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:
Figure 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:
Figure 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 :
Figure 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”.
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?
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.
@ur momisugly 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
@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?
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/
“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.
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.
Willis! Willis! Willis! Can you not see how much “extra” you’ve put into some of your responses?
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
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.
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..
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.”
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.
“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
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:
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
Willis,
Remember the rule about holes.
I find that my true friends are the ones with the courage to tell me when I’m wrong.
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”. . 😉
Tilopa says: accept a, accept me the universe.