In typical style skeptics love to criticize, it is our strength. Sadly, diplomacy, manners, courtesy — burned at the door on a moment’s notice. Sigh. After five years in this debate you’d think I’d know not to expect respect or goodwill from every fellow skeptic. Call me naive, I don’t expect them to agree with me, just to be polite. If someone asks you for a review before they publish, would you congratulate them privately, ask questions, ignore the answers, ignore large parts of the paper, then later post those misunderstood points, without so much as a courtesy check first? Yes, I’m baffled too.
Hey Lubos, no hard feelings, but next time let us save you from posting unnecessary innuendo, irrelevant criticisms, and not-so-informed commentary. It only takes an email.
I groan. In a highly gregarious species, where power is clawed through high-order political games, schmoozing and collaboration, some skeptics still wonder why people who are bad with numbers but good with people, control the institutions, the publications and big budgets. The mystery of it all!
Anyhow, because it is out there (or was, I’ve reproduced it here)* and is being discussed, obviously we need to correct the errors. Lubos says he spent hours reading the paper but he doesn’t seem to be aware of several of the major points (hey, it’s a very long paper). Unfortunately, because Lubos thought we were suggesting something we weren’t, he concludes it’s all unlikely and bases quite a bit of his reasoning on this misconception. Here’s Lubos saying largely what we’ve said, but he thinks he’s explaining something new:
“Natural mechanisms on Earth just won’t produce a response function that happens to vanish exactly for the 11-year periodicity!”
We explained in this public post, the big paper, the FAQ, the small summary, and David wrote in personal email answers to him (April 11th), that we don’t think the delay and notching occurs on Earth. It doesn’t seem at all likely that the actual solar rays would take 8 minutes to arrive on Earth, then wait 11 years to warm the planet. The 11 year delayed effect is very odd – dare I say “mysterious?” (Perhaps I better not, lest it’s seen as “demagogy”, eh?)
Obviously the place to look for the notch and delay is on the Sun, where internal dynamics could easily produce an 11 year cycle, so easily, it already has. I don’t think Lubos realizes we are suggesting that the 11 year delay may have something to do with the timing of the 11 year solar magnetic flips? Perhaps it’s a coincidence the notching happens at the same time the sun’s magnetic field collapses and it flips its north and south pole. Perhaps it isn’t. Surely it’s an idea worth raising?
Again, I am ready to believe that the Sun has a significant impact on the Earth’s climate. But it must be either something else than the TSI, or the effect must be such that all the wiggles shorter than 20 years or so must be universally suppressed.
The argument that it is “due” to TSI, and “it’s not a mechanism on Earth” are both strawman: “it must be something else than TSI” he says — well yes, exactly. We go out of our way to say TSI is “associated with” with temperature, but does not “cause” temperature.
As for the “wiggles”, the evidence shows that all the wiggles shorter than 20 years are not equally suppressed. That is the point. Lubos is mixing up a low pass filter with the notch. The data most definitely does not suggest a low pass filter with a 20 year break point. (If it did, the lines in the graph Lubos reposted twice would be flat lines to 20 years, then bend down with a 45 degree decline to zero from there in the shorter frequencies.) The low pass filter appears weakly with about a 5 year break point. The low pass filter is a non-controversial idea — I don’t think many people would suggest that the Earth doesn’t smooth out the sun’s effects over at least a few years.
How about some manners?
For the sake of helping the skeptic world polish up on it’s key weakness, it’s time to discuss the forgotten topic of manners and communication. They matter in science. The truth may come out eventually anyway, but bad communication makes it slower, and bad manners risks burning off the independent valuable pool of volunteers who are providing a foil for the monopolistic bureaucratic influences of science. Strategically, it’s a win for skeptics to hold the torch on other skeptics, but a failure for them to waste time doing it on inaccurate and irrelevant points.
After five years of doing my genuine damnedest to improve science and advance human knowledge one tiny sliver at a time, I’m accustomed to being accused of blind faith or shallow marketing, but not from people who I thought shared the same goals.
Hence yes, lines like these (based on zero evidence) are disappointing. False motivations? Imputed intentions? Baseless accusations? We can do better.
