JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



BIG NEWS VIII: New solar theory predicts imminent global cooling

To recap — using an optimal Fourier Transform, David Evans discovered a form of notch filter operating between changes in sunlight and temperatures on Earth. This means there must be a delay — probably around 11 years. This not only fitted with the length of the solar dynamo cycle, but also with previous independent work suggesting a lag of ten years or a correlation with the solar activity of the previous cycle. The synopsis then is that solar irradiance (TSI) is a leading indicator of some other effect coming from the Sun after a delay of 11 years or so.

The discovery of this delay is a major clue about the direction of our future climate.  The flickers in sunlight run a whole sunspot cycle ahead of some other force from the sun. Knowing that solar irradiance dropped suddenly from 2003 onwards tells us the rough timing of the fall in temperature that’s coming (just add a solar cycle length). What it doesn’t tell us is the amplitude — the size of the fall. That’s where the model may (or may not) tell us what we want to know. That test is coming, and very soon. This is an unusual time in the last 100 years where the forecasts from the CO2 driven models and the solar model diverge sharply. Oh the timing!

Ponder how ambitious this simple model is — the complex GCM’s only aim to predict decadal trends, and have failed to even do that. Here is a smaller simpler model proffering up a prediction which is so much more specific. The Solar Model has not shown skill yet in predictions on such short time-scales, though it hindcasts reasonably well on the turning points and longer scales. It cannot predict ENSO events, and obviously not aerosols, nor volcanoes. But if the notch-delay theory is right,  the big drop coming is larger than the short term noise.

As we head to the UNFCCC meeting in Paris 2015 where global bureaucracy beckons, a sharp cooling change appears to be developing and set to hit in the next five years. Yet consortia of five-star politicans are not preparing for climate change, only for global warming. Around the world a billion dollars a day is invested in renewable energy, largely with the hope of changing the weather. Given that 20% of the world does not even have access to electricity, history books may marvel at how screwed priorities were, and how bureaucratized science cost so much more than the price of the grants.

As Bob Carter has been saying for a long time, politicians need to prepare for everything the climate may throw at us — see Climate the Counter Consensus.

Jo

 

Global Cooling is Imminent

Dr David Evans, 27 June 2014

Cite as Evans, David M.W. “The Notch-Delay Solar Theory”, sciencespeak.com/climate-nd-solar.html, 2014.

If the Sun mainly controls the temperature on Earth, a turning point is almost upon us. (In the second part of this series of blog posts we will demonstrate that carbon dioxide is responsible for less than 25% of the global warming of the last six decades, so presumably the Sun is mainly responsible.)

1   Why It’s Going to Cool

The reason for the cooling is the dramatic fall in solar radiation that started around 2004. Here is a graph of solar radiation since 1610, when sunspots were first recorded. The brown line is the solar radiation, and it peaks every 11 years or so because of the sunspot cycle. We put an 11-year smoother through it to give us the red line, which shows the trends in solar radiation.

 

Figure 1: The recent fall in TSI is the steepest and one of the largest ever recorded (records go back to 1610).

UPDATE: This graph has been updated after the PMOD revisions to TSI in late 2013 or 2014. It makes very little difference. Compare the new graph to the original here.

 There have been three big, steep falls in solar radiation in the last 400 years.

The first was in the 1600s. It led to the depths of the Little Ice Age, and the Maunder Minimum. This was the coldest period during the last 400 years. There used to be fairs on the ice in the Thames River in London, because it would freeze over for weeks at a time.

The second fall is around the time of Napoleon and it preceded the second coldest period in the last 400 years, called the Dalton Minimum.

The third fall occurred recently, starting in about 2004. This recent fall is as big as the fall in Napoleon’s time, almost as large as the fall in the 1600s, and it seems to be steeper than either of those falls. But the temperature hasn’t fallen … yet.

2   When

The timing for the cooling is indicated by the delay, which was deduced from the observed notch but has been independently corroborated to varying extents several times in the last decade (see Post III). The delay is most likely 11 years, though definitely between 10 and 20 years.

2004 + 11 = 2015.

Eleven years after 2004 is 2015, suggesting the cooling will start in 2015. However, 11 years is only the average delay, and the physical interpretation of the delay (see Post IV) suggests the delay is actually the length of the solar cycle—which has varied from 8 to 14 years, but averages 11 years. The current solar cycle is a long one, probably running around 13 years:

2004 + 13 = 2017.

So the cooling is most likely to begin in 2017.

The delay could be as much as 20 years, in which case the drop could be as late as 2024. Or it could occur as soon as 2014. An El Nino or La Nina could affect the timing too. At this stage, we don’t know. But by the end of 2018 seems fairly likely.

(Notice that so far we have only applied our physical understanding of the delay, and its implication of a powerful solar influence that is signaled by changes in solar radiation but acts after a period of time equal to the delay.)

3   How Much Cooling

How much cooling and how quickly? For that we turn to the notch-delay solar model, which hindcasts the last 240 years of temperatures reasonably well simply from the total solar irradiance (TSI). This model was developed earlier in this series of blog posts; see here for an overview and links.

The changes in solar radiation are tiny, and have an almost insignificant immediate effect on Earth’s temperatures. However the physical interpretation of the notch and delay (see Post IV) show that these little changes foretell the changes in a newly detected climate influence from the Sun, which we are calling “force X” for now. The effect on temperatures of changes in force X is 10 to 20 times as great as the immediate effect of changes in solar radiation (see Post VI). Force X works by modulating the albedo of the Earth, or the amount of solar radiation reflected straight back out to space without changing the heat of the planet, by clouds and ice and so on. Force X turns the tap that controls how much sunlight pours into the Earth’s climate system. This could be through UV, magnetic field effects, solar wind, or some form of electrical field.

Force X lags TSI by half of a full solar cycle of 22 years, which is to say, by 11 years on average. Therefore the changes in solar radiation over the last 11 years tell us what force X is going to do soon. It’s already baked in the cake; we can see a few years into the future.

 

Figure 2: Climate model driven only by solar radiation, with no warming due to carbon dioxide. See Post VII for explanation. Predictions shown by dotted lines. This instance of the notch-delay solar model used a constant delay of 10.7 years and shows cooling beginning in 2014.

 UPDATE: The predictions have been updated with new TSI data from PMOD revisions in late 2013 or 2014. Again, there is little difference, compared to the original.

If the temperature on Earth is entirely controlled by solar effects, the cooling will return us to the temperature levels of the 1950s or even the 1920s, undoing the last 50 or 100 years of global warming in just a few short years.

The temperature data from land thermometers from 1850 to 1978 may have exaggerated past temperature rises. The solar model here trained on that data so it may be too sensitive, in which case the imminent cooling will not be as large as shown in absolute terms.

At least a small portion of the recent global warming was due to rising carbon dioxide, so the fall will not be as large as shown in Figure 2.

4   Solar versus Carbon Dioxide

Both the carbon dioxide and notch-delay solar theories agree with the warming observed during the 1900s, because carbon dioxide levels and solar radiation levels were both generally rising. So we cannot tell the models apart on recent performance.

However, over the next 10 years the theories strongly diverge. Carbon dioxide levels will continue to rise at much the same rate, so the carbon dioxide models predict warming over the next decade of about 0.2°C, plus up to 0.3°C of previously-committed warming not reflected in the temperature “pause” of the past 15+ years. Owing to the fall in solar radiation from around 2004, and making allowance for rising carbon dioxide, the notch-delay solar model predicts cooling of 0.2°C or more.

 

Figure 3: Comparing the CO2and solar models. They show general agreement from 1900 to 2000, because carbon dioxide and solar radiation levels were generally rising, but they diverge sharply soon.

 

5   Theories and Falsifiability

Science is about testable hypotheses. Over the next decade, the changes in temperature will reveal which theory is more correct, the carbon dioxide model or the notch-delay solar model.

Here’s the criterion: A fall of at least 0.1°C (on a 1-year smoothed basis) in global average surface air temperature over the next decade.

If the criterion does not occur: Then the notch-delay solar model is falsified and it should be thrown away.

If the criterion does occur: Then carbon dioxide driven models are falsified, and they should be thrown away. (Note that the carbon dioxide theory predicts only warming over longer periods such as a decade, and we’ve already had a pause in warming for 15+ years.)

6   Old Temperatures

The Maunder Minimum from about 1645 to 1715 and the Dalton period from about 1790 to 1830 are generally reckoned to be the two coldest times in the last 400 years.

There was no global thermometer network before 1850, so for a global picture we have to rely on proxy data (ice-cores, pollen, marine sediments, lake sediments, tree-rings, etc.). The most comprehensive study is Christiansen and Ljungqvist’s huge proxy study in 2012, which used 91 proxies scattered around the world. We smoothed it by 25 years in Figure 1 because proxy data is uncertain and hazy.

Even the IPCC thought those two periods were the coldest in the last 400 years, before they went all hockeystick:

 

IPCC FAR, Lamb, Medieval Warm Period

Figure 4: From the First Assessment Report of the IPCC, page 202.

 

Fig 5 (updated) IPCC Second Assessment Report, Fig 3.20 page 175, The SAR WGI first pdf). Decadal summer temperature index for the Northern Hemisphere, from Bradley and Jones (1993), up to 1970-1979. The record is based on the average of 16 proxy summer temperature records from North America, Europe and eastAsia. The smooth line was created using an apporximately 50-year Gaussian filter. Recent instrumental data for Northern Hemisphere summer temperature anomalies (over land and ocean) are also plotted (thick line). The instrumental record is probably biased high in the mid-19th century because of exposures differing from current techniques (eg Parker, 1994b)

 

UPDATE: We’ve replaced the graph originally posted (copied here) which was sourced via here. Thanks especially to William Connolley for the proof reading and to ThinkingScientist for accurately finding the actual SAR IPCC Graph above. It is entirely incidental to the Solar Model or its predictions, a mere side note here, not included in the main paper or the model, but we always appreciate feedback. The point remains that it has been long accepted that solar minima correspond to cooler temperatures on Earth.  — Jo

 

7   What’s Next

This almost finishes the first part of this series of blog posts. The second part is about finding whether the carbon dioxide or solar model is dominant, from the evidence to date. This develops a method for computing the extent of causation, and finds that rising carbon dioxide levels were responsible for less than 25% of the global warming of the last 60 years.

The next post in this series is of the spreadsheet that contains all the data, code and the model behind the notch-delay solar theory. We have delayed releasing it so as not to preempt the blog posts, and to engender a more focused conversation.

The home page for the entire notch-delay solar theory is here. It includes links to all these blog posts, with summaries.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.3/10 (144 votes cast)
BIG NEWS VIII: New solar theory predicts imminent global cooling, 9.3 out of 10 based on 144 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/neuuzbk

577 comments to BIG NEWS VIII: New solar theory predicts imminent global cooling

  • #
    scaper...

    I hope you are wrong but hope doesn’t get one anywhere. Not a good prognosis for mankind.


    Report this

    252

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      It depends on how fast and how much. I wouldn’t get quite so excited as to say,

      Not a good prognosis for mankind,

      just yet.


      Report this

      40

    • #
      Bryl

      I can’t get excited or worried over .2 degrees of warming or cooling.


      Report this

      40

      • #
        Bryl

        Not trying to deride your work David. Well done and I trust you will be proved correct.


        Report this

        50

        • #
          bobl

          I think the problem here is what David’s model forecasts is very bad compared to the CO2 models that forcast warm sunny weather, with bountiful crop yields. Just 0.8 degrees globally puts us back in the little ice age, it’s possible places like Alaska and possibly some of Canada won’t be habitable. There’s a reason Alaska was sold to the USA.

          Warming isn’t dangerous, cooling sure is.

          For my part I hope the CO2 models win out, and the golden age will continue, but logic tells me David’s model is probably more likely and that outlook is not so rosy.


          Report this

          100

          • #
            the Griss

            For my part I hope the CO2 models win out, and the golden age will continue,
            but logic tells me David’s model is probably more likely and that outlook is not so rosy.

            I’m with you all the way on that one. bobl.

            More CO2 + more warm = VERY GOOD :-) . !!

            Cold = not so good :-( (even with more CO2)


            Report this

            90

          • #
            scaper...

            A lot of Australians are living in a state of energy poverty now. Suffering in silence…heat or eat is the decision and for a country that is resource rich this is criminal!

            This malady is now affecting the lower middle class and if the climate gets colder under these circumstances the suffering will be severe.


            Report this

            130

            • #
              bobl

              Yes Scaper, the response to the CO2 nightmare has been to make us much less resilient to climate – this needs to be pointed out to the state governments in particular.

              Mind you where I live will be fine, if you live in Tasmania, or Christchurch NZ maybe not so fine. I predict much more biomass and localised fossil fuel burning as a result, much more pollution and related positive (cooling) feedbacks. Diesel fuelled electricity is already cheaper than grid power here in Queensland, and Ive been using a kerosene heater, which is watt for watt cheaper than grid power too.


              Report this

              40

              • #
                Roy Hogue

                Yes Scaper, the response to the CO2 nightmare has been to make us much less resilient to climate…

                Nothing will change that any faster than necessity. In the past people were always more concerned with the weather. Climate seems to have been considered a constant by those who considered it at all because climate changed slowly for most of human history. No one person’s lifetime crossed any very noticeable change.

                If cooling like the solar model seems to predict is in the future that will certainly change. And along with it, attitudes about how to deal with a real problem will also change.


                Report this

                30

    • #
      Tel

      Not a good prognosis for mankind.

      That very much depends on whether we learn anything.


      Report this

      20

    • #
      CC Squid

      June 29 post:

      http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/06/29/just-how-bad-is-the-ushcn-data-tampering/

      So I did an experiment. I calculated the post-1990 measured temperatures for all stations with no missing data, and the post 1990 temperatures for all of the fabricated data. The fake data is diverging from the real station data at a phenomenal 5.3 degrees per century.


      Report this

      40

    • #
      CC Squid

      So, are we saying that the CAGW crowd are not charlatans? Could we just say they were
      Info “scientists” who are suckling from the government teat?


      Report this

      10

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    New solar theory predicts imminent global cooling

    Is this the Gore effect … again?


    Report this

    190

  • #
    Popeye26

    Well done to both David & Jo.

    I’ll be interested to see how the REAL scientific community interprets this new theory.

    I just hope it is treated with due respect for all of the effort put into it and that everyone of them sits back and waits to see what (in reality) happens.

    As they say, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. May be hard to digest for a lot of the “rusted ons” but phooey to them if they don’t like this version and interpretation of science. They can always revert back to their witchcraft :-)

    Cheers,

    PS – can’t wait to see the spreadsheet either.


    Report this

    152

    • #

      Popeye, with respect, we are part of the real scientific community. I think you are referring to the officially endorsed government funded science community?


      Report this

      431

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        Correction: You are part of the real scientific community, rather than being members of the surreal scientifik commune.


        Report this

        281

      • #
        Annie

        I had made the assumption that Popeye included you and David as part of it Jo.

        This work is fascinating!

        Annie.


        Report this

        81

      • #
        Popeye26

        Jo,

        “I think you are referring to the officially endorsed government funded science community?”

        Correct & my bad – I DEFINITELY wasn’t referring to David or yourself – so sorry for the ambiguity!

        Cheers,


        Report this

        191

    • #
      CC Squid

      As the scientific community knelt around the blanket, piles of money were being bet and it lay on the felt. JNova blew on the objects in her hand and whispered “Seven come El-Evans” and then threw the solar loaded dice…


      Report this

      70

  • #
    Rud Istvan

    Congratulations on a truly scientific post, in the Popper sense. Specific and falsifiable.

    Now, my own present opinion is that it won’t be acknowledged as such. Two basic reasons outside any climatological details. First, the GCMs have failed. (Pause– but inevitable. See posts elsewhere.)So they will pretend they didn’t fail. Second, you are using a different model class. much cheaper. Well, that just with not do in the present modelling group. Jobs could be lost!


    Report this

    250

  • #
    King Geo

    This Solar Global Cooling [SGC], like solar Global Warming [SGW], is part of a natural cycle that us Homo Sapiens cannot control. David’s new “Solar Model” predicts imminent SGC – and it would take a brave man not to take this prediction seriously – many astrophysicists having been saying the same thing but the powers that be have ignored their LIA warnings and kept the faith with the “Warmists CAGW discredited belief system”.

    On a sad note SGC will be very bad news for the high latitude and highly populated N. Hemisphere countries e.g. northern Europe, Russia, northern China, Canada and the northern USA. For those economies who have elected to fast track to Renewable Energy [RE] – god help them – RE is total lunacy in an LIA scenario. However on a bright note the SGC will result in many “Warmists” seeking therapy for “severe loss of face” – the only folk who will be listening to them will be their therapists.


    Report this

    271

    • #
      Lawrie Ayres

      This is my concern also. Not so long ago a CSIRO Ag scientist stated in the Land that there was no point wasting time and effort researching crops in a cooling world since it was going to get hotter and drier. I just wonder how much research effort is being wasted or ignored because the once great CSIRO has backed itself into a corner. I do think the upper echelons of the organisation need to be held accountable and at the very least sacked. Humiliation is not enough and with our experience of Greens humiliation is not something they suffer from.

      I suppose Dr Dennis Jensen is being kept in this loop. My observation is that he does understand the reality of Climate Change and the current scurrilous misinformation emanating from the government sponsored science cabal.


      Report this

      150

  • #
    Yonniestone

    David thank you for a fascinating and refreshing series of posts, your acceptance of possible failure is an outstanding professional trait rarely seen (lest shown) in our current scientific climate.

    I’m sure you’re braced for a cold reception in certain circles but please do continue on.


    Report this

    271

  • #

    Likely! Oy vey, ist mir, now what?
    I am glad to have kitten to pet upon! She truly has an attitude of “don’t sweat it”.
    OTOH, She also has “Where is my food”, and “It is now permissible to pet upon us”.


    Report this

    50

  • #
    albert_e

    Dr. Evans,

    IMHO the CO2 AGW theory has already been falsified following the 15 year stasis. Meanwhile we await with trepidation (cold is bad) our planet’s confirmation of your theory. Solar scientists have, for years now, been predicting a return to Maunder-like minimum following the last century’s grand solar maximum.


    Report this

    182

  • #
    Mikky

    David,

    I think you need to look at the recent measurements of TSI, there is way less of a reduction than you are showing,
    in fact, not really a reduction at all, which would fit better to The Pause:

    http://spot.colorado.edu/~koppg/TSI/


    Report this

    31

    • #

      It isn’t TSI that matters. It is force x which amplifies by 20 times or so.


      Report this

      81

      • #
        Bill Burrows

        True, but if force x is amplifying (multiplying) – the quantum of the multiplicand is important. In any event if a forecast decline in temperatures (of any magnitude)as suggested by David’s model is verified, we have overcome the debatable semantics of The Pause – which unequivocally reverts to a Plateau.


        Report this

        90

    • #
      David Evans

      Thanks Mikky.

      PMOD have revised their data going back to 1998 since I froze the data in my spreadsheet in August 2013, and have reduced the fall off since 2004 in their TSI data. The composite TSI I’ve used takes the average of Lean2000, PMOD and ACRIM from Jan 92, then the average of PMOD and ACRIM from Jan ’09 — ACRIM and Lean 2000 did not change.

      I’ve downloaded the new PMOD data, and recalculated the composite TSI — graphed above in Fig 1, and which drives the solar model in Fig 2.

      The new data makes a difference, but you have to look closely to notice it. In Fig 1 the red line of the TSI fall from 2004 now stops at the purple/gray temperature line (ie the fall in trendline is reduced by maybe 10%), while in Fig 3 the projected temperature fall is barely any less (negligible change).

      Will check calculations, but preliminary checks show no change to conclusions above.

      May do a new post or add new figures to the post above at bottom, but I want to check everything carefully over a day or two. The exercise is complicated by wanting to both preserve the Aug 2013 data and allow computations with the ongoing and revised data in the same spreadsheet.


      Report this

      210

  • #
    ExWarmist

    David Evans writes.

    5 Theories and Falsifiability

    Science is about testable hypotheses. Over the next decade, the changes in temperature will reveal which theory is more correct, the carbon dioxide model or the notch-delay solar model.

    Here’s the criterion: A fall of at least 0.1°C (on a 1-year smoothed basis) in global average surface air temperature over the next decade.

    If the criterion does not occur: Then the notch-delay solar model is falsified and it should be thrown away.

    If the criterion does occur: Then carbon dioxide driven models are falsified, and they should be thrown away. (Note that the carbon dioxide theory predicts only warming over longer periods such as a decade, and we’ve already had a pause in warming for 15+ years.)

    Quantified, Specific, & Measurable – Excellent form – Thanks David for adhering to real science.

    Hi William Connolley, note the above are not similar to …

    1. Warming of the stratosphere

    Many changes that are happening in the climate system are caused by warming itself. Observations of these changes cannot be used as evidence for the cause of warming. But there are some changes – fingerprints – that are specific for the increased greenhouse effect. 2. Cooling of the stratosphere is one of these fingerprints. This cooling is confirmed by measurements, … image at link above ….

    3. Stratospheric warming is not the only human fingerprint that can be found. More detailed information on fingerprints can be found in last year’s paper: ‘Human and natural influences on the changing thermal structure of the atmosphere‘ by Santer et al … link at link above….

    1. Warming Stratosphere, 2. Cooling Stratosphere, 3. Warming Stratosphere… which is it William?

    The examples of falsification statements from the link above are muddled, contradictory, and lack specificity, or a confirmation statements – rather than refutation statements.

    WRT Santers paper (linked within the link above) from the abstract…

    The key features of this pattern are global-scale tropospheric warming

    It only reinforces the issues highlighted by McKitrick, Ross R., Stephen McIntyre and Chad Herman (2010) “Panel and Multivariate Methods for Tests of Trend Equivalence in Climate Data Series” in press at Atmospheric Science Letters.

    BTW: I wonder if Santer (just like any good scientist climatologist) is still hiding his Data & Methods from Stephen McIntyre


    Report this

    170

    • #

      > 1. [sic: you mean 5] Warming of the stratosphere

      You need to read the post, not just skim it for quote-mining. “warming of the stratosphere” is one of the things that would falsify GW, which is why its the section heading. You’ve managed to quote, but not understand, “Cooling of the stratosphere is one of these fingerprints. This cooling is confirmed by measurement”.

      But since you bring it up, and its a fun game: what does DE’s theory predict for the stratosphere? Does it predict that the strat should warm, cool, or is it so grossly incomplete that the question can’t even be asked?


      Report this

      544

      • #
        the Griss

        You seriously haven’t grasped any of this, even in the slightest, have you !!

        quite funny to watch….. roflmao !!!


        Report this

        253

      • #
        turnedoutnice

        The cooling of the stratosphere is because of the reduction of atmospheric water vapour above low cloud level, the mechanism which keeps CO2-AGW near zero, the same for every well-mixed GHG.


        Report this

        170

      • #
        Andy (old name Andy)

        And an even more fun game if the world cools 0.3c in 30 years would be “what was Connolley’s stupidest quote”
        Ahh the world cooled but did not predict the hot or cool stratosphere so reality is wrong again. (yes not a quote Connolley and No, no peer reviewed papers to back up an ….. opinion). You Sir , are a … so the companion of Dora (urban)


        Report this

        170

      • #
        steven mosher

        “what does DE’s theory predict for the stratosphere? Does it predict that the strat should warm, cool, or is it so grossly incomplete that the question can’t even be asked?”

        Asked that the other day


        Report this

        114

        • #
          the Griss

          And the Mosh proves he, also, has no idea what’s going on with this model.

          But then, you would need to be a scientist or engineer to grasp the concept,

          Not a salesman.


          Report this

          121

          • #
            steven mosher

            Not really,

            Let me give you a simple example.

            Let’s take a simulation example. One of the first models I had to develop was a model for the YF-23 ESA Radar. The basic output of the model was a probability of detection.
            Given, the radar power, the receiver gain, the physical configuration of the antenna and given the target RCS, the model would produce a probability of detection. Those “hits” would be input into tracking logic ( typically a kalmen filter ) and then one would also generate a probability of track.
            And that model would be tested and tweaked accordingly and then it would be signed off. Then we could also test the model with another metric that did not go into the building of the model. What’s that? well how detectable would the radar would be to other receivers on the battle field? In short, if I try to fit my data by tweaking up the power I will get the right detection answer But my detectability will go up.
            But if I tweak the gain to match the performance data then my detection performance will be on the money and my LPI ( low probablity of Intercept) will also be on the money.

            Thats why hindcasting is necessary but not sufficient. In fact, this same criticism has been made of GCMS. Namely, the acid tests come in areas that you don’t tune to. Curve fit models cant do these kinds of tests. Physical models can.


            Report this

            110

            • #
              dp

              I presume you used a standard target geometry and standard atmosphere for modeling your radar. One more variable and you get elephants. Bingo – Doppler. Add to that wave length, back scatter, passive visual tracking, and probable ground tracks of targets and you can find your hat with both hands when nobody’s looking. Radar is definitely not rocket science until you get to analyzing echo minutia to tell a brick from a bat. Watching the moon rise on radar is actually kind of fun, though.


              Report this

              90

            • #
              the Griss

              “Namely, the acid tests come in areas that you don’t tune to.”

