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. : -)
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
Dr David Evans, 14 June 2014, David Evans’ Notch-Delay Solar Theory and Model Home
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.
Monckton of Brenchley comments at #37
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.
Sounds intriguing, hope it’s not a scalar model David?
51
Big news indeed.
51
eratta:
“In particular we ???? no investments in fossil fuels…”
—-
Thx! Jo
51
This is a biggie that you have foreshadowed, Jo.
Given the woeful treatment ABC (Australia) gave you and David with the Rose-Minchkin story, I hope that this work becomes a major turning point to put paid to the anthropological climate catrostrophism fraud.
I await the ABC having to eat humble pie regarding its unbalanced, unwaveringly one-eyed stance on so called global warming.
511
Sorry mmxx, this one will sail over their heads and probably mine too. I was one of the weirdos who quite liked differential equations but Fourier analysis was beyond my humble stats education.
Also, I can assure you that Rose et al will be completely lost on information that has more than one factor interacting to produce a variety of effects. It’s not that they are thick but it is simply outside their educational back-ground.
112
Sorry mmxx, this one will sail over their heads and probably mine too. I was one of the weirdos who quite liked differential equations but Fourier analysis was beyond my humble stats education.
Also, I can assure you that Rose et al will be completely lost on information that has more than one factor interacting to produce a variety of effects. It’s not that they are thick but it is simply outside their educational back-ground.
22
Thought you might find this interesting. http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Has_solar_activity_influence_on_the_Earths_global_warming_999.html
50
Jo, I hope that David and all the pre-reviewers have been absolutely rigorous with this. NO PAL-PRE-REVIEW !
You know that the alarmistas will go though it word by word and if there is even one spelling mistake they will try to use it to diss the paper.
Remember just how much these jokers have to lose. !!!
443
Check your subscripts. One i instead of a j and your mathematical treatment is an amateurish joke.
16
Dr Evans It will be fascinating to discover over the coming weeks more details of your research, your findings and your conclusions. You may however meet opposition from Climate Scientists due to your statement “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”. They will be dismayed that you appear either not to know or deliberately choose to disregard the fundamental concept of current climate research that data are not to be released under any circumstances. To do so could encourage the heretical idea that human production of CO2 is not the only possible cause of climate change. Your promises of transparency and willingness to assist others in repeating and checking your findings may well set a most unfortunate precedent. Your promises are very likely to embarrass and dismay those who believe such an approach could well lead to cuts in research funding and jeopardise opportunities to attend conferences held in very comfortable surroundings in delightful parts of the world.
760
I am with Ian and look forward to the paper and explanation by Dr David Evans. I dislike “black box” models as they do not show the mechanisms and reality that applies to measured data. However, the heat transfer occurring between the earth surfaces and the atmosphere is complex, as are the fluid dynamics of the atmosphere and the reaction kinetics (such as ozone formation, lightning etc) My own knowledge and experience with heat and mass transfer has always caused me to be sceptical of AGW proposals from people who demonstrate that they do not understand thermodynamics or heat transfer. One of the few who has published papers on climate I respect is the chemical engineer Dr Noor van Andel who is one of the few who understood the Miskolczi theory and turned around thinking at the KNMI in two presentations.
60
Being a non-scientist I am not worried about “black box” models, provided they say something about the world that dumb extrapolations from the data cannot. Problem is that many climatologists squeeze the real world into the climate models, through ignoring most of the available data and massaging the rest. What impresses me is when a “black box” model makes a prediction that comes true, despite it seeming to go against science. In more complex models like climate, it is having a good track record of predictions, beating the odds by a wide margin.
10
Quoting from the movie “2010”:
Congrats guys! It’s high time this “CO2 does everything” is banged on its head for good.
321
Suddenly, modeling is ok?
As long as it gives us the answer we want.
So, how much cooling will we see and over what period?
Is it ok if we refer to Evans as a Coolist?
766
Chester:
‘Is it ok if we refer to Evans as a Coolist?”
–
Not if his modelling is consistent with IPCC projections!
(oops!)
91
Not a coolist – the coolest.
464
The more pertinent question is whether it can predict the future. Not too many people predicted the Great Lakes freezing over this year.
Quite a few people have predicted the North Pole should be ice free about now, but observation says otherwise.
Galina Mashnich and Vladimir Bashkirtsev bet $10k against James Annan based on some sort of solar cycle theory. Wonder how those three are feeling about it all?
141
Chester,
A process that fits manipulated data to a desired outcome is a template.
A process that predicts an actual outcome from observed data is a model.
Now cry havoc…
325
Jamie B has clearly analysed the model and the science already? Can you describe it to us, please? And while you demonstrate your knowledge of Evan’s work, please demonstrate your assertion above that climate models have been manipulated to produce an outcome.
If you can’t do so, I’d suggest you are a liar and a fraud. But, here’s your chance to prove otherwise:…
764
Dear Chester,
“And while you demonstrate your knowledge of Evan’s work,please demonstrate your assertion above that climate models have been manipulated to produce an outcome.”
Please follow carefully, it goes like this in order of request:
1. Not Mann Hockey Stick.
2. Mann Hockey Stick.
Hope this clarifies it for you.
Sincerely yours etc etc…
James P Bradley
(p.s. the P is silent)
225
Chester!!!
“If you can’t do so, I’d suggest you are a liar and a fraud. But, here’s your chance to prove otherwise:…
Pleasssse, can someone pass me a bucket so I can go out and mop meself up…
I can feel the tears welling up in me eyes now, cut to the quick…
If only I’d have known how difficult it would be to open myself to criticism…
And here I thought you and I were becoming chums, just goes to show what happens when you wear your heart on your sleeve.
But I digress, so to sum up:
This is just a bit of a comedy relief for me to play tag with idiots, I don’t know you from a bar of soap and couldn’t care less other than as a bit of a verbal joust from time to time to keep my hand in for other things.
I am sorry, but your opinions on all things catastrophically warming and global, which somehow must seem all encompassing, urgent and critical to you, mean absolutely nothing whatsoever to me.
I’m just here to have a bit of a giggle at warmies who actually believe that they will alter the course of human history, change the weather and save the world.
Now it’s time you answered a question:
Q. Given your personal accomplishments so far, to what purpose is your existence?
434
That’s what I thought.
541
Oh look, another blank-thought, empty post from Chester.
You are excelling in your uselessness tonight. 🙂
195
Chester you sound suspiciously like someone who is fishing and agitating people for the purpose of collecting evidence for possible evidence for legal incrimination via a lawsuit.
If not, past climate models have been proven to be flawed not only by CAGW skeptics but grudgingly by the models designers.
Make up your mind on what trollish tact you want to take and just focus on that, we understand warmist trolls are too dumb to multi task and personally fear for excessive stress and the integrity of your underpants.
171
Okay, here’s another perspective:
The Mann Hockey Stick is a graphic representation of manipulated data fit into a preconceived template and used as a hook to maximise a marketing concept.
162
Chester:
‘That’s what I thought.’
–
And it only took 53 minutes to think it!
111
Desperation is a motivator not a purpose.
81
Wrong answer.
70
What is very soon, how long do we have to wait to see this fall over? If it continues to warm for another 12 months will you promise to throw your have up in surrender and give up this lost cause?
434
Should read “hands” of course
316
Of course, Philip, the only thing that would cause you to extract your skull from your own posterior orifice would be a white Christmas in Perth. Right?
63
Brian:
‘What is very soon, how long do we have to wait to see this fall over?’
–
Let’s hope it’s at least as robust as the Climate Models!
30
Brian what a goose. I see you got a vote, must have been from that gosling Chester.
42
There is nothing wrong with modelling if it’s correct or at least representative enough to make predictions. It has been shown for example that the models the EPA uses have anti-skill ie, the predictions it makes are statistically correlated to what doesn’t happen, yet the EPA used them anyway.
David’s models will only be as good as it tests against the real world. As far as I’m concerned, if it verifies as badly as the IPCC models, it too will be falsified and David will be back to the drawing board.
One thing David has up on the climatastrophists is that he is backing everything with mechanisms, and hopefully therefore it takes account of time. I look forward to examining his ideas.
171
Chester, there has never been anything wrong with modelling. The problem with the IPCC’s climate models is:
1. They do not work in hind-cast.
2. Their predictive ability has been invalidated by empirical data.
Yet when the data has disproved the model, they have continued to prefer the models for policy and prediction purposes. They have increased their level of confidence in the models at the same time it has become obvious they don’t work!
Given the above, the IPCC who claimed the science was ‘settled’, have continuously made excuses for why the models haven’t worked.
The value of Dr Evan’s models compared to the ones favoured by the IPCC will be judged on how well they fit in hind-cast. If for instance they explain past periods of cooling, and stable temperatures which the IPCC models do not. And we will judge how well the modelling predicts future temperatures compared to the IPCC models.
And unlike much of the modelling done by climate alarmists, Dr Evans is prepared to open source all his material. You couldn’t be fairer than that!
341
“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.”
I’m thinking along the lines that if your still “feeding” the false information into your “model” your still going to come up with the same dud predictions.
The most important being the temperature records that have been massaged and manipulated by the global warming fraudsters.
If your model is still using the same corrupted temperature data, then your still sitting amongst the other crystal ball gazers.
Jo, you know and everyvody here knows thats not just in Australia.
Every temperature record on the planet has been tainted by these fraudsters.
It doesn’t matter what your new model comes up with, it’ll still rely on fraudulent data.
I’m not a scientist which is plain to see and I don’t pretend to understand it all.
But I’m sharp enough question these global warming fraudsters.
If your feeding wrong data (ie:temperature records) into your model.It stands to reason your going to get a wrong conclusion at the end.
91
Jo I’m probably having a little trouble articulating exactly what I’m trying to say.
You do it so much better.
“The bottom line is that obviously Australian temperatures have risen in the last century, but by how much? The trends are fed into global climate models, they’re used to estimate climate sensitivity, and forward projections are based in part on previous rises. Then there is the constant hammer of press releases trumpeting headlines with “records” that sometimes depend entirely on the adjustments.
It is time it was audited properly.
Posts on Australian Temperatures
80
Leigh, your articulation would be much improved if you were to distinguish between “your” and “you’re”.
Best wishes.
31
Oops. Some times relying on spell check without properly reading what you’ve typed will do that.
But do you understand where my thoughts are coming from?
Unless the fraudulent data is corrected and priority one is the temperature records that have been adjusted upwards in the last three or four decades.
It’s not much good using it to wack the global warmists.
And if you do attempt to correct it or throw in new data that contradicts theirs, well your right back where you started.
Let’s talk hockey stick.
This might excite the scientists like Jo and co. but it certainly won’t excite the average “me”.
Why?
Simply because we neither understand nor want to understand the billions spent on scientific speak arguing about a couple of hundreths of degree rise in temperature. The majority of that when looked at closely is in all likely hood artificaly manufactured by upward adjustments by scientists that are less than ethical.
Nor does a couple of millimeters in sea level rises a year excite.
And why?
Do the maths out to the end of the century and that should put a few thousand of them of the payroll.
All I won’t is to get the fraudsters out of my pocket and redirect that funding to where it can do some tangible good.
40
Leigh, you make extremely important points.
Current ‘accepted’ historical temperature data should be erased and research started from scratch by those without a pre-conceived angle on the causes of climate change. Only when new and unbiased temperature records are as complete as it is reasonable to expect, can the validity of climate change theories be assessed.
30
“‘accepted’ historical temperature data”
Graham in that single line lies the whole argument that the global warmists base their fraud on.
Forget about everything else to do with the fraud because every other lie springs from that line.
That historical temperature record is only accepted by those defending the fraud.
It is certainly not accepted by Jo or any of her supporters.
And that is why the BOM and every other BOM or equivalent around the world refuse to explain their “adjustments” to that historical data.
From Mann and his stick to east anglier and their emails.
This fraud is shrouded in secrecy and misinformation.
If they have nothing to hide, why do it?
30
I agree here, it is ok to adjust data, but only if you publish the original raw data and the adjustments and justifications alongside them, so that the procedure can be replicated. Black box “trust me, I’m a climate scientist” style adjustments are not good enough. The BOM data is part way there, but doesn’t include justification or code I understand, so the quite large adjustment in it can’t be independently validated. Noone can be sure the BOM hasn’t made a mistake. All the cards need to be laid out, not just the ones that suit.
30
I agree completely, Leigh .
Use of HadCrut or Giss pre-1979, or even after, is fraught with mathematical and scientific uncertainly and doubt.
61
For the kiddies. Modelling is a part of your reasoning. Its not experimental fact. Its even less of a fact than a hand-waving explanation because it can have a hard to spot mathematical or coding error. You do not use the results of modelling like experimental results, it just turns the hand waving into something quantitative to compare with experiment.
If you hear any Latin like “ab initio” or “a priori” stick your fingers in your and go “la, la, la …” because there is an assumption that you are starting with everything that you need to know (eg. quantum physics, hence the spiel about Stefan-Boltzman Law, Kirchoff’s Law etc. as if nothing was assumed to be true)
20
it’s funny though. this theory has only just been developed but you contrarians seem to have known it all along. I guess that’s just scientific instinct of superior minds?
And of course, they’re asking for money.
368
Yes money freely given by people able to make the choice to do so, not leeching off obscene amounts of public money to support a lie that does NOTHING for the betterment of the population.
Keep on posting princess it’ll only make the massive slap down of your ilk all the more sweeter when it comes, and it is coming do you even realize that?
570
you … seem to have known it all along.
Not in detail. But those of us who are Engineers, and particularly Electrical Engineers, know and understand Fourier analysis. If something is cyclic, you can derive the math to describe it. That is how Engineers manipulate musical recordings. It is also how the sails on the Americas Cup boats are designed. And it is certainly how your iPod or iPhone works
David Evans is recognised as being one of the current world experts in Fourier Analysis. When he goes “quiet”, those in the know, just smile, and await the outcome. We have yet to be disappointed.
