The Fairfax press say the improbable Gore-Palmer play was a win for alarmists. The Australian calls it for skeptics and says Gore is a fool. I’m not calling anything until I see the fine print. Palmer says he’s met P.M. Abbott and he was ‘encouraged’ by his climate plan.
The only thing I can say for sure is that the science of CO2 is irrelevant to both Gore and Palmer. Everything else is a paradox. We’re not being told everything.
It seems now that Palmer’s amendments to repealing the carbon tax do not include an Emissions Trading Scheme (even the Fairfax press agrees). That makes it look like a skeptic win, but keeping the $10b Clean Energy Finance Corporation is a win for Gore, and so is keeping the RET (Renewable Energy Target) and the Climate Change Authority — it’s another government funded advertising unit for the carbon scare campaign. The more patrons who are dependent on the carbon-subsidies, the more pro-carbon lobbyists there are. And they lobby like their livelihood depends on it — because they have nothing if the government policies don’t prop up their pretend free market.
Why would Gore have any interest in standing next to Clive-Palmer-the-coal-magnate as he axes Australia’s carbon tax? Some suggest Gore was paid for the event, but the man got $100m from Big-Qatari-Oil selling his TV Channel — even a few million to be there yesterday (and we don’t know he got anything) would not make it worth his while. I don’t think Gore was here for anything bar the big game. He wants a global trading scheme (which might be worth more than the global oil market — we’re talking a $2T annual turnover). The rest is little biccies. A million here, a million there, so what? And Gore sheds no tears over the death of the coalition’s Direct Action Plan, because it was never really about actually reducing carbon emissions, was it? It’s about keeping Green Gravy flowing and window dressing.
More inexplicable is what Palmer gains from standing next to Gore. Part of Palmer’s appeal at the last election was that he wouldn’t support “carbon action” of any kind. Palmer, surely, is not aiming to win semi-Green voters to his voter base? Clive risks burning off more voters than he gains. This is not about the environment, and it’s not about voters, so what is it about?
Gore’s motivations seem easier to understand than Palmer’s. The election of Tony Abbott on a blood oath to get rid of the carbon tax is a devastating break in the global PR story about the so-called rise of “carbon trading”. It popped the bubble — and it’s no accident Gore is here just before it goes to the new Senate. He wants to limit that damage and rescue the narrative that a global carbon scheme is inevitable. It’s all about momentum, or rather the semblance of such. Gore wants to go to Paris in 2015 being able to say “Australia wants carbon trading”. Perhaps he can finangle weak agreements from all the countries named, which each nation thinks is never going to happen, then present them as a fait accompli at the UNFCCC and embarrass them into meeting their agreements?
The latest developments are that Senator Nick Xenophon is leaning on two of Palmer’s senators — Ricky Muir and Jackie Lambie — to support the Coalition’s Direct Action plan. A political consultant of Muir says he hasn’t decided. Lambie says “no way” to Xenophon’s suggestion.
This is not what PUP voters thought they were voting for… but the Big-Bankers will be happy.
Really? Clive Palmer holds the balance of p0wer in the new Australian Senate, due to start on July 1. He’s the coal magnate who made it clear he would get rid of the carbon tax. Now he’s palling up with Al Gore, and saying he’ll vote the tax down but only if we add a clause for an emissions trading scheme that is conditional on China, the US, the EU, Japan and Korea joining in too. Is this a meaningless dead-duck promise that is unlikely to happen, or is this the long softening up for the UN convention in Paris next year, when weak schemes (like China’s, where lots of permits are free) are used as leverage to call in the sub-clauses? I don’t think Gore would be flying out here if there was no chance this legislation would matter. At the very least he will use it to lean on other countries, as evidence that “Australia wants in”. At the very least this is about keeping the illusion of momentum going.
What is going on behind the scenes for this extraordinary turn-around? The man said only two months ago that he thought global warming was natural and 97% of carbon emissions came from nature. Clive the-coal-miner suddenly cares about carbon?
His long-awaited declaration on climate policy clears the way for Mr Abbott’s signature carbon tax abolition, but throws into doubt other aspects of the Coalition’s climate policies.
In a blow to the Abbott government, Mr Palmer said his Palmer United Party would use its decisive four votes in the Senate to block the proposed abolition of the money-making CEFC and would also move to legislate an emissions trading scheme with a starting price of zero dollars. – Sydney Morning Herald.
Keep the CEFC? The Clean Energy Finance Corporation
There would be enough support for the government to abolish the 20 per cent Renewable Energy Target, despite figures showing consumers would be better off if the target was kept, but the CEFC, which has turned a $200 million profit on investing in renewable energy projects, is likely to be retained on current numbers.
– also, Sydney Morning Herald.
Financial institutions benefit from trading schemes, but they don’t benefit from taxes (and they certainly don’t want “Direct Action”).
From Andrew Bolt h/t TonyfromOz and Bobl
Keep reading →
The Solar Series: I Background | II: The notch filter | III: The delay | IV: A new solar force? | V: Modeling the escaping heat. | VI: The solar climate model | VII — Hindcasting (You are here) | VIII — Predictions
All models are wrong, some are useful. That’s how all modelers speak (except perhaps some climate scientists).
The barriers to making a good climate model are many. The data is short, noisy, adjusted, and many factors are simultaneously at work, some not well described yet. Climate modeling is in its infancy, yet billions of dollars rests on the assumption that CO2 will cause catastrophic warming and the evidence that most recent warming was due to CO2 comes entirely out of models. It’s important to focus on the pea:
“No climate model that has used natural forcing only has reproduced the observed global mean warming trend” (IPCC 2007)
It is a crucial plank that modelers say “we can’t explain the current warming without CO2″. Current climate models assume that changes in solar radiation have a small immediate effect and solar magnetic fields have no significant effect on Earth’s temperature. They do not consider the possibility that a solar effect may occur with an 11 year delay (equivalent to one solar cycle), despite the independent studies that suggest this. These GCM models cannot use CO2 to predict modern temperatures without amplifying feedbacks, for which evidence is sparse or even contradictory. They don’t predict the pause, or the upper tropospheric temperatures, or the Medieval Warm Period.
The total climate model described below can reproduce graphs based on a CO2 model, such as one used by GISS, but it can also produce graphs using the solar model developed in these posts, or a mix of both CO2 and solar. (This is the point where the solar assumption is dropped and tested.) The point here is simply to see if there is a viable alternative model to the CO2 model. It appears there is, which is not to say it’s finished, or can’t be improved, or cannot be presented better, or tweaked. At this stage it’s crude, but it exists.
There are 23 well funded ambitious global climate models that have been developed by international teams over the last 30 years, and a huge effort has been made by PR teams to make those models look good. The model below is one person’s work over 18 months with the aim of asking only, “is this possible” and “what can we learn?” The results are displayed with bare honesty and many caveats about how much (or how little) can be read out of them.
No model, much less one whose predictions have not been tested, is proof of any hypothesis. But they are sometimes good tools to tell us where to look. The notch-delay solar model is a viable alternative to the current CO2 models. It matches most major turning points of temperature (something CO2 models have struggled to do), and is used here back to 1770 — 100 years earlier than most. There’s a definite weak period with the 1950-1980 era where the atmospheric bomb test line resolves to have an improbably large effect. You might think the idea that nuclear tests cooled the planet in the 60′s and 70s is ridiculous. I certainly did. It’s something fans of CO2-theories have used to explain the cooling that Co2 based models can’t explain. Does it have legs? Hard to say, and worthy of a post on its own. But before you write it off, see John Daly’s site which has an interesting discussion page that compares bombs to Pinatubo eruptions, and points out atomic bomb testing went on in the atmosphere, despite the 1963 test ban treaty, until 1980 (thanks to the Chinese and French). Nuclear bombs contribute aerosol dust, but moreso, it’s radioactive too (a bit of a cosmic ray effect?). You might think it will rain out quickly, but bombs of 1Megaton reach up to the stratosphere above the clouds that rain. All up, 504 atmospheric nuclear explosions occurred between 1945 and 1980. A total of 440 MT were detonated (Fujii). It hangs around, C14 Radiocarbon levels in the atmosphere peaked in 1963 but the isotope stayed above natural levels for years – into the mid 1980s. (Edwards 2012). Fujii (2011) suggests atmospheric tests caused the “global stagnation“of that era and say it should be included in GCM’s. Maybe it isn’t as mad as it sounds?
The model has no aerosol component, which may or may not offset the cooling theoretically attributed to atmospheric bombs, nor does it have the Pacific Decadal Oscillation or Lunar cycles. The anomaly may be resolved if the model is expanded, or maybe it just means the delayed force from the sun is not the major driver — as we’ll explain in the next post, we’ll probably all have a good idea in a few years.
Solar TSI appears to be a leading indicator for some other (probably solar) effect, that we are calling “force X” for now. If that factor, quantified by TSI, was fed into current climate models, then those models would work with less forcing from CO2. Perhaps they would have produced better long term graphs, as well as fitting the recent pause and not requiring such a pronounced tropospheric hotspot. It might solve a lot of problems at once. Presumably projections of catastrophe would be subdued.
Lastly, compounding the many hindcast inaccuracies is the problem of inexplicable adjustments to temperatures (every skeptic will be wondering). It’s possible a model trained on raw temperatures curves (or older published datasets) may produce quite a different fit (which might be better or worse). For instance, if the land thermometer data from 1850 to 1978 exaggerates the general temperature rise then the solar model will be too sensitive — because it trained (or computed its parameters) on this data and “thinks” the TSI changes caused that amount of temperature change. Ultimately we won’t know for a few years whether it is right. (Bring on those independent audits please!)
The theory of the “delay” will be tested soon. It is falsifiable. We’re putting it out there for discussion. We have issued no press release, we aren’t selling a product (we’ll give it all away soon), nor do we demand your tax money. Judge it accordingly.
The bottom line is that modern climate models do not include any delayed force from the Sun. Saying that models don’t work without CO2, and no natural factors can explain the modern warming, is and always was, a fallacy known as argument from ignorance. — Jo
Dr David Evans, 24 June 2014
Cite as Evans, David M.W. “The Notch-Delay Solar Theory”, sciencespeak.com/climate-nd-solar.html, 2014.
