JoNova

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


Handbooks

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



Archives

New Science 26: The solar fall and the delay means David Evans’ predicted global cooling could be just around the corner

We are ramping up the end of this series because we’ve been informed that both of David’s papers will be published in October — one on the error in the climate models and one on the notch delay solar theory.

There are emphatic (and ignorant) claims that David’s predictions have failed, and a flaw was found — both are wrong. After all that fuss and pointless flamewars, his prediction remains almost exactly the same as it was in 2014. It is still untested. It is a strange coincidence of timing that the theory is up for a critical trial so definitively, so soon, but there it is. The fall in solar radiation that happened in 2004 is one of the three largest in 400 years. We are waiting to see if that will have an effect, after the expected delay of one sunspot cycle. For a real scientist there is no shame in putting an idea up on the chopping block. Hypothesize, test, and observe. As David says: “If the predicted cooling does not eventuate then the notch-delay hypothesis is false.” Without real predictions, it’s not real science.

But prediction is a risky business. There are so many ways things can go wrong, and we’ve had pleas from wise souls warning David not to put out an exact number and date. But he has always gone with the numbers, unemotionally shifting gears as the data swung. (I’ve seen him once coolly drop 18 months of work entirely when new information came in.) From the start, he has said that if the cooling doesn’t happen by 2022 then something is very wrong with the hypothesis. If the delay between solar TSI (as measured by PMOD) is really a half solar cycle, then some cooling effect should be visible soon — it will most likely start in 2017, but it may take ’til 2022 (it’s a technical thing — depending on whether the step function was “causal” as opposed to “non-causal”, see below). Of course, El Ninos or other natural variations may cloud the signal. If a volcano erupts, or a La Nina kicks in, it will take longer to filter the noise.

For the sake of the public “debate” notice that the fall in solar radiation (TSI) is a fall in smoothed data — averaged over 11 years. We expect Leif Svalgaard to continue to deny there was a fall. He’s talking about his data, and ignoring the smoothing. David discusses the different datasets below.

David’s overarching prediction is that the 2020s will be no warmer than the 1980s, which should kill off the carbon dioxide theory of global warming.

In the end, we’re only talking of ~0.3 °C of cooling, which is significant on a global scale, but not something you’ll notice in the garden at home.

I am perhaps even more jaded than David — with homogenization and adjustment of data, I am not convinced that 0.3°C changes will show up amongst the man-made noise in some datasets. The past keeps shifting. But that, as we all know, is another story.  — Jo

26. A Prediction

Dr David Evans, 22 September 2016, Project home, Intro, Previous.

This post predicts an upcoming global cooling, based on the large fall in underlying total solar irradiation (TSI) in 2004 and either of the notch-delay hypotheses (Force X, or Force ND). If the hypothesis is right, sustained and significant cooling of about 0.3 °C will begin in around 2017, one sunspot cycle after the 11-year smoothed fall around 2004 (=2004+13), or for various technical reasons, possibly up to five years after that.

Some caveats: there is no satisfactory instrument for measuring TSI even today; much TSI “data” and all TSI before 1979 is based on reconstruction via questionable models; it is not known which solar parameter is best for predicting force X/D in ~11 years and it might not be TSI; the observations of a delay in post 22 are based on a variety of TSI measures; and of course Yogi Berra’s oldie-but-goodie “it’s tough to make predictions, especially about the future.”

The Recent Fall in TSI

A composite TSI was constructed by combining all of the sources of TSI mentioned in post 21, so it relies mainly on PMOD and Lean’s reconstruction with the background correction of Wang, Lean, and Sheeley. It is shown in Fig. 1 to give historical perspective: the recent fall in TSI starting around 2004 is one of the three largest falls in TSI ever recorded, with records from 1610. It is almost the same magnitude as the fall from 1610 to 1645 that led to the Maunder Minimum and the depth of the Little Ice Age, or the fall from 1795 to 1810 that led to the Dalton Minimum.
Composite TSI and composite temperature since 1610

Figure 1: Composite TSI and composite temperature since 1610. The recent fall in TSI is the one of the three largest and steepest on record.

 

Here is a closer view of the recent fall, with sunspots and several measures of TSI, including PMOD/Lean’s reconstruction, our composite TSI, and recent reconstructions:

Various measures of sunspots or TSI, all 11 year-smoothed

Figure 2: Various measures of sunspots or TSI, all 11 year-smoothed (averaged over a centered 11-year window, to eliminate the effect of an 11-year cycle). The TIM is the latest instrument for measuring TSI, but only started in Jan. 2003, too late to cast smoothed light on 2004. The SORCE/TIM reconstruction by Kirvova is preferred by the IPCC in AR5, and the reconstruction from Leif Svalgaard in mid 2014 is similar.

 

If the TSI measures based on PMOD are the better predictor of force X/D, then force X/D will decline significantly in response to the fall in underlying TSI from around 2004. The fall in underlying TSI is ~0.3 W m−2, suggesting the associated long-term (200+ years) surface cooling is ~0.5 °C (from post 21, the ISS is ~1.7±0.2 °C W−1 m2) and the associated cooling after 20 years is ~0.3 °C (the amplitude of the empirical transfer function is ~1.0 °C W−1 m2 after 20 years, from post 21).

If the more recent TSI reconstructions such as SORCE/TIM are the better predictor of force X/D, then force X/D has been falling in response to a slide in TSI beginning ~1995, which accelerated from ~2004. The total fall in underlying TSI is ~0.4 W m−2, suggesting an associated long-term surface cooling of ~0.7 °C and cooling after 20 years of ~0.4 °C.

The fall in underlying TSI around 2004 has been noted elsewhere by different methods. For example, Herrera, Mendoza, and Herrera (2014, [1]) deduce that a grand minimum in solar activity began in 2004 (using PMOD data) or 2002 (ACRIM data).

The Delay

The current solar cycle looks to be ~13 years long, suggesting the delay from change in TSI to corresponding change in force X is most likely ~13 years.

If the notch is best modeled with the non-causal step responses, the cooling will start about one sunspot cycle after the TSI fall. But if the causal notch step responses are more appropriate, most of the cooling impact might not begin until up to another ~5 years after that (for technical reasons to do with the step response, next post). At the stage we do not know which notch model most resembles reality.

The fall in force X and surface temperatures corresponding to the fall in TSI that started around 2004 will most likely start sometime around 2017 (=2004+13), or up to five years after that.

The Prediction

If the PMOD TSI is the better predictor of force X/D (more likely):

Global temperatures should come off the current plateau into a sustained and significant cooling starting sometime from 2017 to 2021. The cooling will be about 0.3 °C in the medium term (the 2020s), taking the planet back to the global temperature that prevailed in the 1980s.

If the SORCE/TIM reconstructed TSI is the better predictor of force X/D (less likely):

There has been mild global cooling due to force X/D starting sometime from 2008 (=1995+13) to 2012, and it will accelerate from sometime in 2017 to 2021. The total medium-term cooling (the 2020s) will be about 0.4 °C. However there has been no mild cooling since 2008 to 2012, so either the SORCE/TIM reconstruction is inappropriate or the notch delay hypotheses are wrong (in which case there is no prediction), or that mild cooling was counteracted by warming from extra CO2 (in which case there will be mild cooling starting sometime from 2017 to 2021, as the fall in force X accelerates).

In summary:

The notch-delay hypothesis predicts sustained and significant global cooling starting sometime from 2017 to 2022, of ~0.3 °C but perhaps milder.

If the predicted cooling does not eventuate then the notch-delay hypothesis is false.

References

[1^] Herrera, V. V., Mendoza, B., & Herrera, G. V. (2014). Reconstruction and prediction of the total solar irradiance: From the Medieval Warm Period to the 21st century. New Astronomy, 34 (2015) 221–233.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.3/10 (70 votes cast)
New Science 26: The solar fall and the delay means David Evans' predicted global cooling could be just around the corner, 9.3 out of 10 based on 70 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/hxa7rvf

327 comments to New Science 26: The solar fall and the delay means David Evans’ predicted global cooling could be just around the corner

  • #

    I wish I could understand all of this, but nevertheless, I hope it delivers a knockout punch to the warming worriers.

    312

    • #
      Oliver K. Manuel

      I do not understand the mechanism either, but the one-half solar cycle delay between TSI and climate is an important observation.

      131

      • #
        Oliver K. Manuel

        Exposing how little we actually know about the Sun is probably the greatest benefit from the AGW scam.

        151

        • #
          Greg Goodman

          how little we actually know about the Sun
          how little we actually know about the oceans
          how little we actually know about the seabed
          how little we actually know about the atmosphere
          how little we actually know about the processes of cloud condensation
          how little we actually know about observed variation cloud cover
          how little we actually know about the mechanisms of precipitation

          how little we actually know about multivariate regression analysis
          how little we actually know about the dangers of outrageous extrapolation

          how much we know about fitting straight lines to everything.

          363

          • #
            tom0mason

            And,

            How little we actually know about how CO2 molecules act at all levels of the atmosphere !

            If we hit a CO2 molecule, setting it excitedly vibrating, with enough energy from other atmospheric molecules, will it not eventually give out a photon in the IR band?

            102

            • #
              Oliver K. Manuel

              It is this blind arrogance of modern “consensus science” that threatens the very survival of mankind.

              92

            • #
              Konrad

              The answer to your question is yes.

              In 1859, Tyndall showed by empirical experiment that CO2 could warm by absorbing LWIR. In 1860, Tyndall showed by empirical experiment that CO2 if warmed by conduction, could then cool by emitting LWIR.

              This raises the question: “What is the NET effect of such radiative gases in our atmosphere?”

              The answer to this is simply derived. We know our current average surface temperature (288K). By empirical experiment or CFD we can calculate a fair figure for “Average surface temperature without radiative atmosphere” which is 312K. Therefore we can say Malcolm Roberts is correct, the net effect of our radiatively cooled atmosphere is surface cooling, not warming.

              825

              • #
                tom0mason

                Thanks Konrad,

                I was actually thinking of those warm night temperatures when people go outside and uselessly stick their IR thermometers at the sky and say
                “See the CO2 has captured all this infrared energy!”.
                When in fact the water, O2, or N2 molecules in the atmosphere could easily be the warmly excited molecules, and these gases have jostled the CO2 molecules enough to get them to radiate infrared energy.

                Effectively what causes any particular CO2 molecule to radiate is unknown during the day (a direct solar photon or ke from other molecules), but definitely not the sun(directly) at night.

                40

              • #
                tom0mason

                Konrad,

                Of course the question that has never been answered is whether or not the ground (rock, soil, sand, etc.) transmits all the warmth it gets from the sun back to the atmosphere, or actually transmits some downward, deeper into the earth’s crust.
                If so how much? For how long?
                Maybe the earth’s crust is really expanding over millennia because of this small but continuous energy stream? (Continuous until a fairly long iceage that is.)
                Maybe some of that missing solar energy (that makes the energy balance) is below our feet…

                30

              • #
                Konrad

                Actually, we can deduce the answer to that. CO2 molecules in the atmosphere are primarily radiating as LWIR energy they acquired by conduction. This is both from surface contact, and from other atmospheric molecules, particularly during the latent heat release during cloud formation.

                The surface of the planet (not being a “near blackbody”) emits poorly in the 15 micron band, so there is little surface LWIR that CO2 can intercept. Second, while a vast burst of LWIR is emitted as clouds form, this is largely from H2O, and its emission bands fall outside the 15 micron band.

                PS. Pointing Bolometers at the sky is not useless. It can teach you about the massive radiation pulse during cloud formation. It can teach you that the primary LWIR emission to space is from clouds, not clear sky. It can teach you that the ERL (effective radiating level) conjecture is pure steaming pseudo-science. Plus it’s cheap. Mine only cost me $150. For $150 you too can find out that the hemispherical LWIR emissivity of water is 0.67, not the 0.98 climastrologists claim! (How many tax dollars did Will Janoschka blow back in 1970 to find the same thing?)

                219

              • #
                tom0mason

                Konrad,

                Yep, those clouds are were I’m coming from!
                What?

                No, the subject of clouds, and all these excitable molecules and some atoms (Argon) in the atmosphere, oh yes let not forget that minuscule 0.04% of CO2 and our very tiny part of that, all making all the difference — as if.

                So if I homogenize the mix of gases across the globe (works for temperature so why not!) then water is about 0.3% to 0.5% of the atmosphere and is very IR active compared to CO2. But also water has some other strange properties.
                Ummm.
                IMO it’s all about water (ice, liquid, vapor, and gas) and the sun. If only people would focus all the money and research on them and maybe (just maybe) we could find out the real climate trends that might happen on this non-virtual planet.

                So how does that cloud, just there, form?

                20

              • #

                Konrad September 24, 2016 at 4:39 pm

                “(How many tax dollars did Will Janoschka blow back in 1970 to find the same thing?)”

                All of them! :-)

                58

              • #
                Konrad

                “So how does that cloud, just there, form?”

                Easy to answer that one. Adiabatic expansion and cooling of moist air-masses combined with nucleation points. Forget building a “Wilson chamber” (1911). You just need a coke bottle. (And a cancer exacerbating cigarette).

                Take an empty 2l PETG coke bottle. Pour in 100 ml of 40C water. Screw the cap on. Shake vigorously. Turn the bottle upside down. Open the cap and vent the water. Light the cigarette and suck on those carcinogens. Hold the tip of the coffin nail under the opening of the inverted bottle and let smoke enter. Now screw the cap on tight. Squeeze the bottle hard. Now release.

                Wham! Cloud in a bottle!

                Moist air + adiabatic expansion + nucleation sites = clouds.

                25

              • #

                tom0mason September 24, 2016 at 7:11 pm

                “So if I homogenize the mix of gases across the globe (works for temperature so why not!) then water is about 0.3% to 0.5% of the atmosphere and is very IR active compared to CO2. But also water has some other strange properties.”

                That is close for WV (the gas by mass). Airborne water in all phases averages right at 1% by mass, and can reach 4% in the tropics. Most is a liquid-gas colloid (visible haze and cloud) but much more that is invisible. Most has little latent heat left.
                About 10^9 H20 molecules clumped via hydrogen bonding in some unknown shape to remain of low density to remain airborne seems to be the smallest visible form. Less for rainbows! The two molecule thick one ice-colloid in the stratosphere is a big unknown, not only invisible but reflective too. Does not register as precipitable water!

                “IMO it’s all about water (ice, liquid, vapor, and gas) and the sun. If only people would focus all the money and research on them and maybe (just maybe) we could find out the real climate trends that might happen on this non-virtual planet.”

                I agree wholeheartedly! The physical seems to be deliberately obscured by the political!

                “So how does that cloud, just there, form?”

                The guys at Lockheed, JPL, and CalTech are still tweeking on that a bit. We may never know, engineers hate to write down anything but the measurement numbers, after still thunking on the digital readout, to get a better number. Most often they do not know what they are actually measuring, but can recognize close enough for government work! The satisfaction is not in the theory, but rather in “lookat dat motha go”!! The hard part is making another! Grumble, grumble, I already did dat, no fun!

                513

              • #
                tom0mason

                Thank you both Konrad and Will,

                I fret about with these things to find simpler methods of explanation. If I can explain, in a general way without just parroting, then not only am I understanding it correctly but do it in a language most folk can understand. Small steps and easier language, as all too often I have to relate these complex ideas to others!
                I salute our hosts Jo, and her husband Dr. Evans for their abilities here.
                ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

                Many years ago I learned about cloud chambers(similar to this), and have tried explaining clouds with bottles of smoke but the accusations of ‘smoke and mirrors’ fall too easy from the critics. :(
                I will though endeavor to persist. ;)

                30

              • #
                tom0mason

                But isn’t Water Strange?

                Strangeness of water at -45°C is the temperature where the top of the troposphere sits https://(en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Comparison_US_standard_atmosphere_1962.svg).

                228K or -45°C and water –

                This is where many properties of water behave strangely at low temperatures. In particular they may apparently obey double logarithmic relationships heading towards the experimental homogeneous nucleation temperature at about -45°C. (http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/water_unexpected.html#228k)

                Just makes me wonder….

                40

              • #

                tom0mason September 25, 2016 at 4:46 am

                “But isn’t Water Strange?”