601
And Chester gets a bad crick in his neck from looking at that zooming way over his head !! 🙂
222
Exactly, engineers have very objective minds and can usually filter data very well. Though I know the IEEE has drunk the koolaid a bit, goodness knows why! No thinking electrical engineer could ever accept that the climate has a positive feedback loop with a loop gain of 0.95 or more. Yet that is what the IPCC would have us believe, yes, but it’s the special kind of positive feedback that doesn’t ever cause overshoot, you know, the sort that has never been seen in any real world example except for the climate.
241
Is that because the climate does not run on electricity or do you have some other special skill to make these proclamations. Maybe Davids contributions to world monetary conspiracies need to be taken equally seriously.
—–
Look everyone — the neolithic “ad hom” brain tries to solve the climate with attempted slurs about economics. – Jo
217
“Is that because the climate does not run on electricity”
Oh that’s good.. so running coal fired power stations won’t affect it .. {:>
But we knew that already 🙂
50
Let me answer since clearly Brian is no engineer. Brian, feedback can exist in many systems whether electrical or not, in all cases feedback is associated with a time term, the feedback of an action has to occur a finite time AFTER the action, otherwise you need a time machine. While mathematically you can (in a computer) generate effects that occur before the cause, they have no meaning in the real world, and in the signal processing domain we call that non-causal. The time term in association with positive feedback causes all known systems whether they be mechanical, electrical, thermal or otherwise to overshoot or oscillate because they all have a form of intertia – a time characteristic. On the other hand in the climate world, we have climate scientists that postulate that we can have feedback terms with no time dimension that don’t overshoot or oscillate but just multiply warming by 3. This is non-causal, such a system only can exist in a computer because in the time domain of the real world, some of the effects would have to occur at the same moment or before the cause for that to happen. Scalar models are an inappropriate simulation because they ignore the time effect of feedback.
Clearly climate feedbacks have a time dimension, as CO2 warming occurs, it takes time to evaporate, or melt the water/ice, to arrive at that water saturated atmosphere that is supposed to magnify the warming, the dynamics, or rate of that feedback occuring is central to the effect it has on the dynamics of the atmosphere. Climate models ignore that.
Hence no thinking engineer could accept that feedbacks with a loop gain of 0.95 (at a loop gain of 1.0 we get an oscillator) could possibly exist in the climate because the time effects would cause massive overshoot and would cause massive cyclical shifts from cold to hot at various reasonant frequencies, for example as a cloud floats over, the temperature would continue to rise and then fall some time after the cloud passed over. That doesn’t happen, hence no evidence of high loop gain in the climate exists.
91
Zoom… whoooooosh !!!
pause.
Brian looks up and says.. I wonder what that was. !
51
bobl,
Well put!
50
bobl made a great reply – you should both read it and attempt to understand it.
Your statement…
… implies a category error on your part.
There is the general category of “Instances of Feedback in Systems”, and then there are specific instances of feedback with systems.
The system itself (electrical circuit, or Climate) does not matter, as feedbacks in each system are simply instances of the general category.
So — it does not matter one iota — that the “climate does not run on electricity” for anyone to draw conclusions with regard to the operation of the feedbacks.
Feedback issues have always been the Achilles heel of the CAGW hypothesis, with the CAGW hypothesis requiring positive water vapour feedback to increasing concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere to produce the “Catastrophic” warming that is at the core of the “Alarmisim”.
No positive feedback = No Catastrophy = No Alarmism = No Money for Alarmists.
Horrifying isn’t it, you’ll have to find some other mindless fake cause to provide purpose and meaning to your life, and a trough of other people’s money extracted at the point of a gun to swill your snout in.
10
“I guess that’s just scientific instinct of superior minds”
Precisely..
You get a thumbs up from me 🙂
111
Chester,
The Climate Council!!!!!!!!!!!!!
60
As it just occurred, why are there so many ‘C’s in this climate game ?
00
“seem to have known it all along”
Certainly suspected.
If you look back you will see many posts where I have made the point of the series of strong solar peaks coinciding nicely with the small warming trend.
And now the sun seems to be having a snooze, even Giss and HadCrut are having difficulty stopping the global average temp from cooling.
Also, I have made mentioned of some possible mechanisms other than pure TSI.
Changes in frequency in the UV band are quite large, specifically in the range where seawater penetration is concerned being one of them.
I suspect the next couple of years will continue to show cooling, maybe a slight acceleration of the already slight probably downward trend.
If that happens, the rapid divergence between the GCMs and reality is going to make things very difficult for climate modellers !! 🙂
160
Actually, in several of my postings I speculated that upper tropospheric UV warming could in theory cause temperature inversions that supress convection. Higher UV could theoretically lower the altitude of the inversions. Anyway, I will be very interested in what David has discovered. There are lots of candidate mechanisms of which UV warming is but one.
I was in a seminar recently where an engineer had taken a look at the correlation between the solar and lunar cycles and the great Queensland floods, It was his theory that the tidal bulge of the atmosphere, at perigee caused the monsoon troughs to deviate further south, when that occurs in the wet season, floods result.
120
Two things Chester.. If you tried posting material on SkS that was critical of or even thought to be critical of, the stance that sad site supports you’d be booted off never to return. Perhaps fortunately for you this site is run by scientists not amateur psychologists and publishes comments covering the spectrum of views on climate change. Second you state contrarians have superior minds. That is quite correct and I very much appreciate your acknowledgement of that indisputable fact. If you took the time to read and more importantly, understand, what has been posted by commenters you may realise that no stance has been taken on the conclusions this research may eventually lead to This is so far removed from what is frequently the case with studies conducted by those who are pro AGW I am not surprised that you aren’t sure of how to deal with transparency and a willingness to share data. Just reflect for a moment on the lengths Lawandowsky and Cooke and Nuccitelli have gone to, to ensure their data is not available to others who might wish to check their conclusions
281
This has always puzzled me. Warmists knew they were right back in the 70’s before anyone had done the sums. Mann knows he’s right even though his work has been thoroughly debunked. How do they know they’re right?
My guess is that Dr. Evans just kept his fingers crossed that he would come up with something that would be a serious black eye for the warmist cause. He didn’t know he was right. But he knew something almost as good – that you are wrong!
160
If I had said that I wouldn’t put my name on it. Chester, does your nanny know you’ve gotten loose again?
121
Chester, a cursory glance at the sun spot record shows a distinct connection between hot and cold periods in our history, thus most people with a thinking brain have always known it was the sun causing climate change. The why has never been found only alluded too, if Dr Evans has found the connection he has found the holy grail and all the bullshit coming from the AGW crowd can be put to bed. Saving the world trillions and advancing civilisation. Science is only advanced by those with open minds.
80
Strikes me as odd: JoNova was a Green and now she’s a conservative. Evans was a
Warmist and now he’s a Coolist.
Trust them, they’re definitely right this time…
467
Wow Chester!
3 goes at sneering?
Once this work is released you can go for your life if you see the need.
I can’t see where they asked for trust. . .actually considering the way it has been announced. . .I would say they are going to let the work speak for itself, openly and transparently.
Your 3 petulant posts are perhaps a tad premature?
433
Chester would lucky to comprehend the title !!
204
Your typing goes astray when you hyperventilate Grissler. I’m wondering how you’ve come to know me so well that you can write on my comprehension skills? How does your willingness to draw idiotic conclusions without evidence encourage us to respect your views on science? Based on this bit of evidence, I’d say your views aren’t worth a cracker. And your childish abusiveness doesn’t help your case either.
454
Nothing you post shows even the remotest understanding of climate science.
Show me one post, just one where you actually show some basic comprehension.
What more can I say.
I only draw conclusions about idiots….. because its so darn obvious.
273
I use to play piano, …… until my mum BEGGED me to stop 🙂
And its laughter at your idiotic posts…. not hyperventilation.
173
Actually this is precisely your argument and position, very well described by yourself. This is also why you always get a beating and people dismiss you as garbage. As we do with the unproven hidden science.
100
Hi Chester
I believe you went to TAFE to get a certificate in butt wiping because it is the only job that your limited intellect can handle. I’m sure that there are a few ABC stooges, green politicians and warmist scientists that are need your skill set.
111
Well, that’s the way the IPCC do it, and you don’t seem to have no complaints with them.
110
Right, because JoNova and the prestigious scientists that haunt this blog have not been sneering and heckling but have been politely contrarian, yes?
Please, go and look up the meaning of hypocrisy.
Nova has been asked to back up her propagandist rhetoric with science. Now we get the chance to see it. let’s hope she and Evans fare better than the laughable circus Watts put on.
359
Every post you have ever made here has been a sneering slimy post, with zero scientific merit.
You are a waste of time and space.
When is the slug coming to get its brain back off you ?
264
Come on girls -stop wasting blog space feeding time-wasters.
100
Normally I don’t like feeding trolls. They are a waste of text.
But this one is so funny, and Griss’s rebuttals crack me up. It’s some light relief after a hard week.
50
Some of the regulars on this blog have little tolerance for people, like yourself, who just make derisible statements, without foundation. They tend to respond in kind, which may be unfortunate, but is only human.
Jo does present her position with science. Science is the process of “Discovery by Exclusion”.
The best way of explaining that, is with an old Vaudeville joke: Question: How do you carve a statue of an Elephant? Answer: You take a large piece of stone, and cut away all of the pieces that don’t look like an elephant”.
In the physical sciences, we go through the process of identifying and then excluding all of the factors that do not have a relevant influence on the observation.
In climate science, on the other hand, people search for factors that might explain what is observed, and then try to deduce the mechanism, and then wonder why the next set of observations are somehow misaligned. Do you see, understand, and appreciate the differences in approach?
443
“In climate science, on the other hand, people search for factors that might explain what is observed”
I think I have to disagree with that statement.
In climate science, the first decide what they want the cause to be, then try to justify this by manipulating the data, while making up fairy stories about the mechanism.
60
You may conclude that, but I couldn’t possibly comment.
30
And I’m sorry you are unable to comprehend 97% of what is presented on WUWT..
It must be very difficult for you.
May I suggest SkS, they present a limited view which should suit your limited mind.
202
Chester:
‘Please, go and look up the meaning of hypocrisy.’
–
A link to Skepticalscience would have been useful!
142
Hey Chester,
Can you point to any piece of undisputed and equivocal evidence that supports the model data being peddled by the IPCC ?. According to the models we should currently be seeing ~0.2 deg C temperature rise per decade, but the last decade is slightly less than 0 degrees, and the last 15 years is virtually flatlined, and all during a period of the greatest increases in CO2 levels measured in modern times.
Yes, I’m sceptical but happy to convert if can provide proper evidence.
ps – And please don’t respond with the 97% answer used by almost all alarmists when pressed on the issue of evidence.
41
“When the information at my disposal changes, I modify my conclusions, what do you do?” Dr. Paul Samuelson (Awarded the Nobel Prize for Economics in 1970).
The fact that you find it strange that Jo and David have changed their minds as they have acquired more information says a lot more about you, than it does about them.
501
“Strikes me as odd: JoNova was a Green and now she’s a conservative. Evans was a Warmist and now he’s a Coolist.”
Its called gaining knowledge and understanding.
You may get there in … 15-20 years, maybe………. nah… limitations
262
Proverbs 17:28
You say:
Wrong word. Hypocrisy is espousal of beliefs, tenets and ethics other than those which are actually held. Show us your proof.
As people gain new knowledge, think it through, and especially, find the supporting evidence, and absorb it, their opinions and positions necessarily change. There is no hypocrisy there.
Those who don’t and won’t learn and change, but who rudely sneer, jeer and clatter from the sidelines, miss the bus and are left behind. Indeed, you could always try doing some original research yourself. For example, there is a lot not yet known which is just crying out for the application of such a giant intellect as yours.
210
Clearly you have never heard of Dr Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace!
Scientists are allowed to have theories, but a good scientist will not be wedded to them. In fact a good scientist will look to disprove their own theory to test it. Not automatically reject anything which contradicts their theory, and stick with it despite empirical data not supporting it.
Many of us initially accepted what the client science establishment were telling us. We weren’t working in the field and it seemed to be a legitimate theory. I was certainly accepting of the man-made global warming theory simply because I hadn’t seen any evidence to the contrary. I went to the première screening of ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ in my State because I was keen to learn more about the issue. So it is ironic that it was that movie which turned me into a ‘climate skeptic’.
As a post graduate qualified economist well versed in econometrics, I watched Al Gore and his buddies break every rule in the book in the way he presented data which was supposed to ‘prove’ his case. That made me suspicious. So I started researching.
When you hear Al Gore say that there is not a single serious climate science paper disputing the CAGW theory, and with little effort you can find dozens, that rings alarm bells! When you see they have been written by credible scientists in their field and raise more questions than the IPCC can answer, that makes you suspicious of the ‘settled science’ dogma.
Then when you read the contents of the IPCC AR4 and see how much it differs with the summary for policy makers, that has to start you questioning the whole IPCC position.
Anyone who hasn’t questioned the UN IPCC dogma and actually sought out differing research is not a scientist and is not a skeptic, which is what scientists must be.
Besides, who says Jo Nova is a Conservative?
250
I wonder what Chester was before he became fool enough to criticize others before even seeing what they have to say.
131
Chester, when the evidence comes from results and doesn’t support one’s assertions it is prudent to change one’s mind.
i used to be a green and am still concerned about the environment, but I can no longer support the greenie doctrine. I used to be socialist till I lived long enough to observe the consequences of socialist policies.
As a retired researcher I am used to getting results that are different to what I expect. When that is the case then the theory must change to fit the evidence. Sticking with the theory when there is no evidence for it is the sign of immaturity.
