benefit form, this is science. Dr Evans “as a respected electrical engineer” should have questioned himself how he had such a sharp step in the data after passing an 11y low-pass filter.
Perhaps, but a more detailed look at the period in question:
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/solar-radiation/tsi/tsi-1950-2014-fig-4.gif
Is simply the result of the recent maxima being much lower. You can argue that (as Willis and Leif do) that the data isn’t correct and that there is no reduction in solar activity, but I can’t see what is wrong with their conclusion given they think the data is alright.

Mark
July 17, 2014 2:07 am

You say “As a result, the frequency data gets aliased into the amplitude data, yielding results that have nothing to do with the actual variations in TSI.”
That is not correct. First, data decimation by averaging does not cause aliasing. Second, the 11 year boxcar is a valid filter function for the intended purpose which is to completely suppress 11 year periodicity with the minimum length impulse response. That other frequencies are not so well dealt with seem to me to be beside the point of the analysis…
Cheers

holts7
July 17, 2014 2:09 am

ho hum on and on we go!

Agnostic
July 17, 2014 2:11 am

Actually Leif posts graphs showing the reduction in TSI – which is the point on which Dr Evans’ theory rests whether or not you think 11 year smoothers are valid or not:
http://www.leif.org/research/Acrim-Decline.png

ren
July 17, 2014 2:15 am

“Figure 4. Variations of mean UV spectral irradiance in 3 wavelength bands: FUV, 120–200 nm (left); MUV, 200–270 nm (centre) and NUV,
270–400 nm (right) (respectively, SFUV, SMUV, and SNUV): the monthly means shown in the top panels in black are composites using only
zero-level offset corrections to the raw data (as illustrated by figure 1), whereas those shown in mauve use an additional gain calibration for
the SORCE SIM instrument (as illustrated by figure 3). The mauve curves are also shown by the grey filled areas in the lower panels. The
lower panels also show the best least-squares linear regression fits of the McMurdo neutron monitor GCR counts, M (in orange); the open
solar flux FS (in blue) and F10.7 (in mauve). Correlation coefficients,r (with significance levels in parentheses) with F10.7, FS and M
respectively, for SFUV are 0.95 (99.9%), 0.71 (87.4%) and −0.89 (94.4%); for SMUV are 0.81 (92.9%), 0.80 (92.2%) and −0.89 (94.2%); and
for SNUV are 0.82 (99.6%), 0.83 (89.8%) and −0.87 (99.7%).”
http://pl.tinypic.com/view.php?pic=svj6g5&s=8#.U8Fw91V_suo
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/5/3/034008/pdf/1748-9326_5_3_034008.pdf
Solar activity drops drastically. The increase corresponds to a decrease of galactic radiation of UV and solar magnetic field fluctuations.
http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/query.cgi?startday=01&startmonth=06&startyear=2013&starttime=00%3A00&endday=17&endmonth=07&endyear=2014&endtime=00%3A00&resolution=Automatic+choice&picture=on
http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/query.cgi?startday=01&startmonth=06&startyear=2013&starttime=00%3A00&endday=17&endmonth=07&endyear=2014&endtime=00%3A00&resolution=Automatic+choice&picture=on

Greg Goodman
July 17, 2014 2:18 am

There is a more physically meaningful response to solar variations, that is a relaxation response. This is based on the simply model that the further something is out of equilbrium, the quicker it returns. This is the kind of simplistic model that a lot of climate science is based on.
The system response can be calculated as an asymmetrically weighted running average.
Here is what 5y time constant applied to SSN results in , compared to hadSST3.
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=981
Note that the short term peaks do NOT match solar. The last six intervals span about 53 years, that 8.83y each. Lunar perigee cycle is 8.85.
This is what many of the rather lightweight papers Willis has been highlighting have been mistaking for a solar signal. More to do with expections and bais confirmation it would seem.
If the relaxation model does suggest a possible long term solar response in climate , there is a notable divergence at the end. Someting is propping up global temps despite the decline in solar.
Ironically, this may well be due to major volcanoes:
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=955
Again, the “nuclear winter” paradigm seems so deeply entrenched in the global psyche that no one seems to have looked beyond this intitial cooling effect of volcanoes. The long term effect is a decrease in opacity of the stratosphere and about 1.8 W/m2 in incoming shortwave.

Rogueelement451
July 17, 2014 2:21 am

Just to lighten proceedings a bit;-
An Australian wedding had taken place in the outback ,halfway through the celebrations a guy gets on stage and says to everyone “Ladies and gentleman , I have some bad news , we have run out of beer and it looks like the best man has been caught making love to the bride in his room” At that point he receives a telephone call,, he smiles and says “great news everyone ! The hotel has just received another 20 cases of tinnies (beer) and whats more the bloke has apologised!”
An apology is what it is and I think fair play to the guy who apologises,well done Willis.

Greg Goodman
July 17, 2014 2:22 am

Cooling of stratosphere is clearly associated with major eruptions:
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=902
The impact of the extra SW can also be seen in SH ocean SST. SST is more variable and there it takes about 5y for the sea temp to catch up, but the similarity is clear and the stratosphere shows it to be caused by volcanic events.
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=988

thingadonta
July 17, 2014 2:23 am

Reading much of the above suggests the argument over TSI is in the realm of both qualified semantics (‘to the degree that…’), whether or not one believes a set or other of data is useful or not (‘discredited’, ‘inaccurate’, ), whether it has been correctly or justifiably spliced (‘bad splicing,…’.), and whether or not a smoothed trend is justified, and how long the smooth trend should be, and what can be said about it.
To which I say, to the degree that possibly or possibly not discredited data is possibly or possibly not inaccurate and possibly or possibly not badly spliced and possibly or possibly not whether the smoothing is justified in the first place and possibly or possibly not whether any further conclusions can be drawn from this, …………….then all is crystal clear.
Methinks Willis is splitting hairs that don’t need to be split.

Stacey
July 17, 2014 2:24 am

Dear Willis
I often learn from you and this site not, always things about science.
You quoted:
In Buddhism, there’s a concept called “something extra”, and one is enjoined to avoid putting in “something extra”.
I am an anonymous poster. as are many here and no doubt we have our reasons?
When you attack an anonymous poster as you do above, are you not putting in something extra, which may have the effect of upsetting those who support and value your work?
Thank you for all you do and enjoy your holiday. Why not accidentally on purpose spill your coffee on your keyboard, it will no doubt dry out by the time you return and allow you now a more relaxing time.
In advance I apologies if my comments are presumptuous.
Take care
Stuart Harmon

richard verney
July 17, 2014 2:31 am

One of the real problems exemplified in climate science is the difficulty of separating correlation from similarity. It is far too easy to overly read into data some correlation, when in practice all that one is seeing is some general similarity.
IMO, the Evan’s plot is a classic example of this. Sure there is some similarity between the 11 year TSI smoothing, and the 25 year temp smoothing. But is there really anything more than that? In particular, do the two correlate? When I look at the detail, I would say no. For example, I see instances when they become out of sync, there are some examples when the amount of relative change between the two is not similar etc. In fine detail, correlation begins to breakdown, just like the comparison between CO2 and temp; some similarity but in fine detail, no correlation.
And of course, correlation does not mean causation.

ren
July 17, 2014 2:31 am

Willis since he runs SORCE ?
“Precise space measurements obtained during the past 20 years imply that TSI varies on the order of 0.1% over the solar cycle (see Figure 1), but with greater variations on a short-term basis. For example, the passage of sunspots over the disk produces 2-4 times that amount. The variation apparently occurs over most time scales, from day-to-day variations up to and including variations over the 11-year solar cycle. How TSI variations are distributed in wavelength is still poorly understood. The largest relative solar variations are factors of two or more at ultraviolet and shorter wavelengths, but the greater total energy available at visible and longer wavelengths makes their small variations of potential importance.”
“The Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment (SORCE) is a NASA-sponsored satellite mission that is providing state-of-the-art measurements of incoming x-ray, ultraviolet, visible, near-infrared, and total solar radiation. The measurements provided by SORCE specifically address long-term climate change, natural variability and enhanced climate prediction, and atmospheric ozone and UV-B radiation. These measurements are critical to studies of the Sun; its effect on our Earth system; and its influence on humankind.”
The SORCE spacecraft was launched on January 25, 2003.

Greg Goodman
July 17, 2014 2:32 am

Mark says” First, data decimation by averaging does not cause aliasing. Second, the 11 year boxcar is a valid filter function for the intended purpose which is to completely suppress 11 year periodicity with the minimum length impulse response. That other frequencies are not so well dealt with seem to me to be beside the point of the analysis…”
1. A running average does not decimate, you have exactly the same time resolution as before.
2. ‘other frequencies’ are not beside the point, they are what are causing the inversions and the steep drop. That is the drop on which Dr Evans is basing his prediction and which he is putting up as a falsifiable prediction. Hardly ” beside the point of the analysis”.

Greg Goodman
July 17, 2014 2:37 am

richard verney says: “For example, I see instances when they become out of sync, there are some examples when the amount of relative change between the two is not similar etc. In fine detail, correlation begins to breakdown”
See my post just above:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/16/mending-fences/#comment-1687851

Greg Goodman
July 17, 2014 2:45 am

Agnostic says: “…but I can’t see what is wrong with their conclusion given they think the data is alright.”
There’s two parts to this as Willis explains. One is the data, the second is the filter aberrations.
The steep drop is not there, and should not be there in 11y low-passed data, whatever it’s source:
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=983

steveta_uk
July 17, 2014 2:48 am

MikeUK said:

Solar effects could well be having a measurable effect on tropical temperatures, but at the same time very little effect on the median

Interesting point – if true, then when combined with the WE patented thermostat hypothesis, then there should be a correlation between TSI and time-of-onset of tropical thunderstorms.
If such a correlation is found, then the notch filter becomes redundant.
Anyone have the data on that (Willis?)

ren
July 17, 2014 2:53 am

It will not be “Ice Age”. It will be very harsh winters in the mid-latitudes. If the sun’s magnetic field will weaken summer will be short.

Greg Goodman
July 17, 2014 3:02 am

MikeUK said: ” Solar effects could well be having a measurable effect on tropical temperatures, but at the same time very little effect on the median”
“could well be having ” , or may be not. Try producing something to back it up rather than meaningless hand-waving comments.
Tropics are particularly resistant to changes in radiative flux, as Willis has pointed out.
There is a detectable change in the tropics to Mt Pinatubo which shows that the values IPCC modellers use for scaling volcanic effects has been _under played_ to make the models work whilst maintaining high sensitivity.:
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=884
Despite that the change in tropical SST does match Mt P but is so small it’s just down at the noise level.
This implies that tropical climate is very insensitive to radiative change.
This is empirical verification of Willis’ hypothesis, in the topics.

July 17, 2014 3:06 am

At this stage of the game, I think most skeptics agree that CO2 running the climate is a defunct theory. That being the case and given the establishment investment in the CO2 rules over all, we’re the only ones actually looking for alternative theories.
The notch theory may or may not be correct, in whole or part; it’s still a very new idea even though David and Jo have put a lot of time into it. We can refine or rationally reject it by a process of cool thought and civil debate amongst ourselves. If they won’t do the blue skies science, it’s incumbent on us to do it.
Thank you Willis for being a big enough man to start moving the debate back onto that track, and ignore the various trolls dressed up in skeptic clothing.
Thank you again.
Pointman

NikFromNYC
July 17, 2014 3:15 am

Your postscript is just an overly long nag. It hippie kid focuses on buffoons as if they matter.
Shortened: “Only attack me in detail, friend.”

Greg Goodman
July 17, 2014 3:15 am

Mike UK “Another point: global mean temperatures are actually the MEDIAN of all the data, ”
I think you are mistaking what hadSST3 median means. It is not the median of the temps, it is the median of various “bias corrections” schemes. The times series, in general, are gridded means.
Please correct me ( with specific references to what you are referring to ) if that’s not what you meant.