              But when you FAIL MISERABLY on even the major issue that you are trying to model.. in the case of GCM’s, temperature.

              …..then the acid test is over and you are left with nothing but a corroded unusable heap of junk.

              It is incidental if you accidentally manage to get something right that you never predicted in the first place,

              … even a blind person can hit the target occasionally, if you make the target big enough and have enough of them.


              Report this

              71

        • #
          bobl

          Let’s see if I get this one right too. Davids model is a Macro Model, it doesn’t model internal effects of the atmosphere to warming, what it does is just look at the way TSI transforms to surface temperature, using the historical record. If the same mechanisms are at play now (including temperature balance between tropospher and stratosphere) then in theory David’s model should forcast the future cooling roughly correctly. The stratosphere vs troposphere thing is inside the black box.

          Let’s set aside the fact that David hasn’t declared anything about this in his falsification criteria for a moment.

          We could look at it logically. Let’s assume David is right and force X modulates Albedo, then we would expect more energy (direct and reflected) to be flying around the stratosphere, and less energy below cloud level. To me that says, that the lower atmosphere should cool more than the stratosphere. This doesn’t necessarily mean that the stratosphere should warm, remember TSI overall is expected to trend down. This would also need to be compensated for differences in effect of energy changes on the different atmospheric layers. I dont know the math on that so can’t comment further than to say logic favours less cooling in the stratosphere as it favours more surface cooling.

          Of course the caveat is that we are assuming a mechanism here, cloud albedo, if the mechanism is say circulation or surface albedo, then there may be no changes, or there may even be a reverse change.


          Report this

          50

      • #

        WC – Cooling of the lower stratosphere and warming of the upper stratosphere is the finger print.

        Look at the uncertainty of the models. Hardly falsifiable.

        Strange to think that there wouldn’t be a correlation with the surface temperature pause for any other reason.


        Report this

        50

      • #
        cohenite

        Bill Connelly, the Stratosphere has not cooled since 1996:

        http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/msu/global/ls/dec/ytd

        ftp://ftp.ssmi.com/msu/graphics/tls/plots/rss_ts_channel_tls_global_land_and_sea_v03_3.png

        The temperature settled after the eruptions and has then stayed flat during the most intense part of AGW as measured by CO2 increase.

        The failure of the Stratosphere to cool is a major contradiction of AGW theory.


        Report this

        101

        • #
          Winston

          Since CO2 is inexorably rising since 1945 (and certainly so since 1956 if one believes the Keeling curve, which all alarmists ascribe to), how can one claim that stratospheric cooling is a signature of CO2 anyway?

          The rate of change in CO2 rise has not increased over time, no matter what anthropogenic input has been added, yet pre-1993 the anomaly was positive (and strongly so) then a sudden decline followed by stable low level negative anomaly since- this has the appearance of a cyclical oscillation with an imaginary trend line attached to it to appear over a short time interval as a decline, rather than a fluctuating phase change alternating above and below the mean. In other words, if CO2 rise is causing stratospheric cooling now, I would have thought that it should also have been causing it pre-1993.


          Report this

          61

          • #
            cohenite

            I don’t know Winston but Santer does.

            Apparently AGW theory says increasing CO2 will raise the Characteristic Emission Layer [CEL] into the Stratosphere where due to the blockage of OLR below it will be in the Stratosphere that the pesky extra CO2 finally has a chance to emit all that stored Infra-red and as it releases all this stored energy/heat the Stratosphere temperature will plummet as that stored heat is finally released into space where it belongs.

            It ain’t happening. I’m sure Bill Connelly will tell us why; and how; and when and everything else we need to know.


            Report this

            71

          • #

            Try looking over a longer period: https://www.flickr.com/photos/belette/14528180312/

            Still looking like “the appearance of a cyclical oscillation”?


            Report this

            03

            • #
              Winston

              Impossible to tell. Different data sets of variable validity only stretching back to 1960 should give one pause to not extrapolate beyond that time as a fait accompli. Cyclical changes needn’t be confined to short phases of 10 to 20 years, William, and it is disingenuous to suggest it actually proves anything.


              Report this

              30

            • #
              ExWarmist

              Hi William,

              Assuming that the data products that you are pointing to is either naive or disingenuous.

              There is a more general problem with the climate temperature data – and that is the lack of transparency of method with regard to adjustments made between raw data and published data.

              Recently referenced on Jo Novas blog here.

              Transparency of Method is an essential and necessary element of the scientific process that is required to enable independent testing and replication of results.

              What do you have to say about the rationale for the absence of transparency of method within mainstream climate science?

              Why are methods hidden and not exposed for independent audit?

              Would you personally trust any process that was not exposed to independent audit?


              Report this

              30

              • #

                > lack of transparency of method

                There is no lack. This is like the way you folks complain that the GCMs aren’t documented. They are. You just can’t be bothered to read the papers describing the methods.


                Report this

                03

              • #
                ExWarmist

                Excellent,

                Could you please point me to the published methodology describing the methods used to adjust the raw data to produce the published data for the Australian BOM ACORN product.

                Because I can’t find it.

                Thanks ExWarmist


                Report this

                00

              • #
                Richard C (NZ)

                >”Could you please point me to the published methodology describing the methods used to adjust the raw data to produce the published data for the Australian BOM ACORN product.”

                Here:

                Techniques involved in developing the Australian Climate Observations Reference Network – Surface Air Temperature (ACORN-SAT) dataset

                CAWCR Technical Report No. 049
                Blair Trewin
                March 2012

                http://www.cawcr.gov.au/publications/technicalreports/CTR_049.pdf


                Report this

                00

              • #
                crakar24

                Richard,

                Thanks for the link, i have saved it for furter reading in the mean time dont you just love disclaimers :-)

                CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology advise that the information contained in this publication
                comprises general statements based on scientific research. The reader is advised and needs to be
                aware that such information may be incomplete or unable to be used in any specific situation. No
                reliance or actions must therefore be made on that information without seeking prior expert
                professional, scientific and technical advice. To the extent permitted by law, CSIRO and the Bureau
                of Meteorology (including each of its employees and consultants) excludes all liability to any person
                for any consequences, including but not limited to all losses, damages, costs, expenses and any other
                compensation, arising directly or indirectly from using this publication (in part or in whole) and any
                information or material contained in it.


                Report this

                00

  • #
    Brad

    Are humans only responsible for 3% of the 25% attributed to CO2? Or 0.75%?


    Report this

    111

    • #

      That’s the question I would ask too. Congratulations on this science project, and how you have made it easier for guys like me to understand. I want some more warming, but that looks unlikely.


      Report this

      91

    • #

      “Are humans only responsible for 3% of the 25% attributed to CO2? Or 0.75%?”
      Not so much humans, but earthling governments that always get things bass akward.
      1930-1960 much polution lowering surface temperatures, 1965-1985, clean the gunk from the atmosphere, raising surface temperatures. 1980-2000, clean air by government decree, further raising surface temperature. 1985-1988. Blaim all, up or down, on CO2, the only by-product of rapidly oxidising clean coal, for electrical energy! Destroy coal producers. Profit!


      Report this

      80

  • #
    M

    Congratulations to you both. I concur with the decision to release in manageable pieces.

    Should this model prove to have skill in predicting temperature trends a decade in advance, it would surely by Nobel worthy on its own merits irrespective of what X actually is found to be.

    Two queries, if I may:

    1. While the meme has stumbled on regardless, i would posit that there are in fact dozens of falsifiability tests for the CAGW/CO2 hypothesis that have come to fruition (lack of hot-spot, 17 year hiatus, etc). Surely your proposed test is in fact ND Solar vs ‘unknown, but not CO2 as that has been put to bed GET OVER IT ALREADY’?

    2. Can you provide a rough estimate of the cost of the development of this model vs that of the CAGW/CO2 model in $ terms? As you are not taxpayer funded, I’d presume it to be mostly the opportunity cost of your time. I’d say someone of your skills could easily fetch $100 an hour somewhere on the free market. To be right is one thing, to do it at 100000th the cost is another.

    Warm regards.

    M


    Report this

    140

    • #
      David Evans

      Thanks M.

      1. The second part of the series neatly ties the failure of CO2 theory with the ND model to show how it all fits together.

      2. 1.5 years * 2000 hours * $200/hour (last modelling rate working for govt) = A$600k. Call it half a million USD. Yes, all opportunity cost. Includes the write up. And don’t forget the $1,500 pc!


      Report this

      240

    • #
      steven mosher

      better to ask what a comparable model would cost.

      As noted before several similar models have been created in less than a week.

      1. they hindcast better
      2. They have more stringent falsification criteria.

      The model predicts one measly climate metric.

      want a model that has as much value? do a linear regression from 1850 to today.


      Report this

      221

      • #
        Ross

        Do we find these models in the IPCC report ??? ( among all those that are failing)


        Report this

        80

      • #
        J Martin

        @ Mosher. But the really useful question is do the GCMs forecast better ? for the last 18 years, the answer is a big fat NO. If the sun was responsible for the Dalton and Maunder, then the chances are good that David Evans model will be closer to the target than the IPCC GCMs. Alhough DEs projection shows a dramatic looking drop, it actually isn’t all that big, just taking us back to the 70s. A quite believable drop really.


        Report this

        30

    • #
      steven mosher

      david

      “Science is about testable hypotheses. Over the next decade, the changes in temperature will reveal which theory is more correct, the carbon dioxide model or the notch-delay solar model.”

      Here’s the criterion: A fall of at least 0.1°C (on a 1-year smoothed basis) in global average surface air temperature over the next decade.

      ########### Questions

      A) how was this determined? Your forecast needs error bars. Then of course we can tell
      AT ANY TIME not just a decade whether it falls inside or outside those error bars.
      For example, if the global temperature in the next 2 years were to spike up by 2C
      I would not wait a decade to say your model was busted. BTW I took the same view
      of GCMs, there is magical waiting period. Show the errors, the rest simply follows.
      B) do you literally mean air temperatures over land.
      C) the test you propose is not adequately specified. Again, just provide the error bars
      and everything else is easy. For example 1 year smoothing is hard to justify.

      ################################

      If the criterion does not occur: Then the notch-delay solar model is falsified and it should be thrown away.

      Err no. people dont throw away models that fail. They typically improve them as every popperian knows.

      ####################


      Report this

      014

      • #
        the Griss

        You STILL don’t get it do you !!

        If the model is falsified, it will be because the basic premise on which it is built is wrong.

        In which case it should be dumped.

        Just like the premise of CO2 warming SHOULD have been dumped from the CGM’s several years ago.

        If the GCM weren’t so TAINTED by temperature data manipulation creating a false warming trend and the false premise of CO2 warming, they might have actually been able to predict something resembling the 17 year plateau.

        But that would have meant dumping the whole CO2 money laundering agenda, wouldn’t it.

        I assume you are enjoying that climate trough funding, as mouthpiece for BEST. !

        Its going to great fun watching the climate modellers and alarmistas scramble if this model is correct, and the DIVERGENCE between the climate models and REALITY rapidly increases. :-)

        How many more fairy tale excuses will they come up with. ????


        Report this

        161

    • #
      bobl

      G’day M, say hi to Q and moneypenny ok?


      Report this

      10

    • #

      Wow comment from the head of a fictional spy organisation. I wonder what else is fictional about his lordship?


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Ross

    Well done David and Jo. Clearly this is just the start of the journey , not the end as some are indicating.
    My main concern now is that the temperature data bases are kept accurate and not adjusted. The temperature changes we are looking for are not big numbers so hiding them maybe relatively easy –hopefully this does not hold for the satellite data.


    Report this

    160

  • #

    There’s something so inherently beautiful about all this, and this is just my speaking as a rank amateur.

    With imminent cooling being forecast by this model, and with not long to wait, as 2015 is the year mentioned here, just see what happens if that cooling does indeed eventuate.

    It then becomes a larger anomaly on all other GCMs which cannot be explained away easily, and proof that this model is indeed a better predictor than all those other GCMs.

    I have a question, if I may be permitted to ask.

    This last Northern Winter has been an extremely cold one, and this Southern Winter here is also showing indicators of being colder than usual, despite what is being hyped in the media. We all know that Climate does not work on a specific ‘trigger date’ per se, and is variable around a general outlook.

    Could this Northern Hemisphere cold and now Southern Hemisphere cold be an early onset indicator of what may be to come, if you can see the point I am attempting to allude to here.

    Now, speaking from an electrical power supply point of view, there’s basically only one method of power generation that can be used to supply constant and huge amounts of power to provide comfort through any really cold onset, and here, don’t think of personal use in the home, think of the non Residential sector (62% to 70% of all power being consumed) for the largest areas of consumption. That’s coal fired power, so any attempts to hamstring that supply when it is most needed will be, umm, consigned to the dustbin of bad ideas, and again, refer to this Load Curve Image, an Australian Load Curve Master with Pink showing coal fired power, blue as basically Gas Fired Power and Yellow as Wind Power, and Hydro a small part of both Pink and Blue, and Solar Power so small, it wouldn’t show.

    I’m now beginning to see a light at the end of the tunnel, and now it’s changing from that earlier thought that it might be a speeding locomotive.

    Colour me relieved.

    What is also wonderful here is the blatant show of cojones! How easy would it have been to sit back and then, when the cooling starts, to then say, aha! we knew this was coming. Now it’s out there, so that when it does happen, we can point to this point in time, and say that here it is. THIS WAS ACTUALLY PREDICTED.

    Tony.

    Post Script – The inclusion of the Load Curve Image is not any attempt on my part to depart from the main topic here, but as an indicator of something that would be a by product end result of the predictions of this model.


    Report this

    222

  • #
    Truthseeker

    Here’s the criterion: A fall of at least 0.1°C (on a 1-year smoothed basis) in global average surface air temperature over the next decade.

    Which temperature data set will be used? I suggest the sattelite one because the land station one seems to be highly corrupted.


    Report this

    151

  • #

    It is all fitting together nicely.

    At base, David’s model is a prediction based on TSI changes amplified 20 times or so by force x and delayed 11 years or so.

    The basic theory is clear enough but we can expect difficulties on the scale of the temperature response until the nature of force x is confirmed and closely measured over time and on the timing of the atmospheric temperature response because ocean thermal inertia is not currently capable of being measured for the globe as a whole.

    I suggest that the best parameter for early measurement is albedo changes and that for watching progress of the thermal effect through the Earth system the best diagnostic parameter would be changing global air circulation patterns.

    For example, the rapid shift towards more meridional jet stream tracks from 2000 as the whole system changed gear with the declining level of solar activity was a sudden change.

    At that point the effect of force x caused the system to drop below the critical point for continued warming so warming stopped.

    We now await the effect of force to cause the system to drop below the critical point for actual cooling.

    The stepwise process will be a product of the interaction between the different oscillations in each ocean basin as each in turn moves from the earlier warming phase to its next cooling phase.

    If the sun stays quiet and albedo remains sufficiently higher than it was in the late 20th century then the positive warming phases in each ocean basin will gradually fade relative to the negative cooling phases and in due course we should see temperature steps downward from one negative phase of the Pacific Multidecadal Oscillation to the next but that is still some way off since the current negative phase is only 10 years old and each phase lasts 30 years or thereabouts.

    In the meantime a slow, irregular change towards cooling is likely butsince more meridional jets cause greater variability in the middle latitudes we will see more seasonal extremes and more storms as a result of the cooling process than we saw as a result of the earlier warming proces.

    The LIA was stormier than the MWP and the recent warm spell and produced more seasonal extremes.

    Of course, we cannot yet be sure that the sun will stay quiet. If it perks up again significantly we will see global air circulation patterns become more zonal again as a precursor to a resumed warming trend.


    Report this

    152

    • #

      Stephen Wild,
      Will you please quit with your personal nonsense?
      David’s model has no medieval warming nor little ice age.
      David’s model is a box that has no history longer than his 11 yr delay!
      And no capability of learning! I disagree with both, but this is Jo and Davids blog, with much to learn, from skillful others!


      Report this

      023

      • #

        Will,

        David’s model implies an albedo based amplification of the thermal effect of both increases and decreases in TSI after a period of delay.

        Therefore it will accommodate both MWP and LIA.

        I seem to recall him confirmimng that interpretation in an earlier post.

        Sorry if my style irritates you but others seem to appreciate it.


        Report this

        200

  • #
    Mattb

    I note that temps didn’t drop 1880 – 1910 ish with a corresponding drop in TSI. An observable glitch in your Figure 1, and notably after the industrial revolution and commencement of anthropogenic emissions of GHG.


    Report this

    229

  • #
    Mattb

    “If the criterion does not occur: Then the notch-delay solar model is falsified and it should be thrown away.

    If the criterion does occur: Then carbon dioxide driven models are falsified, and they should be thrown away. (Note that the carbon dioxide theory predicts only warming over longer periods such as a decade, and we’ve already had a pause in warming for 15+ years.)”

    I’m not actually convinced that either of these falsifications are true. The notch-delay response could simply be overshadowed by AGW, and also AGW warming could be overshadowed by notch-delay cooling.

    AGW theory has always accepted there are non AGW cooling and warming cycles.


    Report this

    541

    • #
      Popeye26

      MB

      “AGW theory has always accepted there are non AGW cooling and warming cycles.”

      Two letters only: BS!!

      Cheers,


      Report this

      274

    • #
      Bill Burrows

      Hang on, what is the use of a model that, whenever it is clearly wrong, needs to invoke another model (or excuse?) to cover its deficiencies? How/when do you decide to do this, and what is the magic trigger? As I understood it David’s model has hindcast well in its own right – including identifying the recent Pause/Plateau in global temperature rises. The GCM’s also hindcast well over their chosen timescale, but fall apart when they hit the recent Pause. Congratulations Mattb for getting in early in providing excuses for the non-performance of the GCM’s in making sensible projections. Are you the portent of a stampede of sinners (“Not me – I never supported AGW”) if David’s prediction of a temperature decline eventuates?


      Report this

      270

      • #
        ThinkingScientist

        “The GCM’s also hindcast well over their chosen timescale”.

        Lindzen is on record pointing out that the models fail to predict the warming period correclty up to the 1940′s peak in temperature, both in terms of timing and magnitude. As this peak is most likely due to natural causes (CO2 effects minimal over the period), the conclusion must be that GCM’s are incomplete. So its not just the pause where they fail.


        Report this

        130

      • #
        Mattb

        “Are you the portent of a stampede of sinners (“Not me – I never supported AGW”) if David’s prediction of a temperature decline eventuates?”

        Not at all. It does appear to me that pretty much every great scientist in history at one stage or another has held a view on a scientific matter that turned out to be incorrect.


        Report this

        11

    • #
      crakar24

      Four words

      ARE YOU SERIOUS MATTB!!!!!!


      Report this

      122

    • #
      the Griss

      Nowhere to run…

      nowhere to hide..

      Poor little Mattb ! :-)


      Report this

      102

    • #

      Translation: “I was against AGW before I was for it.”


      Report this

      100

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      AGW theory has always accepted there are non AGW cooling and warming cycles.

      In which case AGW theory falsifies itself, unless it can definitively forecast when those “non-cycles” will occur. I have seen no evidence of such predictive ability.


      Report this

      283

      • #
        Popeye26

        How absolutely fitting.

        Mattb SKEWERED right through his heart by his very own words – well picked up Rereke.

        Cheers,


        Report this

        122

      • #
        Mattb

        Rereke that is completely untrue. There is no need to predict other cycles which are in their essence unpredictable. They are known and of a certain magnitude but if they are a 5-10 year cycle there is no need for a model to predict whether in 2035 a particular cycle is up or down.

        Note nothing I’ve said questions’s Dr Evan’s overall suggestions. I’m jsut asking questions.


        Report this

        11

    • #
      bobl

      Matt, the CO2 theory would be completely trashed by a cooling of this magnitude. Consider that David’s forcast would be a return to 1950s temperature, think what that would imply when you have a delta of maybe 0.2 degrees between that and preindustrial 1850? Monckton’s no global warming statistic becomes No global warming sinxe 1920. It leaves climate sensitivity to Carbon Dioxide at best estimate of 0.3 degrees per doubling the rest being solar, which means Negative feedback dominates, with mans influence over the CO2 intense period of 1945-2017 at a value not discernable from natural variability.

      No, the emergence of the cooling trend is the death of the CO2 meme.


      Report this

      50

      • #
        Mattb

        “the CO2 theory would be completely trashed by a cooling of this magnitude”… I’m not so certain. I think in one of these series of articles Jo/David suggested there is a lot of work to be done in refining things.


        Report this

        01

  • #

    Great to see David and Jo lay it on the line with a falsifiable
    prediction. Now let’s jest get guvuhmint out of our hair so that
    we can can prepare to adapt to what come what may, warming or …

    cooling.

    Beth the serf.


    Report this

    131

  • #
    Andrew McRae

    A fall of at least 0.1°C (on a 1-year smoothed basis) in global average surface air temperature over the next decade.

    Sheesh, that’s an easy bet. Your model shows a 0.5 degree drop beginning now and lasting a decade:

    the notch-delay solar model predicts cooling of 0.2°C or more.

    But I understand natural variability being as large as it is (±0.13 annually) that you would not want to create a false negative. The falsification is only as easy as the size of the gap between the least warming predictable from the CO2 model and the least cooling predictable from the solar model.

    UN-lovers may object that you are comparing the solar model with your own version of a CO2 model instead of the kosher projections, especially as the AR5 central ECS was 2.1 not 3.5, but this sort of quibble hardly counts when IPCC predicts warming and definitely not cooling of any degree.

    The solar model here trained on that data so it may be too sensitive, in which case the imminent cooling will not be as large as shown in absolute terms.

    Ah yes, the counter-fiddling fiddle factor, which is probably quite wise all things considered.

    As if it wasn’t tough enough to get this far, there is more you can do to increase confidence in the projections. If you can get the model to output more than one verifiable quantity, such as OHC or TOA OLR, then historic accuracy on two quantities lends more confidence on projections than matching one variable alone. Ah well, leave it for Version 2.

    My most recent model projects cooling at the more sedate linear trend of -0.05 degrees per decade from 2010 to 2021, but it is not as sensitive nor as quick to adjust to radiative changes as the Solar Notch. Whenever I try to speed it up by fiddling the Climate Sensitivity parameter it produces an 11-year cycle in temperature of exactly the sort that doesn’t really happen and which you have successfully eliminated in the Solar Notch. There’s probably a lesson in that somewhere.

    Good to see the predictions coming out and with any luck they will be borne out by measurement in the next 10 years. It seems so long to wait. Such a shame the earth doesn’t generate climate measurements any quicker than one per 30 years. I fear boredom more than warming at this point.

    If only there were some way we could force consensus on the issue instead of waiting for real data
    /sarc


    Report this

    80

  • #

    I think your fig 5 is fake (notice how your source correctly and accurately sources fig 4 to FAR page 202, graphic 7c (IPCC, 1990), but is then much vaguer about fig 5). I can’t see it in the SAR (http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/sar/wg_I/ipcc_sar_wg_I_full_report.pdf). And its incompatible with the text there:

    “There are, for this last millennium, two periods which have received special attention, the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. These have been interpreted, at times, as periods of global warmth and coolness, respectively. Recent studies have re-evaluated the interval commonly known as the Medieval Warm Period to assess the magnitude and geographical extent of any prolonged warm interval between the 9th and 14th centuries (Hughesand Diaz, 1994). The available evidence is limited (geographically) and is equivocal. A number of records do indeed show evidence for warmer conditions at some time during this interval, especially in the Uth and 12th centuries in parts of Europe, as pointed out by Lamb (1965, 1988). There are also indications of changes in precipitation patterns and associated droughts both in California and Patagonia during medieval flme (Stine, 1994). However other records show no such evidence, or indicate that warmer conditions prevailed, but at different times. This rather incoherent picture may be due to an inadequate number of records or a bias in the geographical and seasonal representation in the available data (Briffa and Jones, 1993; Jones and Briffa, 1996), and a clearer picture may emerge as more and better calibrated proxy records are produced. However, at this point, it is not yet possible to say whether, on a hemispheric scale, temperatures declined from the 11-12th to the 16-17th century. Nor, therefore, is it possible to conclude that global temperatures in the Medieval Warm Period were comparable to the warm decades of the late 20th century. ”

    I’m sure that (aspiring to be a “good scientist” and so on) you’d not want to simpyl reproduce pix you trawled up from the internet without being sure of their provenance. So would you be kind enough to point out on exactly which page of IPCC ’96 that occurs?

    The SAR does use https://www.flickr.com/photos/belette/14331519409/, but that doesn’t support what you say.


    Report this

    540

    • #

      Aha! The Britney Spears response.

      And you need to be a regular here to know what that means.

      Tony.


      Report this

      232

      • #
        the Griss

        Britney was a genius compared to the WC !


        Report this

        192

        • #
          King Geo

          One of my daughters was once a dead ringer for Britney (in her late teens during her bottle blonde days). Although a Britany lookalike during the “height of the CAGW scaremongering period (early 2000′s), she developed no “dumb blonde” traits, and like her old man King Geo, she worked out that the “Theory of CAGW” is complete and utter crap.


          Report this

          181

          • #
            Roy Hogue

            Ah! Britney Spears. Take it easy on her guys. Don’t you know she was a victim of… …well, I don’t know what? But she was a victim. Just ask her apologists.