In the previous posts we built the notch-delay solar model. Now we are going to test it.
The solar model is given the TSI record from 1749 (the start of monthly sunspot records), and it computes the corresponding temperature in each month from 1770 from just the TSI data for the current and previous months. Then we compare this “hindcast” with the measured temperatures. We also test the CO2 model to compare how it performs, and we test a mix of the CO2 and solar models to show that they play together well.
Finally, we look at the significance (or not) of the solar model so far.
1 Our total climate model
The total climate model* includes the notch-delay solar model, a standard CO2 model (two-compartments, with transient and equilibrium responses, computing temperature changes from the observed CO2 levels), a CFCs model (based on Lu 2013), and an atmospheric nuclear bomb tests model (based on the megatons exploded in the atmosphere, from UN reports). It can also apply all the forcings from the GISS model E, a mainstream climate model that released its forcings publicly in 2011—notably volcanoes, black carbon, snow albedo, and land use.
All these models can be switched on or off in any pattern within our total climate model. The total climate model has an optimizer to fit the model’s temperature output to measured temperatures, thus finding a set of optimal parameters.
We use composite TSI and temperature records for the measured TSI and temperature, as in the previous post. The composite temperature was put together from the main temperature datasets, instrumental back to 1880 then increasingly reliant on proxies, mainly the huge proxy study by Christiansen and Ljungqvist in 2012. Similarly the composite TSI record was constructed out of the main TSI datasets, using measured data where possible.
2 What if CO2 was the main driver?
To show how our “total climate model” works, let’s first fit a CO2 model to the observed temperatures, assuming there is no delayed link between TSI and temperatures (that is, the mainstream assumption).
Let’s run the CO2 model with solar input as per the GISS model (that is, the immediate, direct effect of changes in TSI), with the volcanoes, black carbon, snow albedo and land use also from GISS, and the CFCs. The CO2 model was fitted to the measured temperatures and found to have an equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) of 3.4°C, agreeing with the IPCC’s central estimate of 3.3°C. The carbon dioxide theory fits the measured temperatures since 1800 fairly well in a very smoothed sense:
Figure 1: Total climate model without the solar model. It includes immediate warming due to changes in TSI as per the mainstream “GISS Model E” climate model. Thus, most of the warming must come from carbon dioxide. The estimated equilibrium climate sensitivity is 3.4°C, close to the central estimate of 3.3°C by the IPCC
The CO2 model produces a smooth increase in temperature, echoing the smoothly increasing CO2 concentration. Carbon dioxide by itself cannot begin to explain the jiggles in temperature on time scales from one to 10 years, so the carbon dioxide theory calls these jiggles “natural variability”—essentially meaning the bits they cannot explain.
3 What if solar effects were the main driver?
Now let’s run the notch-delay solar model, without any contribution from CO2 or CFCs. In other words, we are running the solar model under the solar assumption, that the recent global warming was associated almost entirely with solar radiation and had no dependence on CO2. As explained at the start of these posts, we set out to build a solar model that could account for the recent global warming under that assumption.
So, we are now testing the proposition that the recent global warming could have been mainly associated with TSI rather than CO2.
There is monthly TSI data from 1749, when the SIDC monthly sunspot records start—they are a decent proxy for TSI, and along with Lean’s yearly reconstruction of TSI from sunspots are the only components of the composite TSI from 1749 to 1882. The step response of the notch-delay solar model takes about 15+ years to fully respond, so the model takes 20 years or so to spin up, and we begin the simulation in 1770. (During the Maunder minimum, from about 1660 to 1705, there were almost no sunspots, so the solar model has no way of estimating force X. Thus it cannot really be expected to work before about 1720 at about the earliest.)
Each monthly temperature computed by the solar model is computed only from the TSI data for previous months and the current month. This is the only data input to the solar model. We then add temperature changes due to volcanoes and so on from the other models, to form the temperature record computed by the total climate model.
The solar model computes the temperature for a given month by adding together all the step responses of the TSI steps of the previous months (that is, by convolution). The change in TSI from one month to the next is a “step” in TSI, and the temperature response to that step is as shown in the step response of the solar model in Figure 4 of Post VI, appropriately scaled by the size of the monthly TSI step. Yes this method is a little slow and there are faster methods, but this way makes it clear that we are using the step response and previous TSI data only—and anyway computers are faster these days, and the data series here have only a few thousand points.
We previously found the parameters of the solar model by fitting the model’s computed temperatures to the observed temperatures (and simultaneously fitting the model’s transfer function to the empirical transfer function). Therefore, so long as the temperature record computed by the solar model basically has the right shape, then of course it is going to fit the measured temperatures reasonably well. The question of how well it does is mainly going to depend on whether the model predicts the right shape of temperature curve, such as getting the turning points about right, because the fitting is going to ensure that the computed temperatures match the measured temperatures in a general sense.
The notch-delay solar model fits the measured temperatures reasonably well:
Figure 2a: 1770 – 2013 Total climate model when driven only by solar radiation, with no warming due to carbon dioxide. The solar model output is not explicitly shown here because having three lines close together (solar model, climate model, and observed temperatures) is too confusing, but it can be inferred by subtracting the other constituent models from the total climate model.
Figure 2b: 1900 – 2013: As for fig 2a, but for the last century.
The major temperature trends are all reconstructed, with major turning points about right, and the sizes of the reconstructed changes are roughly as observed. Therefore the notch-delay solar model could provide an entirely solar explanation for recent global warming, without any significant warming due to rising CO2 or CFC levels.
The solar model reproduces a lot of jiggles, but gets the timing of them wrong as often as not, especially further back in time. This might simply be due to the fairly uncertain nature of the TSI data, which is reconstructed from sunspot numbers. Sunspot numbers themselves are uncertain because standards of what counted as a sunspot have varied over the years. And, as indicated by the physical interpretation of the delay in Post IV, the delay presumably is not constant but instead it is probably the length of the prevailing sunspot cycle, which averages 11 years but varies from 8 to 14 years. The solar model here is using a constant delay of 11 years. It doesn’t take much timing error to put an up-jiggle where there should be a down-jiggle. So there is some hope that, with better solar radiation data in future from satellites and a more complicated model with variable delay (the subject of future research perhaps, if there is sufficient interest), the solar model could explain some portion of “natural variability”.
Over the period of better TSI data from 1610, the TSI was clearly at a maximum from about 1950 to 2000. However the temperature kept increasing during this period, even though TSI plateaued. The delay in the solar model is 11 years, which pushes back that plateau from 1960 to 2010, but that is not enough to explain why the total climate model reconstructs rising temperatures throughout this period when it is based on the solar model and omits the CO2 and CFC models. Here the output of the solar model is explicitly shown:
Figure 3: The solar model from 1900 as in Figure 2, but with the solar model output explicitly shown (in pink). From the 1950s through the 1990s (but mainly the 1960s), the solar model alone computes temperatures significantly warmer than actually occurred. In the total climate model this is counteracted by global cooling due to the atmospheric nuclear bomb tests, which put fine reflective dust into the atmosphere and apparently caused a mini-nuclear winter.
The answer found by curve fitting the total climate model to the observed temperatures is that global cooling caused by the atmospheric nuclear bomb tests may have counteracted the warming associated with the stronger TSI. This initially came as a great surprise to us, because the nuclear data had only been added as a bit of a joke and for completeness, but after a bit of research it started to look kind of plausible. The tests, conducted from 1945 to 1980 but mainly before 1963, put up fine dust that stayed high up in the atmosphere for years, reflecting sunlight back into space and lowering the incoming radiation [Fujii, 2011], and also dropping down radioactive nuclei that might seed clouds. Because the nuclear dust is in the stratosphere, there is no rain to wash it out. The required cooling from the tests is about 0.5°C at its peak in 1963, the year that the USA and the USSR agreed to discontinue atmospheric testing. (If the solar model is too sensitive because the warming of the land thermometer records is exaggerated, then less cooling is required.)
While this is only an answer found by numerically piecing together the test yield data with the output of the solar model and the observed temperatures, it fits. Maybe the nuclear winter hypothesis is partly correct. We feel it is likely to overestimate the effect.
Alternative causes for a cooling influence during the 1950s to 1990s could be pollutant aerosols and/or whatever caused global dimming, or even the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO). With no data that quantifies their effects, the total climate model only had the nuclear bomb yield data to work with, but it is remarkable that the piece that fits the puzzle quite well is the atmospheric nuclear bomb test data.
4 Mix of CO2 and solar
There are now two solutions to the climate question:
- If we assume global warming is mainly due to CO2 then we get the CO2 theory, and it fits the measured temperatures from 1800 (though not before).
- If we assume that global warming is mainly associated with changes in TSI then we get the notch-delay solar model, which also fits the measured temperatures from 1800.
Obviously both assumptions cannot be true, but it may be that the true solution is a mix of both models—such as 40% of one model and 60% of the other. If both solutions fit the measured temperatures on their own, then any linear mix will also fit the data. Here is an example:
Figure 4: Total climate model when driven by a mix of solar radiation and carbon dioxide. The temperature changes computed by the solar model were multiplied by the solar factor of 70%, then the CO2 and other models were fitted. This mix was arbitrarily selected for illustration; do not read any significance into it.
This illustrates that the CO2 and solar models play together nicely. Assuming the climate system is linear for the small perturbations of the last few hundred years, the two solutions can operate almost independently and their temperature changes add (that is, they superpose).
If the optimizer is given both the CO2 and solar models to work with, it finds a solution that is mainly the CO2 solution and only a little of the solar solution. However this is only because the jiggles in the solar solution are wrong as often as not (Figure 2), which the optimizer finds worse than simply ignoring the jiggles and getting them right on average (Figure 1). So there doesn’t appear to be any significance in this, and we will have to find other means of determining the true balance between the CO2 and solar solutions.
5 Significance of the solar model
We have developed a solar model that accounts for the recent global warming, if that warming was almost entirely associated with solar radiation and had no dependence on carbon dioxide.