80
Brilliant Post,
Some people on Chesters “side” don’t understand that the bulk of people don’t cheer for a side but make up their minds on each issue according to their conscience. There are plenty of socially responsible conservatives, and green conservatives out there. I am one. I am all for conservation, I am all for saving whales, I am all for planting more trees. But I am also for GM food to feed the hungry world, cheap electricity for all, fracking – provided land owners are properly protected, economic development, small and unintrusive government and fishing where I want to fish, but I agree with bag limits. I dislike waste of effort or public funds and I disagree with things that are profoundly dumb, like AGW
(Except that stupidly in QLD bag limits apply to your own private dam or pond – yes, be careful when you remove the fish from your house pond that you don’t go over the bag limit!
The problem for the greenies really is that in cheering for the side, they have forgotten how to decide on things for themselve, and so they find themselves supporting ridiculous things… eg “my fellow earthian” – you’ve got to laugh.
Chester fits that mold, he’s so busy cheering the side, that he has forgotten to think.
30
Retired now says,
Or.
(a) Madness
(b) Indifference to the truth (BS)
(c) Political Agenda/Propaganda driven approach to the theory.
(d) Incompetence
10
Chester.
Of course – it’s all politically motivated – no one would ever bother with actually using reason and empirical data to determine what the actual facts are.
Only a naive numpty would be interested in the facts – it is so much more exciting and cool to be seeking coercive authority over others with propaganda and clever lies, and freedom from accountability for your own actions, and impacts isn’t it?
10
G’darn Chester,… but you are SERIOUSLY PATHETIC !!!!
Unbelievably pathetic.
244
But you are highly respected and a class act, Gristle.
241
Thanks, I know I am highly respected by anyone that matters. 🙂
163
And by a few of us, who do not matter.
131
But you do matter, RW 🙂
91
I think that I’m matter…
00
Jo,
IMO
If it is all done on an EXEL spreadsheet the needers and sellers of supercomputers aren’t going to like you and David!
150
The most useful thing about supercomputers is that you can cook toast on the heat exchanger. The least useful thing is that the crumbs attract mice.
231
Hey, but don’t mice actually control the supercomputers ?
150
It took you more than an hour to get the joke – you are seriously slipping.
60
I had to go and do some shopping !
40
If it’s written/presented in EXCEL…….Phil Jones won’t be able to understand/use it.
00
David my admiration for both your ability and tenacity to wade into what has unnecessarily become a highly emotive and damaged area of science.
To say “The fans of the CO2 dominant models are not going to be happy” is an understatement but I and many would like to see these “Fans” put back in their holes and I believe you and people of like minds and morals have that ability, go get em David.
271
I wonder if this cretin Chester, (who weirdly seems like MTR) knows what a precursor is?
110
Gees, I hope that isn’t heading our way !!!
Chester, I hope you will be warm enough 🙂
71
Hey, don’t bag cretins -[Snip] They can’t help it.
[Keep it nice – Mod]
30
Appropriate use of expletives is much to be admired.
30
I once worked with a gentleman who frequently put “[expletive deleted]” in what he wrote as a form of emphasis. We had many happy hours trying to figure out what he really meant.
30
Congratulations on a highly principled move that warrants well deserved respect and support (trolls take note!).
This will rattle a few CAGW alarmist cages on a number of fronts: self supported funding; transparent research; a logical hypothesis supported by data; a model that helps provide a greater understanding of the highly complex but also self-regulating natural environment (world) we live in; no religious sermons on how to save the world by paying more taxes and higher energy costs; no PAL review or recursive furies to deflect; no ad-hominem attacks on those who abhor the principles and practice embodied in the scientific method and; no gatekeepers of climate religion to pass for approval to see if it supports a flawed paradigm.
Sounds like an eminently sound process that others should follow. No doubt the ABC will be requesting another visit in a month or two so they can film their humble apologies for behaving badly (and un-professional) and then airing it un-edited in prime time.
210
Success should bring attacks.
10
Hmmmmm,
On 2nd thoughts expect to be ignored for a while, then attacked.
10
David, a picky point…
Line 6 of your Introduction:
Please change “alternate” to “alternative”. As an electrical engineer, you leave yourself wide open to cheap shots here.
70
Thanks! David
50
I mentioned earlier that the alarmist will try to ping you if even a dot out of place.
Get a really solid proof reader to go through it for grammar, spelling, punctuation etc.
Check every reference is properly cited etc etc etc.
91
Lucky … I had just noticed it … 🙂
50
I tend to agree with you in the current situation. 🙂
Sorry, that was a shocking joke.
92
Ohmy – revolting!
60
Hi Jo and David. I am not a “climate scientist” but I have long thought that the sun has something to do with warmth (and in its absence – coolth!). Now we have a neat little Excel spreadsheet to prove it. Some of those multi-million dollar research recipients are not going to be too happy in the dole queue!
$100 coming on its way to help pay for the sponges you will need to mop up the tears of rage!
330
Wow. Such faith!
You might want to read this.
Delusion is powerful.
[Do you have an actual point Chester? If so make it because we can’t read through dozens of pages to try to work out what your point is. – Mod]
231
“Delusion is powerful.”
Yep, its carried the CAGW meme and its hangers-on for quite a few years.
Eventually they will wake up.
Well, those who’s brain is not totally atrophied, like yours appears to be.
231
Certainly, young Rose was extremely delusional.
But hey, she is young and naïve.
192
I don’t think that she is naive.
I think that she is orientated towards the acquisition of coercive authority and the avoidance of accountability.
Her tactic is to align with authority and act as a propagandist.
00
One day you should search out the WHOLE of the video, not just the ultra-biased and manipulated ABC cuts.
142
Griss you mean this http://joannenova.com.au/2012/12/full-uncut-video-now-available-i-can-change-your-mind-evans-nova-minchin-rose/ just thought I’d put up a link for anyone passing through and doesn’t know what your referring to. 🙂
Some warmists may even have a look?, it’s said miracles happen.
220
Thanks YS, I hoped someone would have the link handy. 🙂
100
My informants tell me that Chester, in a brilliant stroke of incompetence, actually managed to reference the uncut version of the transcript.
See foot, take careful aim, pull trigger, say ouch.
100
You mean the I can change you mind ABC TV show that resulted in a nett opinion shift AWAY from cAGW?
30
No, I don’t need to make any point. That is the complete transcript of the interview Evans and Nova did with the ABC, helped along by well known giant of science Nick Minchin. The interview speaks volumes. It is riddled with obvious contradictions (climate has always changed yet it has built in feedbacks that provide stability, CO2 is a GHG which will cause 1.2C warming with CO2 doubling but the they then say it has contributed nothing to warming), inconsistencies and the repeating of myths (missing hot spot). – as well as outright fabrications (e.g. oceans haven’t warmed – wrong).
Forgive me if I’m a little sceptical about the chances of Evans redeeming himself and “sceptics” (they both admit the one and only element of doubt about the science is climate sensitivity, thereby rendering the long ,long list of sceptical counter arguments – that Nova has championed – as a collective monumental failure) with an Excel spreadsheet, but how can you criticize me for being sceptical?
Looking forward to seeing Evans collect his Nobel prize. The money will surely flow in then, Babe.
236
Yes, the hot spot was always a myth, invented by Trenberth. It never existed except in the models.
Just like the heat playing hide and seek where it can’t be measured.
Climate sensitivity of basically zero, is what many sceptics have been saying for a long time. They have yet to be proven wrong.
Oceans are warming, really….. not ! ?
So just sit down, shut up, and watch as the divergence between the so-called climate models and reality becomes even more embarrassing as the temperature starts to ease downwards,…. not too fast I hope.
Question.. where do you chose to live? Siberia, Alaska… or somewhere warmer?
181
Got up early to so some cherry picking, Gristle?
http://bit.ly/1lnPG1C
020
Yes, things have changed since the 1998 ElNino, the sun is having a snooze.
And remember, anything before 1979 from Hadley or Giss is heavily manipulated to expressly CREATE a warming trend.
It is meaningless and irrelevant to reality.
Fortunately some real data still remains in places
Oh look, there’s that darn inconvenient 1940’s peak that Tom Wigley said had to be removed.
111
Both of your plots are so short as to act merely as noisy Rorschach tests, but since thermometers themselves are based on liquid expansion and the ocean is a liquid, we can clear this up in alarm-falsifying manner by looking at 150 years of tide gauge data, the official plot of which appeared in the latest 2011 update by Church & White, being so pencil straight in utter defiance of human influence as to make a mockery of climate alarm:
http://postimg.org/image/uszt3eei5/
The trend remains the same.
60
In a way, it is good that the alarmistas have chosen to hang their hook on sea level rise.
It means it will most probably slow down and reverse. 🙂
That will save low lying coastal properties having issues in a couple of century’s time.
20
You are really clueless on this Chester, aren’t you, just because the DIRECT effect of CO2 is 1.2 degrees does not mean that there isn’t a negative feedback effect that reduces that impact. We know for a fact there is. When energy from the sun warms the earth’s surface, almost 80% of that energy is radiated straight back out the IR hole, that is the range of IR frequencies to which the atmosphere is transparent, according to a cube law. That is a massive almost instantaneous negative feedback on temperature of the surface. So 4/5ths of the energy to warm the surface from CO2 is immediately lost to space, one would expect then that the total warming would be a fraction of the didect effect.
Despite this huge loss the IPCC tries to say that the positive feedbacks outweigh this massive negative feedback 3:1 that is, the positive feedbacks don’t multiply by 3, they multiply by 5 x 3 or 15. This is what makes the feedback assumptions unrealistic. So a direct effect of 1.2 degrees per doubling IS totally consistent with a negligible total warming if negative feedback dominates, and thats what Jo asserts. That Negative feedback dominates.
51
Don’t you mean, “power is delusional”.
70
Hi Chester
I would highly recommend Nick Stokes to you as a role model. Nick is a warmist who regularly posts comments on WUWT and CA and robustly debate his cause with charm and pizazz from a science standpoint. I’ll admit to enjoy reading his comments and learning a lot about what he has to say about climate science. If you go to the following link Nick is well liked and respected by the skeptical community because he adds value to the debate over climate science.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/03/monday-mirthiness-the-stokes-defense
40
Fantastic news. Really looking forward to learning more about this.
Only worry is the predicted fall in temperature.
161
I foresee a wood burning pot belly stove in my future.
70
Set the carbon free!
30
Me too, wood burners are getting so expensive though, still, fuel is cheap when you live on acreage
10
I am a deep skeptic of anything that seeks to explain highly complex phenomena by a modelling process. To evaluate, you could just compare with your own prejudices. Or you could look a independent methods of evaluation, devised by people who have a proven track record in science. Consider this 1964 lecture by physics Nobel Laureate Richard Feynman
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYPapE-3FRw
There are two points. The first is the most quoted.
The second, at 5.10, is for higher complex and chaotic phenomena more important.
Feynman did not just make this up himself. He was merely expressing what many others had expressed before, and many since have abandoned or never learned.
David Evans appears to have taken both points into account. But, to use an old-fashioned expression “the proof of the pudding is in the eating”.
270
Thanks for that link! He was not only smart, but could be funny and entertaining.
My father bought Feynman’s ” Lectures on Physics”, and told me to read Chapter 22, on Algebra. Feynman made the whole theory , including complex numbers and the theorem e^(pi*i) = -1 simple and obvious. I could have cried, thinking how my high school algebra teacher couldn’t give such a simple and clear explanation.
81
He actually presented Euler’s Formula rather than Euler’s Identity since it played into geometry:
“We summarize with this, the most remarkable formula in mathematics: eiθ = cos θ + i sin θ. This is our jewel.”
30
I think it’ll be quite interesting to see just how far the elastic of ‘climate change’ will stretch to permit the inclusion of a completely new interpretation of the data. If the comments of Chester are anything to go by, it looks as though their hypothesis may have been through the wash too many times. Just remember, AGW still remains a hypothesis despite all the political hyperbole and consensual statements..
Thank you Jo and David for your tireless, endless endeavour.
141
The main alarmista problem has always been their total discounting of solar effects causing what little bit of warming might have occurred.
0.8C in a century is not very much, y’know.
(Was there really that little bit of warming, or was it mostly down to data manipulation and UHI effects, who knows. ????)
If solid proof does come along that the series of high solar peaks through the latter half of last century did have a warming effect, it basically blows the alarmist meme right out of the water.
If David has got that proof, then you can bet the alarmistas will come after him tooth and nail.
We will also need to buy more blankets. !!
123
One aspect of this story which will not be obvious to most readers is why Dr. Evans’ EE background is applicable. Is Dr. Evans actually qualified to do this work? What does electrical engineering have to do with the study of climate, you might wonder?
The answer is everything!
A sub-field within Electrical Engineering is called Systems Science. It is the study of “systems” of interacting components, information paths, and feedback mechanisms.
Such systems may be either natural and man-made. To someone educated to recognize and understand them, just about everything you can imagine is a system (or subsystem). Radios, climate processes, servo controls, traffic patterns, economic markets, and even how you manage to stand up on just two feet without tipping over are all “systems,” and they all lend themselves to the same kinds of mathematical and computational analyses.
Do you want to understand how positive & negative “feedbacks” can amplify or attenuate forcings? Ask an electrical engineer (or systems scientist).
Do you want to understand why systems may oscillate, even with no apparent oscillation in the forcings? Ask an electrical engineer.
Do you want to understand why a tiny forcing (e.g., minute changes in the moon’s gravitational tug) can cause enormous effects in some circumstances (e.g., Bay of Fundy), yet in other circumstances have very little effect? Ask an electrical engineer.
Climate science is the study of climate systems. GCMs are computer models of climate systems. But most of the people who study climate and construct and use GCMs have no education in systems science or electrical engineering, and no idea how systems should be studied and modeled. No wonder the GCMs so consistently fail so miserably!