            Or is it, is a victim. ;-)


            Report this

            41

            • #
              PhilJourdan

              “But she was a victim…” Of someone telling her no for once in her life.

              You should not pick on her because that requires energy. And she is not worth it (neither is Lohan, Bieber, Gaga, Hilton, or any of the pampered media hogs/sows)


              Report this

              20

              • #
                Roy Hogue

                Phil,

                I just noticed your comment. You’re right — maybe more so than think. There is no celebrity in the world worth the attention the human race lavishes upon them. A big part of the human race is doing nothing more than living life vicariously with their attention on such as Britney Spears, some football player, an actor or anyone else. It’s an escape from reality that ends up enabling the foibles of the rich and famous. Without that “worship” their heads could never swell up the way they do. Without that worship they would be forced to actually continue to work up to the standard that brought them to public attention in the first place instead of becoming famous simply for being famous.

                If Spears had been able to keep a grip on the fact that she’s just another human working at a job that others are willing to pay her for she would never have gotten into the trouble she did. And I realize she was lead into the trap she fell into by others. But that doesn’t change the fact that her attitude went wrong very early in her career.

                And come to think of it. I could say the same about some in the climate change industry.


                Report this

                00

      • #

        So, your response to a request for sources is to say “no, I’m not going to tell you what my sources are”?


        Report this

        636

        • #

          You have yet to prove that you are anything other than an empty braggart. Until you do, to our satisfaction, we have no obligation to respond to your emptiness.

          STAND AND DELIVER!


          Report this

          174

        • #
          CC Squid

          Do not feed the troll!


          Report this

          52

          • #

            Sorry. I have ignored his emptiness as long as I can. From now on, my message to him will be the same: STAND AND DELIVER! If he does, that would be good but very surprising. If not, that would even be better.

            I want that message burned into his soul so he is made fully aware he is nothing. He is not capable of doing anything but copy the thoughts of others. He is simply a reflection endlessly reflecting reflections in a hall of mirrors.


            Report this

            133

    • #

      The Connolley is always with is, following us around like a bad fart. Bless him.


      Report this

      152

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      IPCC Second Assessment Report – that a good enough reference for you?


      Report this

      112

    • #
      ThinkingScientist

      David,

      The source you use to reference the Fig 5 is not valid. The figure 5 you show looks like someone’s redrawing of what you show as your figure 4 (which does appear in the first assessment report). I have a genuine printed copy of the Second Assessment Report (SAR) WG1 report (which is actually labelled 1995, not 1996). The only long time series is the one Connolley correctly highlights – it appears twice, as Figure 10 in the technical summary and as Figure 3.20. It is also worth pointing out that I cannot see any line drawing graphs in SAR that are in colour – only global maps appear to have been given the added expense of colour display. That plot does not look to originate from SAR.

      Your source is wrong and you should probably drop Figure 5, or replace it with Figure 3.20 from SAR.

      Oh – and give a h/t to Connolley for identifying a minor error that has no bearing on the results. He will at least then be able to claim in future years, when re-editing in his own image the Wiki page of the newly discovered solar theory, that he played an important part in correcting an obvious and critical error in the theory and thereby deserves equal credit for its discovery…. ;-)

      Regards,

      ThinkingScientist

      PS As an interesting aside, the Figure 10/3.20 is the ONLY figure I can see in SAR referencing a temperature reconstruction prior to about 1860 in the entire report (other than one over Kyears (Fig 3.22) and some O isotope data back to 1200 (Fig 3.21) ) Figure 10/3.20 is based on a proxy reconstruction using just 16 proxies. Thats it.


      Report this

      160

      • #

        Well, before discussing the future lets get the past right. We’ll see if DE is prepared to correct his post, now that someone who agrees with his theory also agrees he’s wrong. Obviously he wouldn’t correct his posts if someone he disagrees with points out errors.

        This stuff is all covered (correctly, unlike is DE’s post) at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Description_of_the_Medieval_Warm_Period_and_Little_Ice_Age_in_IPCC_reports . Its such a shame taht you folk are unable to read wiki.

        > that has no bearing on the results

        Indeed, it doesn’t. So why is it in the post at all? Those pix are only there as part of DE’s “Even the IPCC thought those two periods were the coldest in the last 400 years, before they went all hockeystick” but that’s (as in, the implication that they’ve changed) nonsense too: those periods remain cold in more recent reconstructions.

        For some weird reason you lot can’t get over the fact that the IPCC ’90 pic is only a schematic; but because it suits your politics you clutch it to your hearts like gospel.


        Report this

        625

        • #
          ThinkingScientist

          Dear Mr Connoll(e)y,

          The fact is David’s Figure 4 and Figure 5 appear the same. So this is a minor correction to his page. I agree he should correct this. You should have left it at that.

          Turning to your recommendation that this stuff is correctly covered at wiki, but its a “shame that you folk are unable to read wiki” is pretty lame. Your grubby little editorial re-writing in your own image is recorded in the history for the page you linked to, as it is all over wiki on climate-related pages. We can all read wiki, but many of us were also taught to check the provenance of the reference. If the provenance contains the fingerprints of William Connoll(e)y who has been notoriously and infamously re-writing wiki in his own image as though he is the entire world oracle on climate and everything spouted by him is true, well forgive me if I choose to disregard what ever propaganda you may be spouting. Some of us can think for ourselves and really don’t care about your messianic fervour in propagandising wiki. Shame, but there it is. At least you will be remembered, although not for any action of which I would be proud.

          Anyway, you have a nice day Mr Connoll(e)y.

          Best regards,

          ThinkingScientist


          Report this

          272

          • #

            > many of us were also taught to check the provenance of the reference.

            Your snark is somewhat misdirected. I did check. And noticed that DE hadn’t. Instead, he’d pulled in something from some dodgy website that happened to suit his prejudices.

            > messianic fervour in propagandising wiki

            This is all a bit over the top for a case where wiki is correct, and JoNova’s is (still) wrong, no?

            > Mr

            Dr. But you lot have a cavalier attitude to errors.


            Report this

            532

        • #
          kim

          So, Michael ‘Piltdown’ Mann’s Crook’t Stick is the work product of a ‘scheme addict’.
          ================


          Report this

          131

        • #
          ThinkingScientist

          Dear Mr Connoll(e)y,

          I also note that you state that I am “someone who agrees with his theory”.

          Please point out where I said this. I have understood his explanation (after first raising an objection which I have now withdrawn, following discussion) and I am interested in the outcome of his prediction. Until David (a) confirms the prediction several years hence with real data and then (b) posits a physical mechanism then the jury is still out. David clearly accepts this – his prediction may be wrong and his proposal falsified. That is why he says:

          “If the criterion does not occur: Then the notch-delay solar model is falsified and it should be thrown away”

          Your use of the phrase “agrees with his model” simply serves as an excellent example to demonstrate your prejudice against alternative ideas that could threaten your own explanations. Currently there is nothing to agree with and I have not said “I agree with his model”. I can say I agree his analysis and logic is sound and his model is self-consistent. It still needs to be put to an empirical test.

          As for yourself Mr Connoll(e)y, I suspect you probably could not face the possibility of an alternative model of climate response that relegates the role of CO2 to a small part (which it seems to me the evidence is slowly stacking up in favour of). Imagine how silly you (and all those clever climate modellers) will look in the future if David’s model turns out to be more successful?

          Best Wishes,

          ThinkingScientist


          Report this

          291

          • #

            > “someone who agrees with his theory”

            Fair comment. Replace what I said with “someone who is clearly on ‘his side’” if you prefer.

            > I can say I agree his analysis and logic is sound

            Then you’re wrong. DE’s model is just curve fitting. But never mind; I’ve said all that before (http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2014/06/18/force-x-from-outer-space/).


            Report this

            228

            • #
              ThinkingScientist

              Dear Dr. Connoll(e)y,

              You say “Replace what I said with “someone who is clearly on ‘his side’” if you prefer.”

              Totally untrue. As an examination of the related thread at Bishophill will confirm – my comments there still reflect my view at the time that I thought his reasoning was flawed. After discussion here, I have withdrawn my objection and I await to see whether David’s model proves to be useful or worthless.

              As for your “Then you’re wrong” comment. Well, Dr. Connoll(e)y you are as entitled to your opinion as anyone else. But if you want people to listen to your opinions you might try less preaching and a lot more listening and humility.

              Have a nice day!

              Regards

              ThinkingScientist (Mr, but with quite a lot of letters after my name that I don’t care if anyone knows about because I am not appealing to authority) :-)


              Report this

              241

              • #

                No, not Dr. just Dr.

                > I am not appealing to authority

                You’re anon, so you can’t appeal to your own authority, because it can’t be verified. Asserting you have a string of letters after your name is meaningless. I’m not appealing to authority though: I’m just asking you, politely, not to get my title wrong.


                Report this

                326

              • #
                Backslider

                I’m just asking you, politely, not to get my title wrong.

                You taught me on your own blog your most fitting title:

                FW Connolley


                Report this

                152

            • #
              Backslider

              Replace what I said with “someone who is clearly on ‘his side’” if you prefer.

              This is not about being on anyone’s “side” (except for you).

              Think about it and you may come to the realization of your own bigotry.


              Report this

              151

            • #
              the Griss

              Poor little Willy, still seeking someone, anyone, to visit him.

              Still seeking someone to take notice of his brazen mis-information on Wikipedia.

              YOUR LEGACY is that no-one will !!

              That is what you have created for yourself..

              and you KNOW IT ! :-)


              Report this

              103

            • #
              bobl

              You are such a Zealot.

              I personally certainly can agree with David’s model apart from some minor issues in not identifying losses in the three pipe model, simply because wiyhin the stated limits there is nothing wrong with it. It is as good a description as any, even though it is yet to be seen if it is the right description. Unlike a Zealot such as yourself, I have no need to discredit a viable model, just because it doesn’t suit my ideology. There may be many such models I accept as being correct.

              What I don’t accept is CO2 climate models, but I reject them based on observational criteria. For example there is no physical mechanism by which the climate can overcome all the negative feedbacks, and generate an overall gain of 3 without becoming unstable. Feedbacks have lags, lags make positive feedback unstable and a stable total positive feedback of 15 times (a loop gain of over 0.95) is not feasible in the presence of lags. Climate models get away with this because they are naive scalar models. The dynamic effects of feedback are ignored in them. Climate model projections are inconsistent with the climate record, and with first principle calculation of atmospheric warming over black body given 85 percent energy capture in CO2 stopbands so far. Put simply, the climate models are implausible because they are inconsistent with the evidence, the evidence has falsified them.


              Report this

              91

        • #
          cohenite

          How do you explain Figure 6.10 from AR4 Bill? This clearly shows in all temperature reconstructions that the MWP was warmer than the present, even allowing for the dubious adjustments in the modern temperature record. There are also many other studies apart from those included in Figure 6.10 which show the MWP was warmer; see Grud 2008.

          There is also ample evidence the MWP was global:

          http://pages.science-skeptical.de/MWP/MedievalWarmPeriod.html

          I’d really enjoy a chat with you Bill on this issue or any other one about AGW.


          Report this

          11

      • #
        David Evans

        Thanks ThinkingScientist and William Connolley. Well done. We’re going to put up Fig 3.2 from the SAR instead.

        My apologies for the original link.


        Report this

        90

        • #

          “Thanks ThinkingScientist and William Connolley. Well done. We’re going to put up Fig 3.2 from the SAR instead.”
          Please put back up your original (with source) and the SAR graph that simply truncates all data from the medieval warm period. An excellent example of that IPCC intent of misdirection and confusion, for political purposes. Then you may again thank Water Closet for pointing that out.


          Report this

          11

    • #
      MRW

      @William Connolley,

      These have been interpreted, at times, as periods of global warmth and coolness, respectively. Recent studies have re-evaluated the interval commonly known as the Medieval Warm Period to assess the magnitude and geographical extent of any prolonged warm interval between the 9th and 14th centuries (Hughesand Diaz, 1994). The available evidence is limited (geographically) and is equivocal. A number of records do indeed show evidence for warmer conditions at some time during this interval, especially in the Uth and 12th centuries in parts of Europe, as pointed out by Lamb (1965, 1988). . . .Nor, therefore, is it possible to conclude that global temperatures in the Medieval Warm Period were comparable to the warm decades of the late 20th century.

      Perhaps you missed this paper in Science, October 2013. Pacific Ocean Heat Content During the Past 10,000 Years
      Yair Rosenthal1,*, Braddock K. Linsley2, Delia W. Oppo3

      ABSTRACT:
      Observed increases in ocean heat content (OHC) and temperature are robust indicators of global warming during the past several decades. We used high-resolution proxy records from sediment cores to extend these observations in the Pacific 10,000 years beyond the instrumental record. We show that water masses linked to North Pacific and Antarctic intermediate waters were warmer by 2.1 ± 0.4°C and 1.5 ± 0.4°C, respectively, during the middle Holocene Thermal Maximum than over the past century. Both water masses were ~0.9°C warmer during the Medieval Warm period than during the Little Ice Age and ~0.65° warmer than in recent decades. Although documented changes in global surface temperatures during the Holocene and Common era are relatively small, the concomitant changes in OHC are large.

      The Editor’s summary:

      Deep Heating

      Global warming is popularly viewed only as an atmospheric process, when, as shown by marine temperature records covering the last several decades, most heat uptake occurs in the ocean. How did subsurface ocean temperatures vary during past warm and cold intervals? Rosenthal et al. (p. 617) present a temperature record of western equatorial Pacific subsurface and intermediate water masses over the past 10,000 years that shows that heat content varied in step with both northern and southern high-latitude oceans. The findings support the view that the Holocene Thermal Maximum, the Medieval Warm Period, and the Little Ice Age were global events, and they provide a long-term perspective for evaluating the role of ocean heat content in various warming scenarios for the future.


      Report this

      151

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Poor William.

      It is not about the Science at all.

      For William, it is about being “right”, in his interpretation of what “right” means. No explanation can be possible, that does not confirm to his personal view of the world.

      William planted his flag in Wikipedia, and then fought tooth and nail to defend his position, staking his reputation on being “right”. Eventually, he was ousted, with much angst all round. Unfortunately, and through his own egotistical actions, Wikipedia has been irreparably tarnished as a reputable resource, and his infamy is recognised everywhere he goes on the web.

      And even now, when most of the dust has settled around the damaged caused to Wikipedia, William still feels the need to justify his previous actions. He does that by attacking anybody who expresses any ideas that might be contrary to the views he previously espoused, during the time he held power. He admits to not being a scientist, and he does not follow anything like the scientific method. He never conducts his own research, and never publishes any original ideas. He just clings to the memory of the power he once had, and snipes at, and criticises, people who have the temerity to investigate ideas, other than those he previously supported.

      It is really quite sad.


      Report this

      24

  • #
    Frederick Colbourne

    David, recent papers have drawn attention to the greater variance in solar UV radiation than TSI.

    Have you looked at the solar UV? I am wondering if UV and TSI are out of phase by 11 years.

    Just wondering.


    Report this

    90

    • #
      David Evans

      Have wondered the same, about UV and TSI out of phase.


      Report this

      120

      • #

        David – thanks for this. Any chance that all the article could be bundled up into a single downloadable file? My ageing and poor eyes struggle with reading long article online.


        Report this

        60

      • #

        See here

        http://www.hindawi.com/journals/jas/2013/368380/

        TSI and UV seem to be in phase but UV is out of phase with the visible part of the spectrum.

        That supports my view that in order to observe less clouds and poleward shifting jets and climate zones when the sun is active we need a cooling stratosphere especially towards the poles.

        The cooling stratosphere towards the poles lifts tropopause height above the poles relative to that above the equator and the entire global air circulation can then shift poleward for a more zonal pattern.

        To get a cooling stratosphere preferentially above the poles there must be increased destruction of ozone above the poles hence the fear of so called ozone holes when the sun was more active.

        It has been noted that above 45km the sign of the ozone response to increased solar irradiance is reversed and at the poles we have descending polar vortices which provides a means whereby the declining ozone above 45km can be brought down towards the tropopause thereby cooling the lower stratosphere above the poles.

        That gives the correct sign of system response to a more active sun to enable poleward shifting jets at such a time.

        If the sun then goes quiet, as now, the whole thing goes into reverse with a warmer lower stratosphere and the tropopause above the poles pushed downward to cause more incursions of colder polar air across the middle latitudes with a more meridional global air circulation and more clouds.


        Report this

        50

        • #
          bobl

          But the EFFECT could be out of phase, in electronic circuits the phase shift ( delay) is often frequency dependent, there is no reason that increased UV has to have the same effect on temperature as the overall TSI. Consider if UV has a cooling effect, overall TSI increases warming because the lower frequencies warming overcome the UV cooling. But TSI increases only 1% as UV increases 10 % as the proportion of UV increases it’s cooling effect (in the scenario) begins to overwhelm the lower frequencies and cooling balances warming at peak sunspot.

          Maybe this then starts increasing ozone slowly, and it takes time for the peak ozone effect to appear, after the UV effect. Anyway it hinges on the fact that there is no need for the warming effects of all solar radiation to be in phase, in fact Id be very surprised if they were.

          This is just an illustration, to demonstrate how something like this could happen, I dont think this is the actual mechanism, especially given that this particular phase shift is equivalent 180 degrees or half a cycle delay, I might be wrong however and it could be, with an additional 1/2 cycle lag somewhere.


          Report this

          11

          • #

            bobl,

            Such changes do take time ao phase variations between the sun and ozone and stratosphere temperatures and cloudiness changes and ocean heat content and the temperature of Earth’s atmosphere are all a given.

            In the end it all nets out to the delay represented in David’s model and empirical observations.

            Note though that wavelength changes work by changing global albedo and not by heating or cooling anything directly. The changes in TSI are too small to produce what we observe, hence the need for an amplification method working via albedo changes.


            Report this

            12

            • #
              bobl

              I say that remains to be seen, I’m not overly fond of feedback explanations in natural systems, they do occur, but all have natural saturation limits (saturation Negative feedbacks, an example might be invasive species, pest plaugues etc.


              Report this

              00

      • #

        David, please excuse my ignorance here, but using electrical principles, where you mention out of phase, are they same frequency, and if not, then that introduces harmonics adding to and subtracting the from the overall at differing times.

        Tony.


        Report this

        50

        • #

          Phase usually refers to the same frequency. But it can also refer to two “close” frequencies. For two close frequencies the rate of phase change is constant if the frequencies are constant.


          Report this

          50

        • #
          bobl

          The notch implies a delay relative to the waveshape of TSI, that is force X is related to TSI in some way and is at the same basic frequency. Otherwise, the different frequencies would create a beat signal, reinforcing some cycles cancelling others to a greater or lesser degree. Such a relationship would not produce the notch.


          Report this

          10

    • #
      Andy (old name Andy)

      Good question amongst others that I have pondered.
      - Does our sun produce ANY cosmic rays?
      - The “solar wind” that is comprised of ionized gasses and even small amounts of heavy elements is how constant? and how miniscule?
      - Do Astrophysicists take this into account or rely on CONSENSUS mathematical models? (seems to be a hell of allot of this profession on the alarmist side)
      - Is the pressure and the speed of “solar wind” considered as a measurable difference of the energy Earth receives?
      - Does an Earth facing CME affect us differently if we cop a direct hit predominately over land or sea? (energy absorption wise)

      Although these answers maybe known or even debated in the scientific community why are these not communicated along with the 2, 3, or more schools of thought instead of the “one school of thought and it is absolutely right!” rubbish that we get now?


      Report this

      60

  • #
    steverichards1984

    Here’s the criterion: A fall of at least 0.1°C (on a 1-year smoothed basis) in global average surface air temperature over the next decade.

    To stop some of the complainers, who we can see are now waking up, could you please specify which datasets, what smoothing algorithm, start and endpoint dates.

    I suggest a selection of datasets, since they are out of your control and may be discontinued at anytime in the future for scientific or political reasons (:-)

    You could adopt the Lord Monckton approach of performing a average of all available global datasets, and a variety of smoothing algorithms to address as many of the possible questions that will be asked.

    Stunning work and congratulations.


    Report this

    70

  • #
    gnomish

    svensmark’s hypothesis extended to the influx of extrasolar stuff?
    so when the sun ceases to blow it away so much, it returns, gravitationally, with the lag that depends on how long it had been held away?


    Report this

    30

  • #
    Rogueelement451

    Great stuff David and Jo !
    You must feel like the Brits in the film Zulu ,waiting for the Zulu nation to descend upon you ,WC ,just being the scouting expedition…LOL


    Report this

    40

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      I always pictured WC as being the guy in the Zulu movie, who ponced around in a leopard skin, making a lot of noise, but doing nothing.


      Report this

      60

      • #

        You must admit he HAD impressive editing skills.


        Report this

        50

      • #
        Yonniestone

        Rereke it was Mangosuthu Buthelezi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_Mangosuthu_Buthelezi who played the role of King Cetshwayo kaMpande who was his actual great grandfather in “Zulu”

        I more thought he pounced around in that leopard skin but I guess a leopard could change his spots. ;)


        Report this

        20

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          You’re joking? I would never have picked that the gentleman in question, was actually Buthelezi. It is amazing that makeup, and context, can have such an impact.

          My apologies to any I may have offended in my previous, and obviously crass, statement.


          Report this

          10

          • #
            Yonniestone

            Hey no reason for apologies Rereke, Buthelezi made that choice to try acting at that time and as such is scrutinized by armchair critics like us for the rest of time :)

            I only searched Zulu from a faint memory of my parents mentioning the connection as a bit of trivia, Zulu was a favorite TV rerun movie of mine that stirred the imagination of many a young boy.


            Report this

            00

  • #
    crosspatch

    “So the cooling is most likely to begin in 2017.”

    It has already started, I think. We are seeing both an Arctic and Antarctic response already.


    Report this

    131

  • #

    If this is what it takes to shut the Climate Jihadis up, so be it.

    Joanne – it would be a huge help if these articles could be made into a single downloadable file; being somewhat hard of sight, I find it hard to read long articles on a screen, and prefer to copy them and print them off to read them. Which, given that I’m a lazy beast, would be a bit of a bind to do as matter stand

    Pretty please :-)


    Report this

    40

    • #

      Jeremy that is coming. I am with you on the printing. I burn a hole in the printer so I can sit down and scribble all over things as I read them.

      Ultimately this is so long that I think we need to sell the book and let Amazon do the printing. :- )


      Report this

      130

    • #
      Andy (old name Andy)

      Use All Big News Articles to get all the BIG NEWS articles together.
      Then open page you want
      If using firefox browser click “file” then “print preview” to find number of pages you want to print then click “file” “print” pages 1 to X
      If google Chrome just right click on inactive part of page and select print(can scroll to see how many pages to print before comments start)then print pages 1 to x
      Other browsers would be similar but i am not up to date on them.

      Also you can press and hold the CTRL key down and scroll mouse to zoom in on text. IF no scroll wheel on mouse use + and – key (with CTRL held down). PC not sure with a mac.

      Ps I have worn glasses since primary school and need to take them off to read a book these days, so opposite problem but still hate reading from screens!


      Report this

      20

  • #
    A C Osborn

    Jo, please take a look at the Graphs 7 & 9 that Anthony Watts has posted on WUWT in his On ‘denying’ Hockey Sticks, USHCN data, and all that – part 2 thread.
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/26/on-denying-hockey-sticks-ushcn-data-and-all-that-part-2/#more-112008

    They are purported to be RAW data and look nothing like any other graph of global temperatures.
    You should see how your new theory handles that data which is supposedly uncontaminated.


    Report this

    30

  • #

    I think the dialog will go something like:

    “Ha. No cooling.”

    “Not much cooling. Fluctuations happen.”

    “The warming will be back with a vengeance. Real soon now.”


    Report this

    90

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Nah, the climate catastrophists will simple revert to plan A and say that they were predicting the cooling back in the 1970′s. Which, of course they were, until the world started getting warmer …


      Report this

      110

  • #
    thingadonta

    A paper by Usoskin based on solar proxies obtained an average temperature delay of 20 years following solar changes in the last 1000 years or so, but neither the proxies nor the delay times are very accurate.

    Nor is there agreement about what the sun has been doing in the last several decades, some solar scientists say TSI peaked in 1985, others a bit earlier, and some say 1996 was the start of real solar decline. I don’t know except that they disagree. Bit they all agree it is now in definite decline, so things should start cooling, sooner rather than later.

    My 2 cents is <20 years after 1996, so anytime from ~2014-2016 onwards, which means now.

    By the way, most warming in the late 20th century was solar related, so they are in for a big shock if/ when it starts cooling.


    Report this

    71

  • #
    Keith L

    Declaring falsifiability criteria in the statement of the theory?!?!?
    I can’t see that practice taking off in the climate ‘science’ community…


    Report this

    80

  • #
    motvikten

    Joanne writes.
    “Given that 20% of the world does not even have access to electricity, history books may marvel at how screwed priorities were, and how bureaucratized science cost so much more than the price of the grants.”

    Maybe she understand why I am using Informal Imperialism as a label for the EU and USA politics of using climate change as a driver for energy politics.