This is a viable solution to global warming, because:
- It’s quantifiable, with a model that approximately hindcasts the observed temperatures. It is not just a concept with handwaving, or a rough one-off computation.
- It’s got physical interpretations for all the parts. This is a physical model, not just curve fitting or an unexplained correlation.
In short, we have demonstrated that the global warming of the last two centuries could have been mainly associated with TSI rather than CO2. This overcomes one of the bedrock beliefs of anthropogenic global warming, namely that the recent global warming could not plausibly be due to anything other than CO2.
The most important element of the solar model is the delay, which is most likely 11 years (but definitely between 10 and 20 years). The delay was found here as a necessary consequence of the observed notch, but it has been independently corroborated to varying degrees several times over the last decade, apparently without its significance being noticed.
A major objection to substantial solar influence is the finding of Lockwood & Froehlich in 2007, who showed that four solar indicators including TSI peaked in about 1986 then declined slightly. However temperature continued rising for several years after 1986. This has been widely interpreted to mean the recent warming cannot have been due to the Sun. However, the delay can explain this: 1986 + 11 = 1997, about when global warming ended. Thus the delay overcomes another of the bedrock beliefs of anthropogenic global warming.
Conversely, without the delay, the objection of Lockwood and Froehlich appears solid and it is hard to see how a substantial solar influence is possible.
The weakest points of the notch-delay solar theory are:
- The assumption of sufficient linearity of the climate system,
- The need for the nuclear winter hypothesis to counteract the early part of the TSI plateau from 1950 to 2000, especially the 1960s.
- The inability to precisely identify force X (see Post IV).
Some may challenge the discovery of the notch, but the notch implies a delay and the delay receives support from several independent findings.
What we have not shown so far in these posts is that the notch-delay solar model is true, or to what extent it is true. There is nothing in the posts so far to support the assumption that the recent global warming was almost entirely or even partly associated with solar radiation. On the material presented so far, the CO2 and solar solutions are both viable and no reasons have been given to suppose that either one is more influential.
The notch-delay theory provides a second, alternative solution to the climate problem, with a physical model and a plausible interpretation. No longer is climate a “one horse race”, where you are limited to either supporting the CO2 theory or focusing on its deficiencies. We are now in a “two horse race” (though one horse is very new to the world and not fully introduced or fleshed out yet).
Regular readers of this blog are well aware that the CO2 solution has a lot of problems. Soon we will be turning to the second part of this series, where we will look at reasons for believing that the solar model is dominant and the CO2 solution is only a small part of the overall solution.
In the next post on this topic, we will use the notch-delay solar model for forecasting. This is where it gets interesting.
Notch-delay solar project home page, including links to all the articles on this blog, with summaries.
* Our climate model is in a spreadsheet that we will be releasing shortly. We chose to do all the work for this project, right from the beginning, in a single Microsoft Excel spreadsheet for pc. It’s not the fanciest or the fastest, but an Excel spreadsheet is the most ubiquitous and one of the friendlier programming environments. It runs on most computers (any pc with Excel 2007 or later, maybe on Macs with Excel 2011 or later), can hold all the data, makes nice graphs, and all in a single file. The models use VBA code, a form of the basic programming language that is part of Microsoft Office. The spreadsheet is professionally presented, and you press buttons on the sheets to make models run and so on. You can inspect and run or step through the code; it will be all totally open. Thank you for your patience, but giving away the spreadsheet early would preempt the blog posts and disrupt a focused discussion.
IPCC, Assessment Report 4, 2007, Working Group 1 Understanding and Attributing Climate Change, Chapter 9. Executive Summary. [IPCC site] Page 665
Edwards (2012) Entangled histories: Climate science and nuclear weapons research, The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists,
Fujii, Y. (2011). The role of atmospheric nuclear explosions on the stagnation of global warming in the mid 20th century. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, Volume 73, Issues 5-6, April 2011, Pages 643-652. [PDF]
Lockwood, M., & Froehlich, C. (2007). Recent oppositely directed trends in solar climate forcings and the global mean surface air temperature. Proceedings of the Royal Society, 10.1098/rspa2007.1880.
Lockwood, M., & Froehlich, C. (2008). Different reconstructions of the total solar irradiance variation and dependence on response time scale. Proceedings of the Royal Society, 464, 1367-1385.
Lu, Q. (2013). Cosmic-Ray-Driven Reaction and Greenhouse Effect of Halogenated Molecules: Culprits for Atmospheric Ozone Depletion and Global Climate Change. International Journal of Modern Physics B, 27.
Pinker, R. T., Zhang, B., & Dutton, E. G. (2005). Do Satellites Detect Trends in Surface Solar Radiation? Science, Vol. 38, 6 May 2005, 850 – 854.
Jennifer Marohasy has been very involved in looking at Australian temperature data this year. She is speaking in Sydney on Wednesday about what she’s found. She’s talking about the new temperature dataset the BOM uses called ACORN, which they built after we asked them for an independent audit of their High Quality set.
Modelling Global Temperatures – What’s Wrong. Bourke & Amberley – as Case Studies
From Jennifer’s site: “The most extreme example that Ken found of data corruption was at Amberley, near Brisbane, Queensland, where a cooling minima trend was effectively reversed, Figure 1.” Jennifer has also raised her concerns (repeatedly) with Minister Greg Hunt.
Venue: The Gallipoli Club, 12 Loftus Street (between Bridge Street & Alfred Street), Sydney Time: 5.30 for 6pm
Additional Information: **Bookings from 11 June only ** BAR OPENS AT 5 PM – LIGHT REFRESHMENTS
Click here for info on how to book
Sorry…we’ve been busy in the comments
The Solar Series: I Background | II: The notch filter | III: The delay | IV: A new solar force? | V: Modeling the escaping heat. | VI: The solar climate model (You are here) | VII — Hindcasting | VIII — Predictions
Open Science live — The story so far: Dr David Evans is building the O-D notch-delay solar model. It’s a much simpler big-picture approach than Global Climate Coupled Models. They use an ambitious bottom-up system where the models add up every small aspect in every small cell of the Earth’s climate atmosphere and oceans and try to predict everything, but the trap is the errors — small errors in 10,000 calculations add up to big-mush. David’s approach is top-down. He looks at the whole system from the outside, and doesn’t try to understand or predict each individual part. It’s a way of starting at the start — to shed light on the big forces and processes that happen as energy arrives on Earth, gets reflected, or blended, and eventually changes the surface temperature. His model won’t tell us what happens to rainfall in Sudan in 2050, but it might do what current models don’t and that is predict the global temperature.
The important development here is to complete the path of the energy flow in the most brutally simple way from Sun –> Earth –> Space. We know the sun provides heat through TSI or Total Solar Irradiance. But this is almost constant — it produces heat for sure, but possibly not much of the variation in temperature on Earth that we are interested in. The discovery of the notch filter means some other force (yet to be specified) from the sun acts with a delay of probably 11 years. This delayed force turns out to cause a lot of the variation in temperature. But Earth is not going to immediately warm or cool with every change. Energy collects in all kinds of pools and buckets before it ends up warming the atmosphere. So the effects of both incoming paths — immediate solar and delayed solar — get combined and run through a “low pass” filter — which blends and smooths the bumps.
Having discovered the pattern in the way TSI is tranformed into temperature, David builds the model with the filters to produce the same “transfer function” as he found in empirical data. Hopefully the model will mimic the overall processes without needing to know the details of all the parts. In a sense all models have to do this at some level. No climate model tracks each molecule or follows each photon. Will it work? It does a good job of hindcasting (and we’ll talk about that soon), but the real test will take a few years. Enjoy the quest to figure it out.
By the way, one of my favourite graphs is below — Figure 4 — some curves are intrinsically beautiful. – Jo
Building a new solar climate model
Dr David Evans
Cite as Evans, David M.W. “The Notch-Delay Solar Theory”, sciencespeak.com/climate-nd-solar.html, 2014.
This is the last of the three posts in which we build the solar model. We assembled a notch filter, a delay filter, and a low pass filter in cascade in part III, in part IV we took a diversion to physically interpret the notch and the delay, and in part V we added the RATS multiplier to model the atmosphere on the yearly timescales of the TSI datasets.
In this post we assemble these four elements in their correct order, and add the immediate path for the TSI changes that obviously warm the Earth directly. This will complete the model. We finish by examining the step response of the model.
The Order of the Filters
The notch-delay solar model so far is simply a computational path from TSI to (surface) temperature that contains a notch filter, a delay filter, a low pass filter, and the RATS multiplier (which is a trivial “filter” whose transfer function is a constant). There are no other filters we can discern from the empirical transfer function, or from elementary physical theory. So with no more to add, let’s put these four in order.
The transfer functions of these four filters, when multiplied together, form the empirical transfer function. The transfer function of two filters in cascade is the products of their two transfer functions, so these four filters must be in cascade (that is, the output of one is the input of the next). But multiplication is commutative, so the empirical transfer function does not indicate their order. For that we turn to physical reasoning.
The filter whose place is most obvious is the low pass filter. It models the Earth as a bucket of heat with unreflected TSI pouring in the top, and its output is the radiating temperature. We can now place the other filters around it.
In the flow of computation the RATS multiplier goes immediately after the low pass filter, because its input is the radiating temperature and its output is the surface temperature. We then have the computational path covered from the unreflected TSI all the way to the output of the entire model.
The notch and delay filters intrinsically go together and are inseparable, and it does not matter if they go notch-delay or delay-notch. The only place left for them to go is between the input to the entire model, namely the TSI, and the input to the low pass filter, which is the unreflected TSI.
Therefore the notch and delay filters are modulating the albedo of the Earth.
Figure 1: The notch and delay filters modulate the Earth’s albedo.
The Immediate Path
The development to date only shows the delayed path from TSI to surface temperature. But obviously any changes in TSI also cause direct and immediate changes in the unreflected TSI, by changing the incoming heat from the Sun, so there is also an immediate path from TSI to the input of the low pass filter. This immediate path must therefore be in parallel with the notch-delay path from TSI to unreflected TSI.