                You bettcha! More strange than even He or CO2. All comes from olden atmosphere 95% O2. Generous Dynamics drilling well. Hits the inner 225 psi CH4! Whoosh! one flik da Bik, Blam! 40 days,40 nights of torrential carbonic acid. Settles in low places, Acid forms calcium carbonate. Salt came cause ‘Blam’ scared da piss outa everting! :-)

                “Strangeness of water at -45°C is the temperature where the top of the troposphere sits https://(en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Comparison_US_standard_atmosphere_1962.svg). 228K or -45°C and water –
                This is where many properties of water behave strangely at low temperatures. In particular they may apparently obey double logarithmic relationships heading towards the experimental homogeneous nucleation temperature at about -45°C. (http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/water_unexpected.html#228k) Just makes me wonder….”

                228K seems to be the lowest temperature where the water-WV-colloid can exist. The ice-WV-coloid/solid seems spontanious about there!

                513

          • #
            Duster

            It’s just “how little we actually know, full stop.”

            51

            • #

              “It’s just “how little we actually know, full stop.””

              True, but its admission is the prerequisite to learning! The real disaster comes from those who fail to recognize this truism.

              610

          • #

            Of clocks ‘n clouds,
            one linear, th’other
            diabolical-dynamical.

            10

        • #
          Oliver K. Manuel

          It is perhaps not surprising that the effect of a change in the solar core is observed at the top of the solar atmosphere as a drop in TSI before the effect is later observed in the climate of a planet 1 AU (astronomical unit) further away.

          80

          • #

            Exactly Oliver! And if the delay hypotheses does turn out to be correct, it is a big and unexpected clue about what is really happening in the Sun.

            Back in early 2013 when I was first exploring the TSI-temperature relationship in the frequency domain, I twice chucked away the whole line of inquiry as not of interest because I wasn’t getting what seemed like reasonable results. Until I realized that (1) multiple data sets were pointing to a notch, (2) the tip of the notch was exactly at 11 years. Ahah. A half cycle delay is the most natural relationship in a spinning electrical machine …

            242

            • #
              Kenneth Richard

              David:

              It’s a shame that you’re willing to allow NASA to be your temperature dataset of choice, and the PMOD instead of the ACRIM for your TSI renderings.

              NASA used to espouse a -0.3°C global cooling from the 1940s to 1970s as of the early 1980s. That’s now been artificially removed by cooling down the 1910 to 1940 warming by tenths of a degree so as to conform to the linear shape of the CO2 rise rather than the oscillatory shape of global temperatures found in observations. Who’s to say Gavin and his ilk won’t be doing that again with the proposed -0.3°C cooling predicted for the next few decades…so as to keep the paradigm alive? They’ve done it before. What’s to stop them from continuing to do so?

              The inferiority of the PMOD is explained below. Summarizing, the ACRIM uses actual data; the PMOD conforms to models. You’ve placed a bet that tendentious data tampering won’t take place here.

              ———-
              http://www.acrim.com/Reference%20Files/Willson/ACRIM3%20and%20the%20Total%20Solar%20Irradiance%20database%20-%20Online%20First'%20electronic%20offprint%20-%20Springer%20May%2018%202014.pdf
              Comparison of the results from the ACRIM3, SORCE/TIM and SOHO/VIRGO satellite experiments demonstrate the near identical detection of TSI variability on all sub-annual temporal and amplitude scales during the TIM mission. A solar magnetic activity area proxy [developed in 2013] for TSI has been used to demonstrate that the ACRIM TSI composite and its +0.037 %/decade TSI trend during solar cycles 21–23 is the most likely correct representation of the extant satellite TSI database. The occurrence of this trend during the last decades of the 20th century supports a more robust contribution of TSI variation to detected global temperature increase during this period than predicted by current climate models.

              One of the most perplexing issues in the 35 year satellite TSI database is the disagreement among TSI composite time series in decadal trending. The ACRIM and PMOD TSI compostite time series use the ERB and ERBE results, respectively, to bridge the Gap. Decadal trending during solar cycles 21–23 is significant for the ACRIM composite but not for the PMOD. A new [2013] TSI-specific TSI proxy database has been compiled that appears to resolve the issue in favor of the ACRIM composite and trend. The resolution of this issue is important for application of the TSI database in research of climate change and solar physics.

              The most crucial issue is the database used to ‘bridge the ACRIM Gap’ for which there are two choices: the Nimbus7/ERB or the ERBS/ERBE. The Nimbus7/ERB choice results in a significant TSI trend during solar cycles 21–22 (seen in the ACRIM composite). The ERBS/ERBE choice results in the lack of a significant trend (seen in the PMOD composite). TSI trends on decadal time scales are consequential for both solar physics and climate change investigations so the choice is an important one. The ACRIM TSI composite is data driven. It uses ACRIM1, ACRIM2, ACRIM3 and Nimbus7/ERB satellite results published by the experiments’ science teams and the highest cadence and quality ACRIM Gap database, the Nimbus7/ERB, to bridge the ACRIM Gap. The PMOD TSI composite, using results from the Nimbus7ERB, SMM/ACRIM1, UARS/ACRIM 2 and SOHO/ VIRGO experiments, is model driven. It conforms TSI results to a solar-proxy model by modifying published ERB and ACRIM results and choosing the sparse, less precise ERBS/ERBE results as the basis for bridging the ACRIM Gap (Frohlich and Lean 1998).

              51

              • #

                Kenneth,

                Temp: Originally I worked just from the datasets in the frequency domain, and came up with the startling idea that cooling should begin around 2017. But this model is way too complex to explain to most people (I tried in 2014, see the old blog posts), so I looked around and with the help of people on this blog we found some other evidence.

                Notice in post 22 that the evidence for a delay of about 11 years is mostly independent of temperature datasets. It’s pretty robust.

                TSI: I originally choose PMOD over ACRIM because it fitted better with Lean, and I needed centuries of data — the only way to get a reasonable idea of past TSI is via Lean, AFAIK. Later I just went straight to SSN.

                But the issue here is not which TSI dataset best measures TSI. I have no dog in that fight, because it does not technically matter here. It’s not TSI that is mainly controlling surface temps here, it is force X/D. Force X/D is not TSI — TSI is only a leading indicator of it: what TSI does now, force X/D will tend to do in about 11 years. Both originate on the Sun, but are 180 degrees out of phase (for a full 22 year Hale cycle) The peculiarities of PMOD may be better tuned into what force X/D actually is. Maybe.

                See http://joannenova.com.au/2016/06/new-science-25-seven-possible-ways-the-sun-could-change-our-cloud-cover/. In 1996 Yoshimura also postulated something similar to force X/D, from early ERBE instruments. I don’t know what they were reading, but they disagree with TSI (see diagram). Perhaps they were accidentally measuring an indicator of force X/D better than TSI.

                111

            • #
              Konrad

              David,
              while the “notch” does appear close to a solar cycle, I would still contend this is due to ocean energy storage and release cycles, and the effect solar spectral variance, and magnetic variance on energy input into the oceans.
              We know (climastrologists excepted) from simple empirical experiments that not all watts are equal when it comes to solar heating of the oceans. Depth of absorption greatly effects accumulated energy, and spectrum determines depth of absorption.
              LWIR = no heating
              SWIR = less heating than SW (for equal w/m2)
              SW = less heating than UV (for equal w/m2)

              Solar SWIR is thought to have only increased 0.15% since the LIA.
              Solar SW is thought to have only increased 0.3% since the LIA.
              Solar UV is thought to have increased 3.0% since the LIA, an order of magnitude greater than SW.

              I see solar spectral variance+ocean cycles with a small pinch of Svensmark as the most plausible mechanism for delayed solar control of climate.

              715

              • #

                Konrad,
                Would not the actual cause be the same as whatever affects sunspots and TSI also affects oceanic and continental phenomena of the Earth with many many non harmonics that all looks chaotic but is more likely quite deterministic?
                Perhaps a through review of the positional astrological record of solar system major mass bodies can give much discarded information. I just ‘feel’ the astrologers put more real effort into their observations than all of meteorology combined. May be they did not know what they were doing, I remember doing that often. Still the observations, measurements, and calculations are still the very best you will ever get from that history. Throw out all the ‘why’, ’till way after you are convinced the ‘what’, is the best you can get!

                914

              • #
                Konrad

                Will, you worked for the Mil. (As did I). Your work is the foundation of the much abused MODTRAN.

                Whatever happened to the rule of 7 Ps? Prior Preparation and Planning, Prevents Piss Poor Performance! (Without a plausible mechanism, David will just be accused of “Correlation does not equal causation”, just as sceptics rightfully claim).

                Climastrologists have no empirical evidence for a plausible mechanism by which CO2 can reduce the atmosphere’s radiative cooling ability or its ability to cool the solar heated surface of our planet. In contrast, I have repeatable empirical experiments supporting David’s Hypothesis.

                615

              • #

                Konrad September 24, 2016 at 5:10 pm

                “Whatever happened to the rule of 7 Ps? Prior Preparation and Planning, Prevents Piss Poor Performance!”
                That got replaced by PTTOG (Point To The Other Guy!)

                “(Without a plausible mechanism, David will just be accused of “Correlation does not equal causation”, just as sceptics rightfully claim).”

                Agreed! The idea of clear falsifiability helps a great deal. If it fails it is wrong. If it does not fail, it may be correct! Nothing more shall be claimed. Either way it is learning! Much more important to learn “what”. ‘Why mommy’ is for four year olds! The six year old gets the four year old to ‘touch that’, to see if it is hot! From then on it is mostly politics!

                512

        • #
          Albert

          I’ve always looked at the sun to see the sunspots, they are gone as in periods of cooling in the past. I’ve no doubt cooling has started. A clear sun without spots is scary

          52

          • #
            Oliver K. Manuel

            Those sunspots are deep-seated magnetic fields that protrude through the photosphere, exposing the cooler (hence darker) solar interior.

            61

            • #
              Oliver K. Manuel

              We do not know exactly what the Sun is, but we have many observations that tell us it is NOT the ball of hydrogen described by the Standard Solar Model.

              62

              • #
                Konrad

                Too much Iron in solar wind. We surely have something wrong. A new model is certainly required.

                310

              • #
                tom0mason

                Oliver,
                I Xe what you mean! :)

                20

              • #
                Oliver K. Manuel

                konrad & tomason,

                The Sun’s iron-rich interior was quantitatively determined in 1983 by correcting the abundances of elements at the top of the photosphere and in the solar wind for the nine-stages of mass-dependent fractionation, (f), that selectively enriched the abundance of any lightweight Xe isotope (Xe^LW) relative to that of any heavyweight xenon isotope (Xe^HW) by 3.5% per mass unit:

                f = 3.5% per mass unit = [M(Xe^HW)/M(Xe^LW)]^9/2 = for example (131/130)^4.5 = 1.035

                See “Solar abundances of the elements,” Meteoritics 18, 209-222 (1983); ISSN 0026-1114 http://tinyurl.com/224kz4

                20

              • #
                tom0mason

                Thank-you Oliver,
                This expands and explains more that has been written about your part in “The London 2016 Conference on Climate Change Science Geoethics.”

                10

              • #
                Oliver K. Manuel

                Thank you, tom0mason.

                Golden Hwaung and I plan to publish one final paper showing cosmic rays come from the Sun. We hope to be able to reference David Evan’s series of papers on the Sun there.

                30

            • #

              Oliver K. Manuel September 24, 2016 at 9:57 am ·

              “Those sunspots are deep-seated magnetic fields that protrude through the photosphere, exposing the cooler (hence darker) solar interior.”

              Although appearing less ‘luminous’ This may very well be illusory. From what I have read of any Solar CME, ’tis good to be elsewhere/when!

              69

              • #
                Oliver K. Manuel

                Will Janoschka,

                Were you and Konrad part of the Millennium Group that tried to get information about the Sun past the official gatekeepers of knowledge a few years past?

                Many of their ideas were right, but they did not yet know that neutron repulsion is the primary source of energy in cores of heavy atoms like Uranium, ordinary stars like the Sun, and galaxies like the Milky Way.

                Although appearing less ‘luminous’ this may very well be illusory. I doubt that. The Sun is hotter in the outer chromosphere, than it is in the photosphere, than it is in the next inner layer.

                10

            • #

              No, Oliver. That is incorrect. The sunspots are cooler, because their strong magnetic fields slightly suppresses the convection that brings the heat from the interior to the surface. In fact, when spots are seen near the limb, we can see deeper into the sun and what we see is bright [called faculae] and thus hotter.

              42

              • #
                Oliver K. Manuel

                No, Leif, you are wrong again. Mainstream solar science is changing rapidly, trying to catch up with the findings of Dr. David Evans and Jo Nova before his paper is published.

                See “Mystery in the heavens.” Nature’s Featured News, vol. 334, pp. 610-612. http://www.nature.com/polopoly_fs/1.20175!/menu/main/topColumns/topLeftColumn/pdf/534610a.pdf

                01

              • #
                Oliver K. Manuel

                The error in Weizsacker-Bethe’s 1935-36 definition of nuclear binding energy” (See sloping baseline used to calculate nuclear binding energy across the top of Figure 3) successfully hid NEUTRON REPULSION, the source of energy that powers atomic bombs, ordinary stars, galaxies and the expanding cosmos: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10640850/NEUTRON_REPULSIONb.pdf

                Sleight of hand successfully hid a powerful source of energy might ignite hydrogen and neighboring elements and change Earth into a star (See last paragraph of Aston’s 1922 Nobel Lecture).

                Now, eighty years later, we struggle to understand how energy is released
                _ a.) Directly in atomic bomb and stellar explosions
                _ b.) Remotely by acceleration in electomagnetic fields

                01

      • #
        climateskeptic

        Solar output peaked 20 years ago but global temperature keep climbing

        The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for August 2016 was the highest for August in the 137-year period of record,

        http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201608
        When will the drop begin?? and when its keeps climbing over the next few years, what will you do?

        821

        • #
          Mark D.

          …..when its keeps climbing over the next few years, what will you do?

          Wails the Climactic Septic (with bad grammar).

          I know what I’ll do; I’ll ask the Septic if he has any empirical support for the fools notion that co2 has caused the climbing temperature.

          Oh yes then I’ll laugh and laugh.

          124

        • #
          AndyG55

          “The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for August 2016 was the highest for August in the 137-year period of record,

          And man, didn’t they have to invent some data to make that happen !!!

          Here is what they started with

          http://s19.postimg.org/yrquitq7n/201608_1.gif

          And then they got out their red crayon and ended up with this.

          http://s19.postimg.org/8xh1t1q7n/201608.gif

          Look at Namibia, Angola, and most of AFRICA where they have NO DATA, and just make it up.

          Look at the amount of blue that has just disappeared by the over-zealous manic red crayon.

          Then look at actual REAL data from UAH satellites

          http://s19.postimg.org/ezoojjenn/August2016_globe.png

          Do you really condone this sort of data fabrication from NOAA ????

          This data fabrication is the ONLY thing holding the AGW scam together.

          2715

        • #
          AndyG55

          And yes, in NOAA’s fabrications, the global temperature will probably keep climbing.

          REALITY will be far different.

          1414

        • #
          tom0mason

          cs,

          “When will the drop begin?? and when its keeps climbing over the next few years, what will you do?”

          You’re crystal ball gazing again? :lol:

          71

        • #
          AndyG55

          And because you don’t seem to have the intelligence to comprehend, I’ll repeat it again

          The ONLY parts of the globe that have had any real warming in the satellite era have been those areas directly affected by El Nino events and ocean oscillations.

          There are many parts of the globe that have NO WARMING for most of that time, even though CO2 is well mixed.

          There is no CO2 warming signal in the satellite temperature data..

          That is just how it is.

          Where is the polar amplification in the Antarctic?

          http://s19.postimg.org/5dm8qkc4z/UAH_So_Pol_All.png

          Where is the warming in the Southern ex-tropical?

          http://s19.postimg.org/4khzxrbzn/UAH_So_Extropical.png

          Where was the warming even in the Arctic region before the 1998 El Nino.

          http://s19.postimg.org/iwoqwlg1f/UAH_before_El_nino.png

          And from the end of that El Nino effect in 2001, to just before the current subsiding El Nino?

          http://s19.postimg.org/b9yx58cxf/UAH_after_El_nino.png

          1915

        • #
          AndyG55

          RSS data (RSS is run by honest alarmists, yes there is such a thing)….