    The new in EU is EESS. European Energy Security Strategy. I suggest you download and read the documents. (Search for climate)

    http://ec.europa.eu/energy/security_of_supply_en.htm


    Report this

    30

  • #
    Stephen Richards

    Here’s the criterion: A fall of at least 0.1°C (on a 1-year smoothed basis) in global average surface air temperature over the next decade.

    You must be more rigid when defining criteria to be measured against.
    “global average surface air temperature ” how measured? Satelite, GISS, UKMET.?


    Report this

    30

  • #
    ThinkingScientist

    David,

    Congratulations on your “Theories and Falsifiability” section. Clear, well defined prediction plus honest acceptance that your model may be wrong.

    This is science. The next decade (or less) could get very interesting!

    Best wishes,

    ThinkingScientist


    Report this

    70

  • #
    PhilJourdan

    One problem that is going to distort the results – the fudging of the temperature data. They can continue to fudge the numbers as they have been (See Steven Goddard’s documentation), and that will distort the true numbers. But if we are headed for a cold snap, they cannot distort it to completely eradicate it (no nature tricks these days).


    Report this

    60

  • #

    These results are closely similar to my forecasts based on the 60 and 1000 year quasi-periodicities in the temperature data and using the neutron count and 10Be data as the best proxy for solar activity. Here are the conclusions of this blogpost.
    http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2013/10/commonsense-climate-science-and.html
    “It has been estimated that there is about a 12 year lag between the cosmic ray flux and the temperature data. see Fig3 in Usoskin et al
    http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/2005ESASP.560…19U.
    With that in mind it is reasonable to correlate the cycle 22 low in the neutron count (high solar activity and SSN) with the peak in the SST trend in about 2003 and project forward the possible general temperature decline in the coming decades in step with the decline in solar activity in cycles 23 and 24.
    In earlier posts on this site
    http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com
    at 4/02/13 and 1/22/13
    I have combined the PDO, ,Millennial cycle and neutron trends to estimate the timing and extent of the coming cooling in both the Northern Hemisphere and Globally.
    Here are the conclusions of those posts.
    1/22/13 (NH)
    1) The millennial peak is sharp – perhaps 18 years +/-. We have now had 16 years since 1997 with no net warming – and so might expect a sharp drop in a year or two – 2014/16 -with a net cooling by 2035 of about 0.35.Within that time frame however there could well be some exceptional years with NH temperatures +/- 0.25 degrees colder than that.
    2) The cooling gradient might be fairly steep down to the Oort minimum equivalent which would occur about 2100. (about 1100 on Fig 5) ( Fig 3 here) with a total cooling in 2100 from the present estimated at about 1.2 +/-
    3) From 2100 on through the Wolf and Sporer minima equivalents with intervening highs to the Maunder Minimum equivalent which could occur from about 2600 – 2700 a further net cooling of about 0.7 degrees could occur for a total drop of 1.9 +/- degrees
    4)The time frame for the significant cooling in 2014 – 16 is strengthened by recent developments already seen in solar activity. With a time lag of about 12 years between the solar driver proxy and climate we should see the effects of the sharp drop in the Ap Index which took place in 2004/5 in 2016-17.
    4/02/13 ( Global)
    1 Significant temperature drop at about 2016-17
    2 Possible unusual cold snap 2021-22
    3 Built in cooling trend until at least 2024
    4 Temperature Hadsst3 moving average anomaly 2035 – 0.15
    5 Temperature Hadsst3 moving average anomaly 2100 – 0.5
    6 General Conclusion – by 2100 all the 20th century temperature rise will have been reversed,
    7 By 2650 earth could possibly be back to the depths of the little ice age.
    8 The effect of increasing CO2 emissions will be minor but beneficial – they may slightly ameliorate the forecast cooling and help maintain crop yields .
    9 Warning !! There are some signs in the Livingston and Penn Solar data that a sudden drop to the Maunder Minimum Little Ice Age temperatures could be imminent – with a much more rapid and economically disruptive cooling than that forecast above which may turn out to be a best case scenario.
    How confident should one be in these above predictions? The pattern method doesn’t lend itself easily to statistical measures. However statistical calculations only provide an apparent rigor for the uninitiated and in relation to the IPCC climate models are entirely misleading because they make no allowance for the structural uncertainties in the model set up.This is where scientific judgment comes in – some people are better at pattern recognition and meaningful correlation than others. A past record of successful forecasting such as indicated above is a useful but not infallible measure. In this case I am reasonably sure – say 65/35 for about 20 years ahead. Beyond that certainty drops rapidly. I am sure, however, that it will prove closer to reality than anything put out by the IPCC, Met Office or the NASA group. In any case this is a Bayesian type forecast- in that it can easily be amended on an ongoing basis as the Temperature and Solar data accumulate. If there is not a 0.15 – 0.20. drop in Global SSTs by 2018 -20 I would need to re-evaluate.”


    Report this

    50

  • #
    Peter Azlac

    Congratualtions in opening up this new front in the ´climate war`
    Stephen Wilde says: “I suggest that the best parameter for early measurement is albedo changes and that for watching progress of the thermal effect through the Earth system the best diagnostic parameter would be changing global air circulation patterns”.

    This is in line with the views of Hubert Lamb. He found that the temperature responses differed by 6 degrees C along an arc of latitude from London (CET) to Moscow via Berlin (Central European Temperature Record) that he attributed to differences in precipitation and wind pattern. This view has been supported for the NH by Marcel Leroux:
    http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202005/NoGlobalWarm.pdf
    and more recently by Screen and Simmons:http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/22/study-weather-pattern-changes-cause-regional-weather-extremes/#more-111806
    A major feature of such circulation patterms is the changes in surface pressure linked to fluctuations in ozone in the stratosphere and upper troposphere related to changes in UV wavelenght and flux – see for example the work of Happ and Wold: http://climatechange1.wordpress.com/. This is probably a large component of your Force X.

    This link between precipitation and wind speed has been shown by Clive Best to be a feature of climate zones, with dry and humid zones displaying differing temperature trends that reflect soil moisture and wind speed:
    http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=3597
    The link has also been shown in other studies, for example the relationship between soil moisture, wind speed and temperature in India : http://www.tropmet.res.in/…/999238-Climatic_Change_2013
    The composite temperature used in your model is a mish mash of the trends from the different climate zones that have been further corrupted by kreiging and homogenization – the temperature data from the US and EU is a mix of such zones. It would therefore be more appropriate if your model used only temperature series from well defined climate zones. In this respect, as Arrhenius claimed that the main effect of a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide would be seen in the extreme northern latitudes – Scandinavia/Siberia/ Alaska – it would be appropriate to pick long term temperature series from this uniform zone as displayed in the köppen-geiger map: http://koeppen-geiger.vu-wien.ac.at/ These can be found at the site of Frank Lansner (Hide the Decline) who has put considerable effort into obtaining these data, many of which are absent the series used by IPCC.


    Report this

    50

  • #

    Well done David and Jo for all of this. The human spirit at its best. Despite all the adversity of being outside of the climate establishment, despite so much of the mass media and the education sector falling, in ways feeble and aggressive, for the ‘official’ line, and despite so many financial/political opportunists adding noise and distraction to keep the climate alarm gravy train running, you have not only pointed out flaws in the arguments and actions of those intent on keeping up the pressure, but now you have developed an intriguing analysis of your own that comes up with testable predictions. Bravo!


    Report this

    80

  • #
  • #
    Don B

    Congratulations and thanks, David and Joanne.

    In 2005, Galena Mashnich and Vladimir Bashkirtsev bet climate modeler James Annan $10,000 US that global temperatures would be cooler during 2012-2017 compared to 1998-2003. The two solar physicists had the concept right (I believe), but the timing perhaps a little early, based on David’s model.


    Report this

    30

  • #

    [...] To recap — using an optimal Fourier Transform, David Evans discovered a form of notch filter operating between changes in sunlight and temperatures on Earth. This means there must be a delay — probably around 11 years.  [...]


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Sonny

    Just an idea,

    Rename “force x”, to “Force 20X”


    Report this

    20

  • #
    crosspatch

    If this comes to pass, I want to point out something interesting to look for. There is some evidence that during the LIA not everywhere cooled. The cooling seemed to occur mostly from the temperature latitudes to the poles. There seems to be some evidence that places such as the Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico warmed.

    A study that I believe is from Woods Hole showed that water temperatures warmed in the area around the Dry Tortugas in the Gulf of Mexico. This would seem to imply that ocean transport of heat somehow slowed out of that area. If that is so, then it means there was possibly the situation for some pretty terrific storm activity as temperature differences between the Gulf of Mexico and cold are coming down out of the central plains of the US would have been greater. When the settlers in Greenland were starving to death, we had no settlements in the central US that were recording the weather. In Germany we DID see extreme weather conditions. I would be concerned that if we do cool to the extent that this is pointing toward, we need to be prepared for the possibility of some ferocious weather across the temperate latitudes of the US and Eurasia.

    Sadly, this will validate many of the “extreme weather” claims by the Warmanistas but from cooling, not from warming. For an example on events in Europe during that time, here is a 7 minute video of a talk given by Dr. Sallie Baliunas on extreme weather there and the reaction to it.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcAy4sOcS5M


    Report this

    60

  • #
    Mortis

    Wow, so much to catch up on – I am still digesting the notch info and now this – so much to read, so little time. I seem to remember the Russian science academy saying a big cooling was coming just a year or two ago (?) but since it didn’t match the meme the story went unnoticed here in the US. I will say I hope you both are wrong since the Little Ice Age is not spoken of fondly. Perhaps if it does cool then the people who pushed to turn food into fuel will be looked at more like greedy criminals rather than green forward thinkers. They have us set up all wrong (ie, production/economic/mindset/investing in green power-infrastructure/etc)to successfully weather that sort of change from the outset – we would be playing a frantic game of catch-up, and it would only start after the cooling was irrefutable, costing us more valuable time.

    Here’s to more warming :)


    Report this

    60

  • #
    CC Squid

    I note that this hypothesis is throwing a 25% bone to the proponents of CO2 and I have a question. The adherents of CO2 are starting to state that the rising sea level is the real problem. The University of Colorado has a graph at http://sealevel.colorado.edu which indicates the “Rate of Sea Level Rise is 3.2 +\- 0.4 mm a year.”.

    hypertextbook.com/facts/1997/EricCheng.shtml States that the planet Earth is a planet of oceans. The total area of the Earth is approximately 510 million square kilometers and the oceans cover about 71 percent of the Earth …

    Since sea level raise can be caused by erosion, ice melt and subsidence of land, this means that there is more shallow water on the planet. Shallow water heats more efficiently. The sea level ramp as well as CO2 ramp is steadily increasing. Can we bury these CO2 thieves after we cut their hypothesis out from under them by using sea level for the 25% portion that differs from your hypothesis?


    Report this

    30

  • #
    Ronald Hansen

    Dagnabbit! That Climate Agnotologist (William Connolley) is here too. I’ve seen his name so many times that now I have to go empty my spittoon. Otherwise, a most interesting post. Here in northern Wisconsin USA where Lake Superior had ice lasting well into June, I guess I need to start cutting for a couple of cords, at least, for winter.


    Report this

    51

  • #
    David Jay

    Has anyone else been watching the temperatures above 80N? Maybe this is the start of the cooling. There is nothing like this year in the past records (accessible on the left hand side of the web page):

    http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php


    Report this

    51

    • #
      the Griss

      Last years had the shortest period in the record above 0°C..

      Will this year match it or be even shorter?

      As you say, despite all the so called heating, and Cowtan and Way (iirc) “making it up” that the Arctic is heating up, to try and create a warming trend out of the pause, it certainly looks like the summer temps up there could actually be cooling.


      Report this

      51

    • #
      dp

      2014 is very close to where 2007 was, including the slope earlier in the year. The peak does not appear to be too important as when in the year the extent reaches common points over time. This reflects the lengths of the seasons and those change remarkably since 1958.

      Without wind charts and sea temperatures the DMI page is pretty much just a curiosity. Same with max/min sea ice extent – big yawn. The important information is in the slopes. The rate of change and the date of change tell the story of climate.


      Report this

      20

  • #
    Dikran Marsupial

    Falsifiability is a good thing in science (so is Occam’s razor), and it is good that a testable prediction has been made here. However the article says “, the notch-delay solar model predicts cooling of 0.2°C or more.”, but the diagram below shows a predicted cooling of 0.5°C. Where does the 0.2°C figure come from?

    “Here’s the criterion: A fall of at least 0.1°C (on a 1-year smoothed basis) in global average surface air temperature over the next decade.”

    This is worded rather ambiguously. It would be better to specify it in terms of the average temperature over the whole decade (the notch model suggests a step change in temperature, so that would not be unreasonable), or in terms of the ordinary least squares trend for the montly observations from a specific GMST dataset (e.g. GISS LOTI). Why is one-year smoothed data relevant if the average temperature over the decade is the criterion?

    Why choose such a small amount of cooling as the criterion, when the model appears to predict something much more extreme?

    “If the criterion does occur: Then carbon dioxide driven models are falsified, and they should be thrown away.”

    This is incorrect, the carbon dioxide driven model is not the complement of the notch model, so you can only falisfy the CO2 models by observing something that the CO2 models indicate is impossible. IIRC the GCMs used in CMIP3 do show the occasional negative decadal trend, even in the presence of long term warming (Easterling and Wehner), so if the criterion did ocurr, it would not falsify the GCMs as the GCMs do not rule out such an ocurrence.

    I hope these observations are of some use.


    Report this

    40

    • #
      Andy (old name Andy)

      This is incorrect, the carbon dioxide driven model is not the complement of the notch model, so you can only falisfy the CO2 models by observing something that the CO2 models indicate is impossible

      A great example of a non abusive sensible point!
      However I would have added “I think” at the beginning.(but i am biased)
      I feel current GCM models based on co2 have already used up most of their possible downward trends to account for the current prolonged insignificant trend and further cooling would be grounds to suggest that a mostly co2 driven model needs a serious rethink. Or at least a major recalibration on sensitivity.
      Allowing for bias on my behalf.. it would have me thinking …that if what you are saying is correct it would be impossible to show the co2 theory is impossible in the short term ie in a few more decades.
      I believe therefore that it may need 5 to 6 (minimum) decades of predicted cooling under a non co2 driven model to gain competitiveness with current favored ones.
      I believe the work that David Evans has undertaken has been both bold and honest. I also believe that he would give up his own model before co2 based model creators would give up theirs. For example if in 30 years temperature remains much the same as now David would have moved on. I feel the catastrophe could still be envisioned by those supporting the current favored model.
      Summing up I ask you what would actually need to be observed too prove the co2 models impossible?


      Report this

      61

      • #
        Dikran Marsupial

        “that if what you are saying is correct it would be impossible to show the co2 theory is impossible in the short term ie in a few more decades.”

        no, this is not correct, at least for the GCMs. Observations lying substantially outside the envelope of the ensemble would effectively falsify the models. The observations are currently running quite close to the lower edge of the ensmeble, so the GCMs are rather closer to falsification than the notch model is (as the criterion for falsification for that model requires at least ten years to evaluate).


        Report this

        00

    • #
      David Evans

      Dikran: The graph shows 0.5C or more, but as explained in the article the land thermometer data the solar model trained its parameters on might be exaggerated — in which case the solar model in the diagram would be too sensitive and it would show a fall that is too large. (If it learned to match rises that were exaggerated, its predictions of future falls and rises would also be exaggerated.) So may 0.25C.

      Make an allowance for some CO2 warming, maybe 0.05 over a decade say.

      Hence a cautious estimate of a 0.2C fall.

      CO2 models say 0.2C up, but maybe a continuing pause — anything but down. So a criterion of 0,1C would differentiate the models nicely.

      The model results shown are 1-year smoothed, which is enough to knock out the monthly fluctuations and weird spikes that may well be measurement errors. So I went with that.

      The decade starts when the article was published, 27 June 2014.

      Not interested in the average of the decade, because it might get warmer before it gets cooler (there are reports of a developing El Nino). Just where it ends up after a decade.

      Although I assume it’s either CO2 or notch-delay solar in some parts of the series, the criterion here is good enough to falsify either of these theories even if there is a third explanation.


      Report this

      60

      • #
        the Griss

        Last I saw somewhere, (can’t remember where), the possible ElNino was looking rather unlikely.

        Even the, with not much energy to drive it, it would only provide a spike, and could even settle down at a value less than it started.


        Report this

        31

      • #
        Dikran Marsupial

        The problem for the purposes of falsification is that you need a theory to forbid some set of observations. This means that you need to equip your model with some rigorous form of error bars so that there is a rigorous prediction interval that clearly demarcates between what the model can explain and what the model cannot explain. In the case of the GCMs, this is provided by the span of the individual projections that forms the ensemble.

        Taking the criterion as the temperature of a single timepoint at the end of a decade is not an appropriate criterion as there may be a severe La Nina event that causes it (just as an El-Nino could cause an increase in GMSTs, as you point out).

        I notice earlier in the thread that you have a 170 page document that explains the model. I would suggest that a concise 10-12 pages journal article style write up would be more useful in allowing others to investigate your model.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          David Evans

          Implicitly the criterion is to use the same method as in the post above to construct a composite temperature. Details coming soon, but basically just average UAH, RSS, HadCrut, GISTEMP and NCDC, smooth over 1 year and ignore error bars.


          Report this

          10

          • #
            the Griss

            Aren’t GisTemp and NCDC pretty well linked together.. causing a weighting of 2 vs the others?


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Dikran Marsupial

            It is a shame that you ignore the other substantive points, which is that you need to perform a sensitivty analysis and determine the error bars on your model describing what is forbidden by your theory, and that the use of a single time point for your falsification criterion is a bad idea. These were intended as constructive advice.


            Report this

            00

        • #
          David Evans

          Large documents don’t work to introduce new ideas: see here, especially the remark about Miskolczi.

          We’ve had some success with a 10 page document, but it is both too short and too long. Blog Posts with a focused discussion seems to work best for an introduction, because there are too many moving parts for a single document of sufficient detail. There is also a wide range of audience, with very different expectations and demands.


          Report this

          10

          • #

            “Another case: Miskolczi’s theory. I printed out his main document but it is long and complex. It sat on my desk for 6 months a few years ago, but I never did more than skim it, and I’ll confess I still don’t know what his theory is, though I may have picked up one or two themes by osmosis. If he had written a series of simple blog posts, concepts and diagrams but no equations, I reckon we’d all know what he had figured out.”

            Please read the analysis of the Miskolczi papers by Noor van Andel. To understand:
            http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/uploads/media/EE_21-4_paradigm_shift_output_limited_3_Mb.pdf

            Pub pp 271- 293 (My Pdf pp 119-135)

            In figure 4. pp 280

            Here Dr. van Andel has a log, log plot of three functions from Miskolczi, with no temperature. I thought on log, log, everything is a straight line. No!
            It took me three weeks to understand what was presented. Miskolczi demolished the idea that one may use the Swartzchild, two stream radiation integral, for a cold planet with a surface and atmosphere. Political fantasy! Are we having fun yet?


            Report this

            01

          • #
            Dikran Marsupial

            The point is that it would be helpful to have a concise document that describes the model in sufficient detail to allow full replication. You don’t need a 170 page document to do that, but you ought to be able to do this with a 10 pager. The point is not to get people interested in the model (blog posts will do that fine); the point is to allow the science to be evaluated (for which sufficient detail is not in the blog posts).


            Report this

            00

    • #
      Andrew McRae

      IIRC the GCMs used in CMIP3 do show the occasional negative decadal trend, even in the presence of long term warming (Easterling and Wehner), so if the criterion did ocurr, it would not falsify the GCMs as the GCMs do not rule out such an ocurrence.

      This is effectively arguing that the GCMs are unfalsifiable in the short term and any belief in them is therefore presently unscientific. If everything that happens is within their range of ensemble projections then they stand for nothing.

      What that shows is that absolute temperature predictions, and even short term rates (less than 60 years), are nearly useless for the carbon dioxide emissions debate. You can’t judge whether emissions reduction gets a return on investment by whether you have achieved a target climate by a target date, because chaos always intervenes.

      The theory is that the combination of TSI, albedo, and GHGs set the baseline surface temperature, with natural internal variation creating brief (century or less) excursions from that mean. By that theory, adding CO2 will increase the baseline temperature regardless of what the actual decade-by-decade temperatures are doing.

      So the only two important figures in the whole debate are…the Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 net of all feedbacks positive and negative, and the cost of mitigating a degree of warming. Whatever the ECS figure is, that’s what warming we’ll get eventually. Secondary to that is how long the warming takes. From that point it is a question of environmental values and economics as to whether any of the likely effects are bad enough to be worth preventing instead of just mitigating through adaptation.

      And then… the highest empirical estimate of ECS2xCO2 is less than 1.7°C/doubling.
      And then… there is global cooling which will last for another 26 years.
      And then… there will be global warming when the solar activity increases again in 100 years.
      And then… there will be global glaciation in ?*1000 years when the Holocene ends.

      Even if we could warm or cool the planet, which should we do? It’s just a pointless exercise.
      Adaptation is the only strategy that always works.


      Report this

      30

      • #
        Dikran Marsupial

        “This is effectively arguing that the GCMs are unfalsifiable in the short term and any belief in them is therefore presently unscientific”

        No, this is not correct. The spread of the ensemble defines what is consistent with the models and what is not, if we see observations outside the envelope, this would effectively falsify the models. This could happen at any time, so the GCMs are falsifiable in the short term, it just hasn’t happened.

        Also falsificationism (as set out by Popper) does not assume that the falisification can take place within any pre-determined time period, just that the theory forbids some well defined set of observations, which should they ocurr would falsify the theory.


        Report this

        01

      • #

        Note that the page you linked to has an error near the beginning — T/4S = 0.05 K/(W/m2), not 0.21 K/(W/m2).

        (The author forgot to divide by 4.)


        Report this

        03

  • #
    bit chilly

    dikran ,the bet was made long before the model was conceived . even if the criterion stated a fall of 0.001 c it would still be a HUGE difference from what the mainstream climate mentalists have proposed. with the oceanic cycles moving to the cool negative phases and the forecast el nino looking like a damp squib ,david looks onto a winner at this point.

    also,the only reason some of the gcm,s attempt to show short negative trends is to cover the bases long enough for those creating the models to retire,without EVER having to face up to being wrong. prior to the current pause/slight negative trend,how many gcm,s displayed negative decadal trends in their output ?
    it seems funny to me it is only in recent times,with the temperature and co2 diverging wildly that the ass covering has begun in earnest ,hence the need to state that co2 induced warming even causes decadal cooling !


    Report this

    60

  • #
    Dikran Marsupial

    bit chilly, I am not referring to the bet, I am referring to the falisification of the notch model, as discussed in the article. However, as you are using phrases such as “climate mentalists”, I suspect it isn’t worth discussing the matter with you further as I am more interested in science than blogsphere bluster, life is too short.


    Report this

    35

    • #
      bit chilly

      dikran,i understand that people involved in the science only have interest in the science and are quite happy to ignore misdemeanours of the past that have led to a major impact upon the sections of the worlds populations who can least afford or adapt to them.

      unfortunately for the mainstream populations of the globe,it is not all about the science,it is about what actually happens in real life. even the dumbest layman like myself can see there have been no negative impacts anywhere in the world as a result of a (in real terms unmeasurable)tiny increase in temperature,and can read the same graphs you can that state whilst co2 continues to climb,temperature does not. the results of the climate science communities scaremongering and governments attempts at mitigation of this tiny increase in temperature however have had a massive impact ,tens of thousands of increased winter deaths amongst the elderly in the uk during cold winters in the last ten years,even more people in low paid jobs now pushed into poverty due to rising fuel bills and more to come in the near future.

      you may not like my tone,but if you were taking parcels of fish round a large group of elderly people every winter that can no longer afford to feed themselves decent food due to the cost of heating a scottish home then you might understand my anger.

      i apologise for failing to understand the direct point your post was aimed at ,however i still maintain the figures put forward by david provide falsifiable criteria ,unlike any of the current climate models put forward by government funded organisations.

      members of the middle class science communities continually fail to even notice the results of their actions ,the science community as a whole are losing respect year on a year amongst the general population as a result of the climate science communities actions .

      unfortunately ordinary people at the lower end of the income scale have the least redress in this situation,their only meaningful actions being at the ballot box. have a look at the results of the last election in the uk,and watch closely at the next general election.parties like ukip are gaining traction all over the developed world as people are sick to the back teeth of those that think they know what is good for them,yet fail to follow their own mantra .change is coming ,and i hope i am around to see it happen.


      Report this

      30

      • #
        bit chilly

        apologies to jo and david for the above off topic post.


        Report this

        00

      • #

        But because poor people can’t afford clean energy doesn’t mean everyone can’t afford it. The middle class and above in the western world can afford clean energy, and using the poor as an excuse not to doesn’t cut it.

        And the western world is rich enough to subsidize the clean energy of the poor.


        Report this

        18

        • #
          bit chilly

          david,can you highlight where i stated poor people ? people below the average income in western developed nations are suffering disproportionately . below average income would suggest roughly half of the people in these countries. as nice as a notion it would be for the other half to subsidise them,i do not think it is a realistic proposition in the semi capitalist world we live in.

          the fact there have been increased deaths in recent colder british winters supports this. again i emphasize the reality vs what some people think should/would or could happen.