There are climate skeptics who will endorse any claim or idea that goes against the “consensus”.
Obviously this does not apply (sometime I disagree with skeptics, sometimes I agree with the IPCC). Why say it?
David’s goal is to claim that the whole evolution of the global mean temperature – or a big portion of it, to say the least – and especially the 20th century global warming and its various intense episodes may be due to the Sun.
David’s goal is to learn more about what drives the climate, not to make false claims. Twice he dropped this project because the data didn’t seem to support the theory that there was a low pass filter (he went looking for the low pass filter, but eventually realized there was a notch obscuring it and the notch was the big deal). It’s what a scientist does. Let’s rise above the cheap shots. We don’t need pop psychoanalysis based on bad guesses.
I think that many of you will agree that the marketing point used as the title on Jo’s blog
For the first time – a mysterious notch filter found in the climate
is pure demagogy.
So when is it accurate science communication, and when is it “marketing” for an undescribed purpose? No one knew what might drive the notch, (or even that a notch existed) so mysterious seems pretty accurate, likewise, no one has described it before — looks like a first.
C’mon Lubos. Haven’t the footsoldiers in this David and Goliath battle at least earned the right to basic respect (and the right of reply) instead of half-baked, clumsy character slurs? Are they people and researchers or just dumb bloggers…
————————————-
Correcting Lubos’ Errors
Dr David Evans, 19 June 2014, David Evans’ Notch-Delay Solar Theory and Model Home
Here we correct several errors of fact or misleading impressions about the notch-delay theory made by Lubos.
1. Changes in TSI Did Not Cause the Recent Global Warming
Lubos says “David’s goal is to claim that” … “a big portion of” the “evolution of the global mean temperature”, “especially the 20th century global warming”, may be “due to” TSI. This is incorrect.
We have explicitly stated what our aim is, and that the recent global warming is NOT principally “due to” TSI. To repeat:
- Part II: “The initial aim of this project is to answer this question: If the recent global warming was associated almost entirely with solar radiation, and had no dependence on CO2, what solar model would account for it?”
- Part III: “We are building the solar model that would account for the recent global warming if it was associated almost entirely with solar radiation (notice that we didn’t say “caused”)”.
- Part IV: We introduce the force deduced in the datasets, force X, as the main influence behind the recent global warming: “Force X has ten to twenty times more influence on temperatures on Earth than changes in the direct heating effect of TSI.” “While the effects on temperature of the tiny changes in the immediate heating effects of TSI are too small to explain the recent global warming, those tiny changes are a leading indicator of force X.”
2. Transfer functions are always output divided by input, in the frequency domain
After needlessly introducing complications such as convolution and integrals, and performing some handwavy and essentially correct math, Lubos says, as if he had uncovered something: “This frequency-based Evans response function is simply the ratio of the Fourier-transformed global mean temperature and the Fourier-transformed solar output!” (By “response function” he means “transfer function”.)
That definition of a transfer function is not only standard, it is explicitly stated from first principles in the Part II: “A transfer function tells how a sinusoid in the input is transferred through the system to the output. We are only concerned with amplitudes (that is, not phases), so its value at a given frequency is simply the output amplitude at that frequency divided by the input amplitude at that frequency. Dividing the orange line in Figure 4 by the orange line in Figure 2, we arrive at the empirical transfer function shown in Figure 5.”
3. There is no peak at 11 years in the temperature spectrum (i.e. there is a notch)
Lubos writes “What the near-vanishing of R~(f) for 1/f close to 11 years really means is that … the 11-year cycle isn’t present in the temperature data.”
Just caught on Lubos? The main point in the first substantive post is that the temperature record does not contain detectable temperature peaks at 11 years, which would corresponding to the peaks of TSI every 11 years. This is unexpected, and is the discovery. Under the heading “Spot the big clue. There is no peak at 11 years!” we said “The TSI peaks every 11 years or so, yet there is no detected corresponding peak in the temperature, even using our new low noise optimal Fourier transform!”