Dr. David Evans’s background makes him unusually well qualified to do this work. That’s why I am hopeful that his new climate model may represent an important advancement.
Dave Burton
BS, Systems Science, Michigan State U.
MA, Computer Sciences, U. of Texas
http://www.sealevel.info/
O.T. P.S. — Did you know that Church & White’s famous 2006 study, “A 20th century acceleration in global sea-level rise,” actually showed that sea-level rise has decelerated slightly since 1925? It’s true, see doi:10.1007/s11069-012-0159-8.
460
Dave, thank you. I’m hoping there will be a lot of EE’s who say “of course!” starting tomorrow. Just wait til you see those graphs.
291
Is it tomorrow yet?
Will BSEE 1964
40
From my point of view, USA where it’s still June 14, you’re now living in tomorrow, June 15.
31
Time travel, it’s TRUE… Dr Phil was right all along! Climate feedbacks can have effects before the stimulus after all. Explains CO2 rising 800 yr after Temp rise, time travel.
10
What time is it, at the North Pole?
20
That’s easy enough to find out.
Set your watch to Greenwich time, travel to the north pole, – then read watch….
10
Dr Evans & Jo,
I just read the transcript of your 2012 “interview”.
Do you still consider that CO2 traps heat?
I am still convinced that Earth’s atmosphere radiates to space waste energy (entropy), much better than the surface can, and adjustable also. Best wishes on your adventure!
50
I think it’s logical. When broad band light strikes the surface and warms it up, the radiation becomes thermalised then it is emitted primarilly in the IR, that is – there is a lot more outgoing IR than inbound IR. If you slow that rate of cooling, by scattering the outbound IR I would guess that reduces cooling and therefore a warmer surface would result from the scattering, assuming the scattering does in fact retard cooling. A big problem though is that scattering due to CO2 only occurs in narrow bands, most of the outbound energy is NOT scattered by CO2. Direct radiation to space for example causes frost, and frankly any effect on the earth aught to start with reduced frost – peoblem being that as far as i’m aware the incidence of frost has if anything increased rather than reduced as you might expect.
00
bobl June 16, 2014 at 9:36 am
“I think it’s logical. When broad band light strikes the surface and warms it up, the radiation becomes thermalised then it is emitted primarilly in the IR, that is – there is a lot more outgoing IR than inbound IR”.
According to Maxwell’s equations and Kirchhoff’s law, almost all radiation from the surface is eliminated by the atmospheric sensible heat and that thermal mass within the first 10 meters.
The atmosphere is thermalized via convection and the latent heat, not radiation. All combined heat is converted to cold atmospheric entropy,which is then discarded via electromagnetic radiation from every radiative molecule in the atmosphere, outward “only” to very cold. The atmosphere, with adjustable water vapor content is a more effective radiator to space than the surface can ever be!
00
I think some of the thermal engineers would have a pretty good handle on the thermal aspect of things.
And at least 97% of them just laugh at the CO2 warming thought-bubble.
140
There’s another reason an EE might be well qualified to do this work. An EE has to turn out results that work or soon be applying for unemployment benefits. There’s no better qualification than knowing your work will be judged by the cold hard light of reality.
120
As an electronics tech I five your post a thumbs up David.
60
Sorry should have been “give” your post a thumbs up.
40
Even if it stands up the warmist establishment will reject it because to most of them ideology clearly trumps science and nor will they want to lose their grants and appointments.
140
Does the model hindcast with accuracy? Can you fast-forward through, say, the 20th century and get plausibly correct values, or isn’t there enough empirical data for that? I know current climate models fail hideously when they attempt it.
70
Hindcast to what ?
HadCrut and Giss pre-1979 are hopelessly compromised.. so what can you hindcast to?
42
Perhaps the raw pre-adjusted data if it’s available.
50
iirc, Phil Jones’ dog ate most of it. !
50
Robinson June 14, 2014 at 10:42 pm
“Perhaps the raw pre-adjusted data if it’s available.”
Some of the original ground data is avalable from the 1600s. Changing instruments, observers, or measurment interval should not effect David”s transform, as he is looking only for data in the frequency domain, not the temporal domain. David’s work is completly original and has never been tried at even a single location direct measurement and a period (interval) of 500 years! Even one location should identify periodicity down to one cycle per 12 hours (tides). More power to Jo and David.
BTW no mater if its Mr. and Mrs. or Mrs. and Mr., the sandwich is still not making itself, Sweetheart!
00
Oh boy does it hindcast. Yes, but I understand your point. We have to use the latest mainstream datasets, that’s how it is. Of course that will affect the model, but the pattern David has found is in the data, in every dataset. The kind of adjustments they have made have not affected that key finding.
Adjustments to the datasets make it harder to predict the amplitude of what will happen next but they don’t affect the timing or the direction.
91
Twill be interesting to see .. 🙂
30
Does it hindcast well on some verty old data at one location like that in ireland? How about aggregates with a phase shift correction, daly for longitude, yearly for latitude? A Sun centered reference geometry.
00
Jo, as well as using the official datasets the model should be tested against a raw dataset too, assuming you can find one. Surely someone has the unadjusted data for a surface dataset?
What the world really needs is a project to build an open source raw dataset
10
With all due respect professional meteorologists (as distinct from ‘climate scientists’) have never accepted the so-called ‘Greenhouse Effect’.
Brooks, C.E.P. (1951). “Geological and Historical Aspects of Climatic Change.” In Compendium of Meteorology, edited by Thomas F. Malone, pp. 1004-18 (at 1016). Boston: American Meteorological Association. It shows the American Meteorological Society had refuted the concept of a GHE in 1951 in its Compendium of Meteorology. They stated that the idea that CO2 could alter the climate “was never widely accepted and was abandoned when it was found that all the long-wave radiation [that would be] absorbed by CO2 is [already] absorbed by water vapor.” [Thanks to John Sullivan]
http://www.archive.org/stream/compendiumofmete00amer/compendiumofmete00amer_djvu.txt
160
Bananabender (post #24): A fascinating link. I’ve often idly wondered exactly where the roots of the current CO2 advocacy lie.
I have an American book, ‘Fundamentals of Physical Science’ by K.B. Krauskopf and Arthur Bieser. It’s the 1971 (6th) edition, and on page 630 it states that ‘the recent sharp increase in worldwide temperatures parallels the increase in the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere that is probably due to the burning of coal and oil.’
The paragraph however goes on to list other possible factors, and also points out that ‘in the past 20 years, temperatures have been on the decrease in the far North.’
Could this book and others have influenced the career paths of those at school in those days? Pure speculation I know, but fun!
30
The environmental movement resuscitated AGW in the late 60s. Carl Sagan was probably the main promotor.
60
Sagen is the originator of his “everything radiates proportional to its T^4 independent of any opposing field strength”. This is the fundamental premise in the CAGW scam.
10
I’ve been saying this…… Of course.
20
Haven’t we all …?
20
A warm welcome back to real science. 😉
140
STOP ! Color me skeptical, but there’s a couple things here I must say need to be addressed.
– If you’re using a new statistical method, release that first and get it reviewed properly. It’s just too coincidental to say here’s some new math magic and presto it supports a particular model. And, why can’t current analysis support the model? Why does only the new magic math work? That needs to be answered too.
– GET RID OF EXCEL! Excel is not a great language for documenting statistical modeling. Get someone to convert this to “R”. And then of course you can release the data and the model separately – a much better practice than in a bundled spreadsheet.
Finally, after years of reading skeptic blogs, it’ll be hard for me to believe this until Steve McIntyre approves the math and Willis Eschenbach likes the model.
91
Richard, there is no new statistical tool used here, though if there were, David did stats at Stanford, he’s not bad at it.
So the comment about Excel is not applicable. David has a new fourier transform. And the excel sheet has 15,000 lines of code.
We look forward to feedback from Steve or Willis of course.
190
As a professional software engineer with 30 years experience, 15,000 lines of Excel “code” is a bug, not a feature. No snark intended; there are better ways to write that code that make it easier to comprehend, easier to document, easier to update, etc. Bungled/crappy code is one of Mann’s problems.
73
IMHO, the most appropriate thing to do at this time Richard is to wait for publication; read the paper, download the data and to see if you can replicate the results using R. If replication is successful, then you’ve satisfied two objectives. If the results cannot be replicated, then you’ve also satisfied two objectives.
While R is more appropriate for serious number crunching, Excel is a familiar tool for many more people.
One of the things that Excel and other spreadsheets lack is transparency. Serious bludners frequently remain undiscovered until it’s too late.
(I’ve been an avid reader of comp.risks since about 1985; trying to learn from the mistakes of others.)
90
Are you suggesting that with 30 years experience David is unaware of your concerns and isn’t familiar with R?
40
I do not envy anyone who has to write Excel code. But there is at least one worse alternative — Basic.
So let’s not quibble about the language and instead, look at the result. Even Excel can be made to work. 😉
120
When David made FullCAM (the carbon accounting model for Australia’s Kyoto commitments) it started as an Excel spreadsheet, and he swore a lot at how disastrously slow it was. He dumped Excel then and made a much more ambitious version from scratch in C++. (FullCAM analyzes every 25m square area of the landmass of Australia for change in carbon content on a monthly basis. If a large tree is cut down in April 1991, or a firebreak cut through in March 1994, FullCAM finds that from Landsat satellite images and Australia’s carbon accounts take that into account — you can imagine how big that model is).
As for code bloat, David is Mr efficiency — he always seems to be on a drive to get rid of unnecessary code or clutter (as with all things in life, like his office, or managing to get 6 degrees in 10 years – he got rid of things that weren’t essential). At one stage in FullCAM he was trimming and juggling requests on the processor in microseconds in order to make the vast repetitive calculations work faster.
You should hear what he says about poor documentation…
70
Then he must absolutely love what pases for documentation of almost anything these days.
I have sworn to never buy from several software vendors again when their stuff turned out to be a guessing game.
20
Richard Lindzen has a way with words. 🙂
“That said, it should be recognized that the basis for a climate that is highly sensitive to added greenhouse gasses is solely the computer models. The relation of this sensitivity to catastrophe, moreover, does not even emerge from the models, but rather from the fervid imagination of climate activists.”
– Dr. Richard Lindzen
231
Looking forward to it, fellas!
And ignore fatuous narrow-minded ideologue trolls such as we noticed above, whose avatar – funnily enough – shows a figure with all teeth and jaws and no brain!
More strength to your arm/s!
130
Slightly OT but it is about collecting data http://www.skynews.com.au/news/tech/2014/06/14/deap-see-balls-to-plunge-off-nz-coast.html?cid=BP_RSS_TECHNOLOGY_1_DeapseeballstoplungeoffNZcoast_140614 now how far down was that missing heat?
60
Wow. I am in equal measure, pleased for Dr Evans & Jo and really nervous about the hype.
Climate is an unknowable problem based on our current physical understanding and technology.
I really don’t want to see the credibility of Dr Evans or this blog destroyed by over reaching.
Like Dr Evans, at one time I accepted the Climate orthodoxy, but came to scepticism because CAGW hysteria is based on modelling to explain Climate which is dependent on physics that are at this time, unknown to science. (Let alone in the 1970s and ’80s when they began to take centre stage as driver of a future apocalyptic narrative). Further:
– Where the total influences on Climate are unknown.
– Where the interactions and interrelationships influencing Climate are unknown.
– Where those interactions will change over time, sometimes in what appears to be cycles, sometimes not.
– Where the Model of even a single element of Climate is required maintain coherency on Resolutions of Nanometers, through Thousands of Kilometres.
– Where even with the most powerful computing systems we have invented, cannot process all of our existing (albeit limited subset) knowledge of Climate physics. (Hence, we Parametise and break Models into sub-systems)
– Where the even if we knew all of the factors required to describe Climate, we do not know the starting point for each variable, or the trajectory of various element (whether cycles or not).
So Models are riddled with Parameterisations (Guesswork: The effect is Damping, Tuning) of Known Climate elements that we either do not know the physics (e.g. Clouds) or that without such Parameterisations, models would quickly run away and breakdown to nonsensical values.
A simple Logical Architecture for Climate models is essentially:
– A system of minor influences that are physically known,
– That are “controlled” by parameters that are tuned to reflect observed characteristics and expected future conditions. (Hence, why Models NEVER accurately project the future Climate and require retrospective “tuning” of the Parameters to fit historical Climate.
Dr Evans, I respect your impeccable credentials, I know it’s stating the obvious, but I hope you take note that your ideas will not be treated fairly by the Climate establishment. The collective blind eyes of the funding gate keepers will not afford you the free pass they have applied for the obvious limitations of “Orthodox” Climate Models.
Respectfully I ask, please start your information rollout with:
– What your Model is NOT! (Define the Boundary)
Then,
– The Elements it involves, BUT what it excludes and does not purport to explain
– The Context these Elements exist and what relationships and influences
– The Motivation the model provides utility
– The Observations can be associated but which are excluded within the explanation
– The level of confidence you have in the Model, such as accuracy and completeness
– The Risks, Known and Potential could impact the Model usage and development
– Suggested future development and associated research
This will at least reduce the number of disciplines and directions people will come to attack your ideas. (Including precision problems due to the internal error rate within Excel)
For the reasons stated above, I believe ALL Models applied to the question of Climate are best described as Meta-Models, because they do not directly model climate, but attempt to explain a specified number of Elements of Climate, within a specified Context, for a specified Motivation.
Respectfully, with 15,000 line of instructions, I believe the model you have proposed fits the Meta-Model description. Instead of being diminished by the Meta-Model description, it avoids a myriad of criticism, based on lack of adherence to the traditional approaches to Modelling of the Climate orthodoxy.
I wish you and Jo the best of luck and offer you any support you might deem valuable.