          … show August 2016 in third place behind 1998 and 2010.

          Pity there is no untainted data available for the late 1930′s.

          1213

        • #
          Manfred

          It’s been hotter 50% of the Holocene than the present day.
          What are you going to do?

          82

        • #
          el gordo

          ‘When will the drop begin??’

          Xmas.

          31

        • #
          el gordo

          ‘August 2016 was the highest for August in the 137-year period of record…’

          August 1878 was warmer.

          81

        • #
          Duster

          Ask to look at the unadjusted data? Seriously, the “warming” we have “experienced this summer” – that would be in the Northern Hemisphere(?) – somehow averages out as a record despite all the record cold temps, record early snows, record summer snows that made the northern temperate region less temperate than usual, completely miserable winter in South America, etc. Those records were also set this year, not to mention the fact that Arctic ice already seems to have turned the corner and is increasing in area. Just how did they find enough stations not experiencing cooler than expected temps? Or did they carefully weight the data to homogenize the results toward an expected finding? There were already various talking heads prognosticating that this year would once more break a record a year ago. If you have not read Sir Francis Bacon’s New Organon, you should. You will have to work at understanding even the translation, but a comparison between the “logic” of climate “science” and the Scholastics against whom he inveighs is most striking.

          121

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      …I hope it delivers a knockout punch to the warming worriers.

      I hope even more that this will jerk a lot of those who don’t know science and would rather believe a fallacy back into the reality of what constitutes real science.

      I realize that to do that will require David’s work to get widespread attention. But if his predictions become reality, maybe that can happen. He deserves the attention a lot more than the UN and their IPCC.

      192

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        I might add: His work will need to be explained to the world and that’s not an easy job to be sure. But this is the golden opportunity if he’s right.

        122

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        I hope even more that this will jerk a lot of those who don’t know science … back into the reality of what constitutes real science.

        I don’t think that is going to happen, Roy.

        The fear and the hype over a coming ice age, followed by the fear and hype over global warming, has resulted in two or three generations of people, in the west, who believe that science is absolute truth. They see science and technology as a form of religion, almost, and they certainly do not understand that science is no more than just a process of investigation.

        In Asia, where the monasteries have records going back millennia, there is much less concern, because they have seen it all before. That doesn’t stop the Asians jumping on the bus for a free ride to the money, though. Asian culture may be venerable, but it isn’t stupid.

        182

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          Rereke,

          All I can say is that I hope you’re wrong. We certainly can’t go on the way things are for a whole lot longer without coming to blows over the damned climate, something we have no control over at all.

          51

        • #

          And to highlight why it’s a difficult, uphill, battle, you come across articles like this: http://newatlas.com/obq-climate-change-belief/45576/.

          One Big Question: Why do some people refuse to accept that human-induced climate change is real?

          Despite the scientific evidence, why do some people react so vehemently against the idea that rapid, human induced climate change is an actual phenomenon?

          About seven in 10 Americans currently say they are convinced that climate change is happening, two in 10 say they “don’t know,” and one in 10 firmly dismiss the possibility. My colleagues and I call this latter group the “Dismissive,” because they emphatically oppose the reality of human-caused climate change. The question is: Why?

          Reasonable people agree that climate is changing (it always does). Reasonable people, dispute that humans cause climate change(therefore they are considered deniers).

          31

          • #
            Duster

            Human induced changes in local and possibly in mesoscale climates are real. Simple arithmetic suggests that these changes should have some kind of effect on larger scale climate. However, the one thing no one has shown is what that effect is, or if the smaller scale human effects largely cancel out. Also, none of those smaller scale changes is a result of CO2. UHI for instance is a microclimate effect. The effects of agriculture are also clear. In fact, one of the worrisome aspects of “climate change” at the mesoscale is the effects that were the result of cultural contact. On the west coast of the United States, Euroamerican settlers forced aboriginal people stop “wild land” burning, which in turn resulted in massive ecological changes and structural changes in plant and animal communities. The huge fires in California are a direct effect of fire suppression and some of us rural natives of the state have observed broad changes in plant communities over the last 50 years alone. Counter intuitively to your typical AGW worrier, it appears that cold and wet tolerant trees: firs, white pines, black oak, canyon live oak, and others are moving down slope (i.e. toward warmer regions) despite drought and “record heat.” I’ve read of similar structural changes along the northern coast of Australia, but genuine Australian can address that.

            31

            • #

              There’s no doubt that human activity can and does have ‘localised’ effects. Localised in the sense that what might happen in central NSW is not going to affect anything in Tasmania or New Zealand. Australians have been guilty of mismanaging our forests and the like and taking central NSW as an example, much of the land was razed so that pasture could be established. This turned into a colossal mistake and rather than enhancing productivity, made things worse.

              The offset of this has been an paranoid fear of touching nature in any manner. When once our natives burned forests and forest burned from natural causes, we undertake none of that now, which results in massive fuel loads on the forest floor and in summer results in catastrophic bushfires. This year is going to be very interesting, given the huge rainfalls that we’ve had and the growth throughout the country, notably the eastern seaboard.

              Naturally the Greens will wail and moan as the forests and animals burn, but not one of them will ever assist, or support proper forest management. And so the cycle goes around.

              101

            • #
              Roy Hogue

              I’ve no doubt that human activity has changed many things as we learned to travel farther and farther from our point of origin until we cover the globe quite literally.

              Living in Southern California I can attest to the presence of snails in my wife’s flower beds, the same escargot you order in fine restaurants as an appetizer. They are rather good by the way. But they are not native to the western hemisphere and were brought here because they were prized for eating. Inevitably some got away.

              Another pest is what we call Devil Grass, not native to the western hemisphere either but it came nevertheless, probably hiding in some other plant, also not native here but prized for it’s beauty. And once in your yard it’s all your life is worth to get rid of it — a real survivor type if ever there was one. And so it goes.

              We also pour water on the ground to irrigate crops and our yards which tends to drive out the native stuff in favor of non native stuff that can thrive in the wetter environment.

              But in the end, so what? Every species modifies its environment to make it more friendly — or tries to — from trees that compete to be the tallest so they can get the sunlight they need to plants that literally poison the ground around them to prevent competition.

              And there is still not any real empirical evidence that CO2 in the atmosphere causes the warming or any other climate or weather phenomenon the global warming hypothesis predicts.

              10

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            Despite the scientific evidence, why do some people react so vehemently against the idea that rapid, human induced climate change is an actual phenomenon?

            Good magicians will tell you that the trick is actually performed, before you really start watching to see if you can spot the trick. The trick here is to state that there is actual scientific evidence available. But where it is, and what it is, is never actually mentioned. It just is. That is the statement of faith. The pea has already gone, before a cup has even been moved.

            Here’s what he had to say from his perspective in the American socio-political arena.

            The trick here is to move away entirely from the science of atmospheric physics, and move the discussion into the realm of “socio-politics”, i.e. the general concensus within societal groups.

            And please feel free to let us know what you think in the comments below. We wouldn’t have it any other way.

            What am I bet, that if I made this same comment on their blog, it would be the subject of “a technical fault”?

            About seven in 10 Americans currently say they are convinced that climate change is happening, two in 10 say they “don’t know,” and one in 10 firmly dismiss the possibility.

            This sounds “sciency”, but it is meaningless. Seventy percent of Americans will say that climate changes, from time to time, because they know that it is not static. Twenty percent will say that they don’t know, because they realise that the question is meaningless. And ten percent will be astute enough to say that mankind has no way of influencing the climate.

            31

    • #
      BernardP

      It probably doesn’t matter anyway. Belief in Global Warming is entrenched to such a point that even the predicted cooling, when it happens, will be ignored. Past data will be adjusted to make the new cooling cycle disappear. All measures already in place to fight global warming will remain in in effect. This is global mass hysteria on an unprecedented scale.

      82

  • #

    ‘Prediction is a risky business’
    -the Hammurabi code of ‘real’ science.
    Best wishes to the both of you.

    182

  • #
    PeterS

    If significant cooling does come about will the global warming alarmists support a move to increase our CO2 output even more to keep the world from cooling too much? I bet not. Hypocrites.

    182

    • #

      No chance. If sufficient cooling happens they will explain that this is part of the global weirding and unusual extremes that they have predicted all along. CO2 causes cooling.

      452

      • #
        AndyG55

        Question is, have they covered enough of the whole range with their “science”

        Current climate séance covers the side of a large barn… but will any of it hit !!!

        815

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          Andy, the farce started in the early 1970′s, with the fear of an impending ice age, and is still running fifty years later. The torch has shifted however, from the scientists involved (who were seen by the establishment as being nothing more than useful idiots) to the bureaucrats who see the climate scare as a means of putting the genie of democracy back into the bottle.

          Climate Science and Politics have become intimately entwined. I wonder what happened to Atmospheric Physics, and the Scientific Method?

          132

          • #
            Dennis

            And then appeared now deceased Maurice Strong, a Canadian billionaire with a plan to collapse capitalism and replace it with a new system that would benefit himself and his high wealth individual fellow travellers, socialist politics and the socialists decided to board the same gravy train predicting man-made global warming climate change.

            Science overboard.

            121

        • #

          A barn (symbol b) is a unit of area equal to 10−28 m2 ! :-)

          17

      • #
        sophocles

        There will be uncritical cries of success for, and celebrations of the efficacy of, the Paris Agreement.
        Alas. (Look! It’s working! Already…)

        The publication of David’s papers is good news indeed. Congratulations.

        Darn, my popcorn needs renewing.
        The beer is still holding up.
        The next few years are going to be very interesting. :-)

        92

      • #
        Jason Calley

        If it cools, the alarmists will cry, “Mother Earth is trying one last time to save us from ourselves! This is our last chance to stop killing the planet! Send us your carbon taxes!”

        92

      • #
        Leonard Lane

        Congratulations to David and to you on the two papers being published next month. A nice accomplishment. Moreover, as the predictions start about 2017 we won’t have long to see David’s work being tested. How refreshing that the predictions are not for 2100 or longer in the future, and are thus testable. Un-testable hypotheses are not scientific as they lack the crucial “testability” required.
        In spite of all the Warmunists’ propaganda, I don’t think many will like the cooler weather. They may deny it, fudge the data, and raise a ruckus; but cooler mean global temperatures will not make things better for many.
        Over two dozen posts and two published papers leading to these predictions, kudos to you both!

        161

      • #
        Mark M

        The difference between a prediction and a (climate model) projection is a projection can never be tested.

        51

      • #
        Truthseeker

        Jo,

        This paper seems to independant validation of your “missing hot spot” argument backed up by empirical analysis and satellite data.

        51

      • #
        RB

        If sufficient cooling happensthey will dust off the global cooling excuse to decarbonise the economy.

        31

  • #
    John Watt

    Great news about the publication date. Hopefully this is the sort of innovation Malcolm Turnbull will encourage. Since his narrow election escape he seems to be more open to seeing both sides. May lead Oz towards a more realistic climate viewpoint! If only!

    202

  • #
    ren

    During El Niño oceans they dissipate heat to the atmosphere by intensified evaporation. The stronger El Niño, the more heat are losing oceans.
    “More surprising is the extra cooling
    following 1998, a likely consequence of the ocean heat
    discharge associated with the massive 19971998 El Nio
    event [Trenberth et al., 2002]. Meehl et al. [2011] have
    demonstrated in a model study how La Nia events and
    negative PDO events could cause a hiatus in warming of
    the top 300 m while sequestering heat at deeper layers.”
    http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_update/heat-last-year.gif
    It is a question as a decline in solar activity affect the absorption of solar radiation by the oceans.
    http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/atmosphere/radbud/gs19_prd.gif

    52

  • #
    Keith L

    I haven’t been following this saga but I notice a couple of things which make this story different from most climate stories.
    The author of the theory has detailed some falsification criteria and people are willing to test the theory against its predictions and judge it accordingly.
    Very unusual in this area of science.
    I have to admit that I hope we do get cooling for a while. I know it will do terrible harm to the world and result in higher food prices and things but it seems that this is the only way we are ever going to be able to kill the climate hoax and get science back into the realm of science.

    292

    • #
      Manfred

      For a real scientist there is no shame in putting an idea up on the chopping block”

      I am not convinced that 0.3°C changes will show up amongst the man-made noise in some datasets. The past keeps shifting”

      Isn’t it an irony that those who use the climate for political ends and claim simultaneously to be science ‘actors’ (to use yet another ironic modernism that expresses the underlying thespian truism) are those that almost daily, deliver yet another post hoc ‘correction’ to any one of the several temperature data sets in order to maintain the climatism polemic? There is no science to be had here, and falsification is impossible. The UN adoption of the term ‘climate change‘ revealed that fact.

      These very same people who so rapidly shifted away from the ‘global warming’ meme in the late 1990′s when they realised the deadly political error of it being open to falsification now peddle it again, enabled by the constant stream of ‘adjustment’. They are like moths to light and the (CAGW) warming meme is irresistible. If one or other of David’s hypotheses are shown to be correct, it also becomes their proverbial fiery immolation, and dare one say, a fatefully self-fulfilling prophecy.

      The goal-shifting adoption of ‘climate change’ took place in 2000 at the start of the 18 year pause, an incredible stroke of good luck for climatism and the eco-globalisation script. The 18 year absence of statistically significant temperature rise didn’t stop the UN, Obama or Europe continuing to mobilise climatism among other things to advance their eco-globalisation Agenda, thanks to financial and media vested interest and political alignment.

      They’re still stridently at it in spite of the Progressive wreckage of almost everything they touch, Midas like, trying to advance the UN post-2015 Sustainable Development Agenda, which in keeping with the Cultural Marxism they are so fond of propounding has been shown to be anything but Midas like.

      A prolonged period of cooling may simply bring about the argument of ‘it would be colder if it wasn’t for AGW‘, something we have already heard mindlessly articulated. If David’s hypothesis is supported by prediction then it may offer far more than just a chance to force a new political meme.

      71

  • #
    ren

    The amount of water vapor in the atmosphere determines the temperature changes. That is why it is so important sea surface temperature in the equatorial regions.
    http://woodfortrees.org/graph/uah6

    84

  • #
    tom0mason

    David,

    Thank-you for the up-date, and congratulations on getting published — that’s no mean feat these days. Now I’ll have to go back and re-read the original posts and get back up to speed. I admire your vision, courage, and drive in putting forward your scientific theory; especially these days when all around there are demands to stay within the cowed ranks of the unimaginative scientific consensus. Without such vision science can not progress.
    As for those who proclaim “emphatic (and ignorant) claims that David’s predictions have failed, and a flaw was found”

    There Are None So Blind As Those Who Will Not See.

    P.S. I believe that some elements of cooling are already being seen and felt, with cool and cold weather interrupting summer in many parts of the world this year.

    232

  • #
    Peter C

    Hypothesize, test, and observe. As David says: “If the predicted cooling does not eventuate then the notch-delay hypothesis is false.” Without real predictions, it’s not real science.

    I could not agree more. A hypothesis can be based on known or previously observed facts/observations. A hypothesis becomes a theory when it includes elements of causation and becomes refined enough to make predictions. If the predicted outcomes are actually observed then the theory should be adopted as a best approximation to the TRUTH.

    However we should not be too quick to judge David’s hypothesis on this year’s or even next year’s observations. After that I would become a bit doubtful.

    The notch delay hypothesis is still a bit vague about causation, but it clearly involves the Sun and or sun/earth/planets interactions. There was quite a bit of discussion about that in the papers of the London Geoethics conference 2 weeks ago.
    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305754503_New_Dawn_of_Truth_-_The_London_2016_Conference_on_Climate_Change_Science_Geoethics_-_Conference_Volume_of_Extended_Abstracts_Commentary_Notes

    Thanks to Rod Stewart for finding the link to the transcripts.

    131

    • #
      Peter C

      I missed this;

      The notch-delay hypothesis predicts sustained and significant global cooling starting sometime from 2017 to 2022, of ~0.3 °C but perhaps milder.