4. The notch is the starting clue
Lubos says about the absence of an 11 year peak in the temperature datasets: “This is a problem – potentially a huge problem – for any theory that tries to present the solar output as the primary driver even at the decadal scale and faster scales. … It makes the solar theory of the climate much less likely, not more likely. Suggesting otherwise is a case of demagogy.”
Not at all. It is the vital clue that leads us to the delay (which is corroborated at least in part by several studies), and then to the conclusion that an indirect solar force that is not TSI is potentially responsible for most of the recent global warming. This is unfolding in the blog posts already posted, and was available to Lubos in the main paper.
5. Notching originates on the Sun, caused by the synchronicity between two solar forces
Joanne has mentioned that Lubos is attacking a strawman with his arguments about “natural mechanisms on Earth”. This is a major point. We said as much so in the post on interpreting the notch and delay: “As far as we know there is nothing on Earth with a memory spanning multiple years. But there is one climate actor with an 11 year clock—the Sun.” We then proposed force X, which like TSI originates in the Sun, and showed the peaks in TSI every 11 years (on average) always exactly coincide with troughs in force X, which we propose as the notching mechanism.
Curiously, in one of his emails to me Lubos asked about exactly these “unnatural” mechanisms on Earth: “Concerning the unnaturalness, are you religious – what I really mean, do you believe in Intelligent Design?” (10 April). I replied (11 April) “No, I don’t believe in Intelligent design, but in logic, data, and reading carefully 🙂 … The 11 year timing (or more likely, the solar cycle length) almost certainly originates in the sun, presumably as two signals given off by different parts of the sun and 180 degrees out of phase. See Fig. 31. Force X lags TSI by 180 degrees of the 22-year Hale cycle, presumably. Hence the timing and the notching.”
6. The predictions are due to the delay
Prediction due to ringing? No, force X lags TSI by 11 years, so knowing what the TSI did we can predict what force X will do several years in advance—not Fourier analysis, just physical principles. From the post on the physical interpretation of the notch and delay: “Because TSI indicates what force X will do in about 11 years, the TSI record is also a record of future force X.”
Conclusion
It was the world’s sloppiest reading job. I asked for feedback when I first emailed it to him (“I’d really appreciate some feedback, especially if you disagree with or are uncomfortable with some aspects.”). But instead of sorting this out by email, he goes silent then writes a careless blog post that misrepresents the model. Unhelpful.
—————–
*Lubos took the post down. I told him that was unnecessary, I asked him to repost it. I’m reposting it here.
PS: Sadly Lubos has not coped well with this post. He refuses to correct his obvious mistakes, or quote me directly. My emails to him were polite and logical (read them in full here). I’ve asked him for an apology. Credit to him for publishing my comment on his blog. I remain baffled otherwise.
Lubos is very involved in the Ukraine thing and has posted quite excitedly about the Russian actions. He probably doesn’t feel in the frame of mind to be dispassionate about anything right now.
140
Very insightful comment Kevin. I had missed that possible connection.
20
Particles, magnetism, UV from the Sun? Who known how the Sun is affecting the climate on Earth? That said the oceans are also BIG drivers of climate change.
20
Why has Lubos taken down his post? Has he changed his stance? There’s something missing here…
40
Richard, I think it was a misunderstanding. Lubos may be having trouble with English. At no point did I ask him to take down his post. Indeed I asked him to put it back up as soon as I found out. His posts would be more useful if he were careful about quoting exactly, which he rarely does. His readers could help him then. He apparently still does not realize he is attributing false claims to us.
251
Having read negative comments here and elsewhere, it seems the common misunderstandings are either:
– This solar model is claiming TSI is the main temperature driver, or
– This is just another version of past papers on TSI and the lag of global temperature, or
– David is nominating an as yet unidentified force on earth which is the prime driver of temperature.
One wonders how they arrive at such conclusions if they had read all the posts properly. So Lubos and this post has been useful in clarifying those areas.
I am also seeing comments which suggest that there is no value to this theory if David can’t nominate what ‘Force X’ actually is. It is like the climate establishment is saying we’ve got CO2, we know it has a warming effect and we know atmospheric CO2 content has increased at the same time temperature increased since the industrial revolution. If you can’t define ‘Force X’ then there is no value to the model.