DC Cowboy
Editor
July 17, 2014 3:23 am

“However, it gets worse.”
Isn’t that ‘something extra’? 😉

cedarhill
July 17, 2014 3:29 am

What was surprising was the claim by Svalgaard that all the data is bad anyways so why bother and, by extension, why bother with graphs, charts, equations, and already falsified. Strange area, this climate stuff.
Still, if this is all Ouija board parlor games, I prefer the Ouija with a firm prediction verifiable within a couple of years than withing a couple of decades or a couple of centuries. After all, it’s all guesses anyway.

geronimo
July 17, 2014 3:48 am

Willis, I don’t know the ins and outs of this spat, but do know that David and Jo appear to have been distressed by the vehemence of your, and Leif’s, response. To the extent that David has proposed a theory that you disagree with surely any disagreements can be expressed in language that requires no apology. And that’s the root of the problem, you appear to have responded emotionally and you now appear to be apologising while continuing to use “robust” language to those who disagree with you.
An apology is best accompanied by humility and it isn’t humble to apologise and say you don’t know what offence you’ve caused as though the person you’re apologising to is somehow to blame
I know you don’t care what anonymous contributors have to say, but I don’t care that you don’t care, I only care that you get to read my opinion in the hope that it will bring a little self-reflection.
“O, wad some Power the giftie gie us to see oursels as others see us!”
Sorry if I’ve caused any offence. (see what I mean)

mike osten
July 17, 2014 3:52 am

my wife and i have fights all the time and the worst thing to say i i apologize for whatever i did to make you mad. we both agree its not really an apology. good luck sincerely hope you all can mend fences.

July 17, 2014 3:56 am

Mr Eschenbach says it was “understandable” that another contributor had accused Dr Evans of being “almost fraudulent”. It was not “understandable”. It was irresponsible and inappropriate. It was based on a failure on the part of that commenter to realize that Dr Evans’ plainly-labeled graph showed 11-year smoothing. There was no basis whatsoever for accusing Dr Evans of being “almost fraudulent”, and the person who made that allegation and regrettably failed to withdraw it is now in considerable trouble over it. There are plenty of fraudsters in the climate scam, but Dr Evans is most certainly not one of them. Minimum standards of courtesy in scientific discourse are expected, and the entirely unjustifiable allegation that Dr Evans might have been guilty of a serious criminal offense fell well below those standards. Let there be no more repetition of any such nonsense.
Mr Eschenbach says the TSI data has had about 900 days of “data” added to it. No, it has not. This matter has been repeatedly explained to Mr Eschenbach both privately and publicly, and he must now desist from saying that any data, whether with or without quotation marks, have been added to the 11-year smoothing. The blue dots at the end of Dr Evans’ solid red 11-year smoothing are not in any way part of the smoothing. They are merely an indication that the precipitous drop shown over the previous few years is unlikely to continue – a point that Mr Eschenbach himself would presumably not disagree with, since he has made such a stramash about the fact that TSI today is higher than it was in 2004 (though he seems strangely silent on the fact that TSI today is at the peak of the current solar cycle, and the 2004 TSI was appreciably after and below the peak of the previous solar cycle).
Mr Eschenbach, in criticizing Dr Evans for having shown a graph with 11-year smoothing, fails to show in his own graphs the full 5.5-year period before the 2004 start-date for the drop in 11-year-smoothed TSI.
For good measure, he continues to criticize Dr Evans for having used Dr Lean’s reconstruction of TSI, but takes no account of the fact that the sudden drop in the 11-year-smoothed data of which he complains is evident not just in Dr Lean’s dataset but in multiple TSI datasets, as Dr Evans has show in his detailed reply to the points made by Mr Eschenbach and another commenter here.
And Mr Eschenbach seems to have failed to apologize to Dr Evans for having unjustifiably likened him to Mr Mann, who, after a decade and a half, has still failed to produce the complete code and data by which he contrived his hokey-stick graph in 1998. Dr Evans has now made his model and his method fully and publicly available, as he had said he would, and I should have hoped that a proper apology from Mr Eschenbach would have made some mention of that fact.
The moral is that greater civility all round would be advisable, and that it is foolish and unscientific to criticize a scientist’s research until all the details of that research have been made available, have been studied, and have been understood.
There are plenty of grounds on which one might legitimately question whether we are about to see a sharp fall in global mean surface temperature. Not the least of these is that temperature over the past million years has departed from the million-year mean by little more than +/- 1%, inferentially because the atmosphere is sandwiched between two vast heat-sinks. Given the near-perfectly thermostatic behavior of the climate, a five-year drop in 11-year-smoothed TSI may not, on its own, be enough to overcome the inertia in global temperature and cause cooling.
I should be surprised to see a substantial cooling over the coming decade, but I should not be surprised to see a little cooling. Nor should I be surprised to see a little warming. But I can see no basis at all for the unjustifiable hostility that Dr Evans’ suggestion of forthcoming cooling has provoked.

Mark
July 17, 2014 3:59 am

Greg, my first point was that aliasing artefacts come from inappropriate resampling (decimation). An averaging boxcar does not do that -ever.
It is not correct to say the boxcar caused that drop as the last boxcar point did not use extrapolated data -or am I wrong? I think your prediction of a smaller drop depends on cycle 25 being the same as 24 but what if (say) 25 is lower again -in that case the low pass filtered drop will be larger than you currently think and we may say it started in 2004?

jennifermarohasy
July 17, 2014 4:04 am

On the issue of a fall off in TSI starting around 2003, I can see it in the temperature data for my state of Queensland, Australia. More here… http://jennifermarohasy.com/2014/06/cooling-temperature-trend-establishing-across-northeastern-australia/

ren
July 17, 2014 4:05 am

Paradoxically, the decline of UVC radiation can reduce the amount of ozone and increase the UVB and UVA radiation on the surface.
“The passage of two large sunspot groups in late October 2003 caused a decrease in TSI larger than any short-term decrease in the 34-year TSI composite. ”
http://spot.colorado.edu/~koppg/TSI/TSI_Oct2003.png
NOAA/GOES reported peak X-ray (0.1-0.8 nm) values from the X17 flare at 11:10 UT on 28 Oct. 2003. The TIM measured a significant and sudden increase in TSI slightly prior to this, putting the TSI peak nearly in phase with the hard X-rays (as indicated by the derivative of the softer GOES X-rays). The abruptness of this increase and the following gradual decrease are typical of flares observed at EUV and X-ray wavelengths.
(Kopp et al., AAS 2004; Woods et al., 2005)
http://spot.colorado.edu/~koppg/TSI/28-Oct-2003_Flare.png
http://oi57.tinypic.com/jqg961.jpg
SORCE/TIM and TCTE/TIM agree very well on an absolute scale. They were both calibrated independently at the component level 10 years apart.
http://spot.colorado.edu/~koppg/TSI/SORCE_TCTE.jpg

ren
July 17, 2014 4:11 am

The solar observations from the Total Irradiance Monitor (TIM) are discussed since the SOlar Radiation and Climate Experiment (SORCE) launch in January 2003. The TIM measurements clearly show the background disk-integrated solar oscillations of generally less than 50 parts per million (ppm) amplitude over the ∼2 ppm instrument noise level. The total solar irradiance (TSI) from the TIM is about 1361 W/m2, or 4–5 W/m2 lower than that measured by other current TSI instruments. This difference is not considered an instrument or calibration error. Comparisons with other instruments show excellent agreement of solar variability on a relative scale. The TIM observed the Sun during the extreme activity period extending from late October to early November 2003. During this period, the instrument recorded both the largest short-term decrease in the 25-year TSI record and also the first definitive detection of a solar flare in TSI, from which an integrated energy of roughly (6 ± 3) × 1032 ergs from the 28 October 2003 X17 flare is estimated. The TIM has also recorded two planets transiting the Sun, although only the Venus transit on 8 June 2004 was definitive.
http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F0-387-37625-9_8

joannenova
July 17, 2014 4:19 am

Willis asks: “” I don’t understand what “technically true in a sense” even means regarding observational data. ”
Jo replies: It’s true in the sense of a strawman.
It is not true regarding 11 year smoothed data which is the conversation is about. I don’t know why you keep repeating the strawman as if it is in reply to us. You are wrong. What can I say that I have not already said?
As for calling it a spurious fall? No. Rather, it’s an obvious fall. Everyone can see that the latest solar cycle is a lot smaller than the previous ones.
The graph we provided in response to you shows a fall in smoothed TSI in all the main data sets — we did not splice that data. That graph for the fourth time.
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/solar-radiation/tsi-datasets-ls.gif

Crispin in Waterloo
July 17, 2014 4:20 am

Why 11 years? Well it was to look for a particular feature. The first point about the smoothing is that we already have the data so no need to guess, why not use a 14 year smoothing in the middle of a 14 year long solar cycle and 11 year smoothing in the centre of an 11 year cycle, with a slide from 14 to 11 as the transition takes place?
The rather obvious problem arising from applying an 11 year smoothing to a 14 year cycle are caused by the method, not the data. If you want ‘insight’ into the mechanism(s) don’t let the tool spoil the work.
If there was only one data point per year some rounding is needed but you get the idea. If there is something to be learned from cycle-length smoothing, fine, smooth based on the cycle length.
Use a cycle-length filtering approach and apply the same filter to the temperatures in lock step. Have a look at the relationship. Shift the temperature data one year and repeat. Shift again. Etc.
The smoothing from a 14 year to an 11 year cycle (remember we already know what the cycle lengths are) would be 14 years of points in the centre of the 14 year cycle. The next point would be smoothed
14-(14-11)*(1/((14+11)/2)) years of points. [1]
The next point plotted would be smoothed
14-(14-11)*(2/((14+11)/2)) years of points. [2]
After 12.5 years it would have 11 year smoothing. Then look ahead and repeat the process in principle.
A prediction of the next cycle length could be used to guess the coming temperature. If there is a lag, it should be easily spotted.

July 17, 2014 4:21 am

Since this has 1/2 to do with TSI lets see if the experts can explain this. https://twitter.com/NJSnowFan/status/489589302335389697/photo/1
I believe recent solar spikes has shown an effect on southern hemisphere sea ice growth and global temps at the poles like no other solar cycle in satellite history.
Since solar cycle #24 is a weak cycle, what I consider static in an active cycle has been removed and activity spikes in TSI have been showing up with a lag time of 4 to 7 days.
Also the big TSI spike at the end of December 2013 was followed by the polar vortex dropping down and recently one in the beginning of July with another polar vortex(many are still disputing it is one or not, Would make a great new post) dropping down that has set many new record low temps this week.
Thanks..

July 17, 2014 4:25 am

Stephen Wilde says
My view is that force x is the effect of wavelength and particle variations having a different effect on ozone amounts at different heights and at different latitudes.
Henry says
Hi Stephen, I have stated several times that you can pair the deceleration of maximum temps. with declining solar polar magnetic fields. I suspect a [small] shift to the left of the chi type distribution of TSI, not affecting total TSI much, releasing [somewhat] more of the UV (C) and X-ray.
Since we cannot measure these changes in TSI it becomes really silly to keep referring to it
ie. I am saying TSI is a waste of time.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/16/mending-fences/#comment-1687708
I invite you to look at my latest [updated] results
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/files/2013/02/henryspooltableNEWa.pdf
;;;;////
which btw clearly also suggest there is no room for any man made global warming or even earthly variables, (it looks like minima is [apparently] controlled solely by the sun)
I have also analysed results of ozone [remember: this is only one of many compounds formed TOA by the sun’s ultra sw radiation to protect us from that [harmful] radiation]
Both NH and SH.
NH: On the best polynomial fit it showed general declining trend from 1951 and a general increasing trend from 1995. On the SH there are no results before 1980, but here too the graph available from the SS showed an inclining trend from 1995…..
This was exactly according to my own finding for the decrease in maximum temperatures.
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
The heat coming through the atmosphere [that makes it to the bottom] behaves like an A-C wave.
Note that a full solar cycle is the so-called Hale cycle of 22 years.
2 of these cycles make a half Gleissberg cycle. Every half Gleissberg cycle we are back to the beginning……
Hence my insistence that something switched on the sun in 1972 and it will/must switch back in 2015-2016. We are looking at an electrical switch?
The whole system works like a clock, to protect life…..against overheating. The brighter the sun, the cooler the earth. Amazing, is it not?