      So 2018 is still too soon to judge. But I doubt if anyone will remember it by 2022.

      33

    • #
      RandyB

      Regarding “The notch delay hypothesis is still a bit vague about causation,..” It seems to me that is deliberate. This seems to be an attempt to hypothesize how the system behaves, predict the outcome of the hypothesis, and check to see if it bears investigation. In other words just leave causation out of the equation entirely. Sort of like what Newton did with gravity. Attempt to describe [predict] what it does and, if the attempt bears fruit, then see if one can deduce why.

      90

  • #
    ren

    Here you can see that it actually decreased anomalies in sea surface temperature. Thus, reduce the amount of water vapor. If at the same time increase the amount of of precipitation will to cool. The amount of rainfall may increase as a result of shifting polar lows towards the equator.
    http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2016/anomg.9.22.2016.gif

    42

    • #
      el gordo

      Good point ren and a quick clarification of where we are. If you run the clock back with a 62 year cycle: 1954, 1892, 1830 and 1768, big floods are on the cards for south east Australia.

      62

      • #
        Bobl

        I don’t think that there is any need to leave 2016 off that list given the recent flood in SE Australia? No need for a prediction, it already just happened. In QLD we have had one of the wettest winters I can remember.

        51

        • #
          el gordo

          I took it for granted that floods are coming in 2016-17, Forbes is being evacuated.

          My cycle runs into trouble in the 1830s (the timing is a bit out) the rains came in 1839 thru to 1841, the Brisbane floods and Yarra River floods were standouts at the time, not sure about the MDB.

          10

  • #
    ren

    You have to remember that the polar vortex develops in the area of the ozone. That is why it is very important solar activity that affects the amount and distribution of ozone over the polar circle.
    http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_a_f/gif_files/gfs_o3mr_100_sh_f00.png
    In the zone jetstream very can be seen impact of ozone depletion on circulation.
    http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_a_f/gif_files/gfs_o3mr_250_sh_f00.png

    72

  • #
    Jimmy Haigh

    A testable hypothesis. What’s not to like? I think a lot of the negativity came from people who want to be the one who cracked the climate puzzle so if David Evans’ theory does work…

    Time will tell!

    132

  • #
    AndyG55

    Waiting for the AGW alarmist operatives to pile on with their ANTI-science. ;-)

    716

  • #
    diogenese2

    Off topic but should not pass without notice;

    http://jakartaglobe.beritasatu.com/international/chinas-major-coal-producers-start-raising-output-media/

    Just to point out, this action is entirely permitted under the Paris Accord of 2015 and signatories to the same have , in fact, given agreement to this.

    62

  • #
    tom0mason

    Dr Evans,

    Have you seen this paper?

    Global Warming and Solar Anomaly
    by D K Chakrabarty & S K Peshin

    http://nopr.niscair.res.in/bitstream/123456789/24973/1/IJRSP%2042%286%29%20391-396.pdf

    Figures 2 & 3 are interesting.

    82

    • #

      Have now, thank you tom0mason.

      The paper does appear to propose any mechanism by which TSI can change Earth’s surface temperature, implying its just the obvious direct heating from the energy within TSI — but this is much too small to account for global warming so the paper is a bit of a non-starter. Furthermore, it gives no hint of what to make of Lockwood and Froehlich’s point that solar activity (e.g. TSI) peaked in 1986 while temperature peaked in 1997. So the paper cannot explain timing either.

      151

  • #

    This is O/T, and you’ve probably already seen it, but just in case – James Delingpole on why ‘scientists’ support Clinton: http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/09/22/climate-alarmist-professors-vote-hillary-or-the-planet-will-fry/

    81

    • #
      Konrad

      I think the democrats socialists may have lost the US election. Some fool made the spasming Hillderbeast read that “50% of Trump supporters are deplorables” thing off her teleprompter.

      Please enjoy “Les Deplorables of the world unite” (Tony Abbott gets a cameo ;) .

      I’m not saying she handed the election to Trump. More like she went down twitching (again) and dropped it. The US socialist campaign has become a macabre remake of “Weekend at Bernie’s”, AKA “Binswangers at Hillary’s”. I’d like to say this use of a human being as a meat-puppet is cruel, but I can’t. Hillary Clinton deserves this horror.

      1315

    • #
      Jason Calley

      What they said: “Vote for Hillary!”
      What they meant: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vSWILk-ggo

      20

  • #

    Quite right – a scientist puts his balls on the line. Einstein didn’t tell Eddington to hide the data from Principe in 1919 because people might try to use it to falsify relativity – he made it public. He wasn’t like Phil Jones: “Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?” Like Einstein, Evans says “If the predicted cooling does not eventuate then the notch-delay hypothesis is false.”

    But Evans’ bold prediction is somewhat moderated by this statement, at the end of the above article:

    “sometime from 2017 to 2022, of ~0.3 °C but perhaps milder”

    How much “milder” could cooling be without falsifying the hypothesis?

    121

    • #

      Rod, the data is all a bit vague, especially on the TSI side. I reckon cooling of a mere 0.1C would be line ball, but I’ll claim some success if it drops by 0.2 C for a decade starting in the next few years. If instead it goes up from here or there is no cooling, I’m wrong on this one.

      193

      • #
        mike restin

        I agree somewhat but please remember it was not skeptics who said the planet will get hotter and hotter because of CO2.
        If it doesn’t get hotter in the next five years, getting colder is almost unnecessary.
        It’s already been nearly 20 years with this hotter than evah global warming, five more should melt the Arctic…
        unless they’re wrong.

        152

        • #

          AGW has already failed since from 1990 onwards, it has been much less warming than predicted/projected by the IPCC reports.

          The Satellite data show about a .12C per decade warming trend,which is well below the absolute MINIMUM per decade warming trend prediction/projection of .20C, but actually most Business as Usual Scenario A models over the successive reports has it at .30C per decade warming as shown from the very first 1990 IPCC report,page 5:

          Based on current model results, we predict:

          •under the IPCC Business-as-Usual (Scenario A) emissions of greenhouse gases, a rate of increase of global mean temperature during the next century of
          about 0 3°C per decade (with an uncertainty range of 0 2°C to 0 5°C per decade), this is greater than that seen over the past 10,000 years This will result in a likely increase in global mean temperature of about 1°C above the present value by 2025 and VC before the end of the next century.

          LINK

          74

          • #
            Uncle Gus

            It’s just occurred to me how LUCKY the sceptics have been, from a scientific point of view. The IPCC produced a shotgun range of “scenarios” that made global warming just about un-falsifiable.

            And here we have a twenty-year pause. Just enough to falsify it.

            How neat is that?

            111

            • #

              Yeah, nature is so neat, Uncle Gus.

              30

            • #

              Uncle Gus September 24, 2016 at 3:37 am ·

              “It’s just occurred to me how LUCKY the sceptics have been, from a scientific point of view. The IPCC produced a shotgun range of “scenarios” that made global warming just about un-falsifiable.”

              From REAL SKEPTICS!
              We don need no steenkin LUCK heer!
              Remaining DRONK, armed, and implacable is da only way ta go!

              “And here we have a twenty-year pause. Just enough to falsify it. How neat is that?”

              Thank you mam. Sorry to bother! :-)

              010

  • #
    el gordo

    Academia is flush with enthusiasts keen to crack the code.

    ‘As of mid-September, there have already been 77 peer-reviewed scientific papers authored by several hundred scientists linking solar activity to climate change.’

    - See more at: http://notrickszone.com/#sthash.1MA7yAkN.dpuf

    81

    • #

      el gordo, AFAIK I’m the only one of those 77 plus others awaiting publication who hypothesizes a delay due to the relevant influence from the Sun lagging half a full 22-year cycle behind changes in TSI. See post 22.

      Several others have proposed indirect mechanisms such as we have in mind, e.g. Stephen Wilde’s ozone-tropopause-jetstream-clouds mechanism. I’m agnostic about the mechanism, except that it is strong and delayed.

      182

      • #
        el gordo

        Stephen’s ideas appear sound and theoretically your hypothesis about the lag maybe correct, but Willis and Leif will no doubt give it the thumbs down. Don’t take Willis too seriously (he doesn’t believe in the 60 year cycle) but I’ll still need to see a critique before reaching a rational decision.

        Apart from that, your timing for 2017 is perfectly placed.

        93

        • #
          Bobl

          Steven has his ideas, but it’s still hypothetical. He still makes the assumption as does the CO2 thermoggedonists that the lapse rate isn’t affected by CO2. Me, I think that if you add radiative gasses like CO2 and water (feedback) then the lapse rate MUST fall countering the change in temperature. The lapse rate falling represents the INCREASE in overall outgoing energy. More energy in, more energy out and energy is conserved.

          My view is informed simply by the idea that the total energy = ke + pe just as Newton said. If PE rises KE (temp) MUST fall, the gradient is sustained by the atmosphere warming from below, because that sets the initial KE. Any movement of energy up the column (convenction) adds to KE at height but not PE, and therefore reduces the lapse rate from it’s theoretical max. More radiative gasses means more movement of energy up the column which means a lower lapse rate,

          This idea really just means that if there was a temperature rise on the surface that increased the temperature difference between the surface and stratosphere, then the flow of heat energy from the surface to the stratosphere, and then to space, would INCREASE, the CO2 haters say it would decrease, I don’t know of any system where increasing the temperature difference between two surface would not increase the nett transfer of energy between them. Satellites say I’m right and the models are wrong.

          CO2 might warm but the atmosphere has a thermostat, a huge non linear negative feedback – water vapour rising.

          42

          • #
            el gordo

            Water vapor will hose down any CO2 warming, but on the ground it looks chaotic.

            The top end has a record breaking deluge a month before the wet begins, its clearly the work of a negative IOD. Australia is already awash and looking ahead its possible to imagine massive floods… and cooler diurnal temperatures.

            All negative feedback.

            43

          • #
            Konrad

            “He still makes the assumption as does the CO2 thermoggedonists that the lapse rate isn’t affected by CO2”

            This is a major problem with Stephen’s work. It is true that the lapse rate is being set by the adiabatic vertical circulation of air masses across the pressure gradient of the atmosphere. But he contends that strong vertical tropospheric circulation could still continue without radiative cooling at altitude.

            Radiative gases (and liquids) play a critical role in vertical tropospheric circulation. They are the only mechanism by which rising air-masses can lose energy and buoyancy and descend. (The established science of “Radiative subsidence” is ignored/suppressed by climastrologists).

            Here’s what happens when you remove radiative gases from the atmosphere. Vertical circulation stalls and the atmosphere super-heats.

            317

            • #
              el gordo

              I remember him getting a roasting over the adiabatic process, here is a little more on that if anyone is interested.

              https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/12/14/stephen-wilde-the-ignoring-of-adiabatic-processes-big-mistake/comment-page-2/

              31

              • #
                Konrad

                Ahh, memories. The fun thing about that thread is not so much Stephen getting a lesson in the difference between adiabatic and diabatic gas process, it’s the posts of “Trick”.

                “Trick” was a composite sock puppet. (More than one person using VPN to post from a single machine and email address to appear like a single individual). I believe there were at least 4 used in the failed effort to defeat me. Stylometics programs helped identify Steve Mosher and Nick Stokes at over 95% confidence level. I feel I have a good handle on the third, but I suspect there was fourth, but they used the account so infrequently that matching just on Talkshop posts is inconclusive.

                The depths the warmists descended to. Fun times …

                520

            • #
              Bobl

              Konrad,
              Stop there, this is not the case, as the WV rises it cools KE becomes PE at some point it condenses, releasing energy the pressure drops due to the removal of water from the mixture. The water falls as rain but since it isn’t vapour any more the gain in kinetic energy is coherent for the drop the energy is expended in an impact with the earth. Energy can be extracted this way effectively converting heat to the collision energy of a drop against the earth.

              But yes radiation is one mechanism, just not the only one.

              121

              • #

                Bobl September 24, 2016 at 10:20 pm ·

                “Konrad,Stop there, this is not the case, as the WV rises it cools KE becomes PE”

                Please show how any part of the troposphere can posses gravitational PE. All of the troposphere remains self-buoyant at near the speed of sound. If you drop a piece of atmosphere it does not accelerate in the direction of the surface.
                The atmospheric temperature lowers as pressure is part of the KE of gas under gravitational compression. Conservation of energy does not ‘need’ to apply within a gravitational field (Emmy Noethr,1921). You are using the same false premise as Stephan.

                “at some point it condenses, releasing energy the pressure drops due to the removal of water from the mixture. The water falls as rain”

                Most of the loss in latent heat of vaporization does not result in precipitation. The latent heat powers the thermal EM exitance to space while maintaining temperature as the independent WV ascends through the cloud.

                211

              • #
                Konrad

                Nope!

                When condensation first occurs, it micron mist. Energy lost is primarily via radiation, as condensation is only initially falling at 3mm per second.

                By the time a rain drop has reached 6mm, it is falling at 10000 mm/s. But by the time it falls, the 6 degree heat pulse of latent heat has already gone.

                Radiation, not condensation, is the “cold side” of the Rayleigh-Bernard cell. Without radiative cooling at altitude, strong vertical circulation, the primary mechanism for energy removal from the surface, would stall.

                Stephen just got it wrong. Same problem as David. 2D brain vs. 3D brain. David is very good at maths, but when 3D pre-visualisation rather than 2D linear equation is required, he is physically incapable of seeing the problem.

                That is how I knew correct calculation of “average surface temperature without radiative atmosphere” was the key. 3D brain. (Also experienced external design/engineering contractor – where warring factions agree, there lays the problem. Both WUWT lukewarmers and foaming AGW believers say 255K for surface without radiative atmosphere. Both wrong, as shown by the simplest of empirical experiments.)

                020

  • #
    Ruairi

    As solar predictions come true,
    By cooling Earth’s climate on cue,
    The warmists will try ,
    These facts to deny,
    By homogenization round-two.

    261

  • #
    DonB

    The climate “debate” is so very asymmetric. David’s hypothesis has been deemed to have been falsified before it has been tested.

    On the other hand, John Christy demonstrated that the IPCC endorsed climate models were 3-times too hot during the recent 35 years – that is, they failed – and the activists are completely unconcerned.

    http://docs.house.gov/meetings/SY/SY00/20160202/104399/HHRG-114-SY00-Wstate-ChristyJ-20160202.pdf

    The truth will eventually prevail, someday.

    82

  • #

    Looking Here at The Source TSI at 1 AU, it seems to have increased more and faster since the fall diped in before 2010. Overall since 2003 it looks to have increased.
    (Date Range:2003-02-25 to 2016-09-15)
    http://lasp.colorado.edu/lisird/sorce/sorce_tsi/

    21

  • #

    Thanks so much in stating the conditions under which you hypothesis would be falsified. It’s refreshing.

    I hope you’re right in predicting the trend in global temperature. Not that I hope for a drop in global temperatures, but if they are going to anyway, a good prediction would be beneficial.

    While I don’t understand the calculations, the implications are clearly presented. Again, thanks for the work you are doing and congratulations on getting the work published.

    151

  • #
    ren

    Is shown decrease in surface temperature on all the oceans in the equatorial zone.
    https://weather.gc.ca/data/saisons/images/2016092300_054_G6_global_I_SEASON_tm@lg@sd_000.png

    51

  • #
  • #
    Oliver K. Manuel

    Congratulations on the new paper, Dr. Evans. Is a hyperlink available? I agree, global cooling is now much more likely than global warming.

    The Standard Solar Model also fails to explain the findings by Nicola Scafetta et al., “On the astronomical origin of the Hallstatt oscillation found in radiocarbon and climate records throughout the Holocene,” Earth-Science Rev 162, 24 (2016): http://authors.elsevier.com/a/1TlSB2weQTZcD

    70

  • #
    James in Perth

    Congratulations on getting your paper published! I admire you for putting yourself and your ideas in the line of fire!

    I hope (and even dare to predict) that this marks a momentous breakthrough in climate forecasting that will greatly lessen the carbon dioxide hysteria that has seized the world for the last 30 years. (Not that that will affect our politicians.)