          Report this

          60

        • #
          Winston

          Note the callous disregard David Appell has for the plight of those made to suffer as a consequence of policies enacted in response to advocacy by people such as him. Clearly, misanthropy is the philosophy to which you most adhere, hence your attraction to the Malthusian Death Cult.

          I sincerely hope that when those good people who have suffered under the yoke of your oppressive philosophy are given an opportunity for appropriate redress at some point in the future for the gross misdirection of funds from them into the pockets of the wealthy, ably facilitated by the actions of the likes of you.


          Report this

          20

          • #
            farmerbraun

            Keep going , keep going . .


            Report this

            10

          • #

            Some of us worry about the poor who will be the real victims of climate change (and already are in places). Some of you don’t.


            Report this

            05

            • #
              the Griss

              Name one. And prove that its not because of NORMAL climate variability.


              Report this

              10

            • #
              Winston

              So cause a real problem for real people, just in case you might prevent a speculative problem for speculative people. Tell me exactly how biofuels driving up 3rd world food prices is preventing the “poor” from being affected by climate change.

              Sorry, David, such epic stupidity deserves as much derision as I can muster. Suffering is not a see-saw where increasing suffering in the western world somehow reduces suffering in the developing world. If the western world goes to pot, the main people who will suffer most will be the marginalised poor in the third world. Climate changes naturally, always has always will. Nothing any western government will do will have any measurable effect on either the atmospheric CO2 level, or any weather event in the future. To believe otherwise is to be living off with the pixies at the bottom of the garden.


              Report this

              30

  • #
    Mkelley

    I fail to see how this theory can help us grow the government and raise taxes and utility rates.


    Report this

    50

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Since the start of this Jo and David have been hinting if not outright saying in so many words that cooling is ahead, I see no point in not simply waiting to see what happens. The proof of the pudding is in the eating or so I’m told.

    That doesn’t mean I don’t want to see the rest of the story though.


    Report this

    80

  • #
    SunSword

    A possible candidate for force “X” may be referenced in this paper: (see pages 606-608). This paper identifies a 10.3 year “delay”.


    Report this

    121

    • #
      CC Squid

      Great Find!


      Report this

      40

    • #
      CC Squid

      Great Find!


      Report this

      10

    • #
      Manfred

      Brilliant find SunSword.

      Coupling of Total Solar Irradiance and Solar Magnetic Field Variations with Time Lags: Magneto-thermal Pulsation of the Sun
      Yoshimura, H.
      in
      Solar drivers of the interplanetary and terrestrial disturbances. Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Proceedings of the 16th (sixteenth) international workshop National Solar Observatory/Sacramento Peak, Sunspot, New Mexico, USA, 16-20 October 1995, San Francisco: Astronomical Society of the Pacific (ASP), |c1996, edited by K. S. Balasubramaniam, Stephen L. Keil, and Raymond N. Smartt, p.601

      ——————————————————————————————
      Jo wrote:

      Around the world a billion dollars a day is invested in renewable energy, largely with the hope of changing the weather.

      The weirding weather, AGW, CAGW, climate change etc… that characterise the nonsensical claim of a causal association with anthropogenic CO2 appear little more than a straw man in the escalating ideological war in which we are presently immersed.

      Born of rudderless prosperity, the coming cold, if the DE notch hypothesis is borne out, could provide a return to focus in the real World. Green buffoonery, UN attempts at social engineering (UN Agenda 21), carbon marketeers, Al Gore wannabees, and the whole festering mess of bureaucratic totalitarianism in the name of save the planet will likely implode in the face of the simple, compelling need to keep warm and still have enough money to eat.


      Report this

      50

    • #
      Winston

      Good stuff SunSword,

      Just a few points from the paper that I thought were interesting and pertinent to the ‘notch’ mechanism, unbolded and italicised mine added for clarity and flow:

      we found that the multiplied correlation index of the two kinds of data (sunspot number as the index of the solar magnetic field Vs ERB TSI data) has a sharp peak around 10.3 years of delay time”

      and that the ‘11year magneto-thermal pulsation’ (as it is labeled in the paper) influences solar convection (by inhibiting and therefore delaying solar convective heat flow) through the following mechanism: “the main driving force or eruption of main flux tubes of the solar cycle onto the surface (of the sun) is the force of the flows of the different rotation and of the (solar) global convection that makes the main flux tubes propagate toward the solar surface along (the) iso-rotation surface in the solar convection zone” and takes place “around the peak of the solar-magnetic cycle”


      Report this

      40

    • #
      David Evans

      Brilliant SunSword! This is a smoking gun from 1996!

      “We argue that the time lags between the TSI and magnetic field variations demand us to consider the influences of the Sun on the Earth and on the space environment through two channels which are physically linked together but their variations may not necessarily be in phase in time. One channel is through the irradiance variations and the other is through the magnetic field variations. Tim evolution of a phenomenon on the Earth that is influenced by the Sun can be in phase as well as out of phase with the solar magnetic cycle if this phenomenon is mainly caused by the irradiance variations of the Sun.” – Abstract (at end)

      “In practice, since the sunspot number has the longest time interval of observation, we used the sunspot number as the index of the solar magnetic field to be compared with the ERB TSI data. We found that the multiplied correlation index of the two kinds of data has a sharp peak at around 10.3 years of delay time. This sharp peak means that similarity between the time profile of the ERB TSI and the time profile of the sunspot number is the best when the time series of the ERB TSI is displaced toward the past by an amount of about 10.3 years, which is one solar cycle prior to the observed time interval of the ERB data.” (section 8, bottom of page 606)

      In other words (I think), he found the TSI leads the sunspot number (which represents the solar magnetic field) by 10.3 years. This hints heavily at force X as we detected it, an influence that lags TSI by 11 years and which is intimately tied to the solar magnetic field.


      Report this

      120

      • #

        “Time evolution of a phenomenon on the Earth that is influenced by the Sun can be in phase as well as out of phase with the solar magnetic cycle if this phenomenon is mainly caused by the irradiance variations of the Sun”

        The ocean oscillations can also be in or out of phase with irradiance variations and with magnetic field variations. The ocean oscillations mat well be mainly caused by irradiance variations of the sun.

        Didn’t someone point out that the magnetic field is in antiphase with TSI but SSN is in phase with TSI?

        Is the magnetic field ever in phase with TSI in the sense of being high at the same time as TS is high and low at the same time as TSI is low?

        Isn’t it always in antiphase?

        If so, that only leaves the ocean oscillations as a suitable phenomenon on the Earth that can go in and out of phase with solar irradiance variations.


        Report this

        00

        • #

          That article seems to be dealing with a lag on the sun between magnetic field changes and subsequent SSN/TSI changes one solar cycle later.

          It might mean that magnetic field changes, in predicting TSI/SSN 10 to 11 years later could allow David’s solar model to predict the effect of force x on Earth 20 to 22 years later.

          As far as I can tell the immediate cause of cloudiness changes on Earth is changes in the mix of wavelengths and particles from the sun when TSI/SSN changes but it could well be that the scale of that change was fixed by the sun’s magnetic field strength one solar cycle previously.

          Force x could be said to be derived either directly from TSI/SSN with a 10 to 12 year lag or indirectly from the previous cycle’s magnetic field variation with a 20 to 22 year lag.

          Half the lag then occurs within the sun and the other half within Earth’s oceans.

          I would not be at all surprised if the beat of the ocean oscillations was ultimately controlled by the variations in the proportion of TSI reaching the surface thus magnetic field changes control the sun’s beat and the sun’s beat controls the ocean’s beat.

          That deals with cycle to cycle variability but above and beyond all that lies additional solar multidecadal changes which then give us the MWP, LIA and the recent warmth.


          Report this

          00

          • #
            the Griss

            It might mean that magnetic field changes, in predicting TSI/SSN 10 to 11 years later

            I did mention that I thought Force X might have preceded the sunspot count. (Maybe even causes the size of the solar sunspot peak?)

            One thing that needs to be considered is that cycles in a large object will eventually be transferred to a smaller object, such that they will eventually have similar cycles. (or the smaller object will disintegrate.. which it hasn’t)

            The Earth and sun have been around for a long, long time, so there is no reason I can see that they would NOT be “in sync”.


            Report this

            10

      • #

        Maybe this is discussed (or I should reread from the start of the series), but given that you have a notch effect, could the data be fitted with a varying delay determined by the observed sun spot cycle time? I.e. you set the delay based on the observable data but do not let it vary.

        And based on this comment, adding a variable that represents being out of phase by a number of years? Or by a phase phi?

        Would that get your wiggles into sync with the observed data? On the other hand, with enough variables one can fit an elephant…


        Report this

        00

  • #

    Re the fig 5 graph: see the figure in http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/08/the-medieval-warm-period-linked-to-the-success-of-machu-picchu-inca/ and similar. Its pretty clear that fig 5 is the bottom half of that pic chopped out. And I’m pretty sure we can all agree that that pic (whilst, characteristically for WUWT, unsourced) didn’t come from the IPCC; SAR or otherwise.

    It would be interesting to know what the actual source is, though. I mean, interesting to me. DE clearly doesn’t care and wishes the whole thing would just go away.


    Report this

    322

  • #
    NikFromNYC

    Having so actively antagonized both Lubos and Willis I fear technical feedback here is now going to be lacking, so you’ll have to do with William. I’m skimming for serious feedback and not seeing a lot to chew on. I’m a benchtop empiricist so am of little help with equations. My confusion now that I don’t see addressed in the writeup so far is that if you have a signal analysis scheme that can translate between solar output and temperature, why apply the nuclear option at all? Does only that afford your cooling plunge, I in paranoid fashion wonder. Isn’t the very nature of signal analysis for two data streams *assumed* to be casually linked physicslly to just spit out a conversion algorithm that indeed matches them without some gap in the middle? Or does this not match because you are paring down you number of parameters on purpose to help establish uniqueness? Your tone so far lacks such strong tests of arbitrariness in anticipation of criticism, emphasized by your tone of hurt when you were then indeed criticized as if you were unaware of how amateurish using a transfer function as a physical theory would come off as in public.


    Report this

    317

    • #
      Andrew McRae

      why apply the nuclear option at all? Does only that afford your cooling plunge

      Yes, it’s the only part of the model that cools the 1950s. IIRC, he wanted to use something backed by measurement and other candidate explanations didn’t have as much reliable measurement behind them.

      I think the better question would be… shouldn’t the Atomic Playboy be subtracted from the temperature record before the temperature analysis that makes the Notch Filter?
      A non-solar forcing contaminates the output and should be removed. Any time you revise an estimate of a non-solar forcing, including CO2, surely the solar-to-temperature transfer function has to be re-learned from adjusted data?

      I don’t know if David has answered that one already. Part 7 was the first time the Atomic Playboy made an appearance, but the way the forcings are combined sounds awfully like a linear mix of their temperature outputs:

      All these models can be switched on or off in any pattern within our total climate model. The total climate model has an optimizer to fit the model’s temperature output to measured temperatures

      Maybe the filter gets retrained, maybe it doesn’t. Until the whole enchilada is released we don’t know.


      Report this

      60

      • #
        David Evans

        Yes, nukes, volcanoes etc. should be subtracted from the temperature record then everything redone. And so on in an iterative loop. Too much for the spreadsheet, maybe later if there is sufficient demand. I’m certain it makes no significant difference to anything.

        Yes, the temperature changes due to the various influences are added together. Under the linearity assumption the influences superpose (act independently), which is probably true to first order.


        Report this

        50

    • #
      Greg Cavanagh

      Willis didn’t ask any questions regarding the paper or science. He just complained about how the idea was being released a little at a time. ie: he didn’t contribute anything or ask anything.

      I haven’t seen any Lubos postings here, but I know he made some comments very early in the series release and just as quickly took down those comments.


      Report this

      100

    • #

      Nik, with respect, we antagonized neither man. We gave Lubos advance notice (which he seemed delighted about at the time), and repeatedly invited his feedback and gave him personalized answers via email to his questions. He didn’t read the email which would have saved him so much embarrassment on April 11. Because he posted publicly, we had to respond publicly. We clearly demonstrated he doesn’t understand what we’ve offered, his post was largely a strawman, and with ad hominem attacks to boot. I’ve responded to some of his further allegations by publishing my emails to him in full. I remain baffled at his behaviour, his claims are insupportable or irrelevant. If you can find something valuable about his feedback that we have not already answered, please quote it.

      As for Willis if we “antagonized” him it was only by not putting him on the short list of people we thought would have the time or inclination plus the experience with high level Fourier work or modeling. (Would Willis have included us before he published on WattsUp? Would we care? Not.). His total contribution to my 1500 blog posts so far was all of 16 comments up to June 2014. We have had almost no personal emails. We barely know each other.

      It’s regrettable that he feels hurt, it was not my intention. Alas his comments since then have not been constructive science-wise, since they focus mainly on the mechanics and timetable of the release.

      Arguably Willis has been antagonistic, calling David an activist with a sales pitch”, a PR campaign and an “advertisement”. The readers here are “adherents” (meaning fairly unthinking, obedient followers) and Jo and David are “no different to Phil Jones and Michael Mann”. (Despite those guys getting tax money and dodging requests for years, while we get nothing, owe nothing, and will release months of unpaid work all within days.) We are trying to be patient. But he doesn’t read my replies carefully, and even when I do respond, he ignores it, I see he’s repeating things on WUWT that I have already discussed with him. Likewise see David’s response especially about Miscolczi, and David and Willis’s discussion on assumptions.

      I consider flame wars between skeptics to be strategic mistakes, and have essentially told Willis that in this comment in January.

      Our tone so far has been to go out of way to welcome constructive feedback and thank anyone who takes the time to read our work. (You can see that in my emails to Lubos, perhaps we should publish all the earlier ones from David too? Seriously, does anyone care?)

      I cannot see where you get any impression otherwise. When Lubos disappeared his post, I told him to repost it, and published a copy on my site when he didn’t. This is hardly the act of someone trying to hide negative responses. Lubos BTW took his post down 7 hours after I told him there were no embargo issues. He was not honest with his readers about the reason he took it down. I’ve asked him to correct his paraphrasing of my emails and quote me directly. He owes me an apology. I remain baffled at his behaviour.

      As to the nuclear data – if you read the post again, you’ll find significant evidence that the 503 atmospheric bomb tests had some cooling effect. I’m happy to debate how much. If you think it is none at all, feel free to make arguments about why 440Mt of tests would not produce some cooling. Since no one has made any argument to that effect so far, I think all climate models need some allowance for those tests, the only question is how much. I admit I was as dubious as you sound before I looked at the numbers.

      David has made every effort to make the effect of the nuclear bomb tests on the model obvious. Could he have done more? He published the results with and without the bomb tests in the same post. He repeatedly marked the bomb test contribution.

      I would prefer to have aerosols and lunar factors, and possibly some PDO data, but either the data is not easy to find, or the mechanism is not known. Is the PDO an external force, or an internal response to solar/lunar/geo factors? As I said, there is plenty of room for improvement.

      As for Physical v curve-fit models

      ” then indeed criticized as if you were unaware of how amateurish using a transfer function as a physical theory would come off as in public.”

      The transfer function represents the description of a measured physical response of one system to another. It depends on the assumption that they are not unrelated in a causal sense. David has repeatedly said that If TSI is associated with temperatures the transfer function is useful. Hence if you have a problem with the assumption, then please target that specifically. Note, David and Willis have already discussed this at length, so please read this carefully beforehand. They came to a friendly agreement (does Willis mention that on WUWT?).

      So far, the response privately and publicly from electrical engineers who use transfer functions regularly is of near 100% approval with comments such as “I can’t believe no one has done this before”. You may feel it is amateurish, and you are free to publish any comment explaining why you have reached that conclusion, but the mere statement of your feelings does not constitute an argument in and of itself.

      The GCM’s are called physical, yet are based on assumptions that there is not empirical evidence for. Davids model is more physically based than they are. The GCM’s do not account for every photon, nor molecule. All models are generalizations about behaviours of groups of particles or types of radiation.

      Obviously we need to explain this point much better than we have. I’m working on a post on it (as well as more on the nukes). They are points worthy of discussion. Thanks.


      Report this

      60

      • #
        Rod Stuart

        comments such as “I can’t believe no one has done this before”

        Reading between the lines, that is essentially the message from Lubos and Willis. IMHO they are both GREEN with envy.


        Report this

        30

      • #
        Richard C (NZ)

        Comprehensive riposte Joanne.

        >The readers here are “adherents”

        Hmmm…. am I?

        # You allow me the privilege of submitting replies, some very long with multiple followups and much copy and paste from literature, and wandering off topic – big tick.

        # I support a lagged-solar model – big tick.

        # I dispute the N-D rationale vociferously – big cross.

        # I dispute the N-D model prediction but not radically, and besides, time, the sun, and climate, are the adjudicators of that – cross/N/A.

        # I differ on some other aspects but no offense that I detect – cross/tick

        # I’m not in Permanent Moderation or the “Twilight Zone” like at Hot Topic, neither are my comments edited out when they’re inconvenient to the proprietors like at Skeptical Science (but I can still access them in the database – ha!) – BIG BOLD TICK.

        I think on the basis of free speech and the opportunity to offer contra views without censorship when they don’t agree with yours – yes, I’m an adherent


        Report this

        10

      • #

        > As to the nuclear data

        I think you’re completely off the rails there. I don’t have data to hand, but I have talked to some of the Hadley folk who put together their radiation code. The answer, if I recall correctly, was that the bomb aerosol is trivial compared to volcanoes.

        > why 440Mt of tests would not produce some cooling

        This isn’t an answer; its hand-waving. Somewhere out there will be papers discussing the aerosol loading from bomb tests; and from volcanoes; and you could have looked them up. And you should have done so, *before* proposing that the bomb tests produce massively *more* than volcanoes. No just say oh well, I’m sure they produce something.

        > as well as more on the nukes

        Good idea.

        > Physical v curve-fit models

        I think you’re completely wrong there. I think you don’t even know what a physically-based model is, as distinct from curve fitting. But I’ve said that before and you’ve ignored me, so I won’t press that point now.


        Report this

        14

        • #

          William, Read the hindcasting post again. I did cite peer reviewed published studies that looked at bomb tests and aerosols.


          Report this

          31

          • #

            Um, well. I was kinda hoping you were going to face reality on this one without being pushed too hard. Oh well:

            * http://www.wunderground.com/resources/climate/nuke.asp?MR=1 – this one is about “a limited nuclear war involving 100 Hiroshima-sized bombs”, but more importantly “The intense heat generated by the burning cities in the models’ simulations lofted black smoke high into the stratosphere”. That bit really is important: a big nuke over an atoll over the ocean is going to generate very little aerosol in the stratosphere; far less that the 100-bomb exchange over cities that article describes.
            * http://www.john-daly.com/bigbangs.htm – there’s a lot of words there, but I don’t see any refs to observations of the proposed stratospheric stuff from nukes. “”Mike” was a 10.4 megatons blast and was a surface test, thus propelling large amounts of dust into the stratosphere fairly near the equator (rather like Pinatubo in that respect). ” is the kind of thing he says: “large amounts of dust into the stratosphere” is unquantified and unreferenced; and also implausible due to its location.
            * http://takvera.blogspot.com.au/2011/01/atmospheric-nuclear-testing-stagnated.html is more interesting because it references a real paper (which is paywalled, so I’ll read the non-paywalled “similar” one) which says “The author has a strong confidence that a significant amount of PM due to the atmospheric nuclear explosions was incessantly sprinkled to the upper troposphere and the stratosphere between 1945 and 1980 and the particulate matters caused the 0.5K GST stagnation”. So, again, no data: just “confidence”.

            So, no, I don’t think your refs for the bomb stuff are any good. If there were decent refs out there, you’d have been able to find them, rather than this obscure not-very-good stuff.

            If you think the bomb aerosol stuff stands up, and build it up into your final results (as you appear to) then I think you’re going to have a very hard time when you meet serious review of your work.


            Report this

            13

      • #
        farmerbraun

        I don’t think you have to justify your position to anybody Jo ; what you have done is bold and principled. I made this comment to Willis at WUWT:-
        ” Willis , you’ve made it clear where you’re coming from. But it looks like a storm in a teacup.
        In ‘Strine terms (Down Under Speak) you could be seen to be accusing DE of “under-arm bowling”.
        But it looks to me like he’s gone out to face Denis Lillee , without even a box. Pretty damn gutsy for mine.”

        After a brief explanation of cricketing terms , he got it , I think.
        You’ve had a tough last few weeks, but the gains have been immense. I’m sure you’ve got some useful gems amongst all the dross, and the model will have been improved as a result. Which was one of the reasons for doing it this way I’m sure.
        It looks to me like your position has only been strengthened.


        Report this

        40

        • #
          Ross

          Totally agree farmerbraun and Rod Stuart @ 55.3.1

          I just cannot believe the stupid comments from WillisE. He rants about not getting the code and data ( basically he says he doesn’t trust Jo & David) and then when I suggest he approaches David privately he says he doesn’t want to because others won’t get it. The guy is behaving like a 5 year old.

          Rod comment about ‘green with envy” hits the nail on the head.


          Report this

          30

  • #

    [...] kindly pointed out DE’s error. After a round of ritualised insults, someone actually dared to agree with me, [...]


    Report this

    07

  • #
    Brian

    I see a contradiction: you predict 0.3C cooling due to Force X, but allow 0.1C warming due to CO2, so a net cooling of 0.2C. But then argue that if it cools at least 0.1C, then the CO2 theory should be considered false.

    Consider ForceX only cooling by 0.2C, then after the same CO2 adjustment, the net cooling is 0.1C. If you’re subtracting out the effects of CO2 then it doesn’t make sense to set a threshold by which you think CO2 is irrelevant.

    In general, it seems that your falsifiability criterion is a bit arbitrary anyway.

    Brian


    Report this

    16

    • #
      Lionell Griffith

      Try reading a bit more carefully and actually look at the numbers and understand their implications.

      However, over the next 10 years the theories strongly diverge. Carbon dioxide levels will continue to rise at much the same rate, so the carbon dioxide models predict warming over the next decade of about 0.2°C, plus up to 0.3°C of previously-committed warming not reflected in the temperature “pause” of the past 15+ years. Owing to the fall in solar radiation from around 2004, and making allowance for rising carbon dioxide, the notch-delay solar model predicts cooling of 0.2°C or more.

      Here’s the criterion: A fall of at least 0.1°C (on a 1-year smoothed basis) in global average surface air temperature over the next decade.

      If the criterion does not occur: Then the notch-delay solar model is falsified and it should be thrown away.

      If the criterion does occur: Then carbon dioxide driven models are falsified, and they should be thrown away. (Note that the carbon dioxide theory predicts only warming over longer periods such as a decade, and we’ve already had a pause in warming for 15+ years.)

      CO2 -> 0.2 + 0.3

      Notch -> -0.2

      CO2 + Notch -> 0.3

      Test level -> -0.1

      Final > -0.1 -> Notch falsified because warming overcomes predicted cooling

      Final CO2 falsified because cooling overcomes predicted warming

      Fall -> -0.1


      Report this

      120

  • #
    Andy (old name Andy)

    @ NikFromNYC
    I

    Your tone so far lacks such strong tests of arbitrariness in anticipation of criticism, emphasized by your tone of hurt when you were then indeed criticized as if you were unaware of how amateurish using a transfer function as a physical theory would come off as in public.

    So your not great with equations , stick to empirical evidence and trust william
    “Straw man” on my behalf? definitely, on purpose. Why should I work when you seem to think half arsed about content and double arsed on snark.

    If you want sensible feedback use sensible input. Can you understand that transfer function. Rant off.


    Report this

    41

  • #
    Richard C (NZ)

    The model doesn’t capture the thermal damping effect of ocean heat accumulated over the last 100 years or so. Therefore the predicted fall is too soon and too steep – but there will be a fall.

    Time will tell on the shape profile and timing of the fall of course.

    There is a solar-temperature lag and a model built on that basis is on the right track. The lag is thermal inertia of planetary materials and transport/transfer of heat. The largest heat sink is the ocean so the system is basically sun => ocean => atmosphere.

    An 11 year lag goes some way to mimic the transfer of solar energy to air temperature but it’s not enough and development of the 11 yr N-D has not been compelling right from Part II.

    There are at least 4 papers documenting 11 yr periodicity in surface and tropospheric temperature including GISTEMP i.e. David not finding it doesn’t mean others haven’t. See Part VII here (troposphere and local surface China):

    http://joannenova.com.au/2014/06/big-news-part-vii-hindcasting-with-the-solar-model/#comment-1496107

    And here (GISTEMP):

    http://joannenova.com.au/2014/06/big-news-part-vii-hindcasting-with-the-solar-model/#comment-1496534


    Report this

    10

    • #
      Richard C (NZ)

      Re #56 11 yr periodicity.