240
Thanks Geoff. We found something new. We’ve kicked it around for many months, and it seems solid. It fits with everything we know about the climate…so we think there is a good change this is the answer. It is grounded in physical interpretation, which gives us confidence. The fancy maths just guided the process — everything can be understood without the maths, and has at least some supporting evidence. Even so, it’s a bit of a surprising story. As we became familiar with it over the last year, our confidence in it grew, not faded.
It comes with a falsifiability condition, so if it is rubbish we’ll know in a few years, with no ambiguity.
We are not claiming we know all there is to what caused the global warming, because there are still some big unknowns. But we think we have made substantial progress.
We also now understand where the CO2 theory went unstuck, and how it all fits together.
We wondered whether the new theory deserved hype or should be quietly stuck out in public. We’ve decided on a bit of hype :).
There is no way the climate industry was ever going to let this through peer review, so we are going fully Internet. You are the reviewers.
This is the way science used to be done. We are sticking up a new hypothesis about how the climate works, backed by open calculations, models, and reasoning. Everyone gets to have a say. And we shall see what happens.
Until now skeptics have mainly criticized the CO2 theory. Now we are proposing a theory, quantified by a model, with specific predictions. Now the warmists get to criticize us! Yes, it’s risky. At this stage the theory is not immediately correct beyond reasonable doubt, so there will be many who are skeptical of the new solar theory. But science is about testable hypotheses, and we are putting one forward.
The credibility of the blog will only suffer if the theory fails and it appear stupid ahead of the failure. At this stage, we think it appears reasonable. If someone points out a show stopping flaw, we will withdraw it.
In the meantime the trolls will do their best to make it and us appear stupid, but we all understand the politics of this.
550
And no matter which way you went, the vested interests will go all out against you. So enjoy a little
hypefun as you release your findings to the world.110
Hi David
I agree that it is best to get the model out there for review but I would call it Version 1. However, I would leave the model out there warts and all until their are suggestions for improvements and call these another version. The current models are clearly duds and their should be an alternate model out there providing an alternate hypothesis with regards to what drives climate change. All models are only interim and will evolve and improve as more accurate data and algorithms are inputted into the models as climate science is better understood.
60
David,
It is not a crime, nor is it a reflection on you as a researcher, if your theory is shown to be wrong. If anything, this is the prime (among many) objections to the alarmists. So desperate are they to be “proven” right in their assertions, that they tinker and adjust and tweak not only the observations needed to falsify their theory, but also the models meant to represent those observations. By avoiding acknowledgement of failure, thus the science of climatology is unable to advance, held in thrall of failure but unable to entertain any truly progressive rational thought on the subject.
My opinion is that skeptics do not have any reason to propose any alternative hypothesis for any single parameter controlling or even dominating such a complex, essentially unmodellable system to know that the CO2 CAGW hypothesis has fallen over at the first hurdle due to its complete lack of predictive ability. I do however applaud the effort David is applying here because, even if wrong, it is an important step in prizing open the closed minded activism and confirmation bias of the whole climate science fraternity, which will ultimately be for its benefit.
In the meantime, I remain skeptical that this hypothesis will stand up to the test of time, but applaud the attempt to examine the indirect solar effects which are routinely ignored or glossed over by alarmists.
120
Winston, please keep being skeptical. We want the skeptical critics, that’s what makes us stronger.
You are right, we skeptics don’t have to propose any alternate theory to show that fans of CAGW are wrong. I have always said that, and strategically it’s a smart “small target” approach. But when a hot idea presents itself to solve a problem, how could we not pursue it? Though the small target strategy is rather blown to pieces.
50
I understand that Jo (and your attitude does you so much credit!),
All power to you and David in your endeavours. My point, as I’m sure you’ll agree, is that to propose an alternate theory is ALWAYS laudable whenever it is honest, open and transparently put before others for criticism, and if necessary, debunking.
The validity or otherwise of your proposed theory notwithstanding, should not in any way add validity to (but of course it may, if sufficiently accurate, necessarily detract from) CAGW theory. Just because an alternate theory may end up being shown to be incomplete or wide of the mark in predictive skill doesn’t excuse the CO2 positive feedback loop hypothesis for its total lack of correlation to observations. Yet, I predict that is exactly what the alarmists will do. Being unable to verify anything of their own, they will attempt to divert attention from their own failure onto others like yourself offering an alternative.
That is not to say you and David shouldn’t do what you have foretold in this post, just that I want to put it out there before it happens so I can crow about it when they do with a clear conscience. As I said, it is the ONLY way that climate science is going to go forward, because the intellectual inertia of the alarmists is beginning to reach epic proportions.
30
The scientific method, as I know it
50
Hi David
You should have a discussion with NIPCC about putting your model up on there site as an alternative to the IPCC models.
60
David,
Even if it’s wrong it has value, it is as scientific to prove that a hypothesis is wrong as it is to find it matches the facts (IE. might be right, because no hypothesis is ever beyond falsification). So even if it doesn’t last long you will have contributed one way or another which is more that I can say for most people.
10
Thanks David,
The most powerful part of this activity is not the content of your proposal. It is the framework in which you are conducting it, as science has been terribly abused by the Climate “Scientists”.
Thanks
ExWarmist
10
That said, it’s remarkable how the CO2 based models have been invalidated and have been tortured to try to fit the empirical data yet the IPCC, Climate Scientists and Governments around the world still support it.
Obviously Dr Evans can’t expect such uncritical reviews by the ‘climate establishment’ who have their reputations, their careers and their funding on the line.
If this is going to get any traction, it needs to be reviewed by credible scientists who are outside the current climate establishment.
71
“and have been tortured to try to fit the empirical data”
….. and had the data tortured to try to fit them. !
81
Joanne,
This is very exciting. I have followed your site for several years but have never commented until now. Thanks for all your hard work.
—-
Great to see so many new people getting involved in the conversation. Thanks! Jo
230
2034.
Dad, what’s that thing?
It’s a wind tower son. Back in the Noughties and the Teens, they thought those things would replace traditional power generation.
It’s not moving Dad.
Naah! It’s been like that for 15 years now.
Was there only this one of them?
No, they were everywhere, until they all just stopped, and then we tore them all down, except for this one.
Why just one?
As a monument.
A Monument?
To man’s stupidity.
Huh?
Tell you what. You have your phone. Look up Ozymandias by Percy Shelley.
Tony.
330
Speaking of great leaps forward, does anyone remember how few years ago it was when the Internet wasn’t available on a telephone and — gasp — you had to turn on a computer to look up Ozymandias?
80
And I still keep an old rotary dial mechanical phone around just to remind me of less complicated days.
80
I still have a printed copy of the Shorter Oxford Dictionary in the bookshelf by my desk (both volumes), also a printed copy of Australian National Dictionary, and a printed copy the Merriam-Webster American Dictionary. I keep the printed versions because, although new words appear all the time, the old words rarely change.
The trouble with online dictionaries, is that you never know what version of English you are using, even when using a spell checker.
30
I keep only the SOD. With that, IMHO, the others are redundant.
They make great doorstops and paper weights.
Don’t need batteries to work, nor electrickery.
Can be moved around to where they are needed easily and
don’t shatter when they fall on the floor.
About the only downside is the weight … 🙂
And words can be looked up in them, too.
20
Look up Shelley on a computer???!
Tisk! Young kids these days. When I first had Ozymandias quoted at me I had to look it up in A BOOK!!!
Now get off my lawn!!! 🙂
10
I would have had to — another gasp — look it up in the public or school library, possibly spending 30 minutes to several hours to find what I found in seconds (well, a minute or two) on the Internet.
Computes and smart phones have their down side but they’re very good information storage and retrieval systems.
You have no idea how little information about Windows programming is even put on your development machine anymore. It all goes out to the Internet when you need info about this or that. If your Internet connection goes down, as it did at my office a number of times, you’re the next best thing to blind.
10
I’ll be interested to see whether there is any overlap with my conceptual model set out here:
http://www.newclimatemodel.com/new-climate-model/
I’ve pinned my ideas to variability in UV wavelengths and solar particles affecting the tropopause height gradient between poles and equator in order to alter global cloudiness and affect the amount of solar energy entering the oceans to drive the climate system.
If there is an alternative possiblity then that would be interesting.
90
Yep, its the variation, particularly in the UV wavelength that I also suspect is one of the possible keys.
Have you looked at the change in penetration into sea water as the frequency changes from 350-300 nanometers? (Its a solid read, but Figure 1.1 gives a clue)
50
“alternative possibility”
Who says it has to be an alternative.? 😉
All just part of the same package.
50
Stephen, there is no overlap, which means if you find a way to build a bridge between the two models, there may be quite rich pickings in terms of insights… we’ll be keen to know what you can spot.
50
Thanks Joanne.
I’ll look at your stuff carefully when you are ready and see if the two approaches can be linked.
Would you like to send me a pre publication version for consideration?
30
Stephan,
I find your “new climate model” uncompelling.
The most confusing part is your lumping all different potential energies together: gravity, pressure, temperature, electrical, and chemical. Then lump all the corresponding kinetics: momentum, mass flow, sensible heat, current, latent heat! The isentropic, and adibatic thansfer, can only between the specific, potential and its kinetic!
Since Jo and David, are using fourier transforms to show the conjugate between time interval and frequency there is no ovelap. I hope David is up to converting all to euler identities to show position also, with respect to some external reference.
11
Will, I don’t know why you find it confusing.
My New Climate Model simply fits observations into the sequence in which they are seen to occur in the real world and proposes a simple solar induced causation operating via changes in the ozone creation / destruction balance in different locations.
When it comes to the global energy balance that is very simple too.
The system as a whole is in radiative balance with space, the surface and atmosphere are in conductive / convective balance with each other and the surface temperature needs to rise above the S-B expectation in order to maintain both energy exchanges simultaneously. The same parcel of energy (in whatever form) cannot be used for the two processes at the same time. If energy radiates to space it cannot remain present to hold up the atmosphere against gravity.
How that fits in with the findings of Joanne and David remains to be seen but having looked at their Part 2 I see nothing inconsistent with my conceptual narrative as yet.
10
Stephen Wilde June 16, 2014 at 12:52 am
“Will, I don’t know why you find it confusing.”
It is because of your oversimplification of what is, By agregating all “kinetic” with Newtonian kinetic, And agregating all “potential” into Gravitational potential. You seem to be attempting a global pablum of something, just like the climate clowns want a global pablum temperature, that has no meaning, but of course all the anomalies.
The mean has no information at all. All information is in the changes, compounded by the variance from location to location. This Earth is not the average temperature of the bath water.
It is time to measure what is going on here, then see if the same thing is going on over there, perhaps with some time delay.
00
wiljan,
I respectfully disagree.
I think you are introducing unnecessary complexity and in the process obscuring the simple reality.
You say:
“It is time to measure what is going on here, then see if the same thing is going on over there, perhaps with some time delay”
with which I heartily agree.
The process of conduction and convection introduces a time delay in the throughput of solar energy via the Earth system and that delay results in a surface temperature enhancement for any planet with an atmosphere and the enhancement of temperature (above the S-B prediction) is proportionate to atmospheric mass at a given level of insolation and strength of gravitational field.
The effect of radiative capability within an atmosphere would then only affect the power of convective overturning within tha atmosphere and NOT surface temperature.
Radiative capability from within an atmosphere means leakage of energy to space without it having to be returned to the surface on descent for radiation to space from the surface.
Such leakage means that less energy is returned to the surface on descent than is taken up from the surface on ascent so that radiation from the surface reduces exactly as much as radiation from within the atmosphere to space increases for a zero net effect other than a change in the power of convective overturning.
I am interested in seeing whether anything that Joanne and David have to say is inconsistent with that proposition.
00
Stephen Wilde June 16, 2014 at 7:39 am ·
wiljan,I respectfully disagree.
I think you are introducing unnecessary complexity and in the process obscuring the simple reality.
I also respectfully disagree.
Upon this Earth there is nothing simple, perhaps nothing real!
This planet, Solar system, galaxy, universe was not created, designed, nor constructed by earthings. We are perhaps intelligent observers of what is. Roaches seem to be much better and faster at that. Perhaps earthlings should study roaches in order to “get a clue”.
“You say: “It is time to measure what is going on here, then see if the same thing is going on over there, perhaps with some time delay” with which I heartily agree.”
Why not try to do that, rather than creating your fantasy?
“The process of conduction and convection introduces a time delay in the throughput of solar energy via the Earth system and that delay results in a surface temperature enhancement for any planet with an atmosphere and the enhancement of temperature (above the S-B prediction) is proportionate to atmospheric mass at a given level of insolation and strength of gravitational field.”.
For understanding, all depends upon many potentials and their corresponding kinetic (a through vector), rather than an across potential field.
The time delay is only when something dissipative interfers with energy “kinetic transfers” between potentials. The dissapative entropy is then discarded via any process including thermal electromagnetic radiation to a lower temperature thus increasing entropy.
Thermal electromagnetic radiation is always spontanious,
transfering entropy (Q/T) to a lower temperature increasing entropy (Q/smaller T). Anything else is a violation of 2LTD and must have additional Q, which also is discarded to a lower temperature. The variable outward radiation from the atmosphere, not surface, is the only thing that can manage the Solar, Earth, Space, radiative, and thermodynamic equilibrium. If CO2 had a phase change here! It would aid the aqueous vapour in this control.
What a wonderful planet!
00
Have you considered the potential for the altered elevation of the temperature inversion to suppress convection in your model, low altitude temperature inversions are notorious for creating warm still conditions.
00
Great news. Science written in an open understandable way. Lack of baffle-gab will surely cause problems in the superior minds of the believers. Love this site, Jo!