    82

  • #
    Interested

    I’m very much afraid Jo is right that even if Dr Evans is correct and 0.3 deg.C of cooling actually occurs, the CAGW juggernaut is now unstoppable.
    I think CAGW is easily the most useful tool a certain class of people have ever come up with to advance their political program. Their almost blanket control of the media, together with their increasing control of curricula in schools and universities over the last 20+ years, has also done much to ensure the CAGW message meets few significant challenges.

    As Jo suggests, the climate facts have so far failed to dent the CAGW cause in any material way and it’s hard to imagine anything but a repeat of the Little Ice Age forcing a retraction by the powers-that-be.

    CAGW will probably remain an integral part of a successful push to establish the UN’s Agenda 21 (google it) and bring about a single-party global government.
    [Or maybe I'm delusional? Hope so.]

    134

    • #
      Lionell Griffith

      If a single-party global government is established, a total collapse of the economy will soon follow. Soon after that, a war of all against all will escalate out of control. See Khmer Rouge for instructive detail.

      The reason:

      The makers will be the first to be enslaved. This will drive the economy to a below subsistence level because the products of the mind will no longer be produced. The takers will soon have nothing to take and revert to eating each other. The last dying taker will exclaim “I didn’t mean for this to happen!”, but no one will be around to hear it. If someone were, the proper response would be “Yes you did!” This was the goal of the takers since the first taker took what was not his to take.

      This need not happen. All it takes is acceptance of the idea that men do not exist to serve government, government exists to serve the governed. It does that by respecting each and every individual and his right to his life and is dedicated to protecting that right and all derivative rights. Thereby establishing the principle that each individual is his own end. Each voluntarily trading and associating has he chooses with use of force being excluded from such actions.

      141

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        Being right about the prospects for the future is also so depressing I want to scream.

        Have we no hope at all then?

        51

        • #
          Lionell Griffith

          There is hope.

          1. Man is not doomed to follow some automatic destiny.
          2. He chooses his future by the thinking he has or has not done, by the choices he makes or evades, and by the actions he takes or fails to take.
          3. It is always possible to think better, choose more correctly, and to act more constantly with ones nature and to become more in alignment with reality.
          4. It is up to each of us to take at least one step every day to move closer to thinking better, choosing more correctly, and becoming better alignmed with reality.

          Eventually we won’t need hope, it will have happened.

          30

      • #
        Manfred

        The UN vision of global governance by bureaucracy seems to me to be more a vision of administration than of government per se. I appreciate it’s a fine line drawing a distinction between the two in action, but the line is clear in election, the former requiring none. The governance side of the UN administrative equation is designed to take place at the community level, which is one reason why they so assiduously (and effectively) groom at the local level. We already witness the eco-grip as they tighten the administrative noose around environmental regulation, health and safety, policing and traffic management, financial divestment and in a variety of other ways that seek to micro-regulate and morally ‘load’ our choices and lives. There is for example no room for the concept of ‘common sense’ in OHS. All must be proscribed. This is pure UN post-2015 Sustainable Agenda – just peruse the document, “Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.” The creep of such regulation has been quite rapid in the last decade, no longer the imperceptible threat it may once have been.

        Pushing back on the national scale is one thing. The real push back needs to occur at the Council and local level where the real chancre is crying out for cautery.

        70

        • #
          Mandfred

          We already witness the eco-grip as they tighten the administrative noose around environmental regulation, health and safety, policing and traffic management, financial divestment and in a variety of other ways that seek to micro-regulate and morally ‘load’ our choices and lives.

          Think critically ‘education’ — common core — the propaganda division of the UN attempting to mold young minds. Some may succumb, others will merely be desensitised, a little like one might treat an allergy, and others will observe the reality and live in a world of cognitive dissonance. Whatever way one looks at it, it is a disservice to humanity and our children. This is one thing Trump plans to arrest and return education to communities rather than centrist bureaucracies.

          30

      • #

        The problem is recognized, but how to take back our
        liberty from invasive guvuhmint and pervasive bureaucracy ,
        from that Gramsci long march through the institutions, that
        is the question.

        50

        • #
          Manfred

          By creating managers instead of aristocrats we have severed the bonds of a proper class system. The managerial class identifies more with its own abstractions and insular bubble culture than with those that it rules.

          From, Esoteric Populism: The Cry For A New Elite. The time for real change is afoot, not the faux-change, aka, The Obama Deception.

          With prodding from a newly forming domestic elite, conservatives are being directed into an ideology that more accurately represents their interests and preserves their identity–one that is not primarily focused on flat tax rates and reforming Obamacare, but on bolstering the pre-conditions necessary for Western civilization to thrive.

          40

      • #
        Annie

        Atlas Shrugged was pretty far-seeing.

        80

    • #
      Oliver K. Manuel

      I share Jo’s conviction that AGW is a tool to reach global governance under UN’s Agenda 21. The two solar engines are probably:
      1. H-fusion that now generates ~35% of solar energy, and
      2. Neutron-repulsion and neutron-decay that produce ~65%

      11

      • #
        Greg

        Yes exactly.

        The “Green Fund ” is the tresory for the unelected, unaccountable world governance program. Nothing to do with poor countries apart from it being a slush fund to buy their support at the UN.

        31

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    One way or the other, good for you, David Evans.

    Good luck is tempting to add but the luck has already happened. David found the clu that sent him in a new direction. The rest is now in the hands of the climate.

    Good luck is a funny thing. It happens most to those who are looking for it and prepared to take advantage if it when it comes along.

    71

  • #
    Monna Manhas

    Jo, I know you have done this before, but could you please provide a pointer to the entire series so that I can refer it to someone else.

    21

  • #
    J Martin

    0.3°C cooling from TSI up to 2010, add in net warming from El Mimi’s and we get a continuation in the pause. But TSI has risen since then so cooling or pause may only last for 10 years and would seem to be insufficient to derail the alarmists agenda to destroy western economies.

    11

    • #
      J Martin

      El Nino’s. I must find out how to turn off auto correct.

      21

    • #
      el gordo

      Over the coming year temperatures have to fall a long way.

      http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_August_2016_v6.jpg

      With no volcanic activity to muddy the waters the experiment is set to go, so all things being equal a drop of 0.3 for a couple of years is enough to falsify the CO2 fallacy.

      21

      • #
        tom0mason

        Looking at Roy’s projection for the end of the year, a further 0.2° drop looks to be on the books soon.

        http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH-v6-LT-with-2016-projection-3.jpg

        20

      • #
        el gordo

        That is, temperatures have to fall below the line by 0.3 for the skeptics to win the debate.

        40

        • #
          tom0mason

          Understood there el gordo,

          Just pointing out that Roy is expecting a continuing decline of temperature till the end of the year.
          If that carries straight on to drop to 0.3 below the line early next year, then we will be in deep dodo :oops: — politically and socially that is :sad: .
          But who can really tell? It is at heart a chaotic system so nearly anything is possible over the short term. ;)

          40

          • #
            Interested

            Quote: “If that carries straight on to drop to 0.3 below the line early next year, then we will be in deep dodo :oops: — politically and socially that is :sad:

            This is the point.
            We won’t be in any kind of ‘deep doodoo’ because the climate stats will be ‘smoothed’, ‘homogenised’ and otherwise ‘adjusted’, until we don’t have a clue what we’re looking at.
            In any event, the dutiful and shamelessly obedient media will do whatever it takes to talk up the CAGW non-science and ridicule any hint of dissent.
            We can easily cruise through 0.3 deg.C of cooling without Joe Public ever being any the wiser.
            Meanwhile, the indoctrination will go on, and our freedoms will be surreptitiously taken from us, in accordance with Agenda 21 directives.
            Simple.

            01

      • #
        Greg Goodman

        Temps probably will drop until at least 2020 or 2025, even the Net Office is starting to suggest that.

        That will not be enough to dismiss AGW, they will just start insisting on longer and longer “climate” averages. First 7 then 10 then 15 years of pause were seen and gone and got extended.

        If there is a drop for a couple of years it will be called La Nina , they have modulated their claims during the recent El Nino, They will make full use of the opposite. What it happen.

        Only about 20% of recent rise was said to be El Nino but you can bet ALL of any drop will be La Nina.

        71

  • #
    FrankSW

    Regarding errors in the climate models, I’m sure you have seen it, but Patrick Frank’s analysis of the errors in the General Circulation Climate models is impressive, he was recently featured in one of Alex Epsteins’s “Power Hour” talks.

    See slide 25 mins into his Youtube talk for a visual on the total trashing of IPCC scenario uncertainty ranges.

    https://youtu.be/THg6vGGRpvA

    30

  • #
    Greg Goodman

    ” PMOD and Lean’s reconstruction”

    David, isn’t Lean’s reconstruction based on adding the 11y running average back under the SSN data. ie this already incorporates a 5.5y lag. You then do another 11 RM ( presumably correctly centred ).

    AFAIK, even Lean abandoned this improbable idea of adding a lew pass ( and distorted ) SSN to SSN quite some years ago.

    Also running averages are notoriously distorting, why don’t you use descent filter if you need one?

    It seems obvious you have a problem when you use a filter which has such a heavy period and yet you result drops just as quickly as the unfiltered data. You imagine you have removed everything of 11y and shorter yet it dives almost the same as the annual data.

    The step you get around 2004 is an artefact or your processing. Don’t expect it to appear in any physical variables.

    I’m sure I’ve pointed this out before but you seem to ignore it at your peril.

    You’ve had a marvelous opportunity for some pre-peer review through Jo’s site, yet you seem to have taken little note of any input others have given.

    Don’t any of the journal reviewers raise these kind of issues?

    21

    • #

      Greg, I get the 2004 -> 2017 cooling even when using the full Fourier analysis model, staying in the frequency domain where appropriate with no shortcuts. But most people don’t get that and don’t find it convincing, ‘cos it’s too complicated.

      The simple 11 year smoother is to explain it to people — because it is really simple. An 11 year smoother (running average) gives a dead flat output on a signal consisting only of an 11 year cycle. So it is intuitively and obviously in the ballpark for wiping out most of the roughly 11 year solar cycle from the TSI signal.

      As it happens I started telling people about the fall in 2017 before the 11 year smoother explanation (just before went public in 2014), when I just had the high-powered model. Some asked if I had a simpler explanation, which is when I came up with the explanation of an 11 year smoother and fall in 2004.

      101

      • #
        Greg

        Thanks for the reply.

        It’s unfortunate that you feel you have to degrade you analysis to the lowerest common demoninator. That is now how science works. There is no point in trying to publish in ‘learned journals’ if you are going to limit your techniques to running averages and linear trends because Joe Public can’t understand anything else. Climatology is full of that kind of rubbish already and is IMO one of the main reasons they have got nowhere in the last 30 years.

        Obviously you will get a drop using more rigorous methods because SSN has had a very low cycle but the falling of a cliff drop is an artefact. It has to be because you are supposed to have removed all the frequencies which could cause such a drop.

        Do you have a grown-ups version available anywhere?

        30

        • #
          Greg

          BTW could you comment on using Lean TSI which adds an 11y RM under SNN. Like I said I think Lean herself no longer supports this idea.

          That would seem a fairly central problem. If reviewers are not raising that I’m wondering what kind of journal you are going to publish in. I hope it’s not one of those Micky Mouse predatory journals. That will blow your cred straight away and will be dismissed instantly.

          30

          • #
            Greg

            This what proper lowpass filters produce. The 60mo 3-sigma gaussian is very similar to a triple running mean if you don’t want scare anyone, use a triple running mean.

            https://climategrog.files.wordpress.com/2016/09/ssn_gauss_r3m.png

            Once you have removed anything of about 10y or faster that decline much take about tens MINIMUM. If is does not is an artefact and a processing error.

            Once again, here is a detailed explanation of the distortions caused by crappy running average “smoothers”. They don’t even smooth properly.
            https://climategrog.wordpress.com/2013/05/19/triple-running-mean-filters/

            20

          • #
            Greg

            Here is the same thing using a running mean “smoother”.

            https://climategrog.files.wordpress.com/2016/09/ssn_gauss_rm.png

            There you have it in black and white: the sudden drop you are anticipating is a filter artefact.

            You would do better to rethink what you are presenting instead of blindly pushing ahead with publishing something so obviously wrong and so easily dismissed.

            You have some very valid points to make as alternative routes / pipelines etc. It would be preferable if you did not make yourself look incompetent which will lead to your other work being dismissed as well.

            20

          • #

            Greg, I haven’t attempted to publish the grown up version of the notch delay version. Even the skeptics have no idea and little enthusiasm. I don’t get paid for this, so I cannot be bothered. If the delay hypothesis appears to work because the temp drops in the next few years, then there may be enough interest and I’ll show people the model and maybe develop it further, otherwise too bad.

            The paper on the notch delay just goes the simple empirical clues route as per post 22, so it doesn’t even use Lean.

            (Personally I finds the situation sad. I was trained in an art that nobody today seems to appreciate, but which underlies much of the tech in the last two centuries. I could take those a lot further — I spent several years privately developing it — but I am getting pretty sure it will go to the grave with me.)

            71

            • #
              Greg

              Still no comment on the fact that the steep drop is an artefact. Did you view the graphs I provided above ? You are chasing shadows because AFAICT you have been using this defective filter all the way through.

              The delay may be real, I remain open minded about that but the notch was also a misreading of your black-box Fourrier analysis since you ( or rather nature ) were not feeding in a broad band signal.

              The sharp drop will not happen, so you’ll have row back on that. Acknowledging the source of error will work better before than after nature proves you wrong.

              I would not be surprised if there is slower drop from here to 2025, I think Scafetta was saying this as far back as 2004 from simple cycle fitting using a Fourrier reconstruction to extrapolate.

              I also think Arctic ice is at a turning point and is likely to show recovery in the next 5 years:
              https://judithcurry.com/2016/09/18/is-the-arctic-sea-ice-spiral-of-death-dead/

              There was a fundamental change in the Arctic in 2007.
              https://climategrog.files.wordpress.com/2016/09/nh_sea-ice_min_date2.png

              That could provide the sort of delay you are talking about.

              20

              • #

                Because the fall in 2004 is not an artefact. Yes I looked a the graphs you sent. No, I don’t agree with you.

                60

              • #
                Greg

                thanks for the reply David. I think I have shown fairly clearly in those graphs that it is an artefact of the 11y running mean.

                If you wish to disagree with that, something more substantive than “don’t agree with you” is requited for that to have any weight in a scientific context.

                Also seems strange that all my comments are now being held back in moderation. Rather disappointing all round.

                [Just the one I could find and that has been passed with a smile. - Mod]

                30

              • #

                Especially when based on out-of-date data.
                There is no recent dramatic ‘solar fall’.

                21

              • #

                Greg,

                You are not on and have never been on a moderation list (I just checked). AFAIK your comments go straight up; I don’t know why that comment got put in moderation.

                You have shown only that a simple smoother has different spectrum characteristics to low pass or Gaussian filters. That is undergraduate stuff — not very interesting, common knowledge. You haven’t argued for why a low pass filter or some other spectral shape would be appreciably better — in terms of what it is supposed to do, i.e. detect something interesting about the TSI-surface temp relationship that has occurred before. I agree that a low pass filter or some other shape would produce a different result — but so what? I pointed out above that the full Fourier analysis model, in the frequency domain without shortcuts, detected the fall off in 2004 — and that is what originally led me to predict the 2017 cooling. The simple smoothing filter explanation came later, as it happens. So even it you don’t like the simple smoother, you still have the full model to disagree with. It is embodied in this spreadsheet, with full code and all data, which I released in July 2014. There aren’t full notes released on the model, but there is a fair bit of material in the “old blog posts” (see the project home page).

                You have repeatedly pointed this out in the past, and this reply is similar to others. You appear to take no notice of my replies, because you then go repeating your claims elsewhere. The incentives for me to repeat this conversation are underwhelming.

                To sum up, for reasons given above, I disagree with your claims. AFAIK there is nothing new in this answer.

                01

            • #
              tom0mason

              “I was trained in an art that nobody today seems to appreciate, but which underlies much of the tech in the last two centuries. ”

              Indeed, ask many techies what is the essential intersect between their mobile phone, internet connection, and digital TV. Fourier for most is not their first thought.
              How really important it is, is touched on here –
              https://www.fastcompany.com/1810522/how-speeding-most-important-algorithm-our-lifetime-could-change-modern-world

              40

  • #
    ianl8888

    … David’s papers will be published in October …

    Interesting news.