      There is a “fast” response in temperature (measuring energy in the form of heat) but it is faint because the heat energy is dissipated by advection and propagation once the solar energy is converted to heat. The faster energy action is radiative energy (OLR) and the atmospheric response to that is therefore more complex than just temperature and the leading indicator isn’t temperature anyway. See:

      ’27-day variation in cloud amount in the Western Pacific warm pool region and relationship to the solar cycle’

      Y. Takahashi, Y. Okazaki, M. Sato1, H. Miyahara, K. Sakanoi, P. K. Hong, and N. Hoshino (2010)

      http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/10/1577/2010/acp-10-1577-2010.pdf

      Page 5:

      ….the intension of the present paper is to report the clear relationship [relationship between the solar parameter and cloud amount] between the peak around 27-day and 11-year solar activity for about 30 years, suggesting some possible linkage mechanisms. We confirmed this relationship is still valid for 2006–2008 (not shown here).


      Report this

      10

      • #
        Richard C (NZ)

        Re #58.1

        >”There is a “fast” response in temperature (measuring energy in the form of heat) but it is faint”

        The “slow” response is by far the more significant. For that look in GAT and OHC 40 – 50 years after when solar activity started peaking around 1958.

        In other words, the (very vague) deVries cycle of which 1958ish – 2004ish was peak activity. The solar temperature lag after solar increase was much longer than 11 years obviously.

        >”2 When”
        >”2004 + 11 = 2015″

        I think on the basis immediately above, we will have to wait considerably longer than 2015 for significant cooling (but time will tell).

        >”The delay is most likely 11 years”

        The basis for 11 years has not been established with any certainty whatsoever and according to others (see #58), no basis.

        >”2004 + 13 = 2017″
        >”though definitely between 10 and 20 years”

        Given that the atmosphere in 2014 is still “seeing” peak upper ocean heat from 100 years of accumulation say, the timing will depend on upper OHC decline in the sun => ocean => atmosphere system. The lag has already been 10 years (2004 + 10 = 2014), so 13 or 14 years lag look more reasonable (and consistent with Adussamtov’s thermo calcs). But OHC could extend the range to 40 years or more (20 years is Abdussamatov’s central estimate for oceanic lag, Trenberth says 10 – 100).

        >”3 How Much Cooling
        How much cooling and how quickly?”

        Damped by upper ocean heat.


        Report this

        10

        • #
          Richard C (NZ)

          Re #59.1.1

          >”But OHC could extend the range to 40 years or more (20 years is Abdussamatov’s central estimate for oceanic lag, Trenberth says 10 – 100).

          See essay:

          ‘The Role of the Oceans in Climate’

          Kevin E Trenberth
          National Center for Atmospheric Research1 , Boulder, CO

          1. Introduction

          Paragraph 5.
          The seasonal variations in heating penetrate into the ocean through a combination of radiation, convective overturning (in which cooled surface waters sink while warmer more buoyant waters below rise) and mechanical stirring by winds. These processes mix heat through the mixed layer, which, on average, involves about the upper 90 m of ocean. The thermal inertia of a 90 m layer can add a delay of about 6 years to the temperature response to an instantaneous change (this time corresponds to an exponential time constant in which there is a 63% response toward a new equilibrium value following an abrupt change). As a result, actual changes in climate tend to be gradual. With its mean depth of about 3800 m, the total ocean would add a delay of 230 years to the response if rapidly mixed. However, mixing is not a rapid process for most of the ocean so that in reality the response depends on the rate of ventilation of water between the well-mixed upper layers of the ocean and the deeper, more isolated layers that are separated by the thermocline (the ocean layer exhibiting a strong vertical temperature gradient). The rate of such mixing is not well established and varies greatly geographically. An overall estimate of the delay in surface temperature response caused by the oceans is 10–100 years. The slowest response should be in high latitudes where deep mixing and convection occur, and the fastest response is expected in the tropics. Consequently, the oceans are a great moderating effect on climate changes.

          http://www.oco.noaa.gov/roleofOcean.html


          Report this

          10

          • #
            Richard C (NZ)

            From Trenberth #59.1.1.1

            1. Introduction

            Changes in phase of water, from ice to liquid to water vapor, affect the storage of heat. However, even ignoring these complexities, many facets of the climate can be deduced simply by considering the heat capacity of the different components of the climate system. The total heat capacity considers the mass involved as well as its capacity for holding heat, as measured by the specific heat of each substance.

            The atmosphere does not have much capability to store heat. The heat capacity of the global atmosphere corresponds to that of only a 3.5 m layer of the ocean (see Trenberth and Stepaniak 2004). However, the depth of ocean actively involved in climate is much greater than that. The specific heat of dry land is roughly a factor of 4.5 less than that of sea water (for moist land the factor is probably closer to 2). Moreover, heat penetration into land is limited by the low thermal conductivity of the land surface; as a result only the top two meters or so of the land typically play an active role in heat storage and release (e.g., as the depth for most of the variations over annual time scales). Accordingly, land plays a much smaller role than the ocean in the storage of heat and in providing a memory for the climate system. Major ice sheets over Antarctica and Greenland have a large mass but, like land, the penetration of heat occurs primarily through conduction so that the mass experiencing temperature changes from year to year is small. Hence, ice sheets and glaciers do not play a strong role in heat capacity, while sea ice is important where it forms. Unlike land, however, ice caps and ice sheets melt, altering sea level albeit fairly slowly.

            # # #

            In short, the ocean has the capacity to accumulate an enormous amount of heat and has over the last 100 years or so due to increased insolation. The slow release of that heat into the atmosphere when insolation decreases (as it is now) will be heating the air for many years into the future.

            Thus the benefit of a heat sink.


            Report this

            00

            • #
              Richard C (NZ)

              Re #59.1.1.1.1

              >”The slow release of that heat into the atmosphere when insolation decreases (as it is now) will be heating the air for many years into the future.”

              See:

              ‘The flow of Energy through the Earth’s Climate System: Land and Ocean Exchanges’

              Trenberth and Fasullo (2008)

              “There is an annual mean transport of energy by the atmosphere from ocean to land regions of 2.2±0.1 PW primarily in the northern winter when the transport exceeds 5 PW”

              http://wcrp.ipsl.jussieu.fr/Workshops/Reanalysis2008/Documents/V1-221_ea.pdf

              See Figure 1:

              That 2.2 PW is in addition to 29.5 PW ASR (incoming absorbed solar radiation) to land.

              Mean storage into the ocean est. about 0.4 PW (implies a change of 1.26×10^23 J/decade). This process will reverse into the atmosphere.


              Report this

              00

    • #
      Richard C (NZ)

      Re #58

      >”There are at least 4 papers documenting 11 yr periodicity in surface and tropospheric temperature including GISTEMP”

      Here’s another 8:

      ‘Signatures of solar activity variability in meteorological parameters’

      G. Tsiropoula (2003)

      3.2. Tropospheric parameters

      During the past 100 years many studies have attempted to correlate temperature measurements and solar activity. The
      reported results are mixed, i.e. maximum temperatures are related to maximum activity (positive correlation) or to minimum activity (negative correlation), but also sometimes no
      correlation at all was found depending on the location, the time interval and the analysis technique. At the beginning of this century a paper by Koppen (1914) appeared which discussed sun and climate. Koppen examining global mean annual temperature data for the years 1804–1910 concluded that a negative correlation exists between the 11-year solar cycle and the Earth’s surface temperature. Many authors con6rmed later the results of Koppen for this time interval. Lawrence (1965) analyzing more than 130 years of temperature data (1830–1965) for three places in England (Edinburgh, Greenwich and Wake6eld) found that temperatures showed negative correlation with solar activity from 1880 to 1930 and positive correlation for the other years. King et al. (1974) indicated that for two 11-year cycles (1938–1958) London temperatures had strong positive correlation with the solar cycle. Currie (1993) examining temperature records of 1197 sites in the US found cyclic variations at almost every site, which were in phase with the 11-year solar cycle. Recently, a decadal component identi6ed in globally averaged SST anomalies compiled from bathythermographs that tracks TSI during the past few 11-year cycles add further support. Indeed, in the search for the source of global-average upper ocean temperature changes, White et al. (1997, 1998) found that decadal and interdecadal signals in the Earth’s ocean–atmosphere–terrestrial system are phase locked to decadal and interdecadal signals in the Sun’s irradiance.

      They have shown the existence of temperature variations amounting to a few hundredths of a degree in all the major ocean basins and also that these variations are of the magnitude expected as a response to the 11-year TSI variations. They also strongly emphasized that the amplitude of the observed decadal SST response is 2 to 3 times that expected from the transient Stefan–Boltzmann radiation balance. SST are probably better indicators of the global temperature variations than land or air temperatures since the 6rst ones are less subject to regional variations and, furthermore, oceans cover the 70%
      of the Earth’s surface.

      Recently, from data of Bottomley et al. (1990), it was shown that 11 year running mean sunspot numbers and departures of SST from the long-term average parallel each other and the same do SST of all three major ocean basins (i.e. Atlantic, Paci6c and Indian) (Reid, 1999) (Fig. 5). Furthermore, it is interesting to notice in Fig. 5 that long-term variations shown by the curves, which are the result of least-squares polynomial 6ts, have almost identical shapes with minima in the early 20th century and in the 1970s. The temperature fluctuations both global and in all three major ocean basins indicate that they are most probably due to an external forcing mechanism and not be the result of the chaotic behavior of the climate system
      itself.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Richard C (NZ)

        Tsiropoula (2003) #58.2

        Page 11:

        The above presented various results concerning Sun–weather relationships are only a small number of the many others reported by numerous investigators. We tried to present different cases where positive, negative or no correlation at all is reported. This conflicting evidence
        gives a confusing and contradictory picture. It is apparent that before rejecting the whole 6eld of solar influences on global change the identi6cation of all relevant reasons
        should be considered.

        It is, e.g., argued that solar influences on the meteorological parameters are manifested differently in different geographical regions and in different time periods. This might explain the several breakdowns or reversals of correlations. It is also suggested that measurements at single sites are usually very noisy, while mean hemispheric and global observations present better results. It is necessary to unravel the competing effects of statistical methods used in the various analyses, different types of measurements, etc. in order to resolve the conflict evident in the various results. One must always have in mind that improper use of statistics can lead to false conclusions. Thus, for the detection of a solar induced signal in meteorological data not only careful selection of the data, but also careful statistical considerations must be performed.

        The use, e.g., of some modern spectral analysis techniques—like the wavelet analysis—useful for detecting cyclic variations and also breakdowns seems very appropriate. Classical Fourier analysis allows the study of a signal only in the frequency domain, whereas wavelet analysis yields information in both time and frequency domains.

        A classical paradigm of how different methods applied in the same set of data can yield inconsistent results is the following: Mann and Park (1994) analyzed a data set of global land and sea surface temperature anomalies with singular value decomposition and found signi6cant decadal and interdecadal signals over northern hemisphere continents. Allen and Smith (1994) analyzed the same data set with
        Monte Carlo singular-spectrum analysis and found significant decadal signals in the equatorial Atlantic Ocean, but no signi6cant interdecadal signals. Lau and Weng (1995), on the other hand, analyzing the global-average northern hemisphere portion of this data set applying the wavelet analysis found signi6cant decadal and interdecadal signals. It is also worth noting that Dettinger et al. (1995) in contrast to Currie’s 6ndings failed to find a signi6cant correlation between the temperature variation and the 11-year solar cycle using a singular-spectrum
        analysis.

        # # #

        That was 2004, now add recent EMD, CMD analysis (see #58).


        Report this

        00

        • #

          Richard C (NZ) June 28, 2014 at 12:57 pm
          “Tsiropoula (2003) #58.2 Page 11:”

          Richard, Why not start yourown Blog of how this planet and its oceans and atmosphere, may respond to the unknown vast perodic energy transfer (17x) from Sun to Earth, pointed out by Jo and David!! What is your point?


          Report this

          00

          • #
            Richard C (NZ)

            Will #59.2.1.1

            Re Tsiropoula (2003)

            >”What is your point?”

            You can’t see it?

            David’s N-D is wholly dependent on him NOT finding 11 yr periodicity in temperature. I’d previously presented 4 papers where 11 yr periodicity IS found. There’s another 8 in Tsiropoula (2003). That’s 12 papers in all (do I have to keep looking and finding?).

            >“Tsiropoula (2003) #58.2 Page 11:”

            That is a critique applicable to David’s methodology, also a similar critique to that in Coughlan and Tung (2004) I might add.

            That is my point.


            Report this

            00

            • #
              David Evans

              Richard, we found no 11 year periodicity in the global average surface air temperature. You are reporting results in other temperatures. Force X and TSI presumably affect other temperatures differently, in which case there will be 11 year periodicities. Svensmark noted the same thing in his 2007 rebuttal of Lockwood and Froehlich. I would be surprised if we didn’t find 11 year periodicities in nearly all temperatures. But isn’t it curious they are basically absent in the global average surface air temperature, which is the variable we are attempting to model?


              Report this

              20

              • #
                the Griss

                An interesting point.

                Periodicity found at local or regional scale but not at a global scale.

                It would be interesting to see if any phase information could be gleaned from the local or regional events.

                Could it be that these events are actually out of phase in different regions and are thus adding to a nearly flat line at the global scale ?

                It averages out over a yearly scale, north + south hemisphere, why shouldn’t regional longer term patterns also average out.?

                Opens up a whole new can of worms in resonance behaviour at an Earth/Solar level.


                Report this

                10

              • #
                Richard C (NZ)

                David #59.2.1.1.1

                >”we found no 11 year periodicity in the global average surface air temperature

                Yes, my point several times over this series starting Part II is that globally averaged datasets are not the place to look. I wouldn’t expect to find the signal in them (but it has been found in GISTEMP, see below) for reasons that have have been picked up by Griss at #59.2.1.1.1 above so I’ll respond to that in more detail.

                For this comment it is sufficient to point out that anyone actually reading excerpts from the papers in the first 4 group will have seen the support for my contention and specifically address the situation where global averaging obscures the signal resident at local and regional level.

                >”You are reporting results in other temperatures”

                Yes I am but I’ve also reported a globally averaged dataset. Quoting from Part II:

                2 The Output Spectrum (Temperature)

                “….the surface thermometer records since 1850 or 1880 (HadCrut4, GISTEMP, and NCDC)”

                http://joannenova.com.au/2014/06/big-news-part-ii-for-the-first-time-a-mysterious-notch-filter-found-in-the-climate/

                Souza Echera et al (2012) is presented here with Table 2 copied into the comment:

                http://joannenova.com.au/2014/06/big-news-part-vii-hindcasting-with-the-solar-model/#comment-1496534

                The title of the paper is:

                ‘On the relationship between global, hemispheric and latitudinal averaged air surface temperature (GISS time series) and solar activity’

                Not only do they find the signal in the global average but they analyse GISTEMP latitude (Northern and Southern Hemispheres, Equator, and several intermediate latitudes) finding 11 yr periodicity in 10 out of 12 analyses.

                >”…isn’t it curious they are basically absent in the global average surface air temperature”

                No it isn’t curious, but no they are not absent either. Souza Echera et al (2012) found 11 yr periodicity (thereabouts) extensively in GISTEMP.


                Report this

                00

              • #
                Richard C (NZ)

                David #59.2.1.1.1

                >”You are reporting results in other temperatures”

                Coughlan & Tung and Zhou & Tung analyze the troposphere which, I would point out, includes near-surface. But because they are not looking at a global average at near-surface, they show a faint signal is there above each locality on the earth’s surface when the SC peaks occur.

                The signal is more pronounced higher up in the troposphere however.


                Report this

                00

              • #
                Richard C (NZ)

                Griss 59.2.1.1.1

                >”Could it be that these events are actually out of phase in different regions and are thus adding to a nearly flat line at the global scale ?”

                Exactly. Except Souza Echera et al (2012) FIND 11 year periodicity in GISTEMP global average and in 9 of 11 latitudinal analyses of GISTEMP (see above comments).

                This is what Raspopov et al (2006) has to say in regard to the de Vries (∼210-year) solar cycle:

                “Analysis has shown that climate response to the long-term global solar forcing has a regional character. An appreciable delay in the climate response to the solar signal can occur (up to 150 years). In addition, the sign of the climate response can differ from the solar signal sign. The climate response to long-term solar activity variations (from 10s to 1000s years) manifests itself in different climatic parameters, such as temperature, precipitation and atmospheric and oceanic circulation”

                OK, so now we need to look at the ∼11 year cycle. The best I can come up with is a modelling study by Tatiana Barlyaeva (presented previously):

                ‘External forcing on air–surface temperature: Geographical
                distribution of sensitive climate zones’

                Barlyaeva (2013) [Paper available as PDF via Google Scholar]

                A poster is here:

                http://www.spaceclimate.fi/presentations/posters/Barlyaeva_Forcings_poster.pdf

                Page 11 of the paper (not the poster):

                5. Conclusions
                From the results discussed above, we can make the following conclusions:

                1. There are many stations over the globe with statistically significant amplitudes of wavelet cross-coherence between solar activity (SSN) and the air–surface temperature data on about 11-year periodicity during the last quarter of the 20th century, which can be explained by a combined effect of the solar and volcanic forcing;

                2. there is a set of stations, mostly in the North Atlantic, demonstrating statistically significant amplitudes of wavelet cross-coherence between solar activity (SSN) and the air–surface temperature data on about 11-year periodicity in the middle of the 20th century in the absence of the combined effect of intensive volcanic and solar activities;

                3. the climate zones which are mostly sensitive to external (solar and geomagnetic) forcing, are allocated as follows: sensitive to the solar and geomagnetic forcing on the 11-year periodicity — North Atlantic, North Africa, Australia, Hindostan; sensitive to the geomagnetic forcing on the 22-year periodicity — North America, North-West Africa, Hindostan;

                4. the maximal number of stations with statistically significant amplitudes corresponds to the wavelet cross-coherence between the (C9)-index of geomagnetic activity and the air–surface temperature variations on the periods about 22 years during the time interval without intensive volcanic eruptions capable to change significantly the level of DVIGlobal.

                OK solar-temperature relationship at 11 year periodicity but varies regionally., and in a similar vein (also presented previously):

                ‘Sensitivity of the surface temperature to changes in total solar irradiance calculated with the WRF model’

                Carolina Cipagaut, Blanca Mendoza and Jorge Zavala-Hidalgo (2014)

                http://www.geofisica.unam.mx/unid_apoyo/editorial/publicaciones/investigacion/geofisica_internacional/anteriores/2014/02/4_cipaguata.pdf

                Results
                These results show that changes in the TSI modify the temperature as well as other variables. Figure 8 shows that the largest changes in these variables also occur at higher latitudes. Changes of latent heat, sensible heat, and surface pressure occur mainly in the ocean rather than in the continents.

                # # #

                >”Opens up a whole new can of worms in resonance behaviour at an Earth/Solar level.”

                The can has been open for some time now.


                Report this

                10

  • #

    Here’s the criterion: A fall of at least 0.1°C (on a 1-year smoothed basis) in global average surface air temperature over the next decade.

    Please tell me that you realize that the alarmists are “adjusting” the data to produce a warming trend. They know the gravy train is over should there not be a warming trend.

    What if your theory is the correct one and you “toss it out” because of data that has been tampered with?

    ~ Mark


    Report this

    110

  • #
    Iain Rae

    Good Morning
    I am not a scientist but I find Dr Evans theory fascinating and to me, as a layman, it makes considerable sense , not that that means much.
    So could you please, at some stage, put out, what in polite circles is called an executive summary or in every day language an idiots guide so we idiots can grasp a better understanding of the science?
    Love the fact that Dr Evans’ theory is testable.
    Best Regards
    Iain Rae


    Report this

    70

  • #
    Paul Vaughan

    Stephen Wilde,

    My impression of your recent engagements with David Evans:

    You should pay more attention to the following combination:

    1. Tim Channon
    • annual & semi-annual ice cycles

    2. Bill Illis
    (a) cloud, OLR, & hydrology follow ENSO
    (b) land vs. ocean lags relative to annual insolation
    (c) strong influence of distribution of continents & sills on ice albedo

    I’ll share technical commentary on David & Joanne’s work at a later date. (Now’s not the time.)
    ________________________________
    (Southern Annular Mode) SAM & Sun
    + correcting solar-climate discussion incivility without compromising free speech

    http://joannenova.com.au/2014/06/weekend-unthreaded-39/#comment-1493293


    Report this

    31

  • #
    RoHa

    Global Cooling is Imminent

    We’re doomed.


    Report this

    20

  • #
    Joe

    David, I am thinking back to some of the assumptions you stated in the early where you stated that there was an assumption of a linear, invariant system operating between the incident TSI and the earth’s temperatures. That all seems reasonable but given that a large part of your ‘transfer function’ is another ‘input’ or ‘mechanism’ which lies outside the TSI-Earth temp ‘system’ then aren’t we really assuming the much larger ‘system’ sun-earth is linear and invariant (which is probably reasonable too)? If this ‘force X’ plays a role in the system is it not possible then that the TSI measurement (which is just simply the measurement of the heating of the satellite borne instrument’s body)is not simply an ‘input’ but also possibly affected in some way by this further external ‘Force X’? I know that you postulate that ‘Force X’ might be related to a possible magnetic influence on the earth’s albedo (and thus might not affect the TSI instruments and measurements) but what if it is related to another spectral phenomena which may indeed be modulating our TSI measurements (perhaps differently to how it may be modulating the earthy temperatures)? Similar issues relating to the satellite measurements of temperatures could be at play as these instruments may be measuring narrow bands only (presumably IR) and perhaps making assumptions about emissivity. Is your model predicated on the assumption that the TSI measurements (which essentially use a temperature proxy) are not influenced by ‘Force X’?


    Report this

    10

    • #
      bobl

      I think the answers are yes and no. Yes force X may influence TSI and No, it wont affect the model, the model is just the dynamics derived from the historical relationship between TSI and temperature, taking into account that the fact that sunspot derived TSI does not increase temperature implies there is another factor acting to offset TSI warming over the cycle. The transfer function tells us the behaviour of the other factor. It does not matter what happens inside the box. This is really just ouptput / input.


      Report this

      50

      • #
        Joe

        Thanks bobl, I understand that the model is the transfer function describing the behaviour between the TSI (as measured) and earthly temperature (as measured) but I guess the point I am trying to make is that in essence the model is really the relationship between the earth’s temperature and the temperature of a small ‘black body’ up in orbit around the earth (the TSI measuring gear) so it would seem reasonable to question about how this ‘Force X’ might be affecting ‘temperature’ of the TSI probe (which is effectively what it measures as a proxy for TSI) and hence the apparent TSI reading. As it stands, the ‘notch’ in theory could be part of the ‘probe temp >> TSI reading’ transfer function which is embodied in David’s bigger transfer function, ie it may give a much higher TSI reading of the 11 yr cycle for whatever reason one might care to postulate, perhaps due to the spectrum or other nature of this 11 yr cycle radiation which affects the (black body) probe differently to how it affects the planet. Just curious, that is why I asked if we could see whether our neighbouring planets exhibited signs of reflecting this 11 year cycle component as our planet would be doing if it were some magnetic field modulated albedo effect. With a dominant low pass pole at 5 year cycles due to the ocean surface, and the very small variation in TSI (real or indicated), I am wondering what temperature variation we would expect to see due to the tiny 11 year TSI cycles (in the absence of a Force X) and whether they would be discernible among the noise. Another post here does cite some measurements of small 11 year cyclic variations in ocean surface temperatures.


        Report this

        10

        • #
          bobl

          I believe David did cover that, the small TSI changes should be discernable given the integrating nature of the fourier transform. It’s similar to noise reduction in GPS, GPS signals are well below the noise floor but integrating many cycles allows the averaging out of the uncorrelated noise and recovery of the correlated GPS signal. The fact that they are not discernable suggests an interfering effect.

          What you suggest is a common mode rejection of the probe, is possible. I would suggest its highly improbable that force X causes just the right efect at the probe without going through the climate and just happens to affect terrestrial probes (thermometers) the same way as space craft sensors.

          Ps we should be very careful when it comes to extraterrestrial probes of course, extraterrestrials might not like being probed much, but at least we’d be getting our own back :-)


          Report this

          10

    • #
      David Evans

      In terms of the (TSI in, temperature out) model, force X is merely the physical interpretation of the delayed path from TSI to temperature. That is, force X is not external to that model, but is delayed TSI. Which is to say, TSI is a leading indicator for force X.

      I am assuming the TSI and temperature data (the latter at least for the short term variations) is more or less correct.


      Report this

      50

      • #
        Joe

        Thanks David, I wasn’t thinking so much about the ‘correctness’ of the TSI and temp figures, I was thinking more about their physical origins. ie what they represented. I know that might sound a little prosaic, but I was thinking that the design of the TSI measuring equipment would give TSI measurements based on a wide spectrum of radiation/particle energy (as it probably should) but that spectral mix might vary with the sun activity cycles. I know that does not affect the metrics of your model, because as you say the ‘force X’ is just an interpretation of an element of the transfer function, but it would mean that ‘force X’ might embody this radiation frequency sensitivity ie force X could be the magnitude component of another transfer function which varies with radiation frequency or indeed particle energies for both earth and the TSI probe. What is known about the spectrum of energy over the sun cycles? I know the little black body in the TSI gear probably just gets warmed by any energy it receives, but the complex nature of planet earth would make is highly frequency sensitive.