The Notch-Delay Solar Model
Putting it all together, here is the notch-delay solar model. If the recent global warming was associated almost entirely with solar radiation, and if it had no dependence on carbon dioxide, this is how it would work:
Figure 2: Schematic of the notch-delay solar model.
Note the parallel paths:
- The immediate path is for TSI, and has no effect on albedo. This is the direct warming effect of extra TSI.
- The delayed path is for force X, which is the same as TSI but delayed and notched. Force X affects the albedo.
The parameters for the model were found by fitting the model to the observed temperatures since 1610, when yearly TSI data became available, though focused mainly on the last 100 and 200 years. Composite TSI and composite temperature records were created out of the TSI and temperature records analyzed earlier. In forming the composites, the offset of each dataset was adjusted so that the average values for overlapping datasets are the same, datasets were faded in and out of a composite gradually rather than entering the average abruptly, and instrumental data was preferred over proxy data. The fitting process found the model parameters such that the model best reproduced the composite temperature from the composite TSI and best produced a transfer function like the empirical transfer function found earlier.
The most important parameter is the delay parameter, which was found to most likely be 11 years but definitely between 10 and 20 years. The break period of the low pass filter was found to most likely be 5 years, though the possible range is from 4 to 25 years because it might be hiding over to the low frequency side of the notch. (It is very unlikely to be more than about the five years that other researchers have found, but the fitting process held open the possibility.) The most likely set of parameters is called the “P25″ set of parameters. The values in P25 were rounded off to form the “P0″ set of parameters, which has been used to illustrate the transfer functions and step responses of the filters during this development.
Keep reading →
In typical style skeptics love to criticize, it is our strength. Sadly, diplomacy, manners, courtesy — burned at the door on a moment’s notice. Sigh. After five years in this debate you’d think I’d know not to expect respect or goodwill from every fellow skeptic. Call me naive, I don’t expect them to agree with me, just to be polite. If someone asks you for a review before they publish, would you congratulate them privately, ask questions, ignore the answers, ignore large parts of the paper, then later post those misunderstood points, without so much as a courtesy check first? Yes, I’m baffled too.
Hey Lubos, no hard feelings, but next time let us save you from posting unnecessary innuendo, irrelevant criticisms, and not-so-informed commentary. It only takes an email.
I groan. In a highly gregarious species, where power is clawed through high-order political games, schmoozing and collaboration, some skeptics still wonder why people who are bad with numbers but good with people, control the institutions, the publications and big budgets. The mystery of it all!
Anyhow, because it is out there (or was, I’ve reproduced it here)* and is being discussed, obviously we need to correct the errors. Lubos says he spent hours reading the paper but he doesn’t seem to be aware of several of the major points (hey, it’s a very long paper). Unfortunately, because Lubos thought we were suggesting something we weren’t, he concludes it’s all unlikely and bases quite a bit of his reasoning on this misconception. Here’s Lubos saying largely what we’ve said, but he thinks he’s explaining something new:
“Natural mechanisms on Earth just won’t produce a response function that happens to vanish exactly for the 11-year periodicity!”
We explained in this public post, the big paper, the FAQ, the small summary, and David wrote in personal email answers to him (April 11th), that we don’t think the delay and notching occurs on Earth. It doesn’t seem at all likely that the actual solar rays would take 8 minutes to arrive on Earth, then wait 11 years to warm the planet. The 11 year delayed effect is very odd – dare I say “mysterious?” (Perhaps I better not, lest it’s seen as “demagogy”, eh?)
Obviously the place to look for the notch and delay is on the Sun, where internal dynamics could easily produce an 11 year cycle, so easily, it already has. I don’t think Lubos realizes we are suggesting that the 11 year delay may have something to do with the timing of the 11 year solar magnetic flips? Perhaps it’s a coincidence the notching happens at the same time the sun’s magnetic field collapses and it flips its north and south pole. Perhaps it isn’t. Surely it’s an idea worth raising?
Again, I am ready to believe that the Sun has a significant impact on the Earth’s climate. But it must be either something else than the TSI, or the effect must be such that all the wiggles shorter than 20 years or so must be universally suppressed.
The argument that it is “due” to TSI, and “it’s not a mechanism on Earth” are both strawman: “it must be something else than TSI” he says — well yes, exactly. We go out of our way to say TSI is “associated with” with temperature, but does not “cause” temperature.
As for the “wiggles”, the evidence shows that all the wiggles shorter than 20 years are not equally suppressed. That is the point. Lubos is mixing up a low pass filter with the notch. The data most definitely does not suggest a low pass filter with a 20 year break point. (If it did, the lines in the graph Lubos reposted twice would be flat lines to 20 years, then bend down with a 45 degree decline to zero from there in the shorter frequencies.) The low pass filter appears weakly with about a 5 year break point. The low pass filter is a non-controversial idea — I don’t think many people would suggest that the Earth doesn’t smooth out the sun’s effects over at least a few years.
How about some manners?
For the sake of helping the skeptic world polish up on it’s key weakness, it’s time to discuss the forgotten topic of manners and communication. They matter in science. The truth may come out eventually anyway, but bad communication makes it slower, and bad manners risks burning off the independent valuable pool of volunteers who are providing a foil for the monopolistic bureaucratic influences of science. Strategically, it’s a win for skeptics to hold the torch on other skeptics, but a failure for them to waste time doing it on inaccurate and irrelevant points.
After five years of doing my genuine damnedest to improve science and advance human knowledge one tiny sliver at a time, I’m accustomed to being accused of blind faith or shallow marketing, but not from people who I thought shared the same goals.
Hence yes, lines like these (based on zero evidence) are disappointing. False motivations? Imputed intentions? Baseless accusations? We can do better.
There are climate skeptics who will endorse any claim or idea that goes against the “consensus”.
Obviously this does not apply (sometime I disagree with skeptics, sometimes I agree with the IPCC). Why say it?
David’s goal is to claim that the whole evolution of the global mean temperature – or a big portion of it, to say the least – and especially the 20th century global warming and its various intense episodes may be due to the Sun.
David’s goal is to learn more about what drives the climate, not to make false claims. Twice he dropped this project because the data didn’t seem to support the theory that there was a low pass filter (he went looking for the low pass filter, but eventually realized there was a notch obscuring it and the notch was the big deal). It’s what a scientist does. Let’s rise above the cheap shots. We don’t need pop psychoanalysis based on bad guesses.
I think that many of you will agree that the marketing point used as the title on Jo’s blog
For the first time – a mysterious notch filter found in the climate
is pure demagogy.
So when is it accurate science communication, and when is it “marketing” for an undescribed purpose? No one knew what might drive the notch, (or even that a notch existed) so mysterious seems pretty accurate, likewise, no one has described it before — looks like a first.
C’mon Lubos. Haven’t the footsoldiers in this David and Goliath battle at least earned the right to basic respect (and the right of reply) instead of half-baked, clumsy character slurs? Are they people and researchers or just dumb bloggers…
Correcting Lubos’ Errors
by David Evans, 19 June 2014
Here we correct several errors of fact or misleading impressions about the notch-delay theory made by Lubos.
1. Changes in TSI Did Not Cause the Recent Global Warming
Lubos says “David’s goal is to claim that” … “a big portion of” the “evolution of the global mean temperature”, “especially the 20th century global warming”, may be “due to” TSI. This is incorrect.
We have explicitly stated what our aim is, and that the recent global warming is NOT principally “due to” TSI. To repeat:
- Part II: “The initial aim of this project is to answer this question: If the recent global warming was associated almost entirely with solar radiation, and had no dependence on CO2, what solar model would account for it?”
- Part III: “We are building the solar model that would account for the recent global warming if it was associated almost entirely with solar radiation (notice that we didn’t say “caused”)”.
- Part IV: We introduce the force deduced in the datasets, force X, as the main influence behind the recent global warming: “Force X has ten to twenty times more influence on temperatures on Earth than changes in the direct heating effect of TSI.” “While the effects on temperature of the tiny changes in the immediate heating effects of TSI are too small to explain the recent global warming, those tiny changes are a leading indicator of force X.”
2. Transfer functions are always output divided by input, in the frequency domain
After needlessly introducing complications such as convolution and integrals, and performing some handwavy and essentially correct math, Lubos says, as if he had uncovered something: “This frequency-based Evans response function is simply the ratio of the Fourier-transformed global mean temperature and the Fourier-transformed solar output!” (By “response function” he means “transfer function”.)
That definition of a transfer function is not only standard, it is explicitly stated from first principles in the Part II: “A transfer function tells how a sinusoid in the input is transferred through the system to the output. We are only concerned with amplitudes (that is, not phases), so its value at a given frequency is simply the output amplitude at that frequency divided by the input amplitude at that frequency. Dividing the orange line in Figure 4 by the orange line in Figure 2, we arrive at the empirical transfer function shown in Figure 5.”
3. There is no peak at 11 years in the temperature spectrum (i.e. there is a notch)
Lubos writes “What the near-vanishing of R~(f) for 1/f close to 11 years really means is that … the 11-year cycle isn’t present in the temperature data.”
Just caught on Lubos? The main point in the first substantive post is that the temperature record does not contain detectable temperature peaks at 11 years, which would corresponding to the peaks of TSI every 11 years. This is unexpected, and is the discovery. Under the heading “Spot the big clue. There is no peak at 11 years!” we said “The TSI peaks every 11 years or so, yet there is no detected corresponding peak in the temperature, even using our new low noise optimal Fourier transform!”
4. The notch is the starting clue
Lubos says about the absence of an 11 year peak in the temperature datasets: “This is a problem – potentially a huge problem – for any theory that tries to present the solar output as the primary driver even at the decadal scale and faster scales. … It makes the solar theory of the climate much less likely, not more likely. Suggesting otherwise is a case of demagogy.”
Not at all. It is the vital clue that leads us to the delay (which is corroborated at least in part by several studies), and then to the conclusion that an indirect solar force that is not TSI is potentially responsible for most of the recent global warming. This is unfolding in the blog posts already posted, and was available to Lubos in the main paper.