    Published in which Journal and Edition, please ?

    70

    • #
      Frank

      Good unanswered question.
      Which journal ?

      30

    • #

      Not saying until its published. Sorry.

      52

      • #
        Andrew McRae

        At a bunker deep underground somewhere in Colorado… ;)
        “Has he told everyone it will be published?”
        “No, not yet.”
        “How about now?”
        “No. No…wait! He’s just told everyone it will be published.”
        “Great. Now yank the paper. And fire the Editor who accepted it, just to send a message.”
        “Yes, it will be done at once, Kevin, sir.”

        52

      • #
        Ross

        Extremely wise answer David.

        Congratulations on getting this far –it is no mean feat to get, what will be a couple very of controversial papers published in the area of climate science.

        31

  • #
    RobK

    Godspeed to you Jo and David. :-)

    40

  • #

    David Evans explanation of the Solar mechanism is excellent, but if any cooling occurs, the Warmitas will explain that it is all part of Climate Change and if there is continued warming, they will explain that it is all part of Global Warming. Whatever happens anywhere, Warmistas know that it is Man and his accursed CO2 that is responsible.

    31

  • #
    Bobl

    The big difficuly is going to be revisionism by NASA and co, as the temp falls there will be a massisve incentive to fiddle the data turning a potential 0.3 deg fall into say a 0.15 deg fall which they will label as insignificant.

    As I have said in the past, what needs to be falsified is not their science but their moral/political argument that lowering the level of plant food in the atmosphere is somehow good for us. I think the reason that Erlich’s prediction (limits on carrying capacity of the earth) hasn’t come true is significantly because CO2 HAS risen with population and caused increased food yield at around the rate of population increase (1% for each 2ppm = +1% per annum). A sigificant cooling event with a related drop in CO2 could turn that on it’s head.

    Imagine the crop failures of the little ice age revisiting Europe, North America and North Asia simultaneously. Australia, South america, and Africa would have to provide the whole world’s food supply, are we prepared for that? Hell no. What is the probability of an invasion by starving billions in the north under those circumstances ?

    52

  • #
    Analitik

    OT but BIG news for Victorians and maybe even more so for South Australians

    Hazelwood shutdown: Victoria’s dirtiest power station set to close early next year

    Engie (the owner/operator of Hazelwood) are meeting on the 19th & 20th next month to decide if Hazelwood will be closed down next April. Part of the reason is new investment required by WorkSafe Victoria if operation is to continue.

    Our stupid Marxist state government is likely to see this as progress towards the 2025 40% renewables target. South Australia’s crutch, the Heywood interconnector, will not be able to support their grid after Hazelwood closes so next autumn will see lights out for the state if a summer peak doesn’t bring it earlier.

    Meanwhile, thanks again, Timmy Flannelly for urging out government to “invest” in the biggest desal plant in the southern hemisphere so it can sit idle as the climate cycles back from the doom you forecast.
    Hume Dam spills as water storage levels surge amid deluge

    60

    • #
      Analitik

      The ABC have just reported that Engie aren’t commenting and the state energy minister, Lily D’Ambrosio, has said Engie tells her there has been no decision made so I wonder where Fairfax sourced their story?
      I guess “no decision made” still allows for a decision next month.

      Hazelwood power plant: French owner ENGIE has made ‘no decision’ on station closure, Victorian Government says

      30

    • #
      Greg

      Typical non scientific bilge. Despite the headline about “dirtiest” there is no mention of anything ‘dirty’ in the whole report.

      One must presume that they are ignorantly referring to a colourless, odourless, non toxic gas as “dirty”. Utter stupidity.

      So if they are planning to replace this backbone of the state’s electricity generating capacity with “clean renewable energy” where is it? Nice sound bite but you need the replacement BEFORE you shut the coal powered station. They don’t even have a plan for supplying 24/7 power on that scale with renewable. It total irresponsibility.

      31

      • #
        ianl8888

        It’s total irresponsibility

        Well, yes, but as has been commented before, earlier this year both SA and Tas dropped their bundles with the same irresponsibility – and absolutely nothing significant happened. Almost no MSM coverage with any point, no public outrage, all over in a few days with the usual “Move along, nothing to see here” platitudes.

        So the slow destruction of the national power grid will not cause undue civil mess; the mass of the populace will grudgingly accept it. I had not previously thought that possible (it was my comfort backstop for years), but it has now been roadtested and found accurate.

        10

  • #
    RB

    As David says: “If the predicted cooling does not eventuate then the notch-delay hypothesis is false.” Without real predictions, it’s not real science.

    I suspect that the our glorious science educators would (check out the new leader) rather use the opportunity to point that David got it wrong so is not to be trusted and another budding genius gets an awful start to their science education.

    31

    • #
      Oliver K. Manuel

      I agree with your assessment. Lock-step “consensus science” is often headed by clueless bureaucrats who would have performed equally “well” in the old USSR bureaucracy.

      21

      • #
        Konrad

        I would agree. The AGW nonsense is Lysenkoism on a global scale.

        I believe many who pushed the propaganda know they got it spectacularly wrong, but the permanent record Internet has turned them into rabid cornered animals. They are now fighting to save face, not the planet.

        318

  • #
    • #
      • #
        ren

        This graph also shows that the strong solar wind favors the ENSO cycle.

        20

      • #
        ren

        “We presented a continuous 9200-year record of rainfall variations
        from the only permanent freshwater lake in the Galápagos
        Islands. Changes in the concentration and hydrogen isotope ratio
        of lipids produced by the green alga Botryococcus braunii (B race),
        which blooms during El Niño rains in the Galápagos, indicate that
        the early Holocene (9200–5600 yr BP) was characterized by alternating
        extremes in the intensity and/or frequency of El Niño events
        that lasted a century or more. Our data from the core of the ENSO
        region thus refutes earlier studies that reported a lack of El Niño
        events in the early Holocene. The mid-Holocene (5600–3500 yr
        BP) was a time of consistently weak El Niño activity, as were the
        Early Middle Ages (∼1000–1500 yr BP) and the 19th-to-mid-20th
        centuries. El Niño event strength and frequency were moderate to
        high during the remainder of the last 3500 years.
        Empirical evidence from a diverse set of continuous paleoclimate
        records make clear that the ENSO mode of climate variability
        persisted throughout the last 9200 years, except for the period
        from about 5500–3800 yr BP, when ENSO was weak or inoperative.
        Synchronous changes in Galápagos rainfall extremes and in
        the occurrence of US Great Plains drought with cosmogenic nuclide
        production supports a link between solar activity and ENSO
        throughout most of the Holocene. These observations can be exploited
        to improve models being used to predict changes in ENSO
        caused by anthropogenic climate forcing. Indeed, based on the
        Holocene evolution of ENSO, we propose it is likely that the future
        intensity and frequency of both El Niño and La Niña will be
        at least partly modulated by natural variations in solar activity.”
        http://faculty.washington.edu/jsachs/lab/www/Zhang_Leduc_Sachs-El%20Junco%20Botryo%20dD%20Holocene-EPSL14proofs.pdf

        20

        • #
          ren

          “Persistent, decadal-scale droughts over the western
          United States have been linked to La Niña–like
          SST patterns in the ETP during the instrumental
          period (35). Tree-ring reconstructions extend this
          relationship back to the Medieval Warm Period
          (MWP, A.D. ~900 to 1300), which was seemingly
          characterized by positive solar forcing, inactive
          tropical volcanism, La Niña–like conditions, and
          multidecadal “megadroughts”.

          10

    • #
      ren

      “The influence of solar variability on Earth’s
      climate over centennial to millennial time
      scales is the subject of considerable debate.
      The change in total solar irradiance over recent
      11-year sunspot cycles amounts to <0.1%, but
      greater changes at ultraviolet wavelengths (1)
      may have substantial impacts on stratospheric ozone
      concentrations, thereby altering both stratospheric
      and tropospheric circulation patterns (2). Estimates
      of the secular increase in total irradiance since the
      late 17th century Maunder sunspot minimum
      range from ~0.05 to 0.5% (1). Values in the middle
      of this range are sufficient to force the intermediatecomplexity
      Zebiak-Cane model of El Niño–
      Southern Oscillation (ENSO) dynamics into a more
      El Niño–like state during the Little Ice Age (A.D.
      ~1400 to 1850) (3), a response dubbed the “ocean
      dynamical thermostat” because negative (or positive)
      radiative forcing results in dynamical ocean
      warming (or cooling, respectively) of the eastern
      tropical Pacific (ETP) (4). This model prediction is
      supported by paleoclimatic proxy reconstructions
      over the past millennium."
      http://instaar.colorado.edu/~marchitt//reprints/tmmscience10.pdf

      10

  • #
    PeterPetrum

    Hi David, congratulations on getting confirmation of pending publication. Once publication has occurred I will ensure that my contact in NASA is advised of the fact and we will see whether he continues to maintain your “charlatan” status.

    This is very exciting. You must be delighted.

    80

  • #
  • #
    Shane

    I’ve followed David’s posts with interest, but I’ll readily admit a reasonable amount of it is beyond me. I’m encouraged that the debate goes on and people still work to understand the variations in the climate instead of taking the easy (and very well paid) path.

    21

    • #
      Oliver K. Manuel

      I do not yet understand David’s puzzling observations either, but the puzzling aspects lessen when I accept that the composition (H) and source of energy (H-fusion) in the photo-sphere are unlike those in the solar core (neutrons), (neutron-repulsion)

      30

  • #
    thingodonta

    The sun could be driving warming, and it might still warm another 20 years, despite solar activity tapering off since the 1990s.

    For the simple fact that according to several papers about past solar maxima from proxy records, the lag heat delay from a solar peak which occurred in the 1980s-1990s varies up to 30-40 years, but averages around 20. This means the sun combined with oceans could be driving things and not c02, and yet we still have decades to go, even if the sun further tapers off.

    Nobody really knows, because observing the actual experiment hasn’t been done before.

    For what it’s worth, I reckon it won’t warm much for the next 20 years or so. And according to past solar maxima and cycles such as the Medieval Warm period, we still have around another 100 years or solar warming anyway, which is a pity because I would have liked to see the warmists shown to be wrong earlier.

    10

  • #
    Oliver K. Manuel

    Dr. David Evans,

    I want to express my appreciation for your efforts to understand how the Sun influences Earth’s climate. You have made great headway despite opposition. I am certain the Sun’s core is the pulsar remnant of the supernova that birthed the solar system five billion years (5 Ga) ago.

    The 22 year cycle of sunspots is well known as is the inverse correlation of cosmic ray flux with solar activity.

    I believe most cosmic rays in the solar system come from the Sun, although the consensus opinion certainly does not yet agree.

    I strongly suspect, but do not yet know, NASA knows that the abundance ratios of lightweight isotopes and elements relative to heavier isotopes and elements increase in a regular manner with the number of sunspots over a regular solar cycle. I.e., solar mass-fractionation is cyclic too.

    10

    • #

      Thanks Oliver, but I couldn’t comment on the Sun’s composition because it is not something I know anything about. My contribution is only to notice the notch and propose the delay, and the latter could be an important clue to what goes on in the Sun.

      More generally, it is frustrating at how much opposition there is to anything new — I am surprised more people don’t go “that’s an interesting idea, the evidence seems ok, let’s see what we can do with it”. Part of that is the politicized nature of all things climate, but some of it is human nature and being territorial over a subject area I suppose. JK Galbraith once said the greatest vested interest is the mind — the effort of relearning or learning new stuff is too great, so it is easier to reject alternative ideas. Getting large groups of people to question a long-held and remunerative belief is just too much. Such is life.

      62

      • #
        Oliver K. Manuel

        Thanks, David. May you have the patience and fortitude to succeed in getting information past the official gatekeepers of knowledge! If the Sun is an ordinary star, as it appears, whatever you discover here may impact the whole field of astronomy and astrophysics.

        My research mentor realized the error in Bethe-Weizsacker’s definition of nuclear binding energy eighty years ago. I am most certain of that error, and its implications for solar energy. But physicists are most reluctant to discuss it publicly.

        40

      • #
        Oliver K. Manuel

        David,

        Please post here, or send me privately, instructions for properly referencing the series of papers you wrote on the Sun.

        Thanks,
        Oliver
        omatumr@yahoo.com

        00

  • #
    ren

    Currently they are working coronal holes on the Sun. To radiation from coronal holes reacts strongly magnetosphere of the Earth and occur geomagnetic storms.
    http://www.solen.info/solar/images/AR_CH_20160924_hres.png

    10

  • #

    “We expect Leif Svalgaard to continue to deny there was a fall.”

    And indeed, there was no fall. Here is the newest official NOAA Climate Data Record from Lean and Colleagues:

    81

  • #

    Your ‘image’ button didn’t seem to work, so here is a regular link

    http://www.leif.org/research/No-Solar-Fall-TSI.png

    52

  • #

    Because the NOAA Climate Data Record is stored in a difficult to access format, here is a simple EXCEL spreadsheet with the data:

    http://www.leif.org/research/NOAA-CDR-TSI-2016.xls

    so you can do your own ‘smoothing’ and torturing.

    Note that the record before 1975 is still wrong [with silly background based on obsolete Hoyt & Schatten Group Sunspot Number]. But the record after 1976 is supposedly the best LASP, NRL, and NOAA can come up with.

    70

  • #
    Oliver K. Manuel

    Leif, thanks for posting here. I have “no dog in that fight,” but I have a very favorable impression of Dr. David Evans research.

    10

  • #
    Don Gaddes

    Has TSI fallen – or has the increase in Albedo, (volcanism and wind-blown dust,) tipped the ‘Albedo Balance’ in favour of ‘cooling.’
    The X Factor induced orbital ‘Dry Cycles’ described and forecast by Alex S. Gaddes in his work ‘Tomorrow’s Weather’(1990), are counteracted by an increase in volcanism, (in Australia’s case, predominantly from the Indonesian archipelago.)
    Less upper atmosphere cloud due to the X Factor, vs the increased lower level precipitation caused by the resultant low pressure cells from increased volcanism.
    These low pressure cells and resultant cloud move from West to East and towards the Poles,(due to Axial Spin.)
    It may be noted that the eruption of Sinabung volcano (2015 to the present,) and others in Indonesia,seem more than coincidental with subsequent precipitation events in South-Eastern Australia. A previous example of this in another part of the planet, was the ‘snowing in’ of Heathrow airport in Britain (2010), by the effect of an erupting Eyjatjallajokull volcano in Iceland. There are many other examples.
    The test for this ‘cooling’ should be an increase in sea-ice. The effects of the orbital ‘Dry Cycles’,will mean less precipitation (snow,) but increased ‘Albedo Cooling’ will mean more sea-ice. (More sea-ice equals more Albedo,etc.)
    2016 is a Lunar Metonic Cycle year.This been a precursor to increased ‘Dry Cycle’ intensity in the past. 2018 should be a ‘Wet/Normal’ year, but may be ‘dry’ due to
    the proximity of the Lunar Metonic Cycle.
    According to my best estimate the above predicted ‘Wet/Normal’ year will start over China around 110 degrees East longitude in mid February 2017 – and reach Australia’s East Coast in early January 2018. The next Two Year ‘Wet’ will effect Australia from 2022 – 2023.

    As far as ‘What is the X Factor?’ This may interest David Evans;

    Flickering sun switched climate
    A solar slump may have chilled the Northern Hemisphere.

    Philip Ball

    Europe’s Little Ice Age coincided with low solar activity.

    The flickering sun may cause rapid climate change, according to a new comparison of climate records. A 200-year cold snap 10, 300 years ago seems to have coincided with a passing slump in the sun’s activity1.

    Svante Bjorck of Lund University in Sweden and colleagues looked at sediments in Lake Starvatn on the Faroe Islands and in the Norwegian Sea, the width of growth rings in ancient German pine trees, and ancient ice drilled from deep within the Greenland ice sheet.

    Each of these indicates how some characteristic of the environment has changed over the 11,000 or so years since the last ice age ended. The chemical composition of the ice core, for example, shows how the temperature of the atmosphere has changed. The distance between tree-rings reflects the average ambient temperature during each successive growing season.