July 17, 2014 4:46 am

When apology is no apology?
When accompanied with an excuse

Joseph Murphy
July 17, 2014 4:51 am

Willis Eschenbach says:
July 16, 2014 at 11:37 pm
Santa Baby says:
July 16, 2014 at 11:34 pm
“If I say “I am angry” that is simply a true statement.
But if I say “You made me angry”, that is something extra.”
No one can make you angry but yourself?
Yep. Simple fact. Buddha said that we always have one choice in life, to dig it or bitch about it. Not in those words, of course, but that was his message. The external circumstances are given, but our own response to those circumstances is … our own.
w.
————————–
I have found a good portion of people are outright hostile to this notion, however logically sound it may be. Perhaps emotional self responsibility is a little scary or, maybe… dissapointing?

Greg Goodman
July 17, 2014 4:55 am

C of M: “but takes no account of the fact that the sudden drop in the 11-year-smoothed data of which he complains is evident not just in Dr Lean’s dataset but in multiple TSI datasets”
Of course, because at least half the problem is the filter itself.
JoNova:
“As for calling it a spurious fall? No. Rather, it’s an obvious fall. Everyone can see that the latest solar cycle is a lot smaller than the previous ones.
The graph we provided in response to you shows a fall in smoothed TSI in all the main data sets — we did not splice that data. That graph for the fourth time….”
This is like no one is refuting temperatures have rising since 1900 ! Sure SSN has dropped since the last cycle. So if you use a filter that truly removes the circa 11y variability you will get a smooth decline , not a fall off the cliff.
If you filter out the high frequencies, how can you have a sudden change ?!
For the forth ( or more ) time:
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=983
https://climategrog.wordpress.com/2013/05/19/triple-running-mean-filters/

MikeUK
July 17, 2014 5:02 am

I got that global temps are MEDIANS for hadcrut4 from here: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/data/current/series_format.html
“Column 2 is the median of the 100 ensemble member time series”
I’ve not checked other datasets, just wanted to alert people to the possibility that they might have been looking for 11-year oscillations in the wrong place.
The median/mean is probably another red herring anyway, where is the real evidence for a notch?

Greg Goodman
July 17, 2014 5:02 am

Mark says
Greg, my first point was that aliasing artefacts come from inappropriate resampling (decimation). An averaging boxcar does not do that -ever.
==
It’s true, aliasing is a specific term relating to resampling. Convolution filters do not resample, so that is probably not the correct term for the type of data distortion caused by running means.

Greg Goodman
July 17, 2014 5:08 am

@ Mike: ” the medians of regional time series ” , yes that is as I explained above but it’s not that clear the way they put it. It’s the median of the “realisations” not time series of median temps.
Met Off. communication skills seem to be getting worse every time I look.

Greg Goodman
July 17, 2014 5:12 am

BTW Jo, congratulations on the Carbon Tax, I’m sure your persistent efforts must have contributed to this small but important step in a return to reason. Thanks.

Ted Clayton
July 17, 2014 5:19 am

On the more-general level & scope … it was always a Big Fib, that scientists and other types of investigators are, should be, or even can be expected to credibly-simulate an emotionaly-cold, remote, “Cmdr. Spock” persona. Indeed, there is good reason to suspect the opposite: That intellectually and generally brain-engaged people are subject to higher levels of emotional stimulation that are more laid-back, uninvolved folks.
IMO, the LibProg community widely harm their own goals, by embracing & fanning over-heated & inflammed discourse, as their standard way to approach & promote most any initiative with which they engage. This behavior gets them media-notice … but then, the media are on their side, and ‘massage’ the coverage they provide, to substantially gloss-over the behavioral liabilities.
People who are taking positions that are NOT the preferred bias of the media & Co, perhaps in a sort of emulation of the loud & overstated mannerism of LibProgs, stand to have their communications posed in as negative a fashion as feasible, by the massaging media.
Personally, I think the use of sarcasm, witty parry & thrust, and other indulges of emotional states, should be firmly curtailed by the Skeptic camp. Copying the antics of the opposition, in this case, is counterproductive.

Greg Goodman
July 17, 2014 5:23 am

Mike: “I think your prediction of a smaller drop depends on cycle 25”
I’m not predicting anything. The padding with estimated SSN was just to let the filter run out where D. Evans had his dots. It’s in the tail of the filter at that point, so has minimal weighting but has be have something to get a result.
The take home point is that the result should be a smooth decline is you’ve passed an 11y filter.
If you still have fast changes present and the solar peaks are now showing as local minima , you have a serious problem with the filter.

oMan
July 17, 2014 5:23 am

Great post, Willis. Science is about stuff “out there in the world” but it all has to be mediated through and with what we have “in here.” It can’t be done without some passion but it can’t be done only with passion. A healthy culture of science, like any other, will allow people to correct errors; and especially the errors that provoke (or are provoked by) passionate intensity. Your apology is a handsome one and includes the gift of a wise Buddhist saying. It is a credit to you and to WUWT, which I have long considered the best site on its subject matter in large part because of the healthy culture your words exemplify. Thanks.

July 17, 2014 5:40 am

HenryP says:
July 17, 2014 at 4:25 am
Hi Henry.
I like your work and appreciate your confirmation that ozone has been increasing since 1995 with the quiet sun.
That is the opposite of established climatology but in accordance with my diagnosis and expectation.

Tom O
July 17, 2014 5:46 am

Willis, I love your folksy stories. That said, please put together your model that may or may not be useful in predicting future climate changes and place it side by side with the model you hate. Let the best model win. You whine on about the underlying data, complain about the supposed “created data,” and still prove only that you, too, can be anal retentive.

Agnostic
July 17, 2014 5:53 am

@Greg:
This is like no one is refuting temperatures have rising since 1900 ! Sure SSN has dropped since the last cycle. So if you use a filter that truly removes the circa 11y variability you will get a smooth decline , not a fall off the cliff.
Right so your objection is the characterisation of the fall in TSI not the fact that there is a reduction of TSI?
Would you not say, that for the purposes of the exercise, all the graph is supposed to be demonstrating is that the ‘trend’ to lower maxima and TSI is the important part of the narrative? As they have been at pains to point out, it’s not the TSI that affects the climate (much) it is something else that correlates to changes in TSI, after a lag of around 11 years or about the length of a cycle.
So if they had simply not displayed the graph but indicated that owing to the reduction in TSI/SSN from this decade to the last, the model indicates that a fall in global temps should follow, and if it does not then the model is falsified.
Also, I wonder if the idea behind ‘trend’ is the thing that is causing the confusion. Because it implies a time resolution to be able to imply a trend. If we have 2 low maximas compared to previous series of high maxima, can you call that a trend or just an anomalous deviation. But isn’t really the concept that its significant changes in maximas that might have an impact on global temps the important point?

ren
July 17, 2014 5:57 am

This chart solar activity (solar flux) shows the rise and fall of the TSI (UV) in October 2003.
http://oi60.tinypic.com/1692551.jpg
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/08/record-levels-of-solar-ultraviolet-measured-in-south-america/

Greg Goodman
July 17, 2014 5:59 am

“Let the best model win.”
There is no obligation to do better or “win” in order to point out flaws in a model someone presents.
It should be quite amusing to see what Willis thinks of you comment, so I won’t spoil the fun by commenting further.

Greg Goodman
July 17, 2014 6:10 am

Agnostic: “Also, I wonder if the idea behind ‘trend’ is the thing that is causing the confusion. ”
What does “trend” mean? If it means fitting a linear model to data that shows no linearity in it’s variation on any time scale, that is a problem. If it further is used to imply / suggest some expectation that such a fictitious linear trend can be used to extrapolate to predict future changes, that is even more problematic.
For some reason there seems to be this idea that there is a “trend” to be discovered and “if the trend continues” ( with the unspoken implication that this is the most ‘likely’ thing to expect ) it will be OMG …. worse than we thought.
If we could ban the use running means linear trends from the whole discussion we’d get a lot further.

Claude Harvey
July 17, 2014 6:19 am

Willis! Willis! Willis! Can you not see how much “extra” you’ve put into some of your responses?

Greg Goodman
July 17, 2014 6:27 am

agnostic: “Right so your objection is the characterisation of the fall in TSI not the fact that there is a reduction of TSI?”
The thing is , this is not just a knit-pick. David Evans specifically claimed that this sharp drop is due to hit us any time now and put this up as a falsifiable hypothesis.
That is commendable practice but I think he’s going to be disappointed since it’s largely an artefact of the flaws in his method.
Now whether there is some amplifying factor_X that will mean there will in fact be a slower, decadal response to lower solar activity, is another question. I suspect temps will go down rather than up from looking at a number of physical indicators.
Hurricane energy peaks 2000-2005 , temps peaked about 2005, Arctic ice may have bottomed out, recently :
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=972
If solar was the overwhelming driver it should probably have been dropping sooner. I think the reason it has not done so is the long term warming effects of volcanoes. A factor which seems to be totally ignored so far. Plus the low sensitivity of the climate system, especially the tropics.
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=884

John West
July 17, 2014 6:28 am

Monckton of Brenchley says:
”I can see no basis at all for the unjustifiable hostility that Dr Evans’ suggestion of forthcoming cooling has provoked.”
Solar-phobia and Cycle-phobia!
With the current state of the instrumental temperature record and the shortness of the satellite data there is absolutely no way to either confirm or deny a solar connection or cycles in GAST.
Perhaps one day the instrumental record will be fixed such that it matches history; more likely, we’ll have to wait for the satellite data to accumulate to a significant length, which means I won’t be around to see it.

John Finn
July 17, 2014 6:35 am

FergalR says:
July 16, 2014 at 11:09 pm
“One of the spliced datasets is the Lean TSI reconstruction, an outdated dataset that the authors of the reconstruction themselves admit is inaccurate.”
Have the authors admitted it is inaccurate? It was certainly fed into the models for AR5.
It’s my understanding that the models can’t reproduce the Little Ice Age without it so I guess that would keep it alive. A source of the admission would be nice though.

They certainly can’t explain the early 20th century warming period. There is an assumption on this blog that Leif Svalgaard’s comments support the AGW case. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is, in fact, the solarphiles who are helping to prop up the “warmist” position. Obsolete solar data has been used to show that climate change was driven by the sun. The problem is any agreement breaks down after about 1980 – which agrees EXACTLY with the warmist claim that CO2 increases caused climate changes outside the range of natural variability..

July 17, 2014 6:36 am

Thanks Willis, I think the general more than the particular is what I’m thanking you for! So much in life and these blogs is building fences to protect whatever psychological investment (and sometimes finacial) investment we have in a hypothesis, theory or even ideology. Science is hard. We want to know if TSI or some other hypothetical forcing is responsible for something. It won’t be decided here and now. Or tomorrow. Critiquing methodologies and maths is good and points us in the right direction. Adding “something extra” is so very easy to do. Almost all of us here should apologize and always keep in miind Richard Feyman’s famous statement, “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself — and you are the easiest person to fool.”
Robert Frost’s “Mending Wall”-
Something there is that doesn’t love a wall,
That sends the frozen-ground-swell under it,
And spills the upper boulders in the sun,
And makes gaps even two can pass abreast.
The work of hunters is another thing:
I have come after them and made repair
Where they have left not one stone on a stone,
But they would have the rabbit out of hiding,
To please the yelping dogs. The gaps I mean,
No one has seen them made or heard them made,
But at spring mending-time we find them there.
I let my neighbor know beyond the hill;
And on a day we meet to walk the line
And set the wall between us once again.
We keep the wall between us as we go.
To each the boulders that have fallen to each.
And some are loaves and some so nearly balls
We have to use a spell to make them balance:
‘Stay where you are until our backs are turned!’
We wear our fingers rough with handling them.
Oh, just another kind of out-door game,
One on a side. It comes to little more:
There where it is we do not need the wall:
He is all pine and I am apple orchard.
My apple trees will never get across
And eat the cones under his pines, I tell him.
He only says, ‘Good fences make good neighbors’.
Spring is the mischief in me, and I wonder
If I could put a notion in his head:
‘Why do they make good neighbors? Isn’t it
Where there are cows?
But here there are no cows.
Before I built a wall I’d ask to know
What I was walling in or walling out,
And to whom I was like to give offence.
Something there is that doesn’t love a wall,
That wants it down.’ I could say ‘Elves’ to him,
But it’s not elves exactly, and I’d rather
He said it for himself. I see him there
Bringing a stone grasped firmly by the top
In each hand, like an old-stone savage armed.
He moves in darkness as it seems to me~
Not of woods only and the shade of trees.
He will not go behind his father’s saying,
And he likes having thought of it so well
He says again, “Good fences make good neighbors.”