110
I look forward to reading your ideas. Engineers have long been skeptical of the assumptions, data and manipulations that characterize climate models. I will look for their reactions and criticisms of your work, knowing that the “climate establishment” will not agree no matter what is presented. Engineers, mathematicians and statisticians should have a good go at your ideas and workmanship. I’m glad that you have bounced this around some trusted friends, as this should have identified any obvious issues. I trust solar data much more than “climate” data, and the solar scientists should be able to scrutinize your input data. We have been stuck, spinning our wheels for years on obviously insufficient climate models. Any new ideas are welcome. Thank you for your efforts- maybe, just maybe, engineers can put new life into the decaying conundrum of current thought. Wishing you well from Canada-
161
It will be interesting to review your model. I certainly hope it includes ocean heat content as a major piece, since it has continued to increase without pause for many decades, and is a major driver of the weather patterns on the planet.
46
Until 2000 there was less than 15% global coverage for measuring ocean temperatures below 900m. And less that 15% coverage for depths between 700m – 900m before 1990. Temperature measurement down to 700m was similarly sparse until about 1970. See Fig 3.A.2 Pge 99 Final Draft, Chapter 3 of AR5 http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5_WGI-12Doc2b_FinalDraft_Chapter03.pdf
So it is difficult to state with any accuracy that ocean heat content has continued to rise without pause for many decades. Even the IPCC aren’t that bold, in fact their AR5 data does not support that statement.
If you look at the data from 1950 for Upper Ocean Heat Content, there was measured cooling from 1955 – 1975. from Domingues et al. (2008) Figure 3.2(c)Pge 93 of Final draft Chap 3 AR5.)
Even the Observation-based estimates of annual five-year running mean global mean mid-depth (700–2000 m) ocean heat content in ZJ (Levitus et al., 2012)shown in Fig 3.2: (b) shows a decline in heat content between about 1962 to 1970, and 1975 – 1980
All the IPCC really say with any certainty is that ocean heat content has increased [certainly not without pause] – for a number of decades. In the Executive Summary of Chapter 3 of AR5 ‘Ocean Observations’ on page 3, the IPCC statements are:
It is virtually certain that the upper ocean (above 700 m) has warmed from 1971 to 2010, and likely that it has warmed from the 1870s to 1971.
It is likely that the ocean warmed between 700–2000 m from 1957 to 2010, based on five-year averages. It is likely that the ocean warmed from 3000 m to the bottom from 1992 to 2005, while no significant trends in global average temperature were observed between 2000 and 3000 m depth from circa 1992 to 2005.
114
My point is that no model of the climate is going to be complete in dynamical considerations without a robust consideration of ocean heat content. A majority of the energy in the atmosphere comes directly from the ocean. Input of energy to the ocean is strongly influenced by solar output and aerosols. Regions of the global ocean such as the Indo-Pacific warm pool have a strong influence on global weather patterns, and also represent some of the best proxies for total energy in the climate system. A model of the climate that does not include the flux of energy to and from the ocean, and total heat content of the ocean will be incomplete.
33
But what if larger forces are at play? Forces that make the ocean heat content a bit player?
I don’t accept your statement that “A majority of the energy in the atmosphere comes directly from the ocean”, for two reasons: Firstly you cannot say “A majority”, because there can only be one majority, so it should be, “The majority”; and secondly, you have given no indication of the mechanisms involved in causing any energy to come directly from the ocean.
What is it in the ocean, that creates this energy, so it can be “direct”? I am quite happy to think of the oceans as an energy store, but, by definition, any energy that leaves the ocean could only be secondary.
I am happy for you to explain why I am wrong, in holding this view.
40
RW is right, oceans act a thermal heat sink, they can only release heat to the atmosphere when and where the ocean is warmer than the atmosphere, when oceans are colder than atmosphere, they absorb heat. They are the great moderator, they cool when it’s hot and warm when it is cold. The ocean increasing by 1000th of a degree can do no more than raise the atmosphere by 1000th of a degree. Oceans can and do affect humidity though, it takes much more energy to warm a humid atmosphere than a dry one, which has a temperature moderating effect.
Finally, the oceans are really only relevant in an energy balance model, they probably aren’t very important for a harmonic model, which if I read between the lines properly is what we are likely to see.
10
Mr Gates: Is that ‘ocean heat content’ coming from the models, or from observations? (Er…you can show us where the heat content actuals can be found – can’t you?
80
Yes, Mr. Gates, we know all the “missing” heat is hiding at the bottom of the ocean. 🙁
Didn’t your mother tell you to at least listen to an opposing point of view before criticizing it?
70
That is one luxury they can ill afford. If they listen it will mean that others have the opportunity to listen. Which means their religion will suffer more doubt.
10
When will people realise that a tiny, small rise in heat content is GOOD.
Again, where do you chose to live, Mr Gates? Alaska, Siberia?
Or do you prefer somewhere a bit warmer.
The world is as yet nowhere near the flourishing times of the peak warmth of the MWP or RWP,
and unfortunately doesn’t look like it is going to go much closer.
Even slight cooling from where we are now would not be good for the world in general.
100
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.
420
A special thank-you to Christopher, who stayed with us in March 2013 on his Australian tour. He was one of the first to see the developing model and join in the brainstorming. We had a riot!
230
LCMoB, I hope you have had a chance to vet this paper for grammar, spelling, references etc etc
And have cast a very sceptical eye over it.
It needs to be pristine if its as important as David, Jo, et al think it is. 🙂
80
BRAVO!
It takes an individual with a well focused, well trained, and well used mind to solve a complex previously unsolved problem. Especially a problem that is thought to be insolvable by the path chosen. That mind, by using nothing but a clear vision and an excruciating effort of thought, testing, and repeated failure, can achieve an eventual success. That is simply the way it works.
130
This is all way over my head but wanted to get my name in the comments on this ground breaking day. I can say in the future , I was there.
120
Thank you Richsd. Your invoice for comment space, is in the post. 😉
40
Can hardly wait. The next big question I hope is answered, what causes the sun to change its atmospheric output. This is then the same basis of Corbin’s current studies and Jones’ predictions from nearly a century ago.
….just as long as the answer isn’t 42:)
40
I can’t resist — what will you do if the answer is 42? 😉
110
Answer: Submit to the obvious truth and hang onto your towel all the tighter.
However, what is the question?
The question is as or more important than the answer.
For example 10.5 * 4 = 42 is not very interesting but how the number 42 is connected to the variation of our local star would be very interesting and likely even more useful. At this point, I suggest following The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy’s advice of “Don’t Panic.” Let’s wait until the final results are in. Then we can panic if it seems necessary and useful.
80
Lionell,
Panic, no matter how bad things get, is never useful. Therefore it’s never necessary and I never do it.
That’s from Roy’s rules for flying — rule 1 in the list in fact.
50
Agreed. When you panic, you have two problems. This would especially true when you are the pilot of an aircraft in trouble.
I have experience a similar effect when riding a green horse who is green because he is looking for a reason to spook. Stay calm and the horse stays calm. Panic and you and your horse soon go separate ways. Your landing is hardly ever a good one. Walking away unharmed can be difficult to achieve.
60
A few extra rules apply in the military in relation to helicopters:
1. “Don’t fly low over trees – the mass of a tree is greater than the mass of a helicopter”.
2. “No matter how cold it gets, never turn off the fan”.
3. “Up drafts and down drafts always go the wrong way at the wrong moment”.
4. “Everybody on a helicopter is a moron apart from the pilot, who is suicidal”.
5. “In case of emergency, jettison the morons”.
30
Rereke,
I’ve never tried my hand at flying a real helicopter. But I have made a stab (more than one) at it on a good flight simulator. There’s a good reason helicopter primary flight training starts out moving around only a couple of feet off the ground. Helicopters are extremely touchy compared to fixed wing and you have to be able to ALWAYS correctly anticipate the right control input for whatever you want to do — three things to keep coordinated all the time: collective (vertical movement), cyclic (horizontal movement and hovering) and pedals (yaw control).
They aren’t stable hands off so you must be paying attention every second while in the air. Being only a foot or two off the ground until the student is very comfortable and familiar with behavior of the machine and handling it is starting to become second nature leaves an escape hatch that won’t destroy the machine or its occupants — just put it on the ground, even if that’s rough it’s far better than losing it higher up.
Anyway, I understand those rules quite well, except maybe for number 5. I think the pilot is supposed to jump and deploy his parachute, don’t you think? 😉
10
Hovering a helicopter is a much increased risk and no one does it without good reason. From a hover you can’t auto rotate down to a landing if you lose power. I was very uncomfortable when the pilot of our helicopter tour of Kauai flew into the cone of the volcano (if you haven’t been there, one whole side is eroded away) and then hovered there for several minutes while he continued his lecture about the volcano and the island. From their comments, no one else aboard even knew the first thing about flying anything. But I had the creeps until we moved on out of there.
10
The rules of nuke reactor operation:
Yank the rods or scram. When all is well don’t touch anything.
10
Congratulations David and Jo. I can hardly wait to see it unfold (and to see if I can understand any of the math).
It’s saddening to think that so much money and energy has been put into chasing something for so long that’s so obviously wrong and yet no one will change course.
110
Like I said, it takes an individual mind functioning at full power. Most of what passes today for knowledge and understanding is a product of a hive in which there are no individual minds functioning. Each relies on the next mind to know and he the next until the circle is closed summing to a big fat zero. Hence you have 0/0 = [anything, everything, and nothing]. The probability of being wrong is one!
90
In 2005, solar physicists Galina Mashnich and Vladimir Bashkirtsev bet climate modeler James Annan $10,000 US that global temperatures would be cooler during 2012-2017 compared to 1998-2003.
My money is on the solar scientists.
70
Ah… but did they take account of the guys at Giss and HadCrut?
Will the real temperatures drop enough to make even those data sets head downwards ?
50
the Griss:
if the real temperatures drop too low, they will “extrapolate” in order to maintain the fiction. At least until the politicians realise the game is up and stop the money flow.
40
Going to approach this with my usual healthy dose of skepticism until we see the notion behind this published. I also tend to become skeptical when “teasers” are involved in things to get the “buzz” level up beforehand.
50
Are you at least as skeptical of the current CAGW theory or whatever it is called as of this morning?
70
Certainly. AGW is the largest theft from the global population in human history. But over the course of my life I have been burned by things that have been teased before release.
60
looking forward to reading it.
Right or wrong, this is how science works, create a coherent theory, beat on it, if it still stands invite the world to test it.
The “Chester” burbling on about damage to David or Jo’s credibility is clearly a fool. Another empty headed devotee of argument from authority.
That failure to comprehend, a mistake in open science is never bad, each question answered, yes or no, opens new questions.
And so we learn.
I too will contribute to such talent.
Thanks for your fine work to come.
90
This sounds so exciting, Jo, David, I can’t wait.
Interesting series of reactions from Chester – is he always so uptight? Makes me think he realizes something huge and unpleasant is on the way in for alarmism everywhere. Let’s hope so. I’m sure there’ll be many more trolls in, snapping away at anything that moves. Makes for fun reading, though. 🙂
I have now registered and will be avidly watching for everything your put forward over the coming days and weeks. This sounds truly monumental. I hope it hits the headlines and that you don’t have to wait years for it to happen.
90
Cue William Connolley:
50
How did you do that? You invoked him, he appeared. Wow.
10
Shades of AW’s stop-the-world announcement of 2012 (http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2013/07/29/happy-birthday-to-watts-paper/). I await the “more advanced method of Fourier analysis” with bated breath. Lets hope he hasn’t discovered wavelets.
228
I’m sure you will get time off from Wiki modification to try to read the paper when its published.
Understand it though ???? … not likely.
121
Hi William
Don’t you think that the existing models are duds because their temperature predictions are well above observed values since AP1?????? If David’s model can match past and future temperature trends without the dodgy fixes being forced onto the current dud models good on him.
120
> the existing models
I’d recommend something like http://julesandjames.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/can-we-trust-climate-models.html
> If David’s model can
Hard to tell from the little we’ve been given so far. I’m sure all of the “skeptics” here will remain properly “skeptical” until they see some hard evidence. “analyzing the system as a black box” sounds like the model has no physics in it, which makes it sound like curve fitting, ie uninteresting. But we’ll see; perhaps he can do better than AW.
125
Anybody noticed the recent flood of trolls? Obviously Operation Canute to try to turn back the winning tide. Why we have even been visited by the big Cnut himself, trying to rewrite events. Now fellow bloggers, show some respect to the old Bill here when he talks about Global Warming, after all he invented so much of it.
Meanwhile Bill, why are you investing so much time into Operation Canute? The tide is turning, the sun is cooling and soon it will be obvious that the Earth is too. When the public realize that hundreds of billions have been wasted in order to make them worse off, their anger will be immense. The politicians will be looking for sacrifices (remember what Machiavelli said) and while you were never important or near the inner circle, your contributions will be so obvious and provable that you are likely to cop one of the heaviest sentences.
In your case the old “I was mislead” defense won’t work. A foreign bolt hole perhaps? An apartment in Peking is probably too much, but somewhere on the outskirts of Moscow, where you can while away your remaining years looking out on the endless white, hoping for some sign of warming.
223
He’s still in denial and sulking over the whipping he got at Pointy’s.
He is too dense to realise it, but Joanne slaps him around the ears here as well. Just a little lost puppy with no-one else that he can pester.
100
“I’m sure all of the “skeptics” here will remain properly “skeptical” until they see some hard evidence.”
You can’t be sceptical until you have read it. You’re being cynical and stupid again. The evidence would be the changes in temperature around the globe, just like the ones that were used to claim that the scary models were correct but showed the opposite.
80
Hi William
As an civil engineer with 35 years experience I have no issues with climate models being developed because engineers use climate modeling in our every day work to design structures to withstand extreme weather events. However, the current models do not cut the mustard and have the potential to cost the community unnecessary expense in over design of built infrastructure. Engineers are naturally skeptical because we are always worried about the implications of dealing in known unknowns or unknown unknowns that can come from left field.
120
w.c.:
‘ I’m sure all of the “skeptics” here will remain properly “skeptical” until they see some hard evidence.’