        Report this

        00

  • #
  • #
    crosspatch

    Another thing to keep in mind is that THIS current cycle is even smaller than the last one. So 10-ish years from now, we would be subject to even MORE cooling of this model is accurate. At a minimum we are now looking at 20-some years of cooling temperature starting “right about now”.


    Report this

    50

    • #
      David Evans

      If Penn and Livingston are right, there is a cascade of three drops in TSI over three sunspot cycles, 2004, ~2015 and ~2026. If the ND solar theory is correct, there will be temperature drops of 0.2C – 0.5C around each of ~2017, ~2028, and ~2040. So cooling to 2040, maybe taking us back to mid-1800s temperature-wise. But that’s all speculative of course, because no one can accurately predict the Sun AFAIK.


      Report this

      70

      • #
        Ulric Lyons

        For regional temperatures such as CET, the main drop off is from late 2015 to 2024.

        The 2040′s is likely to be the warmest decade through the rest of this century (CET).

        Solar changes from 2015 to 2024 will be e.g. fewer coronal holes, and lower solar wind speed and pressure, particularly during the months that are colder than normal.

        Oceanic modes will respond with more frequent El Nino episodes, and a renewed warm AMO phase from 2016-2024.

        There is no need to invoke any kind of delay to explain the solar forcing, it runs real time with very little lag. Which I can readily prove by forecasting the exact months when the cold hits will occur through the whole period, from the short term heliocentric planetary ordering of solar activity.


        Report this

        02

        • #

          Really! Please show your work?


          Report this

          00

          • #
            Ulric Lyons

            OK, from late 2015, Jupiter is opposite Neptune which is a cold signal, and Saturn is square to Neptune which is also a cold signal. The cold periods will commence from when the bi-sector of Earth and Venus is towards Saturn (on either side of the Sun), and warmer from when the bi-sector of Earth and Venus intersects the Jupiter/Neptune line.
            1st cold shot is from early Nov 2015:
            http://snag.gy/dic8T.jpg
            2nd from mid March till mid June 2016,
            3rd from mid Aug to late Oct 2016.

            I have correlated monthly temperature deviations from normals through all of CET by these methods, and to written weather records back to the 12th century.

            I have identified the exact planetary progression that causes solar grand minima, and can hindcast precisely where they have occurred, and for how many solar cycles they lasted. This solar minimum starts recovering in SC26.

            I see no signs of a delayed notch filter in any of it.


            Report this

            00

            • #

              OK I can accept that all objects in this Solar system, (and perhaps beond),can affect the energy transfer to and from a small mass, “the Earth”. David’s investigation is only what the Sun does, in relation to all of that. No need for detailing what the Gas giants do, no need for detailing what the Earth’s Moon does, no need for detailing how the Earth’s mass, land, ocean, or atmosphere does in response to such energy transfer. The Sun seems to be the most potent effector. With TSI a small 1/17 effect upon this Earth. What is going on with the Sun?
              Does this not demand that any earthling production of CO2, be totally insignificant and immeasurable? Your Climatologists have been futzing with statistical mechanics, while ignoring that all the water in the fire hose goes in the direction pointed to by the nozzle.
              Physics v.s. Engineering.


              Report this

              10

              • #

                Sorry but the planets order solar activty at the scale of weather, which is what I can correlate over many centuries. This shows that almost everything that is considered to be internal variability in weather and climate, is in reality solar forced. And not by TSI variations either. The timing, magnitude and scale of the variations relates to short term solar wind speed/pressure/density changes.


                Report this

                00

      • #
        crosspatch

        I think they might be onto something for their analysis of solar activity but I am not convinced of the accuracy of anyone’s expected response. Initial response from where we are now might be rather slight but my gut tells me that the cooler we get, the greater the response to further solar declines.

        For example. If we cool and see greater ground albedo from snow/ice I believe that increase in albedo from clouds produces an even greater response because we have more areas that are now reflecting energy even when there are no clouds. What I mean is, and just to pick some numbers more or less at random for the sake of discussion. If we have an increase of 1% in the amount of land that is snow-covered, it makes the areas that aren’t snow covered more “important” in warming the planet. I don’t believe sea ice is as important in this respect as is lower latitude snow cover in places like the Rocky Mountains (US and Canada), Sierra Nevada, Alps, Himalayas, etc. These areas being at lower latitude reflect a much larger amount of sunlight into space. When these areas are more covered with snow, the areas that aren’t covered are more important in maintaining temperature. So I believe lower latitude snow cover acts as a positive feedback on the cooling produced by force X.

        An analogy might be the opposite response to semiconductor current with heat. If you increase the ambient temperature a bit, more current flows. The current flow itself adds some heat. Increase the ambient heat again by the same step and you get a greater increase in current flow than you got the time before. Do it again with the same step change in ambient temperature and you get an even greater increase because the increase in current flow acts as a positive feedback on temperature until it goes into thermal runaway.

        Earth has lots of ways of ensuring it doesn’t get too hot. I’m not sure it has as great an ability to moderate cooling and the more it cools, the easier it becomes to cool it more. There is a point where if you cool it down enough you theoretically get a “snowball Earth” from which it would be nearly impossible to recover from because global surface albedo becomes too high at low latitude. In other words, Earth has almost no limit to the amount that it can cool but it has a lot of things that work to prevent runaway warming. A 1 percent increase in clouds might produce some change in climate but I have a hunch that a further 1 percent increases causes a greater change than the first 1 percent does.


        Report this

        00

  • #

    UPDATE: We’ve replaced the graph originally posted (copied here) which was sourced via here. Thanks especially to William Connolley for the proof reading and to ThinkingScientist for accurately finding the actual SAR IPCC Graph above. It is entirely incidental to the Solar Model or its predictions, a mere side note here, not included in the main paper or the model, but we always appreciate feedback.

    It makes no difference to the point that it has been long accepted that solar minima correspond to cooler temperatures on Earth (bearing in mind the quality and uncertainties of the data). — Jo


    Report this

    110

  • #
    Ian Wilson

    David and Jo,

    The 11 year hiatus in the notch-delay solar theory provides a possible
    reason for a result that I got in 2009.

    Wilson, Ian R.G., 2009, Can We Predict the Next Indian
    Mega-Famine?, Energy and Environment, Vol 20,
    Numbers 1-2, pp. 11-24.

    http://multi-science.metapress.com/content/a15v07801838k763/

    ABSTRACT

    Catastrophic multi-year failure of the Indian monsoon has caused at least eight
    mega-famines in India over the last 1100 years. Historical data shows that seven
    out of the eight mega-famines have either started within ± one year of the year of
    greatest asymmetry in the Sun’s motion about the Solar System’s centre-of-mass,
    or 11 years ± one year after this event. The Sun is currently experiencing a
    maximum in the asymmetry of its motion about the centre-of-mass. Evidence is
    presented to show that there is almost a 1-in-4 the chance that there will be another
    Indian mega-famine in 2018-20. While the chance of such a catastrophic event
    occurring is small, it is large enough that the governments on the Indian subcontinent
    should take precautionary measures to confront this potentially
    devastating threat.

    The current onset of the 2014 Indian Monsoon is two weeks late and down 38 %
    on integrated all-India rainfall, similar to what happened in 2009.

    http://www.imd.gov.in/section/nhac/dynamic/Monsoon_frame.htm

    Let’s hope that is not an indicator of an upcoming multi-year failure of the
    Indian Monsoon in about 4 – 5 years time.

    Of course the alarmist will jump up and down and say that their warming
    models predicted this outcome all along!


    Report this

    30

    • #
      David Evans

      That’s an interesting point Ian. Thanks.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Ulric Lyons

      Actually the Indian Agra Famine of 1837-1838 serves as an excellent analogue for the years 2016-17. Starting with a long cold shot from March to mid June 2016, and another cold shot from mid Aug to October.
      2017 will start brutally cold for 4 months, and very poor from mid summer to late Autumn.

      2018-2020 will also be a very difficult period for agriculture, with deep and protracted colder episodes impacting many months through the N. Hemisphere growing seasons.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Brad

    From a layman’s prospective:
    D&J have developed a blackbox that receives an input and produces an output. There are “adjustments” for anomalies such as volcanos and other large events that effect the output. Since these are chaotic they cannot be preprogrammed into the blackbox.
    If the blackbox hind casts well and forecasts just as well based on the near term, I frankly don’t need to know myself what is inside.

    Just like I don’t understand my PC and the internet, or the phone I am typing this on, it works reliably and serves my needs. If the D&J model works, I don’t need to know the intracacies.
    (I used a slide rule in high school, and started college with a Commodore 64 and an external floppy disk drive with a 9-pin printer.)

    As an aside, I’d like to point out again that this has been voluntary with no expected financial gains. DONATE if you haven’t done so recently. We all love chocolate, right?


    Report this

    60

    • #

      “If the D&J model works, I don’t need to know the intracacies.”

      But most do. Without a physical mechanism, this is just an exercise in curve-fitting, and a nontransparent one at that.

      It’s trivial to make predictions when you can make up your own forces. But it’s not science, it’s fantasy.

      But we’ll see what the peer reviewers say, after this paper is submitted to a quality journal.


      Report this

      212

      • #

        David Appell June 29, 2014 at 12:08 am · Reply

        (“If the D&J model works, I don’t need to know the intracacies.”)

        “But most do. Without a physical mechanism, this is just an exercise in curve-fitting, and a nontransparent one at that.”

        Please define your most? Most like David Appell? Or most like can do engineers?

        “It’s trivial to make predictions when you can make up your own forces. But it’s not science, it’s fantasy.”

        You should certainly know about that! Your GCMs have all the fantacy forces of CO2.
        What you do not have is anyone that can demonstrate “any” knowledge of “climate”!

        “But we’ll see what the peer reviewers say, after this paper is submitted to a quality journal.”

        Why would Jo & David buy into your demonstrably corrupt peer reviewers?
        Why not get someone that can describe David’s correct methods?


        Report this

        70

        • #
          J Martin

          Submission to a ‘journal’ with its ‘peer review’ process. An outdated method of publication subject to the wims, peccadilloes, perceived wisdom and prevailing political correctness of 2 or 3 pals of the journal editor. A system open to abuse as the reviewers are often hidden and the reviewee cannot question the balance of the secret jury.

          Journals and peer review will hopefully just fade away as more and more science is published and reviewed in the open environment of the very public internet.


          Report this

          10

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        Without a physical mechanism, this is just an exercise in curve-fitting, and a nontransparent one at that.

        Always good to start with an implied non sequitur. It creates an illusion that you know what you are talking about.

        In reality, most physical science includes some form of curve-fitting to the observational data, at some stage in the process. It is how we learn stuff.

        It’s trivial to make predictions when you can make up your own forces. But it’s not science, it’s fantasy.

        It is a great pity that Einstein is dead. I would like to see you argue that with him. Or Higgs, for that matter.

        But we’ll see what the peer reviewers say, after this paper is submitted to a quality journal

        There is no law, or rule, that says that peer review can only be done through a “quality” journal. (Interesting, that you avoided the word “reputable”)

        The fact that David is publishing the whole thing on the web means that any “reputable” scientist can review the material and express an opinion. That is already happening via this blog, and I am sure that your comments have been noted, and given the consideration they deserve.

        And David’s hypothesis will stand until nature (the great leveller) proves him wrong in any significant way. It is the Einstein Approach.

        “Quality journals”, have only been around for a few decades. They do not have sole right to publish scientific papers. Their role is not carved in stone. Facts do not gain credibility by being presented on dead tree matter. In fact, there is a growing impression that some “peer review” processes only serve to bolster the current paradigm, and discourage dissenting views. Force of numbers via the web, counters that impression.

        Have you any other insightful views you would like to share with us?


        Report this

        40

      • #
        Brad

        David,

        If/when we go into a definitive cooling trend, please explain how your currently favorite GCMs are going to line up with reality. If they really had realistic natural forcings and did not rely solely on CO2 they would already be showing the pause, right?

        I deal with people like you and William all the time, demanding that your models are correct, even though they do not correlate with reality. You hide your inputs and alter the outputs to support your salary.

        But that is OK, I enjoy the challenge of reaffirming my belief that reality wins every time, in the end. Keep up the good work…


        Report this

        30

  • #

    Obrigado Joanne.
    Duvida, porque a ONU, os governos não se preparam?

    [My Portuguese from a visit to Brazil only got me past 'Thankyou Joanne'. I had to check Google translate to ensure the rest wasn't rude and came up with: "Doubt, because the UN, governments do not prepare?" - Mod]


    Report this

    10

  • #

    Well done for updating your fig 5. I think its a shame that you have no word of reproof for the variety of your regulars – Lionell Griffith, CC Squid, others – who responded to my note with insults.

    > The Maunder Minimum from about 1645 to 1715 and the Dalton period from about 1790 to 1830 are generally reckoned to be the two coldest times in the last 400 years.

    That doesn’t really fit the pictures, though. The minimum is around 1580-1600. If one were picking minima from the graph, rather than trying to make the graph fit preconceived ideas, one wouldn’t pick the date ranges you did.

    > Even the IPCC thought those two periods were the coldest in the last 400 years, before they went all hockeystick

    MBH shows minima at or close to both those periods. If you wanted to support your text, I can’t see why you’d prefer FAR or SAR to TAR. Unless you really hated the hockeystick for other reasons.


    Report this

    315

    • #
      Popeye26

      “who responded to my note with insults.”

      CRY ME A RIVER!!!!

      Cheers,


      Report this

      63

      • #

        WC. The graph relates to a minor side issue. We’ve thanked you, corrected it, published all your comments, updated the graph, and it still demonstrates the point David made. You can argue about the value of exact timing and amplitude in one uncertain low resolution study of summer temperatures in 1580 that was published SAR. But it is an inconsequential point about a minor issue.

        We cite Ljundqvist and Christiansen as our main evidence.

        – Jo


        Report this

        40

    • #

      Though help in achieving greater accuracy is always appreciated it was not helpful to suggest that the initial diagram was chosen for some nefarious reason.

      It was a minor side issue and had no bearing on the conclusions.

      Maybe WC seized on it as a means of trying to debase the authority of David and Joanne? That would be why some responses to WC were unfavourable.


      Report this

      81

    • #
      Lionell Griffith

      What we say is not an insult if it is true. You have not yet proved you are capable of significantly more than cut and paste from the words of others. We have no evidence that you are more than an empty braggart. You must PROVE that you are not by making an actual contribution rather than merely being a pointless echo.

      STAND AND DELIVER!


      Report this

      40

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        Well said Lionell.

        When it comes to William Connolley, I often feel that we are having a battle of wits with an unarmed person.


        Report this

        111

        • #
          Lionell Griffith

          I agree.

          WC has a long standing fantasy that he is a defender of the one true climate faith. His Wikipedia exploits give evidence of degree of his devotion. The science is settled – so said those to whom he has pledged his life to protect. He repeats the sacred dogma adding nothing of himself.

          Can we be so unkind as to demand that he go against his faith and present something of himself? Yes!


          Report this

          40

        • #
          JBL

          And yet, oddly, WC caught an error that you missed (and that DE & JN have been quite polite and gracious about acknowledging as such); I would have thought that. Might give you pause.


          Report this

          11

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            JBL,

            You are quite correct, WC has made a valuable contribution to the open review process. For that he should be thanked, and I understand he has been.

            But I should point out that his contribution was in response to a number of us metaphorically prodding him with hypothetical sharp objects. This “encouraged” him to delve into the detail to find fault with David’s hypothesis, in order to even the score.

            He is a smart guy, but sometimes needs help in finding useful motivation.


            Report this

            20

            • #
              Backslider

              He is a smart guy

              That depends a lot on how you define “smart”.


              Report this

              20

              • #
                Rereke Whakaaro

                I think he is intelligent. But he also shows symptoms of having been “conditioned”, by whatever education system he went through. That is why it is comparatively easy to push his buttons, and get a response.


                Report this

                20

        • #
          PhilJourdan

          a battle of wits with an unarmed person.

          Untrue! He is half armed.


          Report this

          00

  • #

    [...] is that temperature should be falling from just about now given that TSI fell from 2003. From the latest of a series of posts on Jo Nova’s [...]


    Report this

    20

  • #
    Ian Wilson

    My 2009 paper on the possibility of a massive failure of the Indian Monsoon is based upon the idea that the mega-famines usually occur at the point of greatest asymmetry in the Sun’s motion about the Barycentre (i.e. 2008 +/- 1 year) or 11 years after (i.e. 2019 +/- 1 year).

    There was a significant single year drop in the Indian monsoon in 2009 – with overall rain falls down by ~ 26 % and this year with total rainfall down by ~ 39 % and a weak monsoon so far.

    The 11 year delay in a possible mega famine (Chance is ~ 25 %) could be explained by the notch-deal solar model.


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Anton

    Dear David, Can I read anywhere a standalone exposition of the new work in Fourier transform theory in your research, please? Is there a self-contained section of your main sun work about this? I’d greatly welcome a URL. I am a mathematical physicist, not in climate, but when I read climate I am emphatically a “skeptic”.


    Report this

    40

  • #

    David Evans wrote:
    “Both the carbon dioxide and notch-delay solar theories agree with the warming observed during the 1900s, because carbon dioxide levels and solar radiation levels were both generally rising.”

    Except TSI has been slowly decreasing since about 1950:

    http://lasp.colorado.edu/lisird/tsi/historical_tsi.html

    See Figure 1 above, which shows TSI data from Lean 2000, PMOD, and ACRIM after 1992. – David E.


    Report this

    011

    • #

      David Appell said:

      “Except TSI has been slowly decreasing since about 1950:”

      Oh dear, that old canard yet again.

      TSI remained above the level required for net warming until around 2000 to 2005.

      How often is that daft assertion going to be rolled out as if it were meaningful?

      See here:

      http://www.newclimatemodel.com/the-death-blow-to-anthropogenic-global-warming/

      Published by Stephen Wilde June 4, 2008


      Report this

      121

      • #

        It’s not a canard; the data do not support Evans’ claim.

        TSI has not been increasing over the last half of last century, according to LASP.


        Report this

        29

      • #

        By the way, even the Lean (2000) data in the NOAA plot on your link do not support the claim that “…because carbon dioxide levels and solar radiation levels were both generally rising.”

        The Lean data is flat at best.

        But, I guess, if you’re going to make up forces, you might as well make up the data to go with them.


        Report this

        211

        • #

          David,

          Maybe you should read more acurately?

          “It is true that, as the alarmists say, since 1961 the average level of TSI has been approximately level if one averages out the peaks and troughs from solar cycles 19 through to 23.

          However, those solar cycles show substantially higher levels of TSI than have ever previously occurred in the historical record.

          Because of the height of the TSI level one cannot simply ignore it as the IPCC and the modellers have done.

          The critical issue is that having achieved such high levels of TSI by 1961 the sun was already producing more heat than was required to maintain a stable Earth temperature. On that basis alone the theory of AGW cannot be sustained and should now die.”

          It appears that since around 2000 the level of solar activity has not been enough to maintain an increased rise – hence the pause.


          Report this

          101

          • #

            However, those solar cycles show substantially higher levels of TSI than have ever previously occurred in the historical record.

            So what? That’s not what Evans needs. He wrote: “…because carbon dioxide levels and solar radiation levels were both generally rising.”

            There’s been no upward trend in TSI, or in the cycle peaks of TSI, since about 1960 — not according to the LASP data, nor according to NOAA’s Lean (2000) data on your graph.


            Report this

            29

            • #

              I am not David Evans’s clone.

              My work does however supplement his. I would suggest to him that he does not need to say that solar radiation was generally rising. All he needs to say is that solar radiation was higher than necessary to maintain equilibrium.


              Report this

              120

              • #

                Evans does need an increasing TSI. He wrote: “Both the carbon dioxide and notch-delay solar theories agree with the warming observed during the 1900s, because carbon dioxide levels and solar radiation levels were both generally rising. So we cannot tell the models apart on recent performance.”

                The data don’t support any increase in TSI since about 1960.


                Report this

                29

              • #

                “Evans does need an increasing TSI. ”

                I disagree with David on that point because he does not need increasing TSI for his contention to be correct. A level of TSI higher than that needed to maintain equilibrium is sufficient.


                Report this

                101

              • #

                There is another way to look at this.
                “The data don’t support any increase in TSI since about 1960.”
                Lets assume this is true.
                “…solar radiation was higher than necessary to maintain equilibrium.”
                Lets assume for the moment even if incorrectly that this is false.
                For the increase in temperature to have been caused by the old rise in TSI then a delay of 40+ years needs to have stored a significant amount of the heat and have released it over that time.
                So the storage within the planet, within the oceans and within the atmosphere combined would all have blurred together to do this.
                Can anyone show this did not happen?
                I suggest this weakens the notch but replaces the effect in LPF with two more significant exponetial delay curves.
                BTW if heat was pulled down under the sea by the global conveyor into the Trenberth zone it would have been replaced by heat from the medieval warm period over the same time. The medieval warm period was long! So that heat has had far longer to accumulate in volume.


                Report this

                10

            • #
              Richard C (NZ)

              David Appell #73.1.2.1.1

              >”There’s been no upward trend in TSI, or in the cycle peaks of TSI, since about 1960″

              There doesn’t have to be. The level starting 1960ish was the highest in 11,000 years (Usoskin). You need to grasp the thermodynamic principles and apply them to the planet. Particularly thermal inertia due to material properties and thermal lag. You obviously haven’t been keeping up with discussions in this regard. There’s a solar-temperature thermal lag in GAT and OHC. Any model has to account for that and the energy accumulation from the higher input level.

              The solar Modern Grand Maximum is a timeframe roughly 1958 – 2005. The bicentennial peak through minima is 1986. There were actually 2 TSI peaks either side of 1986 but that is a negligible consideration because the entire Maximum was at historically very high levels

              >”not according to the LASP data, nor according to NOAA’s Lean (2000) data on your graph.”

              You need to look at many more reconstructions than those. Even in the satellite era the is no agreement (e.g. the PMOD vs ACRIM discrepancy) but here’s PMOD:

              http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/pmod/from

              SCs 21, 22, and 23 were all but identical up to 2005. SC 20 was a low input cycle (to the planet). SC 19 was a high input cycle comparable to 21/22/23.

              Hence the GAT “pause” in combination with 65 yr cyclicity (PDO/AMO). OHC is peaking similarly.


              Report this

              30

          • #

            The critical issue is that having achieved such high levels of TSI by 1961 the sun was already producing more heat than was required to maintain a stable Earth temperature.

            If the sun produces more heat, then, all else being equal, the Earth will warm. Has to. And if the radiation from the sun is constant, then, all else being equal, the Earth will be at a constant temperature.

            Except the sun hasn’t been producing more heat since 1961 — TSI, averaged over the solar cycles, has been flat at best, with a slight decline in the past decade.

            So what data are Evans using that shows a “generally rising” TSI?


            Report this

            210

            • #

              David doesn’t actually need ‘a generally rising’ TSI. All he needs is TSI continuing higher than needed to maintain equilibrium.

              Then there is the amplification factor of force x which I think I have identified as the changing mix of wavelengths and particles as the sun changes its level of actvity.

              I accept that David is not yet with me on that.


              Report this

              61

              • #

                Yes, the magical “amplification.” Care to explain how that conserves energy?


                Report this

                112

              • #

                “Yes, the magical “amplification.” Care to explain how that conserves energy”

                Certainly, no problem :)

                Solar variability changes global albedo which alters the proportion of solar energy entering the oceans to drive he climate system.

                The greater the proportion that enters the ocean the longer the delay before it can be re-radiated to space.

                The longer the delay the higher the temperature.

                Energy conserved throughout :)

                Would you like to try again ?


                Report this

                81

              • #

                > conserves energy?

                Within the context of DE’s model, I din’t think that question makes sense (though I don’t think he has released enough details for anyone to be certain). The model doesn’t conserve energy.

                Within the real-world context SW is talking about I’m not convinced that works either. That size variation in albedo would probably be visible in the data, and anyway the putative delay doesn’t make sense. The only bit that makes sense is the ocean-delay, which is I think (written in Hasselman’s terms) is part of the correct explanation for the lack of power in the temperature. the other part being that solar variations are small.


                Report this

                08

              • #

                “The model doesn’t conserve energy.”
                Filters and a delays do not conserve energy?
                Quick you have some editing to do!
                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resonance


                Report this

                50

              • #

                > conserve energy

                As I say, I’m guessing, I don’t think there’s enough detail available to be sure.

                > Filters and a delays do not conserve energy?

                That wasn’t what I meant. I meant the model doesn’t track energy flows, and doesn’t have a heat capacity; there is no variable in the model that corresponds to energy.


                Report this

                16

              • #

                “there is no variable in the model that corresponds to energy.”
                Did you notice TSI, Temperature and pipes being mentioned?


                Report this

                51

              • #

                William Connolley June 29, 2014 at 7:27 am

                > conserves energy?

                “Within the context of DE’s model, I din’t think that question makes sense (though I don’t think he has released enough details for anyone to be certain). The model doesn’t conserve energy.”