Matt
July 17, 2014 6:39 am

Whatever has Buddha to do with it? You know what Christopher Hitchens said about Buddha? He said “Buddha was concieved from between his mother’s ribs – that makes him suspicious.” Yes, that’s right, suspicious like all the other religious figures who have been concieved without ‘male intervention’ somewhere down the line in the process of making babies. It is also the fallacy of appealing to authority. Just so you don’t come right back at me with that, I am not appealing to Hitch’s authority, what he says about human reproduction here is a scientific fact. If anything, Hitchens did not have to make up false stories about his heritage to lend authority to his writings. I don’t see how constant Buddha references can add to a scientific discussion.
The statement that you are angry may be true, a fact; but an issue is not limited to speaking of a single truth or fact.
If I tell you that I am fat, that does not mean that I cannot be tall at the same time, as well. Being tall is not a false, unnecessary extra, it is also a true fact.
There is literally nothing “extra ” to the statement that “person X made you angry” (assuming it is true). On the contrary, if you happen to get seemingly angry without cause, you might have issues, you know… You are not Buddha, and you are nothing like the idealized imagine of what he supposedly was. So OF COURSE you are not “simply angry”, there is a trigger of some sort.
I would also like to clear up some misunderstanding that keeps re-occuring regarding anonymous posting here. Look, it is like this: This is not YOUR forum, it is Mr Watts’ forum. He can make the signing up here dependant on whatever criteria he chooses. – And what did he choose? He felt that it is perfectly sufficient to sign up and post with an email and an alias. It is not due for you to keep bickering on about it, as if you could ask more of a poster than the person in charge of the forum. It is really irritating – even though it does not concern me personally (to my knowledge ), just reading how you handle it in general is awkward to me. You don’t complain about anonymous praise, do you.
Even Google just got that message,maybe you will,too. These are the rules and if you don’t like them, don’t take to the forums. Comments here are anonymous until Mr Watts changes the policy. And then people can decide what to do. As I mentioned above Google tried for 3 years to force such a policy and they failed miserably. I know, because when I fired my PC up this morning, there was a huge apology plastered across the Google page for trying to pull it off. So please -please stop bitching about it. Ask Mr Watts to consider a policy change, or whatever.
Being anonymous where you can is very different from signing up with false credentials. It doesn’t even make sense -precisely because one is anonymous you can say anything and everything with one account.
I am still using the same handle on the internet for over 20 years, where I am signed up for that period, and I am signed up here as Matt, because you couldn’t pronounce my name anyway. – which is why many foreigners fall back to using abbreviations, their middle name,or whatever. I notice there is at least one other Matt posting here, again, don’t complain to us, we don’t run the forum, we just use it.

ren
July 17, 2014 6:42 am

“The new work will help advance scientists’ ability to understand the contribution of natural versus anthropogenic causes of climate change, the scientists said. That’s because the research improves the accuracy of the continuous, 32-year record of total solar irradiance, or TSI. Energy from the sun is the primary energy input driving Earth’s climate, which scientific consensus indicates has been warming since the Industrial Revolution.” – See more at: http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/2011/01/14/improved-measurements-sun-advance-understanding-climate-change#sthash.8MtDUbfX.dpuf

July 17, 2014 6:46 am

Monckton of Brenchley says:
July 17, 2014 at 3:56 am
Mr Eschenbach says it was “understandable” that another contributor had accused Dr Evans of being “almost fraudulent”. It was not “understandable”. It …

I stopped reading any post or thread by W.E. after the sorry episode closing of the physics journal and the glee that W.E. showed over it. My judgment that I should stay clear was reinforced after reading the [self snip] comments at JoNova’s place when W.E. went on a rampage.
Today, however, I did read the post and did read the comments. (to this point obviously) I am glad I did as the comment by Lord Monckton was worth all the time invested in reading all of this.
Thank you Lord Monckton.
On to one other matter:

But see, here’s the thing, and there’s really no way around this…this isn’t about you or your opinion, so your complaint doesn’t concern me, and it certainly doesn’t concern W*ll*s. – *nth*ny

I was under the impression that the comments thread was here so that diverse opinions could be expressed. Good ones, bad ones, and even ignorant ones. Have we become like the alarmists where one is to agree with the Party Line or be told to leave? I was once taken to task at my little blog by one of the top legal bloggers over a post about the USA being a police state. I let him say anything he cared to say. All of it is still at the bottom of that post. (I think recent events and revelations have proven me correct rather than him; but others would still disagree no doubt)
There was a thread not long ago about how WUWT might be improved. Suggestions were asked for. My suggestion is that some of the people at WUWT become a bit more thick skinned.
~ Mark

hunter
July 17, 2014 6:47 am

Willis,
Remember the rule about holes.

July 17, 2014 6:47 am

I find that my true friends are the ones with the courage to tell me when I’m wrong.

Greg Goodman
July 17, 2014 6:50 am

Claude Harvey says
Willis! Willis! Willis! Can you not see how much “extra” you’ve put into some of your responses?
Steady on Claude. Willis is “Mr Extra”. That’s his style. That’s when his creative writing is at it’s best,
Buddha said that we always have one choice in life, to dig it or bitch about it If he’s not allowed any “extra” he’ll have to dig it.
Then we all go hippy and fatalistic, wander around with an inane, grin of harmonious contentment and let the Cooks and Manns have a free pass.
Me, when I feel my resistance fading, I touch my middle finger to my thumb and start shouting “Ohm”. . 😉

ren
July 17, 2014 6:51 am

Tilopa says: accept a, accept me the universe.

July 17, 2014 6:55 am

Mods:
My comment at July 17, 2014 at 6:46 am went into moderation. I can see no reason for that as I tried to not use any of the names that trigger this sort of thing. I must have missed a word or name that I did not know about.

Harold
July 17, 2014 7:00 am

July 17, 2014 7:04 am

I also see that all changes in solar input is most intense in the tropics, where it heats the ocean. All the ocean data shows a cooling of the upper 100 meters starting around 2003, most say a cooling in the upper 300, and a few see cooling in the upper 700. That seems to be a most interesting correlation.

Greg Goodman
July 17, 2014 7:04 am

John Finn: “The problem is any agreement breaks down after about 1980 – which agrees EXACTLY with the warmist claim that CO2 increases caused climate changes outside the range of natural variability..”
No it doesn’t.
I see what you are arguing but it does not. Certainly not EXACTLY. There should be significant AGW by 1960. If it starts in 1980 there’s a problem.
One thing that does fill the gap is the warming effect [sic] of volcanoes:
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=902
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=955
Now that looks to me like direct observational evidence of a change in energy flux large enough to account for most of the OMG run away global warming that was freaking everyone out at the end of the century. It also has the added benefit of being flat since 1998 , which matched the temp record rather well.
BTW there are some here that are interested in determining the science of what is driving climate, if that ends up determining the effect of AGW as significant , that’s the way it is. I’m not going to refuse to accept a solar model because it might give the wrong answer.
We’ve seen enough of that mentality already.

OK S.
July 17, 2014 7:05 am

Greg Goodman says @ July 17, 2014 at 5:59 am:

It should be quite amusing to see what Willis thinks of you comment, so I won’t spoil the fun by commenting further.

Reminds me of a lecture I read a few years back:

Some years ago, I read of a lawyer who found a small, but fatal, defect in a deed conveying a fortune to an irreproachable gentleman, which divested him of the title, while investing it in a contemptible cad. In commenting upon the lawyer’s discovery, the novelist compared him to a beetle crawling over Westminster Abbey, totally blind and oblivious to the beauty and grandeur of the architecture of that stately edifice, but discovering with an unerring precision the crack in the floor. Surely the role of beetle is unenviable, unless it serves some good purpose: So with the subject, “Where the Law Fails,” unless I may point out some way to remedy the failure, I accomplish nothing more than the carping faultfinder, whose purpose is done when he gleefully points to his better brother’s glaring faults.—Judge Robert L. Stout, to the Kentucky State Bar Association, 1909.

SunSword
July 17, 2014 7:10 am

I have been using the same nom de plume since the Usenet days. The usage of such has been common since at least the 18th century. I’m keeping it.

Michael 2
July 17, 2014 7:12 am

John Slayton says “He was in fact not at all upset when the speakers raised their voices and pounded the podium, because only then could he be sure that they really believed the ridiculous things they were saying.”
Yes — passion indicates conviction and belief. Challenge exists to test your conviction. Do you REALLY believe it or are you just trying to sell me a used car? This has been on the front of my mind since Climategate — who are the True Believers and who just wants more government grants?
But it can go either way. The really certain person might realize it is “impossible to fill a cup that is already full” and not bother to try. I’m that way with the Nikon/Canon digital camera feud or the Microsoft/Apple religious battles. Use whatever you like and I will do likewise. Libertarian!

July 17, 2014 7:16 am

I am going to say one thing. There are those who do not believe in solar/climate connections and those who do believe in solar/climate connections and neither side is going to be able to convince the other side they are correct.
For my part I will keep showing the latest research and past data which shows clearly there is a solar/climate connection.

Latitude
July 17, 2014 7:17 am

Mark Stoval (@MarkStoval) says:
July 17, 2014 at 6:55 am
===
Mark, it was in your quote from MoB…..
had accused Dr Evans of being “almost (word)

MarkD
July 17, 2014 7:17 am

Mending “fences”?
Freud would have had a moment with that choice of titles.

July 17, 2014 7:21 am

“I should be surprised to see a substantial cooling over the coming decade, but I should not be surprised to see a little cooling. Nor should I be surprised to see a little warming. But I can see no basis at all for the unjustifiable hostility that Dr Evans’ suggestion of forthcoming cooling has provoked.”
I don’t like colder climate so I pray to God, Allah and Buddha that Evans’ theory is wrong? 🙂

July 17, 2014 7:26 am

As far as TSI there are so many different data sets it makes arguing over this factor an exercise in futility.
As far as models go in predicting the climate , they are all bad because the data put into them will never be accurate or complete enough to account for all the feedbacks and possible thresholds that are in the climate system.
I rather depend on what happened in the past to predict what will happen in the future when it comes to climate.