    Ice and trees show that the climate became suddenly colder about 10,300 years ago, then gradually warmed again over the ensuing century. Other records from the Californian coast and Tibet suggest that the cold snap may have been felt throughout the Northern Hemisphere, and perhaps worldwide.

    Bjorck and colleagues propose that a weakening of solar activity may have caused this mini chill. It coincided, they find, with a large increase in the amount of beryllium-10 trapped in Greenland ice – evidence of a solar flicker.

    This radioactive form of beryllium is produced when cosmic rays from space collide with nitrogen and oxygen atoms in the atmosphere. The magnetic field around the Earth protects the planet from cosmic rays. This field is stronger when the sun is more active – emitting more ultraviolet radiation and displaying more sunspots – so fewer cosmic rays can penetrate.

    The proposed relationship between solar activity and climate change is controversial, partly because some have tried to pin modern-day global warming on it rather than on a human-induced greenhouse effect.

    There is evidence, however, linking changes in solar activity to climate fluctuations in the more recent past. Abnormally high activity around AD 1100-1250, for example, has been mooted as the cause of a period of warming in medieval Europe. And the ‘Little Ice Age’ between the sixteenth and eighteenth centuries coincided with a period of low solar activity.

    Core values

    The most pronounced climate swings, such as ice ages, happen slowly and last a long time – 100,000 years or so. Gradual, periodic changes in the shape of the Earth’s orbit around the sun are thought to trigger these larger-scale changes.

    “Sudden shifts are thought to be mostly due to ocean circulation”
    Evidenceof shorter-term climate change has been observed before in ice-core records from Greenland and Antarctica. Apparently the global average temperature can switch between today’s mild climate and ice-age frigidity in just a few decades.

    Sudden shifts are thought to be mostly due to ocean circulation. When ice sheets melt at the end of an ice age, the oceans get an injection of fresh water. By making seawater less salty and therefore less dense, this can suppress the conveyor-belt circulation that normally carries warm water from the tropics to the poles. Deprived of this source of heat, the high latitudes grow cold.

    References
    Bjorck, S. et al. High-resolution analyses of an early Holocene climate event may imply decreased solar forcing as an important climate trigger. Geology 29, 1107 – 1110 (2001). | Article | ISI |;

    10

  • #

    Evans is using an outdated version of TSI. He should be using NOAA’s newest Climate Data Record. Here I compare the latest record with the outdated one:

    http://www.leif.org/research/Compare-TSI-NOAA-Evans.png

    As you all can see, there was no dramatic drop ["the solar fall"] in 2004.
    Since there was no fall, assuming Evans hypothesis to be correct there will be no drop in temperature either. This puts falsification of his hypothesis off another 30-40 years.

    62

    • #

      Dr. Svalgaard,

      you have made similar statements many times,but you have been wrong every time,which is why you have quickly become a lonely voice here.

      HERE you were exposed with SEVENTEEN examples of your errors made on their blog.You NEVER answered them at all,just drone on and on that David is using incorrect/outdated TSI.

      You are now gaining a reputation of being a blowhard,that will dogg you into the future.Here is the chart using several TSI values,INCLUDING yours showing they all have a drop around the 2004 year:

      http://jo.nova.s3.amazonaws.com/guest/david-evans/26/fig2b.jpg

      They are focusing on that particular year,for a reason that you have yet understood.Sure TSI has gone back up some since but NOT close to the previous levels. EACH of the recorded big drop preceded a significant cooling period,which is why they are forecasting another significant cooling soon.

      David and Jo,made it clear WHY they chose the TSI data sets,and explained it so clearly that even a caveman would understand.

      Suggest that you drop your whining and grow up.

      36

  • #

    The fall in solar radiation that happened in 2004 is one of the three largest in 400 years
    Again: there was no ‘fall’ in 2004. TSI in cycle 24 is way above 2004 values:
    http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-Since-2003.png

    61

  • #

    Evans [and Jo] keeps pushing the outdated TSI record to claim a dramatic ‘solar fall’ in 2004. The updated Official Climate Data Record for TSI from NOAA shows no such thing:

    http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-NOAA-vs-Evans.png

    73

    • #
      Oliver K. Manuel

      Thanks, Leif. Was the “Official Record” changed?

      Einstein’s 1905 and Aston’s 1922 definition of mass (m) as energy (E) was changed by Drs. Carl von Weizsacker’s and Hans Bethe’s flawed definition of “nuclear binding energy” in 1935-1936 (See the sloping baseline across the top of Figure 2):

      http://www.journalijar.com/article/11650/neutron-repulsion–social-costs-from-overlooking-this-power/

      That very costly error is only now, finally being corrected.

      Please ask “officials” to stop making changes in observations to improve the “97% consensus scientific endorsement” of AGW dogma.

      12

      • #

        They are not making changes in observations. They are simply updating the record with the latest observations.
        And has nothing whatsoever to do with Einstein or Bethe.

        71

        • #
          Oliver K. Manuel

          Thank you, Leif, for admitting the official TSI record was changed, as Dr. David Evans had said.

          I invite and encourage you to write and send a reply to IJAR defending your claim that

          The error in Weizsacker-Bethe’s definition of nuclear binding energy had “nothing whatsoever to do” with the Standard Solar Model of the sun as a hydrogen-fusion reactor rather than a generator of hydrogen by neutron-emission from the solar pulsar core, followed by spontaneous decay of neutrons into hydrogen.

          33

    • #
      Bob Weber

      Leif,

      I crunched your numbers from http://www.leif.org/research/NOAA-CDR-TSI-2016.xls and came up with a different conclusion regarding the SC23 TSI fall-off.

      The three-year cumulative drop-off for each cycle for SC 21-23 is in bold:

      SC 21:

      1981.5 1361.68
      1982.5 1361.23 -0.45
      1983.5 1361.21 -0.02
      1984.5 1360.79 -0.42 -0.78

      SC 22:

      1991.5 1361.52
      1992.5 1361.31 -0.21
      1993.5 1360.94 -0.37
      1994.5 1360.74 -0.20 -0.78

      SC 23:

      2002.5 1361.63
      2003.5 1361.13 -0.50
      2004.5 1360.92 -0.21
      2005.5 1360.70 -0.22 -0.93

      SC 24:

      2015.5 1361.41
      2016.5 1361.06 -0.35 -0.35

      The 2002-5 TSI fall-off of -0.93 W/m^2 was the largest drop-off of the three cycles.

      Largest in 400 years? Maybe, if we look at it from the perspective that the inevitable dropoff from such heights of TSI in 2002, being near the highest levels in 400 years, could conceivably have made it “the largest”, but there’s no way to tell.

      TSI was very high in the late 1950′s too, so maybe the drop-off from there was “the largest”.

      Oh, and thank you Leif for pointing out last week the problem with PMOD, emphasized here also by Kenneth Richards. I compared the latest edition to SORCE and found a serious downward trend in PMOD v SORCE over 14 years, so I’m taking the hint and dropping it.

      The NOAA CDR TSI version also differs from SORCE:

      2003 -0.10
      2004 -0.00
      2005 0.05
      2006 -0.01
      2007 -0.03
      2008 -0.07
      2009 -0.05
      2010 0.01
      2011 0.01
      2012 0.05
      2013 0.10
      2014 0.01
      2015 0.02
      2016 -0.00

      Concerning http://www.leif.org/research/No-Solar-Fall-TSI.png, the Modern Maximum post-1960′s solar cycles really stand out, as does the obvious increase in trend in TSI since the Maunder minimum.

      Of course this TSI record will be revised again taking into account the v2 SSN changes, increasing the peak levels of many solar cycles, which will only bolster the case for the solar cause of global warming, in spite of the reduction in trend such changes will manifest.

      31

      • #

        Modern Maximum post-1960′s solar cycles really stand out, as does the obvious increase in trend in TSI since the Maunder minimum
        That graph is the official NOAA graph, which before 1976 is still wrong.
        As I explain here: http://www.leif.org/research/EUV-Magnetic-Field.pdf
        The better graph would be (Slide 15 of the above link):
        http://www.leif.org/research/Basal-EUV-and-TSI.png

        there is no ‘obvious increase in TSI since 1700.

        The NOAA record is basically OK since 1976 so I used that one to illustrate that even the official record contradicts Evans.

        82

        • #
          Bob Weber

          Of course the ‘obvious’ increase I was talking about since 1700 was from the graphic you posted first. The second, slide 15, includes your idea of what the TSI revision should look like wrt to the v2 SSNs, and I’m sure everyone involved has seen your input. I did agree TSI should be adjusted again wrt to cycle peaks, with a caveat that there are going to be mistakes made somewhere along the way assuming SSN and TSI track perfectly in time, which the last three years of SSN/TSI indicate. nothing new here with that.

          However, given that Pete Riley et al disagree with your lower limits to TSI over the past 400 years, your outlook is probably not very accurate:

          http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/riley_ApJ_2015.pdf

          “INFERRING THE STRUCTURE OF THE SOLAR CORONA AND INNER HELIOSPHERE DURING THE
          MAUNDER MINIMUM USING GLOBAL THERMODYNAMIC MAGNETOHYDRODYNAMIC SIMULATIONS

          ABSTRACT
          Observations of the Sun’s corona during the space era have led to a picture of relatively constant, but cyclically
          varying solar output and structure. Longer-term, more indirect measurements, such as from 10Be, coupled by other
          albeit less reliable contemporaneous reports, however, suggest periods of significant departure from this standard.
          The Maunder Minimum was one such epoch where: (1) sunspots effectively disappeared for long intervals during
          a 70 yr period; (2) eclipse observations suggested the distinct lack of a visible K-corona but possible appearance of
          the F-corona; (3) reports of aurora were notably reduced; and (4) cosmic ray intensities at Earth were inferred to be
          substantially higher. Using a global thermodynamic MHD model, we have constructed a range of possible coronal
          configurations for the Maunder Minimum period and compared their predictions with these limited observational
          constraints. We conclude that the most likely state of the corona during—at least—the later portion of the Maunder
          Minimum was not merely that of the 2008/2009 solar minimum, as has been suggested recently, but rather a state
          devoid of any large-scale structure, driven by a photospheric field composed of only ephemeral regions, and likely
          substantially reduced in strength. Moreover, we suggest that the Sun evolved from a 2008/2009-like configuration
          at the start of the Maunder Minimum toward an ephemeral-only configuration by the end of it, supporting a
          prediction that we may be on the cusp of a new grand solar minimum.”

          Lastly Dr Svalgaard, I checked your spreadsheet against http://spot.colorado.edu/~koppg/TSI/TSI_TIM_Reconstruction.txt, and have learned that your spreadsheet data is not the same data. There is an -0.03 average annual difference between the data in your spreadsheet and that of the data in the linked file.

          The linked file data for the years 2003-2015 do match the SORCE data.

          35

          • #

            given that Pete Riley et al disagree with your lower limits to TSI over the past 400 years, your outlook is probably not very accurate

            Given that Riley is relying on dubious assumptions and a model that is demonstrably wrong you could do well not to be sucked into that morass.
            The MHD models rely on accurate knowledge of what the magnetic field strength is, and Riley [and others] assume values of the order of 1 Gauss evenly spread over the surface. However, we have known for half a century that this is false: the field is concentrated in narrow bundles with field strengths of the order of 1500-2500 Gauss and 99.9% of the Sun’s photosphere is not magnetic at all.

            About the file at LASP: that is not the Official Data Record as published by NOAA for use by climate research.

            81

            • #

              The LASP file even states:
              “; Offset -0.0268 W/m^2 to match SORCE/TIM absolute value”
              So NOAA thinks that that is a real difference, but since it is constant it has no influence on the “solar fall”.

              71

  • #

    Of course, TSI for cycle 24 is lower because the cycle is lower. This is not a dramatic ‘solar fall’ as nobody has noticed [as Jo said].
    As for a lower TSI resulting in a higher temperature, I don’t think so.

    71

    • #
      Bob Weber

      “…nobody has noticed [as Jo said]”

      I disagree with both of you then, as some people have felt and noticed the significant cooling in different places from TSI falling earlier this year in March.

      Significant crop losses from cold/snow/ice weather have occurred across the Earth during the lowest TSI dips since March. Noticed how cold it’s been in the morning in most of CA this month? Notice the rapid rebound in Arctic ice recently?

      Equatorial ocean heat content has fallen off over the past year nearly perfectly in sych with TSI, http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_update/heat-last-year.gif

      The warmth this year, esp in the US derives from residual heat stored in the oceans from the full seven years of yearly increases in SORCE TSI culminating in the SC24 TSI peak last year, one year after the cycle sunspot number peak, and it also came about from high UV index (high insolation even under lower TSI). The peak temps in Phoenix this summer coincided to the day to the highest NOAA UV index day for this year in the US. CO2 didn’t do that.

      Each and every time there is a spike in TSI on a solar rotational basis, there is a warm-up in the Nino34 region, Nino12, and the GOM, driving rapid evaporation, huge water vapor plumes that traverse the US and sometimes flow all the way to the UK/Europe, dropping huge amounts of rain, hail, and causing havoc with floods and tornadoes. In between the spikes everything cools down until the next spike. Up and down. The net gain or loss over time is what David’s work reveals.

      The only people who don’t notice these things are those who don’t know what to look for, and those who won’t look out of dogmatic ‘certainty’ in what they already believe, ie that TSI couldn’t do all that.


      The sun causes warming, cooling, and extreme events, not CO2!

      54

      • #

        Weather is not Climate. No reasonable discussion can be had with people who do not realize that. About California: where I’m at [Petaluma] it is 104 degrees right now.

        53

        • #
          Bob Weber

          Is it morning there right now [no]? Because that’s what I said – morning temps. Also, the UV Index for today showed your area was at “8″, pretty high, the highest number was “8″ in the US, and the national 58 station average was 5.4. Feel special now?

          “Weather is not Climate.”

          This is where the rubber hits the road, where the men are separated from the boys.

          Today’s weather is part of tomorrow’s climate data, as was yesterday’s and on and on back in time we go, until we realize there weren’t any unimportant data days to the climate, unless you want to cherry-pick out some days. If you want to leave a certain day or two or more of weather stats out of climate data stats, which days are they and why?

          Once this has fully sunk in, the idea that daily TSI matters will sink in too. The weather and climate change with changing solar activity and insolation.

          27

          • #

            s it morning there right now [no]? Because that’s what I said – morning temps. Also, the UV Index for today showed your area was at “8″, pretty high, the highest number was “8″ in the US, and the national 58 station average was 5.4. Feel special now?

            Morning temps are even more narrow and removed from climate. Why not stipulate that one should use the temperature at 7:43 am sharp?
            About the UV-index: if you believe that is controlled mainly by solar activity, go check what it was in Beijing.

            62

            • #
              Bob Weber

              Leif, the UVI is about insolation, and as you know, solar UV energy itself varies with the solar cycle. UVI is different in Beijing on a given day than in Petaluma, near the same latitude, apparently because Beijing has so much smog, since they don’t scrub their emissions like we do.

              I wasn’t talking climate in that respect, but the weather, in a general comment. I check the weather every day between 8am-noon EDT, and have seen it’s been pretty cold in the mornings out west lately. In your case Leif, 7:43am sharp sounds great!

              26

              • #

                The UV index is about transparency of the air, not solar activity.
                And it is always cold in the morning in Petaluma because of the coastal fog that rolls in overnight.
                That [the cold ocean with enormous heat capacity] is what controls the morning temperature, not solar activity on any particular day.
                Weather does average over a 30-year period to become climate, but by definition then variations much shorter than that are not variations in climate. Thought you knew that, but, hey, I can be wrong too, assuming too much about your capability.

                72

              • #
                Bob Weber

                You know I said insolation, which covers transparency of air. It also covers the solar zenith angle seasonal change.

                The solar cycle dependent UV energy increase that is transmitted through the atmosphere is a part of increased insolation.

                Would you now argue that somehow the changes in UV during a solar cycle are blocked from being received by the earth, and if so, how?