                Within your fake arguments no energy need be conserved. The Earth and its atmosphere are not a closed system. The Earth system intercepts some entropy, electromagnetically, or otherwise, dispatched from the Sun.
                At a lower temperature than the Sun, Earth and its atmosphere can convert some of that, to “more” entropy, (E/T)! The rest is converted to real energy that can do work. Creation of hydrocarbons, creation of latent heat of evaporation. Much of that, is converted to atmospheric pressure differentials that create weather, including hurricanes and tornadoes.
                Those only distribute human “action” to random places. This creates other entropy in the form of atmospheric sensible heat. All this entropy must be discarded to cold cold space, by any available means! Else this Earth must increase in temperature. Your Climate Clowns have demonstrated absolutely no understanding of how this may happen! They have only fake political fantasy!


                Report this

                32

              • #

                Within your fake arguments no energy need be conserved.

                Energy is always conserved.

                If the Earth absorbs more energy that it emits, it will warm up to preserve conservation of energy, until the in-out balance is restored.


                Report this

                32

              • #
                the Griss

                If the Earth absorbs more energy that it emits, it will warm up to preserve conservation of energy, until the in-out balance is restored

                PRECISELY..

                That is why a series of strong solar cycles warms up the Earth.

                As per David’s model.


                Report this

                61

              • #

                David Appell June 29, 2014 at 12:17 pm

                Within your fake arguments no energy need be conserved.

                “Energy is always conserved.

                If the Earth absorbs more energy that it emits, it will warm up to preserve conservation of energy, until the in-out balance is restored.”
                Only in your fantasy. You can not even define “Warm up”!!
                This earth can absorb electromagnetic entropy from such as the higher temperature Sun. This entropy, (waste energy from the Sun) can be accepted as many forms of useful energy, mostly chemical energy, that has nothing to due with temperature.
                The atmosphere of this planet, Earth, can selectively radiate elecromagnetic energy, to a lower irradiance, to achieve any temperature required.
                On this open Earth there is no conservation of energy! Earth energy goes up or down as required! But not affected by puny earthlings.


                Report this

                01

            • #
              Richard C (NZ)

              >”So what data are Evans using that shows a “generally rising” TSI?”

              Maunder Grand Minimum to Modern Grand Maximum in every TSI reconstruction except the “flat” ones.


              Report this

              40

              • #

                Maunder Grand Minimum to Modern Grand Maximum in every TSI reconstruction except the “flat” ones.

                Read again. Evans wrote, “Both the carbon dioxide and notch-delay solar theories agree with the warming observed during the 1900s, because carbon dioxide levels and solar radiation levels were both generally rising.”

                TSI has not been rising since about 1960. Evans’ statement is false.


                Report this

                02

              • #
                Richard C (NZ)

                David Appell #73.1.2.1.1

                >”TSI has not been rising since about 1960. Evans’ statement is false.”

                Rubbish. Read this comment #72.1.2.1.2 in regard to the nature of the Modern Grand Maximum and thermal lag in GAT and OHC:

                http://joannenova.com.au/2014/06/big-news-viii-new-solar-model-predicts-imminent-global-cooling/#comment-1497645

                Now look at the Steinhilber TSI curve:

                http://admin.americanthinker.com/images/bucket/2014-06/192606_5_.png

                >”Evans wrote, “Both the carbon dioxide and notch-delay solar theories agree with the warming observed during the 1900s,”

                TSI increased markedly from 1900 (“G” in the Steinhilber graph) to 1960 (start of the Modern Grand Max), peaked 1996 (by minima), and was maintained into the 2000s. The 1986 peak is recognized by most solar specialists, even the CO2-centric e.g. Joanna Haigh.

                1960 is the leading edge edge of solar, the transfer to GAT and OHC is lagged and on top of that is 56 yr periodicity (PDO+AMO, David and Jo say nuclear – I say PDO/AMO). 2000 (the start of the “pause” is the leading edge of GAT.

                The solar-centric predictions are simply the trailing edge of the solar Grand Maximum lagged but no-one has overlaid the 56 yr periodicity on the curve or any upper ocean heat damping (Dr Page upthread does overlay the PDO but not AMO).

                The lags are all-important in an energy in => energy transferred/transported/stored = energy out system such as sun => ocean => atmosphere.

                David obviously has a different approach via N-D that I disagree with (contr-case everywhere) but the fact remains, his is a solar-lagged model too.

                Alec Rawls took all this to about a dozen IPCC solar specialists but they couldn’t grasp it either so you’re not alone.

                But all this has been topical all through these 8 Parts so your Johnny-come-lately ignorance is no excuse – catch up.


                Report this

                30

              • #
                Richard C (NZ)

                Should be:

                “peaked [1986] (by minima),”

                Thought I corrected that.


                Report this

                00

              • #
                the Griss

                http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/evans/art/evans-fig1-tsi-datasets.gif

                If those aren’t “generally rising”

                then I don’t know would be. !!

                And yet, when a climate alarmista sees RSS from 2001 onward, they say its rising..

                I’m thinking these guys have things downside up……

                Or are standing with their heads in the sand.


                Report this

                10

              • #
                Backslider

                Read again. Evans wrote, “Both the carbon dioxide and notch-delay solar theories agree with the warming observed during the 1900s, because carbon dioxide levels and solar radiation levels were both generally rising.”

                YOU read again: “since the 1900′s”. Why do you wish to begin in the 60′s???


                Report this

                10

              • #
                Backslider

                Correction: “during the 1900s”.


                Report this

                00

            • #
              crosspatch

              Let’s not get too fixated on TSI because that is not what it doing this. The changes in TSI DO see to be coincident with “force X” but TSI is basically being used as a proxy for “force X”. Personally, I would use neutron counts because we have proxies for that going back a very long time and they also seem to vary in the same way along with TSI changes.

              Oh, and another study is out which would seem to validate Professor Svensmark’s work.

              http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/06/new-paper-finds-solar-control-of-clouds.html

              But in any case, it isn’t the TSI itself that is directly causing the changes in temperature because we know the changes are not enough to do that but nevertheless we see climate changes that track well with solar changes. So what is it? Svensmark says that variations in solar activity modulate the number of cosmic rays that make it into the inner solar system, those impact particles in our atmosphere, and those act as cloud nuclei causing more cloud formation which is what has a greater impact on climate than the TSI change. The TSI change is simply a proxy for whatever is going on.


              Report this

              20

              • #

                The changes in TSI DO see to be coincident with “force X” but TSI is basically being used as a proxy for “force X”.

                This is sophistry of the highest order.

                Anyone can explain anything (literally) by postulating a new force that works exactly in the way you need to prove whatever you want.

                It isn’t science; it’s pure sophistry.


                Report this

                06

              • #
                Backslider

                Anyone can explain anything (literally) by postulating a new force that works exactly in the way you need to prove whatever you want.

                Just as I can show that frying pancakes, rather than CO2 is responsible for impending catastrophic global warming, right?


                Report this

                00

              • #
                crosspatch

                When it rains I see umbrellas but the umbrellas did not cause the rain.

                When the solar magnetic field weakens, we see a reduction in TSI but the notion here is that there are effects in ADDITION to just the TSI change because that one change is not by itself enough to cause the temperature change. It isn’t “sophistry”, it is science. We have a well documented correlation between solar magnetic activity and climate. ONE of the manifestations of that is reduced TSI. But we know from the amount of reduced TSI that it can not by itself account for the total change, so there must be something else going on. Dr. Evans has not tried to speculate what that is, he simply recognizes its existence and calls it “force X”

                What exactly is your problem with that?


                Report this

                20

            • #

              Solar variability changes global albedo which alters the proportion of solar energy entering the oceans to drive he climate system.

              Let’s see some numbers on that hypothesis. The blackbody climate sensitivity is T/S = 0.21 K/(W/m2).

              No magic. No black boxes. No first assuming the result you want and then working backward, turning to magic when you can’t get the right answer.


              Report this

              13

    • #
      the Griss

      A little experiment you can do at home if your mummy will let you use candles.

      I’ll keep it ruuuly simples for you.

      Take a large pot of water and place it so you can heat it with candles.

      Place 2 lit candles underneath it, and let it warm to its equilibrium temperature.

      Now put 4 more candles underneath. That’s a total of 6. Watch the temperature.

      After 15 minutes remove one of the candles (that’s 5 now), if the pot is large, the temperature will continue to increase.

      Then remove another candle (that’s 4 now), and the temperature may still rise if it hasn’t reached the equilibrium temp for 4 candles.

      And if the temperature hasn’t reached the equilibrium for 3 candles you could even remove another candle and it would still keep warming.

      If you remove another candle, the temperature will eventually drop back to the 2 candle equilibrium temperature. (Back to the LIA !!!)


      Report this

      40

      • #

        “(Back to the LIA !!!)”
        If it is not still heading up to the Roman and MWPs.


        Report this

        31

        • #
          the Griss

          If it is not still heading up to the Roman and MWPs

          .

          This is the most desirable outcome. Warm and lots of CO2 = planetary abundance ! :-)

          I wish the AGW goons were right, except for their stupidity in actually wanting to stop that warming and limiting CO2 thus suffocating the Earth.

          Unfortunately, I suspect that David Evans’ model is more likely to be somewhere near correct, and we’ll be back to a colder period.

          Good luck places like the UK, is all I can say.

          But time will tell. Next few years will prove it one way or another, I guess.

          Certainly the current temperature plateau has basically ruled out CO2 as a warming agent.

          The longer the temperatures go nowhere, the more sick the CO2 hypothesis looks, and if the temperature does start to drop, that hypothesis should die a natural death.


          Report this

          50

      • #

        Water doesn’t warm without a heat source.

        dQ = mc dT


        Report this

        06

  • #
  • #
    Brad

    Has there been any related research on projected sea ice extents if this model is validated?
    Could we actually see a falling sea level, and could it be large enough to cause unintended consequences for those governments currently making provisions for rising sea levels?


    Report this

    20

  • #
    claimsguy

    Why no error bars?


    Report this

    00

    • #

      Why no error bars?
      Because this is a conjecture (good one), alternative explanation for the fake conjecture and corrupted measurements of the alarmists. Only the corrupted measurements need error bars!


      Report this

      10

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        All measurements need error bars.

        Very accurate measurements only need very small error bars. Corrupted measurements need error bars several orders of magnitude higher than what is being measured.

        ;-)


        Report this

        40

  • #

    Os amigos do All Gore, estão dando que este site esta com WOT classificação ruim ou indesejável.

    (All friends of Gore, are giving to this site with this WOT bad or undesirable rating.) CTS


    Report this

    00

    • #
      the Griss

      O cúmulo da ironia sendo marcado como indesejável por Big Al.

      Deve significar David está no caminho certo, e Big Al posso ver seus lucros e credibilidade em queda livre

      Ele foi queimado por Palmer durante a semana, e é provavelmente sentindo um pouco frágil :-)

      That is courtesy of google translate.. so probably makes zero sense at all.


      Report this

      30

  • #

    You have your wish: there’s a post at WUWT reporting David Archibald’s broadly favourable views on your stuff.

    OTOH, some here (http://joannenova.com.au/2014/06/lubos-and-a-few-misconceptions/#comment-1490978) have been keen to see Leif Svalgaard ‘s opinion. He’s given it (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/28/a-cool-question-answered/#comment-1671460) and its not good. I won’t spoil the surprise by quoting it directly.


    Report this

    08

  • #
    the Griss

    If someone uses Lean’s data rather than bowing to Leif, of course Leif is going to get upset and say its wrong.

    That is what he does. :-)


    Report this

    50

    • #
      farmerbraun

      While pretending that another set of input data cannot simply be plugged in and the model run again.
      I notice that Willis E’s “white noise ” claim seems not to be gaining traction. Why is that?


      Report this

      30

      • #

        White noise, or pink noise, or red noise is significant for the foolish statistical mechanic. Never let that mechanic work on your tractor, half the wheels will fall off.

        From the pumper truck, all water goes in the direction of the fire, none returns, even STATISTICALLY!


        Report this

        21

      • #
        Ross

        farmerbraun

        Willis E is behaving like a spoilt brat on WUWT. I have made a couple of comments ( under RossP) firstly to make a few points but also to fish out a response. It worked to some extent. The guy is talking in riddles and circles to justify his childish out bursts.
        There are definitely some huge egos on both sides of these issues.
        Just like Anthony Watts is eating humble pie over his attack on Steve Goddard ( to his credit AW has acknowledged his error) I think Willis E might be eating a huge humble pie over his out burst against David & Jo in the future.


        Report this

        50

    • #
      Richard C (NZ)

      >”bowing to Leif”

      I’m wondering, in David Appell’s apparently limited knowledge of solar data uncertainty, does Leif Svalgaard represent the 97% consensus on TSI?

      I’m inclined to think so.


      Report this

      40

  • #
    gnomish

    if you filter white noise with a notch filter you get a notch.
    that should surprise nobody.


    Report this

    00

    • #

      If you delay an impulse by time (T) and add, you will get notch at every 1/nT frequency, n=(1..ever) as the phase reverses! If the impulse is symmetric about the origin and the delay unidirectional only even harmonics will result in the real.


      Report this

      11

      • #

        So why only a notch at 11 years? Possibly smoothing by the oceanic integrator.


        Report this

        10

        • #

          My guess is that it is something else, the 17x from the Sun modulated by the 4 gas giants but still never identified as a means of energy transfer, is about to be discovered. OH vey, I spent a lifetime studying thermal electromagnetic radiation, all to be replaced by very large electromagnetic energy transfer(not radiation) at very, very low frequencys amongst very large structures!


          Report this

          01

  • #
    Jon I

    wow the greatest ever paper on climate science and you haven’t published yet?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Lucky

    I think this reference is relevant, I have not seen it quoted so far.
    http://sait.oat.ts.astro.it/MmSAI/76/PDF/969.pdf

    Once again about global warming and solar activity
    K. Georgieva, C. Bianchi, and B. Kirov. 2005

    Abstract.
    Solar activity, together with human activity, is considered a possible factor for the global warming observed in the last century. However, in the last decades solar activity has remained more or less constant while surface air temperature has continued to increase, which is interpreted as an evidence that in this period human activity is the main factor for global warming. We show that the index commonly used for quantifying long-term changes in solar activity, the sunspot number, accounts for only one part of solar activity and using this index leads to the underestimation of the role of solar activity in the global warming in the recent decades. A more suitable index is the geomagnetic activity which reflects all solar activity, and it is highly correlated to global temperature variations in the whole period for which we have data.


    Report this

    10

  • #
    James Strom

    You probably have been wondering why you haven’t been very busy lately, and maybe now is an opportunity to use all that free time to prepare a FAQ dealing with questions that have come up repeatedly. There are a lot, but I am thinking particularly of a brief exchange I had with L. Svalgaard. He claimed that he has newer, more accurate solar data, which is quite possible, and I asked whether you could just use more up to date data as input to your model, but he believes that you are locked into the data you have already used. This might be worth a comment.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    From late 2015, Jupiter is opposite Neptune which is a cold signal, and Saturn is square to Neptune which is also a cold signal. The cold periods will commence from when the bi-sector of Earth and Venus is towards Saturn (on either side of the Sun), and warmer from when the bi-sector of Earth and Venus intersects the Jupiter/Neptune line.
    1st cold shot is from early Nov 2015:
    http://snag.gy/dic8T.jpg
    2nd from mid March till mid June 2016,
    3rd from mid Aug to late Oct 2016.

    I have correlated monthly temperature deviations from normals through all of CET by these methods, and to written weather records back to the 12th century.

    I have identified the exact planetary progression that causes solar grand minima, and can hindcast precisely where they have occurred, and for how many solar cycles they lasted. The position of every cycle maximum can also be plotted within +/- 1yr and typically less. This solar minimum starts recovering in SC26.

    I see no signs of a delayed notch filter in any of it.


    Report this

    00

    • #

      For the curious, Jupiter gives a cold signal when it is square to Uranus or opposite Neptune, and a warm signal when it is square to Neptune or opposite Uranus.

      While Saturn gives a cold signal when it is square to Neptune or opposite Uranus, and a warm signal when it is square to Uranus or opposite Neptune.

      So where we see something like Jupiter opposite Uranus both square to Saturn, regularly two or three much warmer years occur in e.g. CET,(depending on where Neptune is).
      Such as around 1727, 1796, 1826, 1865, 1934, 1948, 1975, and 2003. In that configuration, the warmer episodes commence from when the bi-sector of Earth and Venus is towards Saturn (on either side of the Sun.

      I don’t understand the mechanisms, but there is a distinct and very repeatable logic to it all, that distinctly points to some kind of magnetic switching, possibly via a quadrapole magnetic moment of the Sun, effected by the radial distribution of its own magnetic connections to each planetary body. The polarities expressed between the Jovian planets are bizarre, and at the same time fascinating. It’s what I found repeatedly through many past centuries and millennia, so I can’t see it going away…


      Report this

      10

      • #
        J Martin

        Ulric, you gave us a list of future cold periods which is great, but no future list of warm periods, which I might, but probably won’t, take into consideration when booking a future holiday.


        Report this

        00

  • #

    I missed 1686 from that list, right in the middle of Maunder: http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/tcet.dat


    Report this

    00

  • #
    kramer

    Speaking of delays, there is a 3 hour delay between when the sun’s rays are the strongest (noon) and when it’s the hottest part of the day (around 3pm).


    Report this

    10

    • #
      J Martin

      We are off topic. This is surely strange as the radiative co2 crowd would no doubt insist that temperatures must follow forcing instantaneously. How much of that delayed increase in temperature comes from the soil releasing its built up heat from earlier on, and how much from ‘back radiation’ if it exists. Is it possible to measure at least the component that comes from the soil and surroundings, thus giving a figure for a delayed ‘back radiation’ component. Any delay in back radiation must be caused by convection and conduction I would assume.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Richard C (NZ)

        J Martin #88.2

        >”Any delay in back radiation must be caused by convection and conduction I would assume.”

        There’s no bulk heating effect by DLR i.e. it is “apparent” power, not “real” power. DLR (IR-C) occurs along the EM spectrum from solar (IR-A/B) at less intensity and less energy-per-photon.

        DLR (GHGs + clouds) only effectively penetrates water 10 microns (don’t know about land) at DLR wavelength 4 – 16 microns:

        http://omlc.org/spectra/water/gif/hale73.gif

        Any DLR effect is therefore only on the surface molecules causing evaporation and a cooling effect at the surface (no heating) in a speed-of-light timeframe (no delay).


        Report this

        00

      • #
        Mattb

        it is not strange. I can boil a pot of water taking it to 90C on high gas, then turn the gas down a bit and still take it to boiling.


        Report this

        00

    • #

      That is correct for surface temperatures with that 2 hour time constant. Please look at the near surface air temperatures which will rethermalize with a time constant of less than 8 minutes. Just what are you measuring?


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Shu

    But it’s settled science why are we still debating? So what is force x?
    Moving in the right direction here I see. Tsi can be an indicator. It is my “belief” (I use that term so as to be on the same level as most “educated scholars”. – review appendix A through D)that the Tsi “simply” follows the input current to our sun. The oscillatory modulation of the solar current is observed as the ~22 year solar cycle. The magnetic field generated by the solar current is amazingly complex due to the solar plasmoid (plasma physicists at present have zero ability to model it, it is this magnetic field combined with and interacting with the earths magnetic field (the properties of which NASA is now investigating properly, well done NASA) that modulates the incoming cosmic rays. The cosmic rays seed cloud formation > cloud cover > albedo > temperature.
    Over the last 100 years the Earths magnetic field has decreased 15%. As the field declines a point will be reached (if not already), and just like flicking a switch, planet Earth rapidly cools.
    This is the correct mechanism. Much more investigation is required to fill in the details (kudos NASA), present data and understanding is only that of a new born baby.
    The magnetic field – cosmic ray – cloud seeding phenomenon as referenced previously has been confirmed recently by one of two study groups investigating this, the second study group should be heard from latter this year. Still waiting for full publication from first group. Yes I’m too unmotivated to cite references.
    Appendix -willfully ignorance, can you substitute beliefs for facts and be a scientist?
    Lets not be willfully ignorant please. Things are very broken. Uh oh. Very.
    A- Peer review … broken http://joannenova.com.au/2014/02/busted-120-gibberish-science-papers-withdrawn-so-much-for-peer-review/
    B- Blackbody radiation … broken http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Hstum3U2zw
    C- CO2 greenhouse gas … deceased http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJ55koi7vaA
    D- General relativity … buried http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CnvOybT2WwU
    E- Cosmology … imploded http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y8FsfFs_nvM
    Ok thats it. Your opinions and beliefs have no place in science.
    If you cannot accept the reality of the 21st century don’t preach at me! ever!


    Report this

    10

    • #

      “Ok thats it. Your opinions and beliefs have no place in science.
      If you cannot accept the reality of the 21st century don’t preach at me! ever!”

      Can you please attempt to drive off a cliff at high speed? That would be nice!
      “the reality of the 21st century” you have no definition of “reality” bye, bye!


      Report this

      11

  • #

    Thanks David & Jo for your interesting analysis on a possible Sun/Climate link.

    Could I make some suggestions that may improve your model as well as some relabeling that may go a long way to more general acceptance.

    1. Replace the TSI values with open Solar Flux (OSF)
    2. Get a more reliable forecast for Solar Cycle 25.
    3. Use the ocean oscillations (PDO) instead of nuclear testing.

    New papers in print by Lockwood et al show a OSF reconstruction that very closely follows the Lean 2000 (and others) TSI reconstruction. The Lockwood plot also shows a large decline around 2003. TSI is almost useless as a measure for 2 reasons, firstly the term TSI is misunderstood and causes confusion when looking at reconstructions and direct measurements, the whole area is in dispute and perhaps best kept away from. The Group Sunspot Number is often used in the TSI reconstructions with the GSN accused by some as inaccurate, but there are others saying it is more likely to be correct if we look at the latest work done on the recently digitized Schwabe pre 1848 sunspot drawings. Secondly TSI should be about the total heat output of the Sun, which is not the only factor that should be included when looking at a Solar/Climate link, the OSF values would be a better representation of the total solar output.

    The new Lockwood papers and my take on them can be found at http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/328

    The Livingston & Penn data is now seen by many to be incorrect and not useful for making solar cycle predictions. Their mistake is to measure every single spot for magnetic strength, but this cycle has seen an increase in the smaller spots to larger spot ratio which has skewed their data. If we place a threshold on their data by eliminating the smaller spots it can be seen there is no linear drop off of sunspot magnetic strength as they suggest.

    http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/280

    My predictions for SC24 and SC25 are for both cycles to be similar to SC5/6 of the Dalton Minimum which is around 50SSN using the old scale (the modern method is flawed). My predictions are based on a new scientific method that is now backed up by eminent scientists such as McCracken, Beer and Steinhilber.

    My paper is published at the peer reviewed International Journal of Astronomy and Astrophysics (IJAA)

    http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=36513&#reference

    When considering climate we cannot solely look to solar as a driver. The ENSO effects must be considered which look to follow a 60 year cycle that is governed by the PDO. A cool 30 year PDO will temper El Nino and strengthen La Nina and vice versa, the PDO data will strengthen your model and explain the temperature shift at 1945 and now. Solar is perhaps a smaller factor than the PDO IMO. Some will say the PDO is inaccurate because it only looks at the spatial SST values of the northern pacific (along with sea level pressures) but this index does support influence over the Walker Circulation that drives ENSO.

    http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/221

    I am based in Melbourne and would be happy to assist you with any queries associated with my post.

    Geoff Sharp.


    Report this

    42

    • #

      “Looking out further, the next 1000 years do not show any major chances for deep grand minima that should provide stable conditions for future generations,”
      http://file.scirp.org/Html/8-4500177_36513.htm

      I have some new findings that contradicts that. I have identified a long term planetary progression that breaks down for periods of 150-250 years. These periods are highly irregular, with intervals from a few hundred years and up to 1300 years, and they correlate particularly well with colder stadial like periods through the Holocene, such as the LIA, the Dark Ages, etc.
      Here’s the approx dates for the onset of each cold period:
      4340 BC, 3550 BC, 2980 BC, 2610 BC, 2096 BC, 1350 BC, 500 BC, 350 AD, 1650 AD, and 2050 AD.

      So from what I see we are rolling straight back into a LIA type sequence over the next two hundred years. With deep and long solar minimums from the 2090′s, and from around 2200. The analogue for the solar minimum starting from the 2090′s, at close to 2500 BC, shows widespread desiccation in Africa and the Middle/Near East and Mediterranean.


      Report this

      21

      • #
        the Griss

        The developement of northern Australia becomes paramount under these possible scenarios.

        Huge dams to catch monsoonal rains, huge irrigation areas to help feed the world.


        Report this

        32

    • #

      3. Use the ocean oscillations (PDO) instead of nuclear testing.

      Yes. But that might mean exaggerated cooling for a few decades with a number of ocean cycles going negative.


      Report this

      20

      • #

        Atmospheric Nuclear Testing was indeed “anomalistic”, (I hate that word) to everything in this black box “Earth”. Ocean oscillations; changes in CO2, Water vapor, temperature; are all responses to whatever forcing functions are applied to the total internal energy of this Earth (temperature).
        What forces are applied that affect that temperature? Anyone considerating that TSI is the only one, must be truly and intentionally ignoring 95% of the forces applied, for monetary and political gain. So much for science.


        Report this

        00

      • #

        I would just stick with the PDO as it affects ENSO which is the main driver of climate change IMO.