Richard Ilfeld
July 17, 2014 7:26 am

Damn – it’s just like business. Pioneers are the ones with arrows in their backs, critics sit and pontificate, and some busy bees not in the conversation are standing on the shoulders of the innovators ready to profit handsomely.
I think we have transferred our emotions generated by anger at the billions of public funds chasing the co2 myth to one another in a quest to understand something way to complicated for the data and tools we have now.
SInce I’m a barely scientifically literate layman, I try to generalize in terms I am comfortable with.
Jo et al are pioneering, and think the sun has something to do with are climate cycles, and have made a first pass at quantifying it. Theory is predicting “cooling” and they’ll wait and see.
W et al don’t think the data is good enough, or the manipulations are good enough, to make the prediction.
Time will tell, if we ever have a temperature data set and an irradience data set we can all believe.
Hard to get when folks like NASA are consumed with ‘Muslim outreach’.
Hey, as long as they aren’t asking for an appropriation, corrupting our schools, silencing good people in the universities, distorting public policies, and diverting enormous efforts to repealing taxes that never should have been passed in the first place, I’m good with a little argument — then we can all go out for a beer.
I, like a lot of us, wish you all would get along better. For Americans, various baseball teams used to win pennants despite locker room fights and personal quarrels. The team could always get together when the game was on the line. And win. I hope this is like that cause I enjoy all of you and have made this knows through the tip jar from time to time.

bobl
July 17, 2014 7:28 am

Finally, to the degree that David Evans’ model predicts future cooling based on the red line, it is already falsified
Willis, you don’t understand, this statement is wrong, the artifact makes the prediction suspect, it does not make the MODEL falsified. The model is derived from the relationship between insolation and temperature over many cycles, there has to be errors in both the magnitude and timing of the sunspot cycle in the insolation data over many cycles to have any significant effect on the model, an artifact like this just gets averaged out, it has insignificant impact on the model itself. Any constant bias in any direction likewise comes out at zero frequency in the FFT and is irrelevant to the notch delay model. You need to be much more precise with your language, the model has NOT been falsified, the prediction has problems. The model as produced can be used with any dataset, use one of your choosing and let’s discuss the outcome.
On the other hand, the red line is as I recall not model output, David used this analysis to cross validate his models prediction, the prediction from the model may yet be valid even if the cross validation attempt has flaws. It’s quite possible that the large changes in solar peaks between the last 2 cycles is driving the model prediction.
Finally I’d like to say that you have somewhat redeemed yourself in apologising, there really was no reason to play the man at all, and calling David names and accusing him of fraud and concealing the model was just over the top. Please recall this next time and try to listen to what your peers here are trying to tell you, both myself and Lord Monckton were counselling you to cut the rhetoric and wait for the science but you would not LISTEN. Even now I still am repeating myself for the 4th time on how insensitive this method is to noisy signals, it has to be, it’s the way us EE’s analyse real systems and design inverse filters for controlling them, without understanding this you were at a significant disadvantage.

justsomeguy31167
July 17, 2014 7:30 am

Well, most of your posts are not truly scientifically well thought out or deal with more than a correlation – which would never be published under per review. You do need to raise the bar.

July 17, 2014 7:33 am

Willis,
I have no idea what you are apologizing for because I haven’t followed it but you have clearly identified yourself as the adult in the room and for the naysayers here who haven’t had the experience of people attacking you for everything under the sun, Willis exhibited class, try to follow suit.
BTW, I enjoy your writing style as much as anything. There is always a bit of something that makes me smile.

July 17, 2014 7:42 am

Tom West says
With the current state of the instrumental temperature record and the shortness of the satellite data there is absolutely no way to either confirm or deny a solar connection or cycles in GAST
Henry says
Perhaps you can explain for me the data for the drop in minima that showed a perfect curve (100% correlation) indicating that there is no AGW or earthly influence?
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/files/2013/02/henryspooltableNEWa.pdf
It all begins and ends with the sun, and it starts up again,
I hope….

July 17, 2014 7:48 am

Monckton of Brenchley says:
July 17, 2014 at 3:56 am
Mr Eschenbach says it was “understandable” that another contributor had accused Dr Evans of being “almost fraudulent”. It was not “understandable”.

And that pretty much sums up my feelings.

eqibno
July 17, 2014 7:51 am

I have a basic type of question concerning:
“The 11-year centered average is an extremely bad choice for a filter for sunspot/TSI data. Because the solar cycle varies both longer and shorter than 11 years, at times the 11-year average actually reverses the sense of the data, converting peaks into valleys and valleys into peaks. Look at the period from 1760-1800 in Figure 3, for example. What is happening is that the frequency data is getting strongly aliased into the amplitude data. As a result, the average can end up far from the reality, particularly at the ends of the dataset.”
Can the “11” year cycles be made time invariant? (Each cycle is assigned a start and end date and only the amplitude is considered as a metric.) This might make the prediction aspect more fuzzy but it might help on the magnitude side…

Greg Goodman
July 17, 2014 7:59 am

jim Steele says:
July 17, 2014 at 7:04 am
I also see that all changes in solar input is most intense in the tropics, where it heats the ocean. All the ocean data shows a cooling of the upper 100 meters starting around 2003, most say a cooling in the upper 300, and a few see cooling in the upper 700. That seems to be a most interesting correlation.
====
The ERBE data I based the volcano work on fizzles out at the end of the century. Until that point it looks fairly flat. However, since 2002-2003 there has been a gentle drop in TLS. too. That could also be a consequence of the reduction in TSI, though the effect is way smaller than the two changes of around 0.5K induced by volcanic events.

July 17, 2014 8:04 am

Willis Eschenbach:
Thanks for sharing your ideas and for giving me the opportunity to comment on them. You say that “…to the degree that David Evans’ model predicts future cooling based on the red line, it is already falsified.” Falsification of a model, though, takes place when the predicted relative frequencies of the outcomes of events fail to match the associated observed relative frequencies. For Dr. Evans’ model, though, there is no such thing as a relative frequency. Thus, this model is insusceptible to being falsified.

Greg Goodman
July 17, 2014 8:11 am

eqibno says:
I have a basic type of question concerning:
“…. What is happening is that the frequency data is getting strongly aliased into the amplitude data……”
What is happening here is that running mean actually leaks and inverts part of the signal , in a broad peak maxing at about 7.7 years.
So we see some of the shorter “cycles” like 1980-1990 end up being inverted in the running mean. http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=983
The solution is to use a better filter, it’s that simple.

Bill Illis
July 17, 2014 8:19 am

The last solar max TSI was about 1361.8 W/m2 in 2001.
This solar max TSI is coming in at about 1361.25 W/m2.
It is, therefore, down 0.55 W/m2.
Divide by 4 and multiply by 70% (for Albedo) and the Earth is receiving 0.1 W/m2 less energy than it received at the last solar max.
That translates into a reduction of 0.15 * 10^22 joules/year of energy less that the Earth is receiving now than at the last solar max.
By way of contrast, the Oceans are warming at 0.6 * 10^22 joules/year and the land/atmosphere/ice-melt is only accumulating 0.05 * 10^22 joules/year of energy.
0.15 * 10^22 joules/year less is a meaningful amount. If it accumulated over 5 or 11 years, it would produce a cooling impact (versus current trends).

Bernard Lodge
July 17, 2014 8:21 am

Back to the science …. or rather the math.
An 11 year moving average line moves up or down when the latest year added to the average is greater or lower than the 12 year old result that is falling out of the average. The gradient of the average line has nothing to do with whether the latest year was greater or less than the preceding year .. what matters is were those years greater or less that the 12th year old results that they replaced.
In Fig. 3, the decline in the average line around 2004 has the following notation:
‘The recent falloff in solar radiation started somewhere in 2003-2005’
This should read:
‘Around 2003-2004, the 11 year average of solar radiation started to fall off’
What this actually means is:
‘Around 2003-2005, the solar radiation significantly fell off compared to rates eleven years ago’
Though not a climate expert, I do accept that the graph truthfully tells me something interesting .. that the recent solar activity is significantly lower than a decade ago.
By the way, this is a great blog. Really interesting scientific debate with very good mediation which allows just the right amount of back and forth .. even over hurt feelings!
Rgds,
Bernie Lodge

ren
July 17, 2014 8:21 am

“The new work will help advance scientists’ ability to understand the contribution of natural versus anthropogenic causes of climate change, the scientists said. That’s because the research improves the accuracy of the continuous, 32-year record of total solar irradiance, or TSI. Energy from the sun is the primary energy input driving Earth’s climate, which scientific consensus indicates has been warming since the Industrial Revolution.”
CONSENSUS STATEMENT OF THE SOLAR CYCLE 24 PREDICTION PANEL
“March 20, 2007
In light of the expected long interval until the onset of Cycle 24, the Prediction Panel has been unable to resolve a sufficient number of questions to reach a single, consensus prediction for the amplitude of the cycle. The deliberations of the panel supported two possible peak amplitudes for the smoothed International Sunspot Number (Ri): Ri = 140 ±20 and Ri = 90 ±10. Important questions to be resolved in the year following solar minimum will lead to a consensus decision by the panel.
The panel agrees solar maximum will occur near October, 2011 for the large cycle (Ri=140) case and August, 2012 for the small cycle (Ri=90) prediction.”
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/SC24/Statement_01.html

MikeUK
July 17, 2014 8:26 am

I’ve seen the “time will tell” comment many times in connection with this notch solar model, but it won’t, just as The Pause has not (yet) done for the CO2 model.
Despite many claims to the contrary there is no such such thing as a climate prediction, just estimates of the “strengths” of all the possible variables, how much will temperature change if this one variable is changed, ALL OTHER THINGS STAYING CONSTANT.
Nobody can (yet) determine the effect of changing one variable on all the other variables.
What would tell for the notch solar model is some evidence NOW that this notch exists. David Evans has presented some graphs about filters that relatively few understand. AFAIK none of those who do understand filters have supported the claims.

emsnews
July 17, 2014 8:26 am

All this crying and shouting is based on VERY limited real data.
When talking about the sun, much of the past is reconstructed, not observed. The sun was not studied very closely until the first Solar Observatory was built on my childhood playground, Kitt Peak in Arizona and this was only half a century ago and it only recorded sun spot activity, not all the more sophisticated data.
The collection of any hard data is recent. So using this to draw conclusions about fine details in climate events is not adequate and thus the debates about fine details used to make projections is a waste of time.
There is one major thing to always remember: the #1 driver of our climate is the sun. There are other things that impact but the sun is the strongest and has the most immediate cause/effect.
And small changes in solar activity cause huge dislocations in climate. And yes, we are now entering a cooler cycle and yes, we are on the edge of another Ice Age due to the fact that these Ice Ages have cycled in and out repeatedly for over 2 million years and we are still pretty clueless as to why this is happening over and over again and why the cold cycles are ten times longer than the warm cycles.
We can guess and I would suggest due to the sudden start and equally sudden end to these cold cycles that a huge part of this is due to the sun and its internal interactions and its relationship with all the other forces in our galaxy which isn’t stationary nor stable but dynamic and restless.

AJB
July 17, 2014 8:37 am

Reality …
Monthly (distorted by SSN pre-averaging):
http://s29.postimg.org/u3v2nkbs5/SSNM.png
Daily:
http://s29.postimg.org/iq8jcd19h/SSND.png
A work in progress; needs peak-to-peak sliding window algorithm similar to David Evan’s smoothing (see his spreadsheet) but unlikely to make a scrap of difference. Moving SD takes care of most of the frequency variability, temps are not about to fall off a cliff. See integral plots.
However, ocean heat will be increasingly propping up atmospheric temperatures which means greater seasonal variability as the whole thing switches around to drawing on the big heat sink. We’ve seen a little of that already. Longer term if cycle 25 is also low (as looks likely) it means deeper winters. Particularly in the northern hemisphere where there is less ocean to equilibrate. Global annual averages may drop a tad but not by much. Winter temperatures will though be bitter on occasion. In the UK expect repeats of 1947/1963 sooner or later. Solar Max is now about done. It’s all downhill from here and probably quite rapidly. There is little or no dipole strength, late for it to build going into the next cycle and seemingly little upcoming stimulus (heretically or otherwise):
http://s29.postimg.org/8ew6jp9k5/Heretical.png
You can believe what you like; while there isn’t enough of it yet I’ll stick with the data until it says otherwise. If you think it’s physically impossible explain to me why minute tidal forces would not affect the shape and evolution of the magnetic containment of a fusion reaction fighting its own gravity at the ephemeral plasma boundary where net forces otherwise are essentially zero. Meridional flux migration to the poles appears to be moderated by minute tidal containment distortion. We will see whether that holds true in 2015 and 2017 (but not before about 2019).

TRM
July 17, 2014 8:42 am

“in a more Canadian manner” ?? Have you ever seen a hockey game? So you are going to drop the gloves and go at it bare knuckle style? 🙂
I want tickets!!!!