5. Notching originates on the Sun, caused by the synchronicity between two solar forces
Joanne has mentioned that Lubos is attacking a strawman with his arguments about “natural mechanisms on Earth”. This is a major point. We said as much so in the post on interpreting the notch and delay: “As far as we know there is nothing on Earth with a memory spanning multiple years. But there is one climate actor with an 11 year clock—the Sun.” We then proposed force X, which like TSI originates in the Sun, and showed the peaks in TSI every 11 years (on average) always exactly coincide with troughs in force X, which we propose as the notching mechanism.
Curiously, in one of his emails to me Lubos asked about exactly these “unnatural” mechanisms on Earth: “Concerning the unnaturalness, are you religious – what I really mean, do you believe in Intelligent Design?” (10 April). I replied (11 April) “No, I don’t believe in Intelligent design, but in logic, data, and reading carefully … The 11 year timing (or more likely, the solar cycle length) almost certainly originates in the sun, presumably as two signals given off by different parts of the sun and 180 degrees out of phase. See Fig. 31. Force X lags TSI by 180 degrees of the 22-year Hale cycle, presumably. Hence the timing and the notching.”
6. The predictions are due to the delay
Prediction due to ringing? No, force X lags TSI by 11 years, so knowing what the TSI did we can predict what force X will do several years in advance—not Fourier analysis, just physical principles. From the post on the physical interpretation of the notch and delay: “Because TSI indicates what force X will do in about 11 years, the TSI record is also a record of future force X.”
It was the world’s sloppiest reading job. I asked for feedback when I first emailed it to him (“I’d really appreciate some feedback, especially if you disagree with or are uncomfortable with some aspects.”). But instead of sorting this out by email, he goes silent then writes a careless blog post that misrepresents the model. Unhelpful.
*Lubos took the post down. I told him that was unnecessary, I asked him to repost it. I’m reposting it here.
PS: Sadly Lubos has not coped well with this post. He refuses to correct his obvious mistakes, or quote me directly. My emails to him were polite and logical (read them in full here). I’ve asked him for an apology. Credit to him for publishing my comment on his blog. I remain baffled otherwise.
The Solar Series: I Background | II: The notch filter | III: The delay | IV: A new solar force? | V: Modeling the escaping heat (You are here). | VI: The solar climate model | VII — Hindcasting | VIII — Predictions
David Evans has analyzed the black box system that is effectively “Sunlight In, Temperature Out”, and found a notch, a delay, and a low pass filter. The problem then is to work out their order and to fill in any other bits needed by the model. This post then, doesn’t have big blockbuster moments (sorry), but these points need to be said.
Energy leaves Earth through a range of electromagnetic frequencies, but the bulk of them can be grouped into three main “pipes”. Radiation either comes directly off the land, oceans, ice and what-not on the ground, or it leaves via the atmosphere. Up in the air, carbon dioxide and water molecules do most of the work sending emissions of infra red to outer space. In the atmosphere, the radiating “surface” is a virtual concept and is effectively at different heights for different greenhouse gases. This is all non-controversial stuff, but a little difficult to see in your head. The three pipes are from the ground, from CO2 and from H2O.
There are three main “pipes” for heat to escape from Earth. A “pipe” is a group of electromagnetic frequencies which are radiated directly to space from the same emissions layer.
The next problem is that people have measured surface temperature (which is fair enough), and this is what the solar model is aiming to model. But it’s not the same temperature as the temperature of the complex “surface” that is radiating to space. The two layers are tied together in a sense. If the ground surface warms, the radiating surface will warm but not by quite as much. That means any model needs to understand the relationship between changes in the temperature of the radiating layers and the temperature on the ground (and on the seven seas). I’m sorry for anyone looking for a dog-fight here, but the multiplier in the Solar Model is boringly almost the same as the standard one used by mainstream climate scientists. We call it the RATS multiplier (Radiative Amplification To Surface) and its value is about 2.
Basically if it warms by 1 degree on the surface the RATS multiplier tells us it has warmed by about 0.5 degrees on the radiating “surface”. There were times when we thought it would be different, but it did indeed end up being about the same as the mainstream estimates. This is non-controversial stuff, but it’s important, and we’ll be referring back to the RATS multiplier and more importantly to the Three Pipes. – Jo
Modeling the Atmosphere
by Dr David Evans, 18 June 2014
Cite as Evans, David M.W. “The Notch-Delay Solar Theory”, sciencespeak.com/climate-nd-solar.html, 2014.
This post is the second of the three posts in which we build the solar model. We already assembled a notch filter, a delay filter, and a low pass filter in cascade in part III, and in part IV we took a diversion to physically interpret the notch and the delay.
The output of the low pass filter is the record of changes in the effective temperature at which the Earth radiates to space, the “radiating temperature”. We then consider how the model will compute the changes in surface temperature from the changes in radiating temperature. It turns out to require just a very simple model of the atmosphere.
The output of the low pass filter is the temperature of the surface of the Earth that radiates directly to space. This “radiating surface” is a virtual surface, consisting of different physical surfaces at different electromagnetic frequencies of radiation.
At the electromagnetic frequencies that are absorbed and emitted by carbon dioxide, the surface of the Earth is at the “one optical depth” of the carbon dioxide, where an observer from space is looking through sufficient carbon dioxide that they cannot “see” below that layer, on average. The carbon dioxide emissions layer is about 8 km up in the atmosphere at the tropics. It is effectively where all emissions from Earth direct to space at the carbon dioxide frequencies occur, because, on average, emissions below this layer are absorbed by the carbon dioxide (space cannot see those emitting carbon dioxide molecules, so they cannot see space).
The electromagnetic frequencies of the “atmospheric window” are those that pass through the atmosphere unimpeded. At these frequencies, emissions direct to space come from the surface of the Earth.
At the emissions and absorption frequencies of water vapor (which is the main greenhouse gas), the emissions layer is on average about 10 km up in the atmosphere at the tropics.
There are also other emissions layers for other greenhouse gases, but in this simple analysis we’ll ignore them because their effect is small.
Nearly all the heat lost by Earth goes through one of these three “pipes” to space, a “pipe” being a group of electromagnetic frequencies with the same emissions layer. The amount of energy flowing to space through each pipe increases with the temperature of its emission layer.
The “radiating temperature” of the Earth is the effective temperature of the radiating surface, and is simply the temperature as computed by the Stefan-Boltzmann equation for the emissions given off by the Earth. The temperature changes of the radiating surface are some sort of weighted average of the temperatures changes of the main three emissions layers.
Figure 1: The “radiating surface” is the virtual surface that radiates directly to space. It consists of different physical layers at different electromagnetic frequencies. The climate system is like a vessel containing heat, with three pipes through which heat can escape to space. Not to scale.
The RATS (Radiative Amplification To Surface) Multiplier
The low pass filter computes the changes in the radiating temperature, that is, the temperature changes that determine how much heat is radiated to space. But the output of the solar model is not this temperature, but the temperature at the surface. So how can the model compute the changes in surface temperature from the changes in radiating temperature?
Changes in the temperature of the radiating surface are basically transmitted down through the atmosphere to the surface. At the frequencies of the atmospheric window the radiating surface is also the surface of the Earth so no transmission is required, but at the carbon dioxide and water vapor frequencies the transmission is literally down through the atmosphere.
Keep reading →
- We need a Big News break for a day or so. Part V coming soon. Discussion is animated. — Jo
Financial speculation on currency sees Greenpeace lose €3.8m
[BlueandGreen] Campaign group Greenpeace lost €3.8m (£3m, or $5.5m AUD) after an employee took a gamble on the currency market in 2013, it has been revealed.
The employee responsible for losing the money took a gamble on the euro remaining weak against other currencies. However, the euro strengthened later in the year, resulting in the losses.
Greenpeace, save whales, trees, and help financial houses too. Who knew?
That $5m you were thinking of donating? Don’t bother, it wouldn’t have made any difference anyhow:
No Greenpeace campaign would suffer as a result of the loss, which would be absorbed by reducing expenses such as infrastructure over the next two to three years.
I don’t think this is quite the message Greenpeace meant to send.
Big-Green has truly become the Big-Business they pretend to oppose. Greenpeace has a total annual budget of around €300 million. It’s so big, it has to trade currencies, make property investments, and deal with “infrastructure”.
h/t Tim Blair See also the Sydney Morning Herald and The Guardian.
The Solar Series: I Background | II: The notch filter | III: The delay | IV: A new solar force? (You are here) | V: Modeling the escaping heat. | VI: The solar climate model | VII — Hindcasting | VIII — Predictions
Implacably, the discovery of a notch suggests a delay of anything from 10 to 20 years but most likely 11 years. (Don’t miss the delay post — two very big important concepts out in two posts). The big mystery is what could cause such a long delay in the correlation of solar radiation with temperatures on Earth?
David and I spent months wondering “what on Earth” could drive it. There were many possibilities though none of them seemed to be able to respond with the right timing: A resonant slop in ocean circulation could absorb extra energy, but it was difficult to see how the timing would be so tight with solar peaks. Likewise changes in ice or land cover. Then there are lunar cycles of 9 – 18 years, potentially generating atmospheric standing waves, but they were not synchronous with the sun.
Given that marine life can produce aerosol particles or carbonyl sulphide, we wondered if blue green algae or phytoplankton were the key. I particularly liked the idea that life on Earth would evolve to try to take advantage of the little extra energy arriving at regular intervals. But it’s unlikely, though not impossible, that microbiology would act after an 11 year delay. They could respond in weeks or months — but that type of response would not produce “a notch” in the transfer function. I spent most of 2013 spotting tantalizing 8 – 12 year cycles in papers on everything from arctic tundra to jet streams. All of which were interesting, but none of which would sit quietly for 10 years and then spring to life.
In the end, the answer was so prosaic, so beautiful – of course, the only possibility for a delay so perfectly timed with solar cycles was within the sun itself. Have we been fooled by a language slip? “Peak” solar activity doesn’t mean a “peak” in magnetic activity, actually it’s the other way around.