They seem to skip over the fact that over 100 of their CO2 based climate models failed to predict stable global temperatures since 1998. Or that their CO2 model performs extremely poorly in hindcast to show periods of cooling and temperature stability. Or that the predictions which were based on the CO2 model caused them to make predictions which just aren’t happening today including accelerating rates of temperature rise and sea level rise; loss of ice in Antarctica; increasing and more severe weather events; disappearance of ice in the summer Arctic and so on.
I’m not suggesting necessarily that what David has done qualifies for a Nobel prize (though I would place the work well ahead of Al Gore and the IPCC), but I would remind people that The Higgs boson or Higgs particle was an elementary sub atomic particle initially theorised in 1964, whose discovery wasn’t announced at CERN until 4 July 2012. A half a century after it was theorised and well after most atomic physicists accepted that it existed, even though they couldn’t prove it and assumed it’s existence in their calculations and predictions.
250
Jaymez,
Agreed. And we have to remind critics that there was a certain individual in Trinity College some time ago who wrote a treatise on gravitation and worked out equations for it. But he could not explain what caused it – Newton’s mysterious Force X. And later of course someone else showed it was the curvature of space. Not knowing what Evan’s Force x is doesn’t necessarily mean it’s not valid.
120
Exactly!
00
..and I don’t think David is going anything like as far as suggesting some new fundamental force. He is just postulating that there is something there that we haven’t been able to recognise and attempts to she’d some light on it.
00
Hi Jo and David
FYI, Lubos has reposted the original blog post and is not backing down regarding any of his assessment/criticisms.
My reading of Lubos key criticism is that numbers can be easily inserted into David’s model to get almost any quantity of warming – or not.
My training is as a biologist and I believe I have a good grasp of the concept of ‘feedbacks’. I would like to understand the difference between a delay with notch system, and what could be broadly defined as a feedback.
42
Jen, unfortunately as you can see from my post and quotes above, Lubos does not understand what we are proposing, and he has no substantive reply at all. He is reduced to namecalling and linking to the “crackpot index”. I quote him exactly, go to every effort to make sure people can read his arguments. He does not quote me, nor let me know when he responds publicly. He could quote my emails but they don’t support his claims at all. eg My only use of the word “cruel” was to say “Cruelty has nothing to do with science.” His paraphrasing bears no resemblance to the truth.
He invisibled the post 7 hours after I told him there was *no issue* of Embargo over the parts he has posted but that I would be responding to it. Was he hoping I would not publish my reply if he hid the page? Luckily I had a copy I could post.
Davids work is a 170 page document and large spreadsheet. It’s really very understandable that Lubos hasn’t read it. Harder to explain is that he did not read Davids personal reply to him on April 11 which corrected one major misconception back then. I fear something else is going on, because I am baffled by his response. He is usually more rational. I hope he is OK.
121
Be aware Jo that we all have our prejudices. For example I am sick of everyone assuming that radiant in and radiant out is IT, and there is no other way to transfer energy out of the climate system. Hence I get dogmatic on having a Loss box on the 3 pipe model. Umlike the warmist camp, sceptics are all going to prefer their pet theories until they “Get it” for my part, picking holes is just a way to examine whether David’s model stands up to critical review. It’s what sceptics do, Lubos’s attention is still bringing attention to the debate.
As I pointed out in part one, (and this is Lubos’s critical misunderstanding) is that David is (correctly in my opinion) making the assumption that changes in TSI over the sunspot cycle should show up in temperature, and the curiosity he is investigating is that it doesn’t. He sets out then to show why not and ends up demonstrating that there MUST be a solar influence other than TSI. It’s trivial, but at the same time remarkable, it was one of those Doh! Moments for me having been shown this it seems obvious.
Lubos needs to understand the simple beauty of this, if we accept that TSI influences temperature (eg if we accept that winter is colder than summer) then the sunspot cycle MUST affect the earth other than by TSI and that second influence is roughly equal and opposite to TSI.