Chris4692
July 17, 2014 8:45 am

Greg Goodman says:
July 17, 2014 at 8:11 am

What is happening here is that running mean actually leaks and inverts part of the signal , in a broad peak maxing at about 7.7 years.
So we see some of the shorter “cycles” like 1980-1990 end up being inverted in the running mean.

Mr. Evans’ graph (Figure 3) is not a running mean, it is a centered average. Therefore the signal does not invert. It does blur the data: that’s it’s purpose. With so many data points bouncing around the chart, the eye cannot easily discern trends or changes in trend. Summary techniques such as averaging are primarily visualization aids.
If you have a better filter, use it.

July 17, 2014 8:48 am

Leif aka Salvatore says
I rather depend on what happened in the past to predict what will happen in the future when it comes to climate.
Henry says
So do just that.
Tell me
1) what this graph will look like 40-50 years from now
http://ice-period.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/sun2013.png
2) what will be the speed of warming/cooling be 40 years from now, where will it go?
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/files/2013/02/henryspooltableNEWa.pdf
(especially note the last graph at the bottom of the minima table)

mpainter
July 17, 2014 9:01 am

I agree with Leif, the Evans curve is almost fraudulent. Scientists have an obligation to accuracy and truth, and Evans missed far enough to deserve censure. Evans does not deserve the benefit of a doubt, because he has not repudiated the curve, at least not to my knowledge. Let him issue a mea culpa and a retraction, and then he will have come clean.

July 17, 2014 9:19 am

Willis says
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/16/mending-fences/#comment-1688122
Henry says
Willis, you say there is no change in TSI from 1600
and you are most probably right.
So, do you agree with me now that TSI is a useless proxy for anything?

July 17, 2014 9:20 am

Willis Eschenbach says:
July 17, 2014 at 9:08 am
As you can see, the sun is very stable.
Because the distance to the Sun varies through the year, TSI as observed at the Earth varies too [and quite a lot – about 70 times more than the variation of TSI that the Sun puts out]. Here is the TSI observed since 2003. http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-through-a-year.png . TSI is plotted for every day through the year starting at the beginning of each year, so the plot shows about 12 years of data. You can see the annual variation as the nice smooth [almost sinusoidal] curve. Solar activity is also visible: the tiny, tiny wiggles you sometimes can see on top of the curve due to varying distance. Bottom line: the Sun is very stable.

John West
July 17, 2014 9:49 am

Henry says:
”Perhaps you can explain for me the data for the drop in minima that showed a perfect curve (100% correlation) indicating that there is no AGW or earthly influence?”
Correlations over the short term while interesting are hardly definitive. Before I could venture any confidence in the relationship I’d want to see the correlation continue for several cycles at least.

July 17, 2014 10:02 am

Willis…
When you embrace anonymity, you lose credibility because you never have to take responsibility for your words.
Really?
Credibility is in the content, or not, nothing to do with anonymity or responsibility.
Also, that, your, statement is inconsistent with other comments you make
Willis
…QUOTE MY EXACT WORDS THAT YOU DISAGREE WITH…
How about…
QUOTE THE EXACT WORDS THAT YOU APOLOGIZE FOR… rather than deny knowing what you did/said wrong or to offend.

geronimo
July 17, 2014 10:08 am

My name is Gerry Morrow (geronimo geddit?) you can find me in Ipswich in England and I don’t understand what you believe to be precious about identity, unless you want to insult people you don’t know. Personally I don’t give a FF, but Mrs Geronimo likes her privacy.
Now you are clearly offended by what I said. Calm down, I’m a nobody, who happened to read your self-serving “apology” and try to tell you how it looked to people not involved in your personal attempt to be seen as “very clever”. Above all else in life the way you interact with strangers is the most important. So now I’m not anonymous what does that mean to you? Are you going to put me down with your ( self-convinced) superiority, or are you going to accept that an apology that blames the victim isn’t an apology.
If it would help you be more ill-mannered than you’ve already been I’ll add my personal email and home address for all to see . Would that do it for you?

MarkD
July 17, 2014 10:18 am

Re: Willis @ July 17, 2014 at 9:33 am
“Sorry, but when you choose to become anonymous, you lose the moral standing to do that.”
I can only assume you approach science with a similar use of logic. The opinion expressed by a person you do not know still has validity and the morals remain whether you recognize them or not. It seems you can’t help yourself when it comes to “adding something extra”. A continuous, free flowing fire hose of “extra.”
I encourage you to take your own advice and stick to the science alone. Perhaps you suck less at it than at making apologies.

geronimo
July 17, 2014 10:21 am

“to whom I’m apologizing…”
Now you know I’m Gerry Morrow it might help you to know you weren’t apologisng by any definition of the word, At least that’s how it seemed to those not having a dog in your egotisticlal fight.
Would you like my home address before you gave my views credence?

Keith Sketchley
July 17, 2014 10:35 am

Willis, it is very good to keep the debate going constructively with good people.
Do note that a feeling of anger is a proper emotional response to an evaluation that an injustice has been done. The challenge is what to do in response.
As for your “extra”, naming behavior is proper. Even less likely to be received well, so I’d only use it with bad people.
(With evil people best tactic may be to avoid, as such scum will make false accusations against you.)
Edith Packer’s lectures on psychology http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00ENAPR3S include Anger.

Greg Goodman
July 17, 2014 10:41 am

Chris: “Mr. Evans’ graph (Figure 3) is not a running mean, it is a centered average. ”
thanks Chris, now refer to Dr. Evans’ spread sheet, to my article explaining the defects of running mean (linked above) and come back and explain the difference you see between a running mean and what you want to call a “centered average”.
“If you have a better filter, use it.”
I did , and provided this graph above ( more than once ).
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=983
Not only do I used it, I’ve explained the issue in plenty of detail and provided several alternatives with code to do it.

John West
July 17, 2014 10:43 am

lsvalgaard says:
”You can see the annual variation as the nice smooth [almost sinusoidal] curve. Solar activity is also visible: the tiny, tiny wiggles you sometimes can see on top of the curve due to varying distance. Bottom line: the Sun is very stable.”
1) The graph linked is titled:
“Total Solar Irradiance over a Solar Cycle”
Most people would consider a solar cycle the Sun’s 11 year (or so) cycle not our annual trip around the Sun.
2) TSI is very stable but the components of TSI are not.
3) Note that Northern Hemisphere Summer is during the lower TSI values, the angle of incidence and surface characteristics (more land & less ocean compared to the Southern Hemisphere) trump this less energy input variation. Now consider how this effect is amplified / negated as the orbital cycle moves through Milankovitch cycles and how PUNY the supposed 3.7 W/m2 “forcing” from 2XCO2 really is.

July 17, 2014 10:45 am

John West says
Correlations over the short term while interesting are hardly definitive. Before I could venture any confidence in the relationship I’d want to see the correlation continue for several cycles at least.
Henry says
What cycles do you expect?
Are you not asking yourself when the [global] cooling will stop?
I am sure Leif knows but he is not telling, trying to stay in no one’s land, as many do, that expect a salary from the global warming nonsense/ scare
My best guess is that this graph from 1972-2016:
http://ice-period.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/sun2013.png
will continue in the future becoming a mirror of itself.
That means a slow increase in solar magnetic field strengths from 016 onward
but what causes the actual [electrical] switch?
Anyone for a guess?

Greg Goodman
July 17, 2014 10:48 am

MarkD: A continuous, free flowing fire hose of “extra.”
LOL 😉

Greg Goodman
July 17, 2014 10:56 am

John West: Most people would consider a solar cycle the Sun’s 11 year (or so) cycle not our annual trip around the Sun.”
I think the point of that graph is that it IS 11 years of data overlaid each year.

Chris
July 17, 2014 10:58 am

Willis,
“Many toes have already been stepped on in this discussion.”
I rarely contribute, but in this I feel compelled. I think Jo and David were very clear in their hypothesis and its parameters. Whether it explains a natural occurrence or not, it is a fascinating observation that I agree is worthy of debate and deeper analysis.
I appreciate your efforts to debate and analyze (and I generally enjoy your posts – though I think you are often unfair with critical commenters), but it seems to me you made a mistake in your interpretation of their data and assumptions. It also seems clear to me that you are deliberately turning that error into the central theme of your argument against the stated hypothesis. Your apology, and the obfuscation that follows, is both confounding and disappointing. Apologies to Jeff Id, above, but I do not think you are acting like “the adult in the room.” If you were my son acting thus, I would advise you to apologize directly for all of this:
Eschenbach 1: “I begged David Evans, begged him please, please, to release the hidden code, to stop keeping the model equation a secret, to reveal the data, to expose the numbers of tunable parameters, to show the results of the out-of-sample tests that Jo says he’s already done …”
Eschenbach 2:“I begged Jo and David to publish, and I got the same answer we’ve gotten from every other pseudo-scientist, that for me to ask was wrong, wrong, wrong, and that they’d publish the code and data and out-of-sample tests when they damn well felt like it … science at its finest.”
Eschenbach 3: “…and admit that (at least according to their graph) they have made a wildly incorrect claim that the TSI has fallen precipitously since about 2004. It is on the basis of this supposed fall that they are predicting falling temperatures.”
Eschenbach 4: “But neither of us owe David Evans an apology. He’s the one that made the horrendous newbie mistake, not us.”
Eschenbach 5: “That quote from the graph itself clearly says that they have invented the data from March of 2013 to December of 2015, which is the 900 days of data that Leif mentions. Now, I’ve used the word “invented” for that data. The graph itself uses the word “assumed” for that data. And Leif used the word “fabricated” for that data.”
Eschenbach 6: “Next, David Evans has not released the data, the model, the model results, the equations, the out-of-sample tests, or any of the details. This is the same garbage we got from Michael Mann and Phil Jones. And now, here you are cluttering up WUWT with the same kind of garbage. There is no transparency. There is no data. There is no code. In what alternate universe does this pass for science?”
Eschenbach 7: “Christopher, I have a simple rule that has never failed me. When a man is hiding something, it’s because he’s got something to hide.”
Eschenbach 8: “I’m sad to see you and David Evans and Joanne taking up the habits of Mann and Jones, David. I’d thought y’all were scientists. Ah, well, live and learn.”
ask for forgiveness, and present your argument against Dr. Evans’s use of smoothing as respectfully as possible. You have not done that with this post, rather you have attempted, with impressive rigor, by the way, to rationalize and excuse your behavior. That negates the apology. (As to number 8 above, there is no excuse. For that statement alone you should be ashamed of yourself, or at the very least embarrassed.) I do not believe in moral relativism. Your behavior is wrong, Jo’s and David’s is not. Your criticism may have merit, but that does not excuse the personal attacks. Jo’s posts on this very thing – the way to debate with respect – are wonderful to read. Given how deeply she cares about the way the scientific debate is conducted, I imagine your posts and those from Dr. Svalgaard must have been particularly upsetting. You should apologize to both of them – directly and privately – if you haven’t already.
If your toes were stepped on, it is only because you placed them knowingly and willingly in front of the elephant.
I do not expect you to take this post from me, another anonymous commenter, seriously (though Anthony may pass along my email to you if you care to discuss directly or want to know my full name). My intent is not to attack you at all, but only to offer one man’s opinion of this bitter exchange. I know it can be difficult to accept our mistakes and shortcomings, but with honest self-reflection we all have the opportunity to better ourselves.
Thanks for reading, Willis. I hope you are enjoying Big Sky Country.
Chris

Mary Brown
July 17, 2014 11:01 am

Skeptics are skeptical and should fight about most everything. If everyone agreed and acted like cheerleaders, then we would start to look just like those…other people.

July 17, 2014 11:02 am

John West says:
July 17, 2014 at 10:43 am
1) The graph linked is titled:
“Total Solar Irradiance over a Solar Cycle”
Most people would consider a solar cycle the Sun’s 11 year (or so) cycle not our annual trip around the Sun.

The graph shows a full solar cycle [12 years]. Each year is plotted separately, so there are 12 curves [on top of each other].
3) Note that Northern Hemisphere Summer is during the lower TSI values… Now consider how this effect is amplified / negated as the orbital cycle moves through Milankovitch cycles
Actually not, the difference is enormous [almost 100 W/m2] as the date where we are farthest from the Sun varies from July [now] to January [during a glaciation].