Think about the timing: At the peak of the sunspot cycle, while the sun is producing its maximum solar irradiation, it turns out that the Sun’s magnetic field is collapsing through its weakest moment. (Marvel at Figure 1 below.) The solar radiation only varies a little through the cycle, but the dynamo of the solar magnetic field is undergoing profound changes — flipping in polarity from North to South or back again. This causes the notch.
We don’t know exactly how this collapsing magnetic field reduces the effect of solar radiation on Earth. One obvious candidate is Svensmark’s cosmic ray hypothesis. He theorized that during the months of the weakest magnetic field the Earth loses its shield against cosmic rays, seeding clouds. But the mystery force might be electrical, or work through UV, or be something else entirely. Nonetheless, it was a leap to finally connect so many studies.
(This was a memorable “aha” moment — We did enjoy!.) – Jo
Physical Interpretation of the Notch and Delay
Dr David Evans, 17 June 2014
Cite as Evans, David M.W. “The Notch-Delay Solar Theory”, sciencespeak.com/climate-nd-solar.html, 2014.
[Logically this post belongs a little later in the series, but some people seem so interested in the physical interpretation of the notch and the delay that we’ll jump forward in the story a little for a bit. So please excuse me for dragging a couple of things in from left field while I explain this, but I am under editor’s orders.]
The notch was observed in the data, and the delay was inferred from the notch. But what are the physical explanations for the notch and the delay?
The biggest clue lies in the delay, which we’ll take here to be the most likely value of about 11 years, though it could be as low as 10 years or as high as 20 years in the curve fitting.
The delay in the solar model says that today’s temperatures are more influenced by the level of solar radiation 11 years ago than by the level either 5 or 25 years ago. So something to do with climate has a memory of 11 years; the delay is not simply due to a dissipative element, like a store of heat in the ocean that declines at a certain rate.
(The heat store of the oceans is almost certainly the main element in the low pass filter, which is a dissipative element with a time constant, but that is quite separate from the delay. If a dissipative element dominated the response to TSI then today’s temperatures would be more influenced by the TSI of 5 years ago than of 11 years ago, but it’s the other way around.)
As far as we know there is nothing on Earth with a memory spanning multiple years. But there is one climate actor with an 11 year clock—the Sun.
The Sun’s sunspot cycle has an average length of 11 years, although it varies from 8 to 14 years. The Sun’s full cycle is actually 22 years long on average, consisting of two consecutive sunspot cycles, one with the Sun’s magnetic field in each orientation.
Also, the notching suggests that there is a countervailing force that counteracts the TSI peaks in the global surface temperature. This countervailing force would have to synchronized to the TSI peaks. While it might be a force that reacts to the onset of a TSI peak, a simpler explanation is that it originates on the Sun like the TSI and is thus synchronized to the TSI. *
We will soon deduce from the solar model that the notch and the delay work by affecting the albedo of the Earth (the fraction of solar radiation that is reflected straight back out to space by clouds, snow, ice etc. without warming the Earth, about 30%). We will also find by looking at the proportional changes in solar radiation and albedo that over the last few decades that the effect on temperature of albedo modulation has been at least six times greater than the immediate heating effect of variation in solar radiation. So it appears the notch and delay are associated with a powerful indirect solar influence that modulates the Earth’s albedo.
It is important not to prejudge what this influence is, so let us call this influence “force X” for now. Therefore the existence of “force X” is formally proposed:
- If force X is larger, the Earth gets warmer.
- Changes in force X lag behind changes in solar radiation by the delay, which is most likely half of the full solar cycle, or 180°—force X and TSI are in anti-cycle. The delay is the time between peaks in sunspots, which averages 11 years but varies from 8 to 14 years.
- Force X affects the Earth’s temperature by changing its albedo.
- Force X increases when the Sun’s magnetic field is stronger, and is weakest when the Sun’s magnetic field is reversing its polarity.
This last property is because peaks in solar radiation and sunspots coincide with reversals in the Sun’s magnetic field, as shown in Figure 1.
The Sun’s magnetic field reverses polarity every sunspot cycle, about every 11 years, and it occurs just as the TSI and the number of sunspots are peaking. In the reversal, the Sun’s north pole gets swapped with its south pole, so the magnitudes of some aspects of the solar magnetic field go briefly to zero, and presumably all aspects of the various solar magnetic fluxes are at a minimum. For example, the magnitude of the solar polar magnetic shown in Figure 1 field drops to zero before rebounding as the polar field reverses polarity.
This synchronicity of peaks in solar radiation with troughs in force X accounts for the observed notching. Just as the TSI peaks the warming from force X is at a minimum, so the peak in the direct warming effect of TSI is counteracted by the trough in warming from force X. Presumably the combined influence of the peak in TSI and the trough in force X is less than the precision of the temperature record.
(By the way, it was Joanne who noticed the synchronicity of TSI peaks with magnetic field reversals and made the connection to the notch and delay.)
Figure 1: When sunspot activity peaks, solar radiation is at a maximum but the solar magnetic field is at its weakest because it is reversing polarity. (This figure merely illustrates the timing; the solar polar field is but one aspect of the Sun’s magnetic field, and it is not proposed that this is force X.)
Although we can deduce its presence in the datasets, at this stage it is not known what force X is. We cannot measure some signal on an antenna pointed somewhere and say “that is force X”. Conversely, nearly every measured variable has been compared to temperature, so if someone was measuring force X they probably would have noticed by now.
The obvious candidate for force X is some aspect of the solar magnetic field that is responsible for deflecting cosmic rays so that they do not hit the Earth as often as they would otherwise. More cosmic rays hitting the Earth may create more microscopic cloud nuclei, which form more clouds, which reflect more solar radiation back into space, lowering the unreflected TSI entering the climate system and thus cooling the Earth’s surface. When the appropriate component of the solar magnetic field is stronger, it warms the Earth by protecting it from cooling cosmic rays. Thus, a solar magnetic field could modulate the albedo of Earth. When solar radiation peaks, force X is momentarily weak and the cosmic ray shields are down.
It is possible that force X is not related to cosmic rays. For instance force X might be electric and modulate the ozone in the Earth’s stratosphere, or otherwise affect the Earth’s atmosphere by some electrical connection. Solar magnetic fields are known to directly influence weather near the Earth’s poles, and may influence mid-latitudes via the global atmospheric electric circuit (Lam et al 2013). Or there may be solar influences which are not explainable yet (e.g. Sober 2010). Or it might be that solar UV modulates algae or plankton which in turn modulate albedo (Watts, 2014). Yoshimura in 1996 found that the TSI leads some index of the solar magnetic field by 10.3 years, and posited that the Sun could affect the Earth’s climate “through two channels”.
Or it might be more than one of the above.
While the effects on temperature of the tiny changes in the immediate heating effects of TSI are too small to explain the recent global warming, those tiny changes are a leading indicator of force X. Tremors in the near-constant level of solar radiation foretell what force X will do in 11 years’ time. Because TSI indicates what force X will do in about 11 years, the TSI record is also a record of future force X.
Figure 2: Symbolic diagram of the Sun’s influence. The Sun influences Earthly temperature by two forces, solar radiation and force X, where changes in the former lead the latter by half a full solar (Hale) cycle. The influence of force X on changes in Earthly temperatures is about 10 to 20 times the influences of changes in the solar radiation.
Force X has ten to twenty times more influence on temperatures on Earth than changes in the direct heating effect of TSI (a result we will show later). TSI no doubt has vastly more energy than force X, but the changes in TSI are proportionally very small. Indeed, the level of TSI was thought to be constant until satellites were able to measure it more closely and found minor variations, and it used to be called “the solar constant”.
Force X affects the albedo of Earth, affecting how much solar radiation gets reflected straight back out to space. Force X is like a tap, a small force controlling the much larger flow of solar radiation into the Earth’s climate system.
Keep reading →
Look just because some people want to talk about something other than the new solar theory….
The Solar Series: I Background | II: The notch filter | III: The delay (you are here) | IV: A new solar force? | V: Modeling the escaping heat. | VI: The solar climate model | VII — Hindcasting | VIII — Predictions
UPDATE: July 21 Thanks to Bernie Hutchins, David found a problem with the code, which means the notch no longer guarantees a delay. The delay still likely exists (see the other evidence in the references below) but this post, particularly figure 2 needs correction and updating. – Jo
Strap yourself in. The Notch in the Earth’s response to incoming solar energy means that every 11 years (roughly) the solar energy peaks, and at the same time the climate’s response to the extra energy changes. What on Earth is going on?
The thing about notch filters that is hard for anyone who isn’t an electrical engineer to understand is that it appears to start working before “the event” it is filtering out. This is obvious in the step response graph. That’s Figure 2 – which shows what happens where there is a sudden step up in solar radiation (the brown line). The blue line shows the temperature response, which paradoxically starts to “rise” before the step up even occurs. This makes no sense, of course. Electronic engineers know that a [non-causal] notch filter always means a delay. Something triggers the filter before the event begins and the notch filter responds after a delay.
By mathematical inference David shows that there
must be a delay. Later, by fitting the solar model to the measured temperatures, the delay is found to most likely be around 11 years (but is definitely between 10 and 20 years).
There is some empirical support for this from Lockwood and Froehlich’s paper, and also from Usokin, Archibald, Solheim, Soon, and Moffa-Sanchez.
The solar model also has a low pass filter, as well as the notch-delay combo. All the little flickering short rises and falls in solar radiation would not show up in Earth’s temperature. A low pass filter blends or smooths these short term cycles as the energy is absorbed by systems like the oceans. Only longer sustained changes in radiation make a difference, as heat either accumulates or dissipates over longer periods. The transfer function suggests (loosely) that changes lasting less than about 3 years make less and less impact on temperatures. — Jo
Building the Model Part 1: Deducing the Delay
Dr David Evans, 16 June 2014
Cite as Evans, David M.W. “The Notch-Delay Solar Theory”, sciencespeak.com/climate-nd-solar.html, 2014.
We are building the solar model that would account for the recent global warming if it was associated almost entirely with solar radiation (notice that we didn’t say “caused”), and had no dependence on carbon dioxide. Here we assemble the first three parts of the model, a notch filter, a delay filter, and a low pass filter.