Clearly he misses the point
I’d like to make a very clear assertion while I’m here, the transfer function says that the “path” of the TSI has a frequency response with a notch at 11 years. But doing so David is implicitly making the assumption that the TSI at minimum sunspot is the same as the TSI at peak sunspot – it’s NOT. This is a mistake climate science makes, they assume that all wavelegths have equal effect except in absorbtion bands, and that’s far from proven. TSI at peak sunspot has a different spectrum, particularly in the UV and X-ray. Because of this you can’t rule out that the notch is due to the effects of the changing spectrum of TSI itself over the cycle eg effects of solar refective ozone perhaps (unless of course you already ruled it out somehow) This would cause exactly the same trasfer function you see.
——-
Bobl – to be sure David and I are aware that UV varies widely through the solar cycle. I did point out that UV may be involved in the explanation for Force X. Give us a chance. Rome wasn’t built in a day! – Jo
30
Not complaining Jo, actually trying to be supportive, there is a lot of speculation here that the mystery effect is something different from TSI. I was merely trying to make sure that you and others don’t rule out that the mystery effect is actually a component of TSI.
40
“He is usually more rational. I hope he is OK.”
I’ve stopped reading his posts for a while now (about 6 months) since I noticed a change in his demeanor that wasn’t consistent with previous material. At one point, maybe a year or so ago, he was apparently not at all physically well (he even posted about that), so it could be there are still some issues? In any case, yes, he may not be entirely OK. I also wish him well, but until he gets better I’m not going to bother reading his material.
00
As far as models go, all models depend on their assumptions. Ultimately all models can be “tweaked” to fit curves. What matters is whether they are a useful simulation of reality. Do they fit the observations? The solar model does. GCM’s don’t for the pause, for the LIA and for the upper troposphere.
David’s model does not use feedbacks the way the GCMs do, because his is a much simpler top-down black-box approach where the net global feedbacks are “discovered” through the transform, not individually guesstimated the way the GCM’s do. Davids model can not differentiate between all the different feedbacks, but then the IPCC obviously can’t do that either, though they claim too. We know from observations that they are wrong. The IPCC models are much more ambitious, too ambitious when we don’t understand the basic forcings that apply to the climate. David has gone back to the basics, studying this from a much simpler level. This should have been done before the bottom up huge coupled models were even attempted.
If there are feedbacks directly involved in the delay and notch they are almost certainly Solar ones, not Earthly.
101
Jo, In Lubos’ repost, he does now have a postscript that you might want to read, if you haven’t already…
20
Indeed. I’ve asked him to correct it with actual quotes in context. His paraphrasing bears no resemblance to my emails in either tone or content (see my quote #2.1.2.1). My emails were polite, scientific, and logical. I am prepared to publish my emails to prove that, but I hope he will come to his senses and that would not be necessary. His behaviour was really out of character. I remain baffled.
10
His behaviour was really out of character.
There seems to be a LOT of that going around. It may have to do with NIH. (Not invented Here)
Or it may be: If “they” are right some of what I think is wrong. And how could that be?
01
I’ve had emails with Lubos. He refuses to correct his post or quote me exactly. Anyone can read my: full emails to Lubos here. Judge for yourself.
If he were not a good guy his bizarre and inexplicable paraphrasing would have been a absolute gift for me to shred on my blog. But I have no desire to score points off him. He has not coped well at all with my post.
He owes me an apology. — Jo
Credit to Lubos for at least publishing my comment with a link to my emails on his thread. Though why my continued openness, logical demeanor and requests for him to stay skeptical are construed as “obstructionist” or ad hominem are as inexplicable as everything else.
10
I agree Lubos flubbed the dub here, but your response to him has helped be better understand what you are doing. Thanks and keep up the good work. I’ll be hitting the tip jar soon.
—Thanks Jim. That is most helpful! – Jo
170
I think when new concepts or theories are put out there, its easy to mis-interpret whats being said. Its only once youve become full immersed in the situation you probably appreciate it….
30
The human mind is a mysterious thing in that it is not rational. People know some things. Infer others. And that becomes the model in their minds. New facts or new ways of looking at facts can not break that barrier.
Zen minds are hard to find.*
*The Zen mind is an empty mind.