AJB
July 17, 2014 11:04 am

Chris4692 says July 17, 2014 at 8:45 am
Mr. Evans’ graph (Figure 3) is not a running mean, it is a centered average.
What’s the difference? It uses a weighting scheme determined by SSN peak and trough metadata (either official max/min times from an input table or derived) to suppress variable frequency edge distortion that results from using a fixed averaging window. Read the code.

Andy Krause
July 17, 2014 11:13 am

Geronimo – “Above all else in life the way you interact with strangers is the most important. ” And then you go ahead with “self-serving”, “very clever” self-convinced” , you could try your own advice sometime.

DirkH
July 17, 2014 11:22 am

Chris says:
July 17, 2014 at 10:58 am
“Eschenbach 2:“I begged Jo and David to publish, and I got the same answer we’ve gotten from every other pseudo-scientist, that for me to ask was wrong, wrong, wrong,”
Weird. Those where their exact words?

July 17, 2014 11:30 am

An apology like this is no apology, but an apologia. Like Winston Churchill on Gallipoli. Jo is right.

July 17, 2014 11:46 am

Typically I enjoy your work Willis but in this post I have a problem. Now with any running average the beginning and end will be ‘not exactly’ the truth. The reason being, as you have pointed out in the past the newest data is highly influential. This being said, that precipitate drop off is probably an artifact of ‘the end’ of the data.
Now a couple of things stand out, first your two graphs of CERES and SOURCE are approx 11-12 years long. You then compare them to a graph demonstrating 400+ years. The biggest thing here is stretching the X axis, in your chosen graphs a small change cannot possible be demonstrated when compared to a 400+ yr x Axis. I do not have half the escritorial talent that you have so what I am attempting to get at is your Y-axis or at least your chosen data sets, show a range of 6W/M^2 while the 400+ yr graph shows a 1.8 W/M^2. Huge difference here, in fact if you look at the CERES data, it shows clearly a drop in .2W/M^2 the same exact drop (visually, I have not independently run numbers) as the longer range 400yr graph. The SOURCE data shows a minor drop to possibly no drop, then again the graph is not long enough to actually catch a change, nor is the Y-axis sensitive enough to demonstrate said change.
Finally, do not apologize… We all enjoy your posts.
Brian

gnomish
July 17, 2014 11:47 am

willis, really, using wuwt as a forum for slandering folks is just not called for.
everything good about wuwt is made a mockery.
the worst troll here, lately, is you, homie.

Magic Turtle
July 17, 2014 11:58 am

I have not been following this argument from its beginning and I cannot tell from the discussion here what the central points of the disagreement are or even whether the two sides agree about what they are. I only know – from what Willis has written in the article above – that although the disagreement has arisen over a purely intellectual-academic topic it has generated some angry, hostile emotions too. I think Willis has taken a courageous step in publicly owning his angry emotions and of apologising for them, which has earned him much respect in my eyes. I hope his magnanimous gesture of a willingness for reconciliation will be reciprocated by the other side in some fashion, although after reading the other side’s comments above I won’t hold my breath because they still sound pretty outraged and indignant to me. Perhaps Willis’s apology has not addressed the issue that is concerning them and therefore they remain aggrieved?
I think it would be helpful towards the settlement of this dispute if the other side could say at this stage whether they are satisfied by Willis’s apology and if not then what it is that they are still aggrieved about. Willis appears to have sought to address the issue that he thought they were aggrieved over. I think the ball is in their court now to say whether or not he has done so to their satisfaction.

Jon
July 17, 2014 12:01 pm

Isvalgard said:
“Solar activity is also visible: the tiny, tiny wiggles you sometimes can see on top of the curve due to varying distance. Bottom line: the Sun is very stable.”
http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-through-a-year.png
So SH summer should be warmer and NH should be milder?
Our star, The Sun, is stable but our planet, Earth, is unstable?

Jon
July 17, 2014 12:02 pm

Correction : So SH summer should be warmer and NH winter should be milder?

John A. Fleming
July 17, 2014 12:09 pm

The way you guys were behaving, I just about swore off this website for good.

DirkH
July 17, 2014 12:13 pm

Greg Goodman says:
July 17, 2014 at 4:55 am
“If you filter out the high frequencies, how can you have a sudden change ?!”
Low pass filters do not remove all high frequencies; they dampen them.
Here is the spectrum of a moving average.
http://demonstrations.wolfram.com/MovingAverageDiscreteFilters/
The remaining high frequency energy can therefore still create steep changes in the output signal even after it has been damped; depending on how big its amplitude was before dampening, and by how much it was dampened.

Mac the Knife
July 17, 2014 12:15 pm

Spliced data sets from different sources, different instruments, and even different proxies…. is seldom ‘a good idea’.
Many a slip betwixt cup and lip is too often the result.

July 17, 2014 12:16 pm

I think Willis is correct in that a boxcar 11 year smooth is bad; finite impulse response filters are easy to implement and can be offset to allow “instant” response, but can have bad aliasing effects. I routinely use infinite impulse response filters that exhibit lag, but have no frequency peak of their own to cause aliasing. I think that Jo Nova and the others using “11 year filters” would see less dramatic (but inherently partially lagged) results with an IIR filter.

Mark Bofill
July 17, 2014 12:20 pm

All right, I’ll try it and see what happens.
Beetlejuice, Beetlejuice, Beetlejuice!

nope, nothing.

T Control
July 17, 2014 12:23 pm

Anthony, Willis is running this blog into the ground. He’s a crank. He could have apologized personally like any normal person would do, but he’s turned it into this huge drama on your blog with his non-apology apology, and constantly telling commenters he doesn’t give a FF what they think. He has everyone all riled up and upset. You’re starting to sound snippy yourself. What’s happened over here? It’s sounding like Real Climate.
[Sorry you think that way, I don’t think it’s as bad as you dramatically describe. From my position, I’m damned if I do, damned if I don’t. So, let’s just consider me universally damned and carry on. If you have an issue with Willis, make it clear to him. – Anthony]

Jon
July 17, 2014 12:25 pm

Hmmm, according to this the Earth, with up to 100 W/m2 more sun energy, during 6 months during Winter(Oct to March), should be much much warmer?
http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-through-a-year.png
Why does not the extra 100W/m2 show up in the data?
http://wps.prenhall.com/wps/media/objects/2513/2574258/pdfs/E17.9.pdf
?

July 17, 2014 12:26 pm

Monckton of Brenchley says:
July 17, 2014 at 3:56 am
There are plenty of fraudsters in the climate scam,
Like this one: http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/lord-moncktons-rap-sheet/
or this one: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/05/moncktons-deliberate-manipulation/comment-page-11/?wpmp_switcher=mobile&wpmp_tp=0
my comments stand.

July 17, 2014 12:27 pm

as a matter of fact
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solar_Spectrum.png
why [on earth] are we concentrating on knowing TSI (the yellow area)
instead of knowing ESI (the red area)
which is relevant for knowing what heat is actually getting on my head?
Does anyone have an answer to this question?

Chris4692
July 17, 2014 12:28 pm

AJB says:
July 17, 2014 at 11:04 am
Chris4692 says July 17, 2014 at 8:45 am
Mr. Evans’ graph (Figure 3) is not a running mean, it is a centered average.
What’s the difference? It uses a weighting scheme determined by SSN peak and trough metadata (either official max/min times from an input table or derived) to suppress variable frequency edge distortion that results from using a fixed averaging window. Read the code.
The comment I was addressing was about the signal being inverted. As I understand it, a running mean is placed on the graph at the end of the period being averaged. If that is the case, of course the cycles near the length of the average will appear to be inverted. That’s an artifact of how the results were chosen to be presented, not a characteristic of the data, and not specifically of the method of analysis. It is a characteristic only of the chosen method of presentation. If it bugs you, center the mean.

July 17, 2014 12:29 pm

Jon says:
July 17, 2014 at 12:25 pm
Why does not the extra 100W/m2 show up in the data?
Because the ‘data’ shows the ‘anomaly’, that is the deviation from a long-term [30 years] average.
On much longer term the 100 W/m2 do show up, namely in glaciations, where the 100 W/m2 shows up as a 5 degrees C difference in temperatures.

Greg Goodman
July 17, 2014 12:37 pm

Chris: ” As I understand it, a running mean is placed on the graph at the end of the period being averaged….. ”
You don’t understand it. I have pointed out that you need to read the information provided but you prefer to continue posting your ill-informed comments. Please feel free to come back when you know enough about the subject to comment.

July 17, 2014 12:38 pm

Willis Eschenbach says:
July 17, 2014 at 12:01 pm
Thanks for your response, Christopher. I will let Leif respond to this part. However, given the number of charges of actual fraud against alarmist scientists that you have leveled against scientists in the past, I find it curious that you are so sensitive when your own side is accused of being “almost fraudulent” … and I find it odd that you advocate “minimum standards of courtesy in scientific discourse”. You were happy to accuse the IPCC of using a “fraudulent statistical technique” for using what you thought was an inappropriate statistical method in FAQ 3.1 but which they defended as being appropriate for the purpose. It’s OK for you to yell FRAUD! when you disagree with someone’s statistical analysis, but not for anyone else?

I thoroughly endorse these remarks Willis, I hope Monckton’s ‘minimum standards of courtesy’ include eschewing the use of the ‘ad hominem’ attack, which he resorts to at the slightest provocation.

July 17, 2014 12:44 pm

further to my previous comment
I am assuming that most here understand that TSI is the yellow+red
ie everything under the chi square type distribution (blue line)

July 17, 2014 12:53 pm

Willis says
Now, can we get back to the science?
henry says
eishhh
this is what I have been saying all along…
Cannot get no reaction..

Jon
July 17, 2014 12:58 pm

“lsvalgaard says:
“Jon says:
Why does not the extra 100W/m2 show up in the data?”
Because the ‘data’ shows the ‘anomaly’, that is the deviation from a long-term [30 years] average.
On much longer term the 100 W/m2 do show up, namely in glaciations, where the 100 W/m2 shows up as a 5 degrees C difference in temperatures.”
http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-through-a-year.png
Your graph showes the effect of the Earth being closer to the sun in Winter than during summer. Earth gets up to 100 W/m2 more radiation during Winter, october-march, than during summer, april-september.
This shows the actual global annual temperature month for month
http://wps.prenhall.com/wps/media/objects/2513/2574258/pdfs/E17.9.pdf
Why is Earth warmer in the summer, April-september, when it gets up to 100 W/m2 less radiation fromthe Sun?

T Control
July 17, 2014 1:00 pm

“From my position, I’m damned if I do, damned if I don’t.”
I suppose that is true, although Willis could always get his own blog and make everyone happy.
I’m not going to bring anything up with Willis, he’s made it clear he doesn’t care what commenters think (despite the fact he wastes an awful lot of words for someone who doesn’t care.) Isn’t this YOUR blog? Reclaim it!

July 17, 2014 1:05 pm

Jon says:
July 17, 2014 at 12:58 pm
Why is Earth warmer in the summer, April-september, when it gets up to 100 W/m2 less radiation from the Sun?
When is it summer in Australia?
It has to do with the angle at which sunlight strikes the ground.
http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/astronomy/planets/earth/Seasons.shtml

July 17, 2014 1:08 pm

I love folks who claim they never read my work, and yet here they are, reading my work … it appears that you don’t understand that after making such an obviously false claim, whatever you subsequently say is totally discredited.
In addition, I note that despite a clear and specific request you do not quote or cite my claimed “glee”, which I certainly have no memory of and greatly doubt … sorry, Mark, but so far you’re batting zero.