1 The Notch
In the previous post on exploring the data, we found that the most prominent feature in the empirical transfer function was the notch, which filters out the 11-year “hum” from the Sun.
The notch is a very curious fact. Solar radiation warms the Earth, providing nearly all the heat as incoming radiation—visible light, UV, infrared, and so on. So we’d expect the extra radiation from the Sun every 11 years to produce corresponding peaks in temperature here on Earth. Yet it doesn’t.
We have chosen to investigate what happens if the recent global warming was associated almost entirely with changes in solar radiation and has no dependence on carbon dioxide — the “solar assumption”. Obviously the solar assumption cannot be entirely true, and it is later discarded in the development of the solar model. It is only needed for finding the approximate parameters for the model, and it does not ultimately impact on whether the model is appropriate or not. This parallels the original development of the carbon dioxide theory, which temporarily assumed that carbon dioxide caused almost all of the global warming since 1800 — the “carbon dioxide assumption” — in order that the parameters of the carbon dioxide model could be found by curve-fitting it to the measured temperatures.
Using the solar assumption we curve-fitted a notch model to the measured temperatures, to find the approximate size and shape of the natural notch filter. It is more instructive to show the notch filter we eventually found by curve fitting the entire solar model (which contains a notch filter) to the measured temperatures, because that way we can build up the model’s transfer function piece by piece so that it matches the empirical transfer function. (The two notch filters are basically similar except for a different overall amplitude multiplier, that is, a vertical shift in the transfer function diagram.)
Figure 1: The transfer function of the notch filter in the solar model. Uses the P0 set of parameter values for the solar model, which are the rounded off versions of the parameters later determined to best fit the observed temperatures.
Ok, it’s notch shaped, and the notch is at 11 years, as we’d expect. (We are only concerned with the amplitudes, because we cannot adequately detect the phases of the sinusoids in the climate datasets.)
But what is much more interesting becomes apparent when the notch filter is portrayed in the time domain, as the step response. The step response of a system is what the output does when the input instantaneously steps up by one unit.
Figure 2: The step response of the notch filter in the solar model, corresponding to the transfer function in Figure 1. It is non-causal, that is, the response starts before the stimulus!
Notice that the step response starts several years before the step-up, which violates causality — it is impossible. In our universe, a response can only come after the corresponding stimulus. The non-causality of the step response of the notch filter in Figure 2 is not a fluke: in any electronic notch filter without an accompanying delay, the step response is blatantly non-causal. Notch filters by themselves are intrinsically non-causal.
2 The Delay
How we know there is a delay
When engineers design a filter whose transfer response has the desired shape of amplitude, but which is non-causal and therefore impossible, they simply include a delay with the filter. Adding a delay does not change the amplitude of the transfer function of the filter, it only changes the phase of the transfer function. The delay shifts the entire amplitude part of the step response to the right in diagrams such as Figure 2, without changing its shape, as if the time axis were replaced with a new time axis.
For example, the step response of the combination of the notch filter in Figure 2 and a 7 year delay is the blue line in Figure 2 shifted 7 years to the right. Just imagine sliding the blue line 7 years to the right — the dagger of the notch would move from year 0 to year 7. (Notice this would almost but not quite make the response causal, because the response would almost be zero before the stimulus begins. A delay of about 8 or 9 years would be sufficient to make it causal and therefore possible.)
Keep reading →
The Solar Series: I Background | II: The notch filter (you are here) | III: The delay | IV: A new solar force? | V: Modeling the escaping heat. | VI: The solar climate model | VII — Hindcasting | VIII — Predictions
This is the first of many posts. It is primarily about the entirely new discovery of a notch filter, which electrical engineers will immediately recognize, but few others will know. Notch filters are used in electronics to filter out a hum or noise. You will have some at home, but everyone seems to have missed the largest notch filter running on the planet.
This post is also about the broad outline of the new solar model. It’s a O-D (zero-dimensional) model. Its strength lies in its simplicity — it’s a top down approach. That solves a lot of problems the larger ambitious GCMs create — they are a bottom up approach, and effectively drown in the noise and uncertainty. This model does not even attempt to predict regional or seasonal effects at this stage. First things first — we need to figure out the main drivers of the global climate.
Here David explains why sinusoids are such powerful tools. Some of the most important graphs here are in frequencies — that’s where we non-EE’s (Electrical Engineers) will have to concentrate. Pay attention to the logarithmic scale on the bottom. 1,000 year cycles are on the left, and 1 year cycles are on the right.
There is a lot to cover. As you read, good skeptics will be thinking of criticisms and questioning assumptions. That’s all excellent, please bear in mind we have asked many of these at length already (like, is it fair to assume linearity?) and this is a short introductory article. There is a lot to discuss. We assume, but only temporarily, that the Sun’s radiation might be associated with all the warming (note I didn’t say “cause”). This assumption is used for the investigation and then dropped and tested. It parallels what CO2 driven models do — they assumed CO2 caused all the warming. They just got stuck on the “testing” step. Also, David used Fourier analysis to investigate the datasets and find the filters, then used those filters he discovered to build a model. This two stage approach means skeptics may spot red flags that are relevant to one stage, but made irrelevant by the second stage. I’m flagging this at the start in the hope that we generate more constructive criticism.
No time? — skip to Figure 5 and 6 for the most important action! Look at the spike down at 11 years. See how it happens in all the datasets. (Figure 6 was the moment when Bob Carter sat up dead straight in his chair).
Discovering the Notch
by Dr David Evans, 15 June 2014
Cite as Evans, David M.W. “The Notch-Delay Solar Theory”, sciencespeak.com/climate-nd-solar.html, 2014.
The carbon dioxide theory is clearly inadequate, as readers here know only all too well. So we wondered if the changes in the Sun might be causing some of the recent global warming. That is, the global warming over the last few decades, maybe back to 1800 or so.
Solar radiation and temperature
The best and most obvious solar datasets are those for total solar irradiance (TSI), or the total energy from the sun at all electromagnetic frequencies — mainly visible light, but also UV and some infrared. These datasets estimate the total energy from the Sun falling upon the plane that is at the average distance of the Earth from the Sun (1 AU, or astronomical unit). This TSI data is thus deseasonalized, so it cannot tell us anything about what is happening on time scales of less than a year or at frequencies greater than one cycle per year (this will become important later). TSI is measured in Watts per square meter (W/m2).
The temperature we are most interested in is the one for our immediate environment, the “global average surface air temperature”, namely air temperatures at or near the surface averaged across the entire planet. When we use “temperature” without qualification in these posts, we mean this temperature. “Global warming” is the rise in this temperature.
The initial aim of this project is to answer this question: If the recent global warming was associated almost entirely with solar radiation, and had no dependence on CO2, what solar model would account for it?
Let’s build that solar model
We are envisaging some sort of black box, whose input is TSI and whose output is temperature.
The climate system is approximately linear for small perturbations such as have occurred since the end of the last ice age. It is common in climate modeling to assume that the climate system is linear. The climate system is also “invariant”, which just means that its properties do not change significantly with time. So we assume that the climate system is linear and invariant, at least for the last few hundred years (and presumably as far back as the end of the last ice age).
The way to analyze a linear and invariant system is with sinusoids (aka sine waves). A sinusoid has a frequency, an amplitude, and a phase. Sinusoids are special for linear invariant systems, because:
- If the input is a sinusoid, then the output is a sinusoid at the same frequency.
- At each frequency, the ratio of output to input amplitudes and the difference between the output and input phases are always the same.
- Behavior at one frequency is unaffected by what is occurring at other frequencies.
Lots of systems are linear and invariant, such as free space for electromagnetic fluctuations, which is why sinusoids and Fourier analysis are so ubiquitous in our analysis of the universe. While Fourier analysis can also be used for mere curve fitting, its true significance and power is that sinusoids are eigenfunctions of all linear invariant systems.
So let’s analyze the TSI and temperature datasets in the frequency domain. That is, we will recast them as sums of sinusoids.*
Keep reading →
More action coming very soon, in the meantime, a space for all the things that are not the solar model…
(UPDATE: It’s posted!)
Behind the scenes a major advance has been quietly churning. It is something I have barely even hinted at. (Oh how I wanted to!)You may have noticed my other half Dr David Evans has been quiet — it’s not because he’s moved out of the climate debate, instead a strange combination of factors has pulled him full time into climate research. Things have been very busy here. He’s discovered something extraordinary, and like all real science, it’s been a roller-coaster where the theory appeared to collapse, and we nearly gave up, but then a new insight would turn out to be more valuable than the version that went before. Other times it all seemed so obvious in hindsight we wondered why no one had done this before. But the answer is that there is a very unusual combination of factors at work — how many people have Ivy League experience in Fourier maths, and electrical circuits and have worked as a professional modeler, software developer, and have an interest in the finer details and theory of the climate debate? Who of the people with this background would also be prepared to spend months working unpaid to investigate a non-CO2 climate theory?
Dr David Evans is an electrical engineer and mathematician, who earned six university degrees over ten years, including a PhD from Stanford University in electrical engineering (digital signal processing): PhD. (E.E), M.S. (E.E.), M.S. (Stats) [at Stanford], B.E. (Hons, University Medal), M.A. (Applied Math), B.Sc.[University of Sydney]. His specialty is in Fourier analysis and signal processing. He trained with Professor Ronald Bracewell late of Stanford University.
David has worked in the climate industry, consulting full-time for the Australian Greenhouse Office from 1999 to 2005, and part-time for the Department of Climate Change from 2008 to 2010. He was the lead modeler analyzing the carbon in Australia’s biosphere for Kyoto accounting purposes, and developed the world-leading carbon accounting model FullCAM that Australia uses in the land use change and forestry sector.
For the last 18 months David pursued an idea, and developed something the climate debate has needed, but failed to do achieve after 30 years, despite billions of dollars in funding. He’s taken sophisticated silicon-chip maths and applied it to the climate system — analyzing the system as a black box to discover the filters and parts. He has built a working O-D model with 15,000 lines of code. In order to develop the model he had to produce a more advanced method of Fourier analysis (which on its own is an achievement and will be useful in many other fields). We’ll be releasing the results of this independent work over the next week amongst other posts. Make no mistake, this is not like anything I have seen or read about. It fits, like all good science does, into a coherent theory that matches the data and connects many other papers. The jigsaw is coming together.