                As far as CA weather, yes, it is being affected by cold ocean waters just off coast, waters which are colder now due to less energy in from the TSI drop-off since Fed 2015. It is also being affected by cold air from the northeast, cold air starting to set in, which is also due to the sun in three ways: the seasonal change into fall, the lower TSI this year than the previous 5 years, especially since mid-March, and by the cold air driven off the arctic region by the confluence of recent increased cosmic ray pressure at the poles and spikes in geomagnetic activity.

                From Dr. Tony Philips, today, Spaceweather.com “Our latest measurements show that cosmic rays are intensifying, with an increase of more than 12% since 2015″

                “Weather does average over a 30-year period to become climate, but by definition then variations much shorter than that are not variations in climate. ”

                Variations in climate do not occur without variations in weather.

                Variations in weather do not occur without variations in solar activity and insolation.

                Thought you knew that, but, hey, I can be wrong too, assuming too much about your capability.

                33

  • #

    Needless to say, neither Jo or Evans have any comments on the error of their ways.
    Perhaps their sidekick, the not-so-reliable Lord, will chime in. Perhaps with some new legal threat.

    107

    • #
      Raven

      C’mon Leif, how about you drop the churlish school yard ad homs.
      As you rightly point out . .

      No reasonable discussion can be had with people who do not realize that.

      610

      • #

        On both counts I am correct. So, what’s your problem?

        85

        • #
          Raven

          Needless to say, . .

          Then don’t say it.

          . . . neither Jo or Evans have any comments on the error of their ways.

          False premise.

          Perhaps their sidekick, the not-so-reliable Lord, will chime in. Perhaps with some new legal threat.

          Irrelevant churlish and childish ad hom.

          Your score: 0/2

          97

  • #
    Mark D.

    Leaf, may I ask why you just drop in here occasionally to spit on the host? Maybe you have poor people skills?

    Naw, you definitely have poor people skills.

    88

  • #

    People skills? as on how to fool people?
    Science should be about facts not people skill.

    83

    • #
      Mark D.

      Fool? no.

      Get along?

      Yes.

      But, unfortunately, I think you’ve already provided much evidence that you have poor people skills. Sorry because result of that must be painful for you.

      Sad.

      59

    • #
      tom0mason

      This blog is about the communication of science and facts to all, it is a fact that communication here does involve people skills.

      Wishing to ignore that fact is unscientific.

      56

      • #

        Except that what is being communicated here are not facts [as I have demonstrated here, both now and when the claim was first made] and therefore not science.

        72

        • #
          tom0mason

          But you’ve avoided the basic idea that commenting here should involve people skills.

          While I agree “Science should be about facts not people skill.”, however this forum is about communicating science and those facts, even to those not schooled in all the intricacies of the subject. To that end it most definitely involves ‘people skills’.
          As such effective communication is a different, and at times a difficult subject to master, after all what good is a master in his field if he fails to communicate his great wisdom?

          56

          • #

            Doing so requires communication skills. Conning people requires people skill.
            I have half a century’s honing of communication skill, my papers [some on sun/weather/climate] cited ~4000 times, so I’ll claim a certain mastery of that art.
            As people here continue to point out, I have poor skill as a con artist.

            62

            • #
              tom0mason

              Two things bother me with your comments.

              1. You have associated communication skills within the limited realm of science as evidence of skill on this wider public forum. Your comments thus far indicate that this is not so true. You have not enabled others to fully grasp what you believe you know.

              2. “I have poor skill as a con artist.” What is that about? Nobody is asking that of you.
              As to “my papers [some on sun/weather/climate] cited ~4000 times, so I’ll claim a certain mastery of that art.”,
              unfortunately in science being quoted often is no proof of worth, progress and time will be the final arbiter, thus far it is too soon to judge.
              Could it be that you wish Dr. Evans to quote your paper also, even if none of his findings rely on your papers’ merits. Why would anyone want that?

              Yours ideas, like so much in science, is only an approximation to revealing the true facts of nature. The quality of your approximation will be found out in time.

              26

              • #

                as evidence of skill on this wider public forum.
                I was under the misconception that this forum was about science…
                Could it be that you wish Dr. Evans to quote your paper also
                No, I do have a measure of integrity.
                The quality of your approximation will be found out in time
                Evans’ has already died on the vine.

                72

              • #
                tom0mason

                Indeed you have a misconception, as far as I know this public blog is about communicating science.

                IMO to that end you are incredibly poor.

                And here my opinion is as good as yours.

                27

              • #

                except that it does not communicate science [regardless of what you think].

                73

  • #
    Bob Weber

    There are way too many PhDs like Leif out there NOT LOOKING AT weather and climate data comprehensively every day over a long enough time span to appreciate that climate is weather on longer time scales, nor can those same people recognize the daily solar signatures on various weather/climate indices.

    So from my perspective, No reasonable discussion can be had with people who do not realize that.

    For two and one half years I’ve monitored the solar influence on earth’s weather and climate, as have others, but from the perspective of seeing it happen on a daily basis, and it’s been a fascinating time of learning and development, much like it has been for Dr. Evans.

    As such I say today with full confidence that low TSI cooling has already started in 2016, about 8-9 months earlier than I had first expected back in 2014.

    47

  • #
    Oliver K. Manuel

    Is Leif a spokesman for a composite group of “consensus scientists” who fear for their livelihoods if David Evan’s predictions are correct? I don’t know the answer, but that is how I regard Leif’s efforts.

    53

    • #

      Just shows how wrong you can be, assuming something without knowing. Learn from it!
      As a matter of fact, most of my research flies in the face of consensus science and being long retired, no livelihood is threatened.

      74

      • #
        Oliver K. Manuel

        Sorry, Leif, I recognize both the motives and style of USSR-style “science” in your comments, from

        1. The 1976 ambush of my presentation at the AGU National Meeting (with the late Dr. Dwarka Das Sabu) of experimental measurements showing PRIMORDIAL HELIUM accompanied only “STRANGE XENON” (Xe-2), not “NORMAL XENON” (Xe-1) at the birth of the solar system when the Allende meteorite formed ( http://www.omatumr.com/Data/1975Data.htm );

        2. The 1995 decision by NASA to hid measurements showing “STRANGE XENON” (Xe-2) in Jupiter when the Galileo probe plunged into the HELIUM-rich Jovian atmosphere, although my graduate student, Golden Hwaung, and I had predicted the Galileo probe would find “STRANGE XENON” (Xe-2) in Jupiter in our 1983 paper on Solar Abundances of the elements (Manuel, O.K. and Hwaung, G (1983): Solar abundances of the elements. Meteoritics, 18, pp. 209-222 http://tinyurl.com/224kz4)

        3. The 1998 admission of NASA’s mistake on CSPAN NEWS when the NASA Administrator finally released Galileo probe data showing “STRANGE XENON” (Xe-2) in Jupiter as the Galileo probe plunged into the HELIUM-rich Jovian atmosphere ( http://www.omatumr.com/Data/1998Data.htm )

        Here is the CSPAN NEWS video tape [ Washington, DC [C-SPAN tape 98-01-07-22-1, Purdue U. Public Affairs Video Archives, # 98526] of the NASA Administrator finally releasing data from the 1995 Galileo probe of Jupiter – data that the supernova birth of the solar system 5 Ga ago (predicted in our 1976 AGU paper) and the iron-rich Sun (predicted in our 1983 Meteoritics paper).

        03

  • #
    Oliver K. Manuel

    Me thinks you deny too vigorously, Leif.

    35

  • #

    Nonsense, I don’t want Evans to reference any of my work [gods forbid]. Just to have him use correct data [which is not mine, but the official data from NOAA to be used in climate research]. And that his hypothesis is already falsified. As I have said before “garbage in, garbage out”.

    74

    • #
      tom0mason

      Rubbish, this is all about you and your ego!

      What relevance has Dr. Evan’s to you when you think his work has “Evans’ has already died on the vine.”

      There is no other reason. You have shown this by your comments above. You do want Dr. Even to reference your work so you can calk-up another win. That is what you have always been fishing for.

      37

      • #

        You do want Dr. Even to reference your work so you can calk-up another win

        Absolutely not. Who in his right mind would like to be associated with such bad science?

        73

        • #
          tom0mason

          “Who in his right mind would like to be associated with such bad science?”
          So why be bothered about being quoted in Dr. Evans’ paper if you believe it has such little merit?
          From your attitude it would make absolutely no difference on scientific grounds but makes sense on personal ones. One paper showing that your work is not so relevant hurts that much, eh?
          Or maybe its just a side effect of your (infamous) lack of people skills?

          46

          • #

            You seem particularly slow. I’m not bothered at all, as I won’t be cited [and have no desire to be].
            The only point of interest is to counter the false notion that there has been any ‘solar fall’.
            There has not, and that ends the discussion.

            83

            • #
              tom0mason

              You seem particularly slow.
              I have shown, for anyone that wishes to read that you are bothered by this, and that is your primary reason for being here.

              Your comments are testimony to the fact.

              Of course this is not your first time here and you have (IMO) boorishly argued more or less the same before.

              But understand that you wish to have the last word on this because your ego will not allow otherwise.

              46

              • #

                It seems to me that you are the bothered one…
                Now, I’ll let you have the last word.

                85

              • #
                Mark D.

                Judging from the sudden influx of red thumbs, Leaf called in every chip and family friend (cause he has few of his own) to vote. Else he drove around to different WiFi hot-spots and thumbed himself.

                Good remaining retirement days Leaf, my heartfelt sympathy over your loneliness.

                Even more sorry for you that you don’t fish.

                79

  • #
    Philip Mulholland

    Reference for Kirvova:-

    Solanki, S.K. and Krivova, N.A., 2003. Can solar variability explain global warming since 1970?. Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 108(A5).

    20

    • #

      Your link concludes:
      “This comparison shows without requiring any recourse to modeling that since roughly 1970 the solar influence on climate (through the channels considered here) cannot have been dominant.”

      82

      • #
        el gordo

        Only 30% of the warming since the climate shift of 1976 is down to the sun. What caused the other 70%?

        I’m happy 30 years of weather equals climate, its approximately half of a 60 year cycle.

        20

  • #
    Don Gaddes

    The X Factor reduces the level of albedo in the upper atmosphere. The TSI is thus, seemingly increased.
    At the same time albedo is increased in the lower atmosphere, due,(among other things,) to volcanism and wind-blown dust.
    When the albedo depleting actions of the X Factor are over-ridden by an increase in lower-atmosphere albedo ( eg,volcanic activity,) the conditions are present for an Albedo Balance change, resulting in overall cooling.
    David Evans’ dismissal of the importance of Volcanism, is a major flaw in his ‘model’. Having said that, he deserves credit for coming up with the ‘X Factor’ independently of Alex S. Gaddes, who first defined and named it in 1985, ( see ‘Tomorrow’s Weather’ Alex S. Gaddes (1990).
    I hope Evans does not become disillusioned and ‘retire from the field’. Re- construct your model again David – and continue to do so for as long as it takes.
    That is what science is about.
    There are currently six ‘active’ volcanoes in the Indonesian Archipelago. We are seeing the results in Australia of the latest eruption as we speak. (see the cloud map.)

    20

    • #

      Don,

      I haven’t dismissed volcanism: it is explicitly included in the model. (I haven’t explicitly taken into account nay link between TSI and volcanism, however.)

      No I am not disillusioned and about to retire, but I am waiting to see if there is a cooling in the next year or two before continuing with the notch-delay model. Currently I am working on a book that explains how the climate models that gave rise to the carbon dioxide theory of global warming are incorrect and how we can now prove it wasn’t increasing carbon dioxide responsible for most of the recent warming.

      50

    • #
      el gordo

      ‘…the conditions are present for an Albedo Balance change, resulting in overall cooling.’

      There is always a drop in temperature after a big eruption, but its short lived. You can see the phenomenon in this graph by Javier.

      https://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2016/09/figure-14.png

      The slide into the LIA began at the height of the MWP in Europe around 1200 AD, wind storms, sea floods, Thames frozen etc. Huge icebergs were floating in the North Atlantic by mid century, before serious volcanic activity erupted.

      00

  • #
    mesoman

    Leif continues to post yearly TSI to dispute Evans’s data, while ignoring the fact that Evans is using 11-year smoothing, which clearly shows a drop in all datasets–including Leif’s. Evans is using oranges, and Leif keeps throwing apples at him.

    13

  • #
    Oliver K. Manuel

    Society now seems to be facing a major decision. We will either:

    1. Accept reality, as revealed by precise measurements and observations on mass (m) and energy (E) by Albert Einstein in 1905 and Francis William Aston in 1922, or

    2. Be enslaved by Carl von Weizsacker’s (1935) and Hans Bethe’s (1936) false model of nuclear binding energy that hid neutron repulsion, the source of energy that powers the Sun and the cosmos.

    There is no third option. Reality vs. Enslavement is the real issue in the AGW debate.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58MEotH79rg

     

    01

    • #
      Oliver K. Manuel

      The first part of this video shows the beautiful, benevolent world that was produced by the forces discovered by Einstein (1905) and measured by Aston (1922)

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOLld5PR4ts

      The last part shows continuing reluctance in 1998 to admit the mistake Weizsacker (1935) and Bethe (1936) made to hide the force that made and sustains life.

      01

  • #
    Don Gaddes

    I am not talking about ‘the odd volcano’, or a single eruption – but an overall increase in Volcanism around the globe, which, combined with an increase in wind-blown dust etc, results in a ‘tipping point’ in the the previously described Albedo Balance. With an increased volume of sea-ice adding to the lower- level albedo, ‘cooling’ becomes self-perpetuating and prolonged, despite the continuing ‘warming’ effects of the upper atmosphere, albedo-depleting Orbital Dry Cycles caused by the Solar X Factor influence,( as described and documented in ‘Tomorrow’s Weather’ Alex S. Gaddes,(1990)
    It is my contention that this process is already in train. An increase in sea-ice is the tell-tale clue.
    If you Google ‘Volcano Watch’ you may be made aware of the extent of Global Volcanism – and something of its history.

    00

  • #
    Don Gaddes

    Climate Science is still ‘mired’ in the ENSO ‘Fantasy’.
    To my knowledge,there has been no plausible evidence ever produced of ‘Decadal’ Oceanic Oscillations ‘driving’ Climate.
    Convection is the primary ‘mechanism’ of Climate, both on the Earth and in the Sun. ( On Earth this includes primarily, the Mantle, the Oceans and the Atmosphere.)
    Heat Energy is the ‘driver.’
    There is No Scientific or Mechanical reason that will support ‘Decadal Cycles’. These would seem to be a ‘construct’ of Base Ten Math used to support computer models that have proven to reflect little or no basis in reality.
    It is not only volcanic ash that provides albedo from Volcanism – but also ‘Low Pressure’ cells formed by heat from the eruptions and the resulting cloud/precipitation that ensues. Remembering that prevailing weather moves from West to East and towards the Poles, (via the Earth’s Axial Spin,) thus we find the influence of volcanic activity in Indonesia prevailing over weather patterns in Australia.
    The X Factor induced Solar Orbital ‘Dry’ Cycles, however, move Longitudinally from East to West, with the Solar Orbit of the Earth and its Magnetic Field.

    00

    • #
      el gordo

      You need to get out more, WUWT has a current post up ‘Solar variability and the Earth’s climate’ by Andy May.

      Argue your case there, you will crash and burn.

      01

  • #
    Don Gaddes

    Leif Svalgaard has a point.
    There has been no overall reduction in TSI at its source. What has reduced is the amount reaching the Earth’s surface, due to variations in ‘albedo’.
    Historically noted ‘reductions’ in TSI should be re-examined in the light of these variations in the previously described ‘Albedo Balance’ (Post#63) – and increased Volcanism.
    I would expect Evans to make the necessary adjustments to his ‘model’.

    00

  • #
    Surfer Dave

    Are we seeing this already with the severe winter in South West Austalia, unusually cold water of the coast of Western Australia and the shift in the Indian Ocean dipole as mentioned in the BoM forecasts for a mild summer in Australia?

    10

  • #
    Oliver K. Manuel

    Dr. Evans,

    Thank you for your efforts to explain the Sun.

    Science will advance or enslave humanity:

    https://judithcurry.com/2016/10/07/week-in-review-science-edition-58/#comment-815873

    There is no other option now.

    00