You can’t read it seems. I plainly said that I stopped reading your stuff, but did read this one. It was the title. I just knew you would not really apologize and I was right. But if you can fell better about yourself after making the ridiculous claim that I made “such an obviously false claim” then so be it. No doubt you will quote the Buddha in defense of your blatant projection. But the only “discredit” is in your own small and insecure mind — and I don’t see that as much of a problem to me.
You can also make all the demands you want to make, but your glee at the closure of the physics journal was open and blatant. Your every word dripped of your ill concealed pleasure that those people were silenced. Just as your “apology” in this post was not an apology (not one at all) for the horrendous accusations you made at JoNova’s site. You got hammered there because there was no kid glove moderation to protect you. What you fail to understand is that you are making an impression on thousands of people with your antics. It is their judgment that you need worry about — not mine. You lost me a long time ago even though we agree on a lot in regards to science.

Nor do I apologize for comparing Dr. Evans to Mann and Jones. Each of them invited criticism of his work “sure in the knowledge that no one will be able to falsify what he refuses to make available”, in your own words. I find that to be totally unscientific, regardless of whether or not the code and data is subsequently made available some weeks, months or years later … and sadly, we’re already into “months” and to date Dr. Evans is still channelling Mann and Jones—despite repeated requests he still has not released the critical code that shows how he set the arbitrary parameters that make his model work, nor has he released the results of his out-of-sample tests that according to Jo were completed weeks ago.

No one could damn you more than you did yourself in the above quote from this thread. Dr. Evans laid out how he was going to make his data, code, and methods available from the get-go. Only an idiot (or a disingenuous person) could compare what he did to Dr. Mann’s actions.
Keep digging fellow, this is something to watch.

jay cadbury phd
July 17, 2014 1:11 pm

Dr. Jay Cadbury, phd.
@Leif
“Why is earth warmer in the summer when it gets up to 100W/m2 less radiation from the sun”
That is a bad question. Depending on where you live, you will be getting more radiation from the sun in the summer months.

Greg Goodman
July 17, 2014 1:15 pm

Willis “I explain that with the idea that the temperature is thermostatically controlled and thus not a function of forcing.”
That is as simplistic as “it’s the sun stupid”.
I think you are essentially correct for the tropics where you started. Extending that to whole planet is IMO so far unjustified.
My volcano stack graphs show clear differences in response between tropics and ex-tropics.
I know you’ve seen them, but I’ll include a link for reference:
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=312
Tropics maintain degree.day product, ex-tropics simply return to previous temps but loose degree.days.
You make the logical error in confounding no correlation with no statistically significant correlation, it is not identically the same thing. If there is sufficient noise and other variability, there may be a correlation that is not “statistically significant” on one time scale, that does not prove that the effect does not exist or is not statistically significant on a different time scale.
You hang your hat on the idea that if you can show that the 11y cycle has no statistically significant correlation, the sun has no effect on any time scale.
That is not necessarily true. Your test is neither necessary nor sufficient ( in the mathematical sense of the terms. ).
I can find a fairly good match to the Pinatubo volcanic forcing in SST but it’s not significant in relation to surrounding variability. So I did not use it. That does not mean it does not exist, it just means it can not be used to draw conclusions of any certainty. If there is a feedback controlling tropical SST there must be an effect to trigger the feedback. Even when the ‘governor’ kicks in the control variable ends up slightly displaced.
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=884
That study shows that volcanic forcing is being played down in order to make the models work without giving up the high sensitivity and +ve feedbacks.
I think that is direct proof of your thermostat hypothesis for the tropics. That result can not be automatically extended to the entire planet.

Thorsten Ottosen
July 17, 2014 1:19 pm

Dear Willis,
I can understand critiques of smoothing processes on time series data. That can easily go wrong. But somehow it must be possible to assess whether the cumulative tsi over a window of x years shows any trend. What if we took the area under the tsi graph and slided a window of x years over the whole graph? Do it for all x and see which one resembles the temperature record the most. For x = 11, would it look vastly different that the smoothed graph from Evans? Furhermore, for all x, make a delay of y years to see if that makes the result fit better with the temperature record. One particular pair of x and y would lead to the best fit. Then we would very much like to see how this “Best” graph looks like compared to temperature.
Just an idea
Regards Thorsten

July 17, 2014 1:23 pm

A note on the accusations that those who use a “handle” or “nom de plume” or a “screen name” are anonymous cowards whose opinions are “worthless”.
I have read this sort of defense here often. It is a version of the ad hominem rhetorical technique. It is going after the man and not addressing the argument itself. I would hope that those who use this technique all the time realize that only the easily fooled person buys into that argument. I hate to see it used here as it debases the whole tone of the site.
I see it said that only those “with skin in the game” have opinions worthy of respect. Heifer dust! No opinion is worthy of respect without logical backing and that backing does not depend on the name of the person. (or else that is an appeal to authority is it not? There is a name for that fallacy also)
So: could we cut the crap about screen names reducing a person’s worth here?

Bill Parsons
July 17, 2014 1:26 pm

RE: “I fear I waxed wroth.”
Who is “Wroth”?

July 17, 2014 1:28 pm

In any case, folks, unlike Mark I do provide citations and quotations. That discussion is here. I leave it to the reader to discern my purported “glee”, I can’t find it.
The fact you can’t find it is not very surprising at all. Nor is it surprising that you think this post of yours was “mending fences”.

In that spirit, I apologize sincerely and completely for wherever I put in “something extra” in the previous discussion.

This non-apology apology is worthy of a long time politician or a Hollywood star with an agent to write his stuff.

Greg Goodman
July 17, 2014 1:35 pm

“Nor is it surprising that you think this post of yours was “mending fences”. ”
Hey, you know a cowboy’s idea of mending fences starts with a hammer and lots of barbed wire 😉

bones
July 17, 2014 1:48 pm

Greg Goodman says:
July 17, 2014 at 2:18 am
Here is what 5y time constant applied to SSN results in , compared to hadSST3.
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=981
—————————————————————————
Holy Cow, Greg,
Willis has been digging hard to find any correlation between climate variables and the sun and you just posted a link to the most glaring example I have ever seen. My apologies for not showing the rest of your post, but this is important and needs to get Willis’ attention, in addition to many others.
Stan Robertson

Jon
July 17, 2014 1:49 pm

Willis Eschenbach says:
July 17, 2014 at 1:10 pm
“Jon says:
July 17, 2014 at 12:58 pm
Why is Earth warmer in the summer, April-september, when it gets up to 100 W/m2 less radiation fromthe Sun?”
“Good question, Jon. The main reason is the unequal distribution of the land, with most of it being in the Northern Hemisphere. The land warms and cools much more rapidly than the ocean, so the globe as a whole is warmer in the NH summer.
The second reason is more subtle. Despite the fact that the instantaneous insolation is largest in January when the southern hemisphere is tilted towards the sun, in fact over the year both hemispheres receive the same amount of total energy. This is because when the earth is close to the sun, it is moving faster and so it spends less time close to the fire. And on the other hand, when it’s further from the sun it moves more slowly, and so it spends more time collecting sunlight. Because of the immutable laws of physics, these two exactly balance out, and so both hemispheres get the same energy. At that point, the unequal distribution of the land makes all the difference.
###########################
Well my starting point was Isvalgaard’s
http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-through-a-year.png
That shows that Earth is closer to the Sun during Winter. So much that during NH Winter Earth is reiving 100 W/m2 more than during summer. I think that should show up in the Data?
And I really have problems With Your story: “This is because when the earth is close to the sun, it is moving faster and so it spends less time close to the fire. And on the other hand, when it’s further from the sun it moves more slowly, and so it spends more time collecting sunlight. Because of the immutable laws of physics, these two exactly balance out, and so both hemispheres get the same energy.”
They, SH and NH spend 6 months each, and SH should according your graph collect the most radiation ?
Earths speed in Space is not a factor?

July 17, 2014 2:02 pm

Jon says:
July 17, 2014 at 1:49 pm
That shows that Earth is closer to the Sun during Winter. So much that during NH Winter Earth is reiving 100 W/m2 more than during summer. I think that should show up in the Data?
Winter in the NH.
And it does show up very dramatically: we are no longer in a glaciation. When during NH Winter Earth is receiving 100 W/m2 less than during NH summer we have a glaciation with mile-thick ice sheets reaching down to Central Europe and past the Great Lakes in America.

Greg Roane
July 17, 2014 2:08 pm

The idea behind building a hypothesis is that it should be subject to the scientific method and tested ad infinitum to see if it is falsifiable. If it cannot be tested or subjected to the scientific method, then it is nothing more than conjecture.
So why does everyone get steamed when their hypothesis is tested and a peer determines it false? And why does the peer get steamed when someone else punches holes in the methods that he/she used to falsify it in the first place?
Why not, as scientists and professionals, can we not just learn from ours and others mistakes and use that knowledge (and wisdom) to perfect our science and hypothesis?
Because flaming and slaying everyone is so much easier. Isn’t it.
Isn’t it?

Reply to  Greg Roane
July 17, 2014 7:29 pm

Greg Roane:
Thanks for sharing. You gave a partially but not completely accurate description of the scientific method. Under this method a conjecture is falsifiable and tested to see if it is falsified by the evidence. In climatology, supposedly scientific conjectures are not falsifiable thus not being truly scientific. These pseudo-scientific conjectures provide governments with their pseudo-scientific arguments for regulation of carbon dioxide emissions.

sleeper
July 17, 2014 2:18 pm

The only positive thing I can say about this thread is that it’s another example of Anthony’s willingness to present his blog warts and all with very little censorship. And this thread is one bad-ass wart.
Anonymously yours,
sleeper

Jon
July 17, 2014 2:19 pm

Isvalgaard says
“And it does show up very dramatically: we are no longer in a glaciation. When during NH Winter Earth is receiving 100 W/m2 less than during NH summer we have a glaciation with mile-thick ice sheets reaching down to Central Europe and past the Great Lakes in America.”
When talking about the possible effects of CO2 its about 3-4 W/m2 for a doubling.
Due to Earths noncircular orbit THE EARTH for the moment receives 100 W/m2 more during NH winter than during NH summer.
SH receives totally far more radiation than the NH.
I really expect that to show up in the annual Data for the SH?

Chris
July 17, 2014 2:29 pm

Willis Eschenbach says:
July 17, 2014 at 12:59 pm
“Great. Now the anonymous Apology Police have a member who knows what I am thinking, and that I am “deliberately” doing bad things. I guess there’s no limit to their powers …”
Chris says:
July 17, 2014 at 10:58 am
“I do not expect you to take this post from me, another anonymous commenter, seriously (though Anthony may pass along my email to you if you care to discuss directly or want to know my full name).”
I guess I called it. Anyway, Willis, if knowing my last name would make you take my post to heart, you may, as I noted initially, retrieve my email from Anthony. I protect my anonymity on a skeptical blog because of my field of work. I choose not to put my wife and children in financial risk because I don’t believe in CAGW. I hope you can understand.
Again, I hope you enjoy Montana!
Chris

July 17, 2014 2:30 pm

Jon says:
July 17, 2014 at 2:19 pm
SH receives totally far more radiation than the NH.
As Willis explained, it does not.

July 17, 2014 2:34 pm

Mr Eschenbach continues to try to justify his support for the very foolish allegations by another commenter here to the effect that Dr Evans had been “almost fraudulent”. In his latest attempt at justification, he relies on the fact that I had reported the IPCC to the Swiss authorities for alleged fraud. That was because, in my opinion, the IPCC had, with wilful intent to profit and to cause loss to others, published a deliberately deceptive but highly influential graph. I had first obtained an independent report from a statistician recommended to me at arm’s length by a third party. The statistician confirmed my understanding that the graph was deceptive. The deception was intentional, because the IPCC, to which I then wrote, refused either to justify the graph or to correct it. Is Mr Eschenbach seriously suggesting he considers the graph to have been correct? Or that, if incorrect, the error was inadvertent?
There was no intent on Dr Evans’ part to deceive anyone, and certainly no attempt on his part to profit thereby. Instead, he has foregone his income for some years in order to concentrate on his research. Accordingly, none of the tests for fraud is satisfied.
Mr Eschenbach continues to state that Dr Evans had used a “reconstruction that is known to be incorrect”. The IPCC no longer uses that reconstruction, but, a