–
Not necessary for warmists!
60
Curve fitting is a perfectly valid fault diagnostics technique in electronic systems, and it is certainly based firmly in physics.
30
I am a sceptic of AGW, but I am with William Connolley on this one. While I am very keen to see this unfold and I hope it has some validity, it would be well to approach with plenty of scepticism – that is, let’s see how it stands up to the undoubted savage criticism it will receive. I’ve seen a few claims from sceptics over the years that are heralded with much fanfare but rarely survive a thorough examination, or end up sinking without trace.
Of course, I am hoping it is the real deal!
02
“Of course, I am hoping it is the real deal!”
I’m not.. I don’t like the cold. !!! 🙁
I want to see the world flourishing with lots of extra CO2 and an extra degree or so of real temperature (not this namby pamby, fake, adjustment stuff)
But it looks like that wish may be gone 🙁
20
What makes you think that David does not know more about wavelets than you or anyine else?
50
I mentioned it before that making mistakes in science is the norm, correcting them is the art. Denying a pause through dodgy maths and then coming up with ‘hiding in the closet’ excuses rather than admitting that the models are not very good is not science.
The pause clearly shows that the most of the warming last century was most likely natural oscillation. Whatever extra warming there was has not been confirmed to be anthropogenic and is about the same as man-made adjustments to the temperatures.
70
““The models don’t have the skill we thought they had. That’s the problem,” ..
admits Peter Jan van Leeuwen, director of the National Centre of Earth Observation at the University of Reading.”
Well…………..DUH !!!!
70
The fact that something works, tells you very little. It is when something that is expected, doesn’t work as expected, is when you start to learn.
40
> making mistakes in science is the norm, correcting them is the art
Not an unreasonable point; and a clear fail for AW. He made a maga-sooper-dooper announcement for his paper (which would have been well OTT even if the paper had been good) but now the poor paper limps quietly into oblivion taking its errors with it, forgotten except by those who mock it. Do you think AW will ever “correct” his announcement?
19
w.c:
‘ Do you think AW will ever “correct” his announcement?”
–
Paging Dr Joelle Gergis!
40
Here Willipedia the Weasel linkbaits to his own puerile gloating about how Watt’s paper that scientifically demonstrated that half of US warming wasn’t real but merely due to low ranked station conditions, a paper that helped inspire a set of reference stations to be officially established, that oh snicker snicker, Watts hyped it up beforehand, as in the following years the governments of Canada, Australia and Britain swung severely away from climate alarm in a such a profound manner that it swung political influence in general from left to right. Alas, Willipedia has nothing himself to hype except a prickly and affected old blog post.
-=NikFromNYC=-, Ph.D. in carbon chemistry (Columbia/Harvard)
110
Yep,
A whole new , hopefully reliable reference station set, and a LOT of that to do with AW’s work in showing up the massive unreliability of the old sites.
Well done AW !!
But what has The WC left behind him? A load of corrupted and misrepresented garbage.
That is his legacy, and what he will be remembered for, for a very short time.
No wonder he is so bitter and self-loathing under that massive façade of self-importance. !!
31
NikFromNYC :………..’Willipedia’
–
Hahahaha….! Fate can be so cruel. Next it’ll be….Willipoodia!
10
This is what you’ll be facing, Jo and David.
The ignorant on one side vs. actual research on the other. There’s a certain irony in all this in that liars can always gather a following by lying but the honest can’t look at a group of people and say, “You have a problem,” when we know there isn’t one. As a consequence look who’s in the White House.
Quoting the President talking about members of Congress,
He addressed about 8,000 at the University of California, Irvine. And how many of those 8,000 do you think are exposed to joannenova.com.au or any contrary opinion? At most a handful.
He vacations one more time for the rest of the weekend at the ritzy home of the White House decorator and his “partner”, the U.S. Ambassador to Spain. Look out Mr. Ambassador, Obama gets his ambassadors killed off every now and then.
70
And don’t let it stop you.
40
Roy, adding further to the quote re. Obama’s latest address to the grads at UC (I), highlights the unrelenting propaganda targeted at the young. I wonder just how many of them are interested enough to see through the climate farce before it is entirely dismantled by reason, evidence and economic necessity.
Here’s hoping that David and Jo’s endeavours become a compelling case in the avalanche of reason that definitively puts an end to the astonishingly wasteful, ideological fueled climate nonsense.
,
20
Little does Obama know that the moon is made of cheese — American Cheese, as proclaimed by none other than cartoonist Charles Schulz in the persona of Snoopy the dog of Peanuts fame shortly after the first manned landing.
So nuts to Obama! And let’s do take action on global warming and bury the whole thing somewhere in the middle of the night in an unmarked grave about a hundred miles down and then be done with it.
This is not a criticism of David and Jo but we don’t need their new work to know the whole of the climate change alarm is a fraud. There simply isn’t a bit of real evidence that supports it.
10
Exciting stuff…well done!
50
I notice that none of Dr David Evans 6 degrees are in mammalogy or palaeontology so what makes him an expert on climate change?
Do I really need a sarc tag?
150
He is not a concert pianist either, so what does he know? I bet he can’t even drive a D-32 excavator.
Sorry, full moon tonight.
50
It is simultaneously exciting and disappointing that we have a new approach to evaluate, but a precursor of hype. I guess it is a symptom of the state of the field being ridiculously politicized that it is not enough for the work to simply speak for itself. Fingers crossed that this shakes the establishment to the very rotten core.
I find myself wondering, should this hold up to scrutiny, how many warmest scientists will say that they had mentioned factors X, y and/or z all along…
80
In my view, the hype is necessary to ward against whatever David comes up with, just being buried.
Don’t forget, we live in an age where group-think has the power to trump clarity of thought, at least 97% of the time.
80
You’re uncertain that it’s 97%? 😉
I think it’s exactly 97% and we should shove that number down their throats from now on. 🙂
10
Back in the 1980’s it was suggested that I give a job 110%.
I didn’t have the heart to tell my boss that that’d mean 10% waste. 😉
There’s a difference between being a team player and just another flocker.
00
Well, David, I wish you the best of luck. No doubt your new model will be more authentic than my own spreadsheet-based adventures. My advice is to keep your eye on the OLR! I was really chuffed when I’d reconstructed the last 150 years temperature history to less than 0.05 degrees RMS error. I thought my model was the bees’ knees until I tried to get it to output the TOA OLR too. The OLR didn’t match the NOAA satellite data in either magnitude or direction. 🙁
Tricky game, this climate modelling business.
Going through this exercise last year taught me mainly one thing: It’s really easy to fool yourself with a model, especially when the model is partially statistical and not entirely physics from the ground up.
I’ve elected to go the Svensmark route on it so I’m very much reliant on other people’s predictions of sunspot activity for the next 60 years, which is still currently a dark art. The “oceanic” temperature cycle is surely a real thing, so after 2015 we are going to see some global cooling, but exactly how much and what happens after 2050 are still anybody’s guess.
101
Maybe you need to model the NOAA satellite and the data correction methods the NOAA uses to get their final high value data. You really can’t reproduce cooked data unless you can replicate the cooking process.
90
“unless you can replicate the cooking process”
hey, this is not MasterChef !!
40
To replicate the dish, if the Master Chef puts in too much chili pepper, then you have to put in too much chili pepper. It is up to you what you do with it after that. Personally, I would class it as garbage and dispose of it.
20
I have to test against something. I accept NOAA’s OLR as “true enough for modelling purposes”.
The parlous state of albedo and TSI measurements are a different story.
20
@ Andrew McRae June 15, 2014 at 6:47 pm
“I have to test against something. I accept NOAA’s OLR as “true enough for modelling purposes”.”
The satellites are way to close in. A radiometer on the Moon or at the Lagrange points. would properly measure the directional radiant exitance of this planet
“The parlous state of albedo and TSI measurements are a different story.”
Albedo is never total Solar energy reflected. It is the part that is in the visable 56%, then backscattered to the hemisphere convex to the sun. None of that from the other 44% and none forward scattered to the opposing hemisphere! TSI could be continuously measured from the space station. That would falsify the CAGW lies of solar “constant”.
00
Jo on 2GB today.
80
I must add, nothing Jo said was related to this topic but an interesting listen.
60
True, but if she were running for office, she would get my vote!
110
Maybe we could convince Jo to run for a Senate spot in a few months or years time. I’m sure a certain WA identity would throw in a few lazy millions to help fund Jo’s campaign.
70
Second that.
60
Nope. She would get caught up in the machine. And you can’t rail against the machine, once you are part of it.
30
As an independent, spanner in the works.
Besides…the more people in Parliament like Jo, the more favourable the likelihood I’ll be certified to demolish the wind turbines.
And charge the carpetbaggers for the pleasure!
10
That 80 – 20 rule known as the Pareto Principle, crops up a lot in life and nature.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle
40
The 80-20 rule is 80% too simplistic 🙂
00
97%
00
For any topic of this significance, I would most sincerely propose that there should always be more than one viable theory proposed, deciphered and discussed.
This second theory is what has been missing for far too long. It should have been funded by the research going into global warming. What appears to be coming is exactly that. This can only be a good thing – regardless of what side of the debate you may reside.
I know I won’t be the first to say this, but regardless of ones views on this topic, I consider it a degree of basic human decency for Jo and Davids continued dedication and sacrifice through their love of science and their pursuit of the truth to be recognised by all.
Good professionals are prepared to leave their egos at the door and to admit when they are wrong or have made a mistake. We must leave the door open to those who advocate for the AGW models and demonstrate humility to them should they find themselves supporting the alternate hypothesis.
Jo and David also deserve credit for taking the open public approach for reviewing this information. This is the future of serious science and is something that only scientists who can put the truth before their Egos can do (and yes, that is a challenge for others). With out the data and methods being published, it is not science, it is just some researcher getting a tick in the box for publishing something.
I most sincerely look forward to expanding my education in the following posts. And in my case, yes, please be patient with my dumb questions….
140
At comment #21 [Dave B.; Jo; David Evans]: You will know but others may not that many things are electrical – the heart for instance – EE folks have used their knowledge to produce such things as implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICD). One is keeping watch over my spouse’s heart – for the past 4 years just 2 wires but there is likely an upgrade to 3 in the near future.
–—————————–
I’ll quote Dave Burton and say me too: “I am hopeful that his new climate model may represent an important advancement.”
90
Great news Jo and David,
I’ll be following the release of your work closely.
If, as you claim, your model brings together previously unexplained and disconnected phenomena, and makes definite predictions that can readily be falsified by observations, then you’ve already won. If you turn out to be wrong, you will still have made an important contribution to the field. If you’re right, then you’ve changed the world.
50
Ozboy June 15, 2014 at 10:09 am
“If you’re right, then you’ve changed the world.”
I doubt that “that” will be in David’s current spreadsheet!
30
We live on a planet that spins about its won axis and has a fluid atmosphere and seas. It is orbited by a moon which produces cyclical effects in the seas (and I imagine the atmosphere too). In turn the Earth-Moon pair orbit the Sun in company with the other planets, comets etc at a range of periods and phase separations. The Sun itself exhibits cyclical behaviour most visible in sun spots but in a range of phenomena.
Fourier analysis is about modelling the behaviour of systems with multiple cyclical components. It is mainstream mathis in oceanography ( anaylysing ocean wave spectra), sound and music, vibration anaylsis etc and has been around for ages.
The notion that you would not first go looking for cyclical signals in the climate record and the climate mechanisms as a cross check on the circulation models seems bizarre to me.
The fact that such work it seems to have been ignored by the mainstream of “climate science” tells you all you need to know frankly. Richard Lindzen is spot on in his observation that “climate science” has not exactly attracted the best and brightest. What it has seemed to have attracted are the biggest egos and most self important.
Go you good thing David Evans.
80
Here is the latest Doomsday Global Warming ‘settled science’ criteria on computer models:
• Climate scientists have been arguing for some time that the lack of warming of the sea surface is due to most of the extra heat being taken up by the deep ocean.
Scientists are now trying to simulate the behaviour using computer models.
This is difficult because the behaviour of the deep ocean is too poorly known to be reliably included.
• “The models don’t have the skill we thought they had. That’s the problem,” said Peter Jan van Leeuwen,
director of the National Centre of Earth Observation at the University of Reading.
• Building reliable computer models is depdendent on knowing which parameters are important to the climate, and over the past decade scientists have homed in on the key parameters of the Earth’s system.
They call these the Essential Climate Variables or ECVs.
There are 50 of them and they include measurable quantities such as air pressure and temperature, sea ice cover, ocean colour, ozone and carbon dioxide content.
• Another problem in building computer models has been knowing how to compare measurements taken by different satellites.
Instruments and techniques change and each has its own quirks.
So, even if two instruments have measured the same property, it can be like comparing apples with oranges.
~ ~ ~
Apparent pause in global warming blamed on ‘lousy’ data(?)
. . .
It’s as bad as we first thought.
It can only get better.
Good luck.
60
Great & superbly interesting news. Big thanks to You ‘down under’. 😀
I’ve furthered these to the most read Swedish science blog and commented, link:
http://www.klimatupplysningen.se/2014/06/14/oppen-trad-38/#comment-375547
Looking forward to learning about the further proceedings & next steps!
Brgds from Sweden
/TJ
50
In the naval service, the signal flags B and Z signify a job well done.
Bravo Zulu!
40
Congratulations Jo & David. You guys deserve to be the ones to finally put a sword in the heart of the CAGW fraud and make a stand for truth and integrity in science. It makes me proud to be a follower of this high quality blog.
50
Very exciting!
30
Here’s a question… I notice that WUWT often features posts from Jo’s blog, but so far at least, no reference to this rather exciting news. Given that Willis E is a vociferous opponent of sunspots and various solar cycles, is Anthony following a conservative line, or is there something else at play?