Over the last six months we’ve been quietly circulating this work amongst scientists we admire and seeking feedback. We want more, and open science is the only way to go. I will boldly predict that many papers will spring from this work and its implications, but for the moment we see no reason to wait for two unpaid reviewers and an editor (with little knowledge of the details) to delay or prevaricate on its release.
Historically this is how real science is done, one well-trained passionate researcher pursues a creative idea that breaks the current paradigm, then sets the theory free for everyone to test and review. This work — should it stand the test of time — will be held up as an example of where independent research can succeed over the grand failure of expensive government funded and bureaucratically-driven science.
I’ll be announcing the releases through facebook, twitter and via emails — so please update your details or register for emails if you are not already. Know that I’m the only one who sends emails the register, I do not sell emails nor send spam. I have not been using the list for the last six months but will start as we release these most important articles I’ve ever published.
As they say, bring your popcorn. Get ready to concentrate. : -)
The Solar Series:
I Background (You are here) | II: The notch filter | III: The delay | IV: A new solar force? |
V: Modeling the escaping heat. | VI: The solar climate model | VII — Hindcasting | VIII — Predictions |
The Project—An Introduction
Guest post by Dr David Evans, 14 June 2014
Cite as Evans, David M.W. “The Notch-Delay Solar Theory”, sciencespeak.com/climate-nd-solar.html, 2014
We’ve been working on this for a year and a half, gradually building up the pieces bit by bit, gradually filling in a picture that is now almost complete. We’ve been bursting to tell the world about it for months, but always noting it would be better if developed and tested before it went public. (How long is a piece of string?) The big danger is that an inadequately explained or prepared alternative explanation of how the climate works will not be given proper consideration, and thereafter will be ignored as “debunked”. There is never a perfect time, but we’ve reached the point where the theory will be tested and developed better by open review. It’s time to set it free…We will be serializing the project as a series of posts, one every day or two. The broad outline of the project, without revealing the major ingredients just yet, is as follows.
We explore some climate datasets and find something interesting, which provides a clue to building up a solar model. We think we have deduced the nature of the indirect solar force that largely influences temperature here on Earth. We get a physical model with physical interpretations (that is, not just curve fitting), working models, and decent fit to observed data.
Both the CO2 model and the new solar model are viable explanations of the global warming of the last century. Any linear mix (e.g. 60% CO2, 40% solar) also fits the observed temperatures. On the performance of the models over the last century, we cannot tell which is correct. However, over the next decade the models predict dramatically different things: the CO2 model of course predicts warming, while the solar model predicts a sharp fall in temperature very soon.
We don’t have to wait to determine whether it is the CO2 or solar model that is more correct. The answer lies in the changes in the height of the water vapor emissions layer, because the influences of CO2 and the indirect solar force are different. From this we are able to determine the cause of global warming and the maximum extent to which the recent global warming was due to CO2. We also clear up a few theoretical befuddlements about the influence of CO2 that may have caused warmists to overestimate the potency of rising CO2.
The fans of the CO2 dominant models are not going to be happy. It seems the climate is an 80-20 sort of thing, where there is a dominant influence responsible for 80% of climate change and a tail of 20% of other factors. It turns out that the CO2 concentration is not the 80% factor, but in the 20% tail. An indirect solar influence seems to be the main factor.
All the data, model, and computations are in a single Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. It runs on any pc with Excel 2007 or later; it runs at least partly (and maybe fully) on any Mac with Office 2011 or later. This is completely open science—every bit of data and every computation is open for inspection. We will be releasing this towards the end of the series of blog posts.
There is a big paper with all of the above in rigorous detail. It runs to about 170 pages. There is some groundwork to discuss before it is all released. This should produce a more productive discussion.
This has been a long circuitous personal journey. From originally being involved in Fourier research in Silicon Valley, I moved to the climate world with the assumption that CO2 was the major climate driver. I became aware the evidence was gradually reversing sometime after 2003, and by 2006 had become skeptical. Now, completing the circle, I’m bringing my original passion for Fourier research back to the climate. I’ve vowed to leave this debate on several occasions but part of the reason I keep being pulled back towards climate is because Joanne, who runs this blog, is my wife. Yes, a strange combination of factors are at work.
This project was funded almost entirely by us out of our family savings, with help from donations by readers of Joanne’s blog. (Again, thank you! Without your support and encouragement we wouldn’t have done this.) As well as being 18 months of very full time work, there were months of preparatory research, and years of learning and planning.
There are no conflicts of interest to declare. In particular we have no investments in fossil fuels, shorts on renewables, or any investments in the energy sector. There are no government grants or salaries to declare (unlike many supporters of the CO2 theory). We receive modest donations, occasional speaking fees and fees for writing articles, but no other income from climate activities.
Please visit the climate page of my website, at http://sciencespeak.com/climate.html. There is even a page there for the attacks and smears of the warmists. And now there is a page for the project, which includes links to all the articles on this blog with summaries: http://sciencespeak.com/climate-nd-solar.html.
You can help make more of this independent research, coding, and open source discovery possible with a donation through joannenova.com.au. It’s not a new way of funding scientific discovery; it’s the way most of the biggest advances in science have always been done, though not so much in this era of government funded science since WWII.
The world spends almost a billion dollars a day on mitigating CO2 emissions. This project potentially could help make those funds available for more productive uses.
David Evans’ ground-breaking work is a devastating new approach to the climate question. I have been lucky enough to observe the development of this project, and am full of admiration for both Jo and David for their dedication to carrying out a breathtaking research project with no financial reward, simply because it so desperately needed to be done. Let this be the last nail in the coffin of climate extremism. I hope that, as a result of this work, David will be properly recognized by the Australian Government, which – unlike its unlamented predecessor – is open to the possibility that influences other than Man are the principal drivers of the climate. David’s work is heroic in its scale, formidable in its ingenuity, and – as far as a mere layman can judge – very likely to be broadly correct. One should not minimize the courage of David and Jo in persisting unrewarded for so long in what was and is a genuine search for the truth, starting not from any preconception but from that curiosity that is the mainspring of all true science. I wish this project well and congratulate its justifiably proud parents on its birth.
– Thank you Christopher– says Jo.
(Monckton stayed with us in March 2013 and was one of the first to see the developing model. We all got quite caught up in the excitement.)
Notch-delay solar project home page, including links to all the articles on this blog, with summaries.
Remember how Curtin University, in Perth Australia, put up a sacred Nobel Wall? We had so much fun with it. The mural deified a climate saint — Prof Richard Warrick — one of the numberless thousands who helped the IPCC win a peace prize for generating no peace. It appears the University was embarrassed about people pointing out that the mural implied Prof Warrick had earned a Nobel Peace Prize while the Nobel committee said he hadn’t.
Curtin University not only changed the web pages, but the mural has been removed. I would have thought they might just change the wording, but the whole climate theme is gone. Possibly the University felt some pain being mocked for the religious overtones.
Call this a small win. Thanks to AndrewWA who alerted me in comments. It shows sometimes it is worth sending polite letters, getting those embarassing photographs and writing those blogs. This mural below has been replaced with another mural entirely (see below).
The former mural on Curtin Universities wall.
As for the web pages, the official Curtin page was corrected. The bio page has evaporated? (I can’t see it at all, can you?)
From Feb 2014: “Warrick’s bio pages say that he is a “co-recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize” and that “he shared a Nobel Peace Prize with former U.S. Vice President Al Gore and other selected IPCC authors in 2007.”
I was all so meaningless in the first place: a fuss about a scientist not-winning a non-science prize? As I wrote then:
Keep reading →
In an interview with Ezra Levant on Sun News Canada, Marc Morano (Climate Depot) says: ‘I am jealous of the leadership of Canada & Australia. It is so sad being in America’ – ‘The rest of the world is abandoning carbon pricing as the U.S. is jumping right in’
It’s like two junior partners of the Anglosphere are rejecting the senior partner” — Ezra Levant
Marc Morano talks about the nations winding back their carbon schemes and “laughing at us”. “Germany is going to more coal. Spain is abandoning green jobs, Europe is showing a lot of sense in this”.
Keep reading →
Apparently, on May 31, Australia’s targets for emissions cuts tripled overnight.Who knew? Answer: Christine Milne and Julia Gillard.
Australia was aiming for a 5% cut by 2020, but it’s now become a cut of 18% by 2020. The Clean Energy Act of 2011 set that savage goal as a default target that popped into existence if the current government had not jumped through some arbitrary hoop — in this case by setting an emissions cap.
Most likely this is a non-event — presumably the current government can wipe out the carbon legislation after July 1, which depends on Clive Palmer, a coal magnate. (UPDATE: Last night Palmer said he’ll repeal the carbon tax). But even so, I wonder if there is a sting in the cost? Are there contracts that are tied to the target, so that compensation for removing it automatically tripled as well?
And if the tripling of the target is meaningless, why would anyone advertise their deception in sneaking it in?
Could it be Milne and Gillard see themselves as Gods come to save us (damn those stupid voters!). Milne seems positively pleased she was able to trick Australians. The voters may have voted to remove the carbon tax but Gillard and Milne wouldn’t be stopped by the mere wishes of the people. The pair could have explained their “achievement” before the election couldn’t they? Instead, they saved it up til after it was triggered.
Greens leader Christine Milne said the measure was inserted in the act to insure against ”a government like this refusing to set a cap”.
How’s that for open and transparent government? Are we insuring against a government failure or a voter failure?
”It won’t have realised because it never put its mind to the detail,” Senator Milne said. ”By doing nothing more than we are already doing, we are getting to 18.8 [per cent] and if we put a bit of effort in, we can go even higher.”
It’s all so easy being a ruler. Just say the word and those emissions vanish. Pff!
But hey, if we have to cut emissions nearly 20% by 2020 we better start building those nuclear plants today. I’m sure Milne would be pleased…
Keep reading →
15 contributors have published
1558 posts that generated