30
Willis E did some excellent work looking at negative feedback, especially involving the oceans. However, negative feedback won’t entirely remove a signal coming from cyclic input power, it will merely attenuate that signal.
We have something like 200 years of sunspot data, and even after that the current cycle (unusually small) took all the experts by surprise. It would be safe to say that no one can accurately predict solar cycles at our current state of the art. Being able to predict anything 10 years out would be impressive.
30
Jo & David,
I am SO pleased to hear of this very exciting news.
Will follow it with extreme interest and hope the MSM also report it in a fair and objective manner (if that is at all possible).
Jo – I don’t know if you remember the problem I had a couple of years ago – I couldn’t log into my account. I tried again today as I wanted to check/confirm my particulars and it wouldn’t allow me access???? Can you possibly check and email me a possible solution (email address hasn’t changed for years) OR delete my whole account so I can redo. I want to keep up with the latest.
Many thanks.
Cheers,
—-
I’m looking into it right now… – Jo
20
The collective psychology human race never ceases to amaze me.
Here we have hundreds of billions of our dollars being spent on the assumed consequences of an extremely fragile hypothesis and we have a very, very few, very bright and motivated people doing the creative work on falsifying this hypothesis – for no financial reward!!!
Does it take really monumental scams such as CAGW to make us creative? I am certain that sitting around unchallenged in a cosy intellectual bubble does very little for our intellectual stimulation and we see many other manifestations of this phenomenon in most big government sponsored ‘initiatives’.
Thank you David and Jo for your efforts – on behalf of all of us humans…..
60
What conclusions am I supposed to ‘draw’ from this? It’s going to get colder not warmer, by a series of cliff hangers……Hold that pencil ti’ll you hear the last one.
..Oh, and we’ve been bankrupting ourselves for the wrong reasons, and need a new energy policy…And new politicians…..And probably some scientists too.
30
Some sort of resolution to this issue is long overdue so I seriously hope David is on to something ground breaking. If not, full credit for at least applying a truly scientific approach. I am becoming more and more alarmed that some otherwise sane and educated people have become hysterical on the topic of the supposed outcome of AGM. Have a look at this recent Facebook exchange that came when I responded to an associates unkind post referring to our “idiot” PM and the likely outcome of Abbotts meeting recently with Obama. (I must admit I set him up with the quote)
ME
A year or so back when a journalist asked if the political will existed to legislate “some kind of a tax on carbon” his short answer was no, but this is what he actually said: “….that if the message is somehow we’re going to ignore jobs and growth simply to address climate change, I don’t think anybody is going to go for that. I won’t go for that.”
Tell me what is wrong with that?
RESPONSE
What an unfathomly stupid statement. It’s a statement of how divorced we have become from our humanity not only because we have learnt to view people not as humans but as customers and / or commodities. It is also a measure of our collective stupity that we believe an economy is more important than the environment, the very thing that sustains us. You, xxxxx, will be part of the reason most of the species on the planet will become extinct …. and if you’re still around you.ll no doubt say “shit, I didn’t see that coming”. here’s and oldy but a goody – “If you think money is more important than the environment try counting it while you hold your breath”.
ME
Just for the record XXXXXX, that quote was from Barack Obama; made in November 2012.
RESPONSE
Thank God he came to his senses, what an insane statement to make. Unfortunately when his term is over some money obsessed lunatic like Abbott will take over and wind back every ecologically sound regulation ever put in place and my kids and your kids will pay the price for our selfish money grubbing.
I gave up at
Keep up the good work.
20
An explanation for this behaviour (perhaps) is in this piece by Piers Ackerman.
20
Thanks Rod Stuart. Trouble is, we real skeptics will watch the ABC (with gritted teeth) and get at least get a “worm hole” view of how the other side sees the issue, but the “warmists” not only don’t try to see the other side, but some get so hyperventilated they conflate us into murderers of future generations.
00
Well done!
We need fresh breakthroughs like this.
One point, will the Excel macros work on Open Office/libra Office for us Ubuntu users?
00
Yes, anD eithout errors!
00
Clearly Chester’s rants are a clear indication of how the reaction of warming fanatics will be.
Chester is equal to a suicide bomber.
30
I am very happy to hear of this. I started following this in 1999. I began with an open mind but try as I might I could not make the AGW theory work for a variety of
reasons I won’t go into here. I used to come to Joanne’s website often but have not been back for many years. I have been spending time debating the AGW propagandists on their own turf. I must say the last decade has been kind to us with respect to providing a multitude of data with which to combat the AGW group think out there.
I would like to give you Joanne and your husband David my deepest gratitude for your sacrifices in this area. We all know what the AGW crowd will do when you present the entire theory. It will be viscous. It will be unrelenting, to do something like this takes courage, make no mistake about it. My hat is off to you both.
30
It will be very interesting to see how this differs from the model put up several years ago by the elderly Dr. Jeff Glassman of the quiet and humble ‘Rocket Scientists Journal’, refer:
http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2010/03/sgw.html
Prof. Lief Svalgaard rejected Jeff’s model out of hand on the grounds that he (Lief) had supposedly discredited the Wang et al (2005) record of TSI and that TSI has been relatively constant for at least 250 years….
However, I note that developments in very recent years seem to showing that there is much more variation in TSI that the supposed ‘Uber Guru of the Sun’ (even over at WUWT) Prof. Svalgaard had been insisting!
It always intrigues me how so very few know the debt we all have to the modest Dr. Jeff Glassman – inventor of what was for many years the fastest of the Fast Fourier Transform algorithms – something without which the global cell phone network could not have been developed. Think of that the next time you use your mobile phone!
So watch this space, eh?
30
Steve Short June 16, 2014 at 8:08 am
“It will be very interesting to see how this differs from the model put up several years ago by the elderly Dr. Jeff Glassman of the quiet and humble ‘Rocket Scientists Journal’, refer:http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2010/03/sgw.html”
YES, Glassman’s FFT had that wonderful butterfly process, that required precise, exact, same, measuring intervals. Temperature measurments on this planet have no such constant intervals. A descrete FT, DFT with both careful measurements of magnitude and interval, can eliminate the crap, but it is so damned slow. At each process step the computer must stop, wipe its ass, sniff, then continue.
20
It will be interesting to read David’s full presentation and to see whether what Jeff Glassman wrote back in April 2011 was in any way prescient. This is what Jeff wrote on his blog in a conversation with me (regarding the Lockwood and Owens, 2011 paper:
The Wang et al. (2005) model has a maximum TSI of 1366.71 Wm-2, occurring in 1990. The minimum is 1365.15 in 1713, the first point of their curve, occurring just after the Maunder Minimum during the last quarter of the 17th Century. According to Lean, 2000, the lowest level was 1363.46, occurring at the start of her curve in 1700. The Maunder Minimum ranged between about 1363.4 and 1365.6, for which the midpoint is 1364.0. That is 99.8% of the TSI peak. The entire range of IPCC’s AR4 Figure 2.17 is 4 Wm-2, about 0.3% of the maximum.
The range of magnetic flux variation, rather than being “very constant”, is almost two orders of magnitude greater than the flux variation estimated for TSI, which (it is presumed)determines global surface temperature. Perhaps the cloud albedo effect, which amplifies TSI, is dependent on both the burn-off effect and the Svensmark GCR effect, where the latter is modulated by a combination of magnetic field and flux effects coherent with TSI.
20
There are many effects which are much greater than TSI and any or all of them might influence the climate, the trick is to discern which ones.
20
Very true. But if you focus on them, because they are bigger, you run the risk of overlooking something else that is not so much in your face, but possibly more important. TSI provides a “standard” way of comparing stuff that is not affected by the bigger, shinier, smellier, syndrome.
10
Good luck . . the politics are after a CARBON TAX – a tax on life forms. Science has little to say to the process – it is about money and ability to purchase the University research departments. We can end this misuse of taxpayer money by forcing the Federal government back under the limits of the Article I section 8 enumerated powers without the use of clauses.
This is a very big free constituional and American history library it is all free . no cookies no ads no email required just a large amount of free books, e books, links, pdf files and more.
http://articlevprojecttorestoreliberty.com/
If you have read this section information then you are exceptional
http://articlevprojecttorestoreliberty.com/the-basic-library.html
20
Now that I’ve read BIG NEWS PART 2 I’m rather disappointed that there was no acknowledgement of Dr. Jeff Glassman’s previous work back in 2011, even though it was very highly germane:
http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2010/03/sgw.html
00
Now that I’ve read BIG NEWS PART 2 I’m rather disappointed that there was no acknowledgement of Dr. Jeff Glassman’s previous work back in 2011, even though it was very highly germane:
http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2010/03/sgw.html
00
Hi Joe
I’m deeply hurt about the fact that what I have identified has not been accepted by you in total.
My breakthrough in establishing the link between Magnetism and Gravity solve every natural event published in science when related to weather patterns. If Dr David is sincere about publicity, them he for one should at least make reference to my work in relation to identifying what is causing these seasons to change.
My latest book;Formula Used to determine Gravity (gw) within Atoms” released in Victoria on the 9th April 2014 expands section 6 of my book;Climate Change Explained by Magnetism? ISBN9780646477220 (2009)
Please accept my gratitude in the additional science that Dr David has obviously identified, where he has identified, we have had two journal papers, one by Energy and Environment (UK) in 2011 by Dr Albert Boretti and myself, showing that the Oceans of the world are not accelerating, and much more.
If you do wish for identified ocean and temperature iregularities, we are indeed, happy to support Dr David in his ideals.
Thomas
00
Inigo Jones RIP
00
I did a Fourier analysis using historical temperature data, last year, and did a recombination which shows that the temperature peak occurred in about the year 2000 and is now starting on a downward trend reaching a Maunder low at about 2050 – 2070.
30
[…] BIG NEWS Part I: Historic development — New Solar climate model coming […]
00
Having studied the Climate as an amateur scientist for some 17 years, I congratulate David Evans and Jo Nova on their efforts to
straighten up the scientific debate towards the untramelled truths which emanate from strict adherence to the principles of The Scientific Method. Although not related to David’s original thesis, and as the follow up debate has wandered into some side issues, one should ask what is the methodology of the IPCC in accepting and using the (?pseudo)science presented to them to forecast the future and prescribe supposedly appropriate action. Science + IPCC is all part of the ongoing action.
Herewith a copy of an interesting dialogue I received recently between a well recognise scientist and a senIor official oF the IPCC which I found rather startling as it seems to demonstrate that the IPCC itself, which appears to be highly influenced by governments and commercial interests, is as corrupt, if not more so, than the science itself.
THE COPY
Posted on October 12, 2013 by Anthony Watts
Dave Burton writes:
Anthony,
The IPCC replied promptly to my inquiry (below), and they surprised me, twice:
1. They say that the just released “final” draft of the AR5 WG1 Report isn’t really final after all, but the Summary for Policy Makers is final; and
2. They say the “underlying chapters” may be revised for consistency with the SPM.
Does that seem backwards, to you? The SPM is the political statement. The “underlying chapters” are (supposedly) the science. So they’re saying that they may still need to revise the science to make it consistent with the political statement.
OTOH, while they might have low standards for their science, they have remarkably high standards for promptness. They replied just 98 minutes after I emailed them, yet they asked me to “please accept our apology for the late response.”
Dave
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: IPCC WGI TSU
Date: Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 7:50 AM
Subject: RE: AR5 WGI Expert Reviewers’ comments
To: ncdave@xxxxxxx.xxx
Cc: IPCC WGI TSU wg1 AT ipcc.unibe.ch
Dear Mr. Burton,
Thank you for the interest in the Working Group I contribution to the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report.
What has been released so far is the approved Summary for Policymakers as well as the final drafts (version 7 June 2013) of the underlying chapters and the Technial Summary (downloadable free of charge from http://www.climatechange2013.org). These drafts are still subject to copy edit, error correction and any necessary changes for consistency with the approved SPM. We anticipate that the full report in its finalised and publication-ready form will be released electronically in January 2014. At that time, also all the review comments and responses will become part of the public record and will be posted on our web site.
Please do not hesitate to contact us again should you have further questions.
Thank you again for your interest and please accept our apology for the late response.
Best regards,
IPCC WGI TSU
———————————————————————
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Working Group I – Technical Support Unit
University of Bern Phone: +41 31 631 5616
Zaehringerstrasse 25 Fax: +41 31 631 5615
10
Is it normal scientific practise to announce you have a ground breaking discovery before having your work reviewed?
11
evcricket:
‘Is it normal scientific practise to announce you have a ground breaking discovery before having your work reviewed?”
–
Or even ‘post normal scientific practise’, for that matter!
00
When a paper is ready for publication, some, mainly skeptics, toss it to the lions to be savaged. (A corporation I worked for did the same sort of review back in the 1970s)
In this way any problems with the paper are brought to the attention of the author(s) quickly and the authors can enter into a dialog about the criticism in real time.
Willis Eschenbach did it with his thermostat hypothesis paper
Anthony also did it with his draft of a paper that will hopefully be coming out shortly.
So yes, this sort of brainstorming on a Blog is not unprecedented and is really a great idea. You get points of view from a lot of different disciplines and a much more in-depth check of the paper.
If you are not dealing with patentable or proprietary info I think you are going to see more and more science done this way.
10
Well in real science – I think not first you make observations and then you publish a paper which is then either accepted or rejected by the science journal – this is what they call PEER review – if accepted then the authors can apply for research grant money to conduct actual science in an attempt to progress to a theory stage.
For all this to happen all data, samples, math and other objects used to formulate the paper must be transmitted with the paper being PEER reviewed. Not a easy task and that is why the Climate folks started their own peer review process and journals – Their papers on CO2 were being rejected in mass by the real science journals.
10
[…] This is the 1st of currently four posts about new solar climate model: http://joannenova.com.au/2014/06/big-news-part-i-historic-development-new-solar-climate-model-coming… […]
00