I think that is in part why you are better received by engineers. They have decades of practice in discarding false hypothesis’ in order to solve problems.
Wrong resistor value? Bad solder joint? The design RC time constant too long? The gm of the JFET insufficient? All but one of those may have to be discarded to solve the problem. Or they could all be true. The only way out is to gather enough evidence (start by measuring the resistor – test and resoldering all the relevant joints – test) to make a decision. And woe unto the engineer who latches on too early to a solution.
I think that is in part what made Feynman such a great physicist. He spent a LOT of time on the Manhattan Project doing grunt work engineering. His examination of a project piping diagram is classic. Which is to say also –> sometimes you get lucky. But better not to depend on it.
11
Why the alarmists like to catch ’em young 😉
The empty mind being open to anything.
00
I agree with that. I have in the past been critical of Lubos. He is very knowledgeable about his field and with mathematics but many are critical of his theory of Quantum Mechanics and String theory (I have read an explanation in “The Shape of Inner Space” by the mathematician Shing-Tau Yau the inventor of the Calabi-Yau manifolds)I find that Lubos has problems outside his field. He really does not understand heat and mass transfer or chemistry. It is a pity that he commented on David Evans theory without fully reading it and understanding the concepts.
I look forward to further posts on this so I can appreciate the concept and how other concepts such as the Miskolczi theory (which no one has discredited) fit in. The Universe, the solar system, atmospheric changes, and life are very complex but always we are learning. It is a pity so much past knowledge has been lost through actions of people who want to restrict knowledge.
71
The method of deriving a transfer function as output/input only works in the absence of noise in the output.
You have assumed that T = f(TSI), T = temperature
In reality there is also “noise”, so a better model would be T = f(TSI) + noise
The “noise” may not be simply additive, but lets assume so for simplicity.
All it takes to get an apparent “notch” is for f(TSI) to have (for whatever reason) a low response to 11-year cycles,
such that its Fourier amplitude drops below that of the noise. The shape of the notch will then simply follow the
shape of the peak in the spectrum of TSI, which appears to be the case here.
03
Miikky
Do you think that it would be okay to call the “reason” Force X for a while instead of Whatever? How about force whatever?
40
It may just be that the 11-year variation in temperature is masked by noise, such as from El Nino.
Only after analyzing (and possibly removing) such noise could one be justified in invoking unknown forces IMHO.
10
ENSO and global temperature are tightly coupled on time spans less than a decade or so, with ENSO leading by 6 months. I’m not sure ENSO should be treated as noise.
60
Exactly Mikky, except that it works despite the noise.
Simple calculations of the effect of TSI from first principles (eg Stefan Boltzmann/low pass filter) and knowledge of how Fourier analysis picks up (semi) repetitive bumps in the temperature noise indicates that the corresponding temperature peaks ought to be easily detectable.
One possibility is that TSI doesn’t have nearly as much effect on temperature, the other is the notch. We are building the solar model that would account for the recent global warming if it was associated almost entirely with TSI, so we are exploring the notch option. Later, after building the model, we will get into some other reasons to believe that the solar solution is what is going on.
In the meantime, the notch implies a delay of about 11 years, which makes the solar case viable. Froehlich and Lockwood 2007 showed that four solar indicators peaked in about 1986 then dropped slightly, yet global warming continued to about 1997 or so. A solar theory of global warming is is very difficult to explain without an indirect force that is delayed behind those four solar indicators by 10 to 20 years, but 1986 + 11 = 1997. Also, the delay has been independently discovered to some degree about half a dozen times that we know of.
70
The notch –> 11-year delay argument is not compelling for me.
A flat 11-year average of TSI gives a “null” for 11-year cycles, no need for an extra notch filter, delay = 5.5 years
There could be a magnetic influence from the sun that gives more/less clouds for less/more TSI,
i.e. cancellation by being 180 degrees out of phase rather than being delayed by 11 years.
10
The way around the noise problem is to do an FT of the input as well as a FT of the output. Then do your division. Even noise has a frequency spectrum. And that drives the Earth system. But you need the exact (as you can get) measures of the input values so as to avoid assuming that all values are equally likely (white noise).
In fact this is done in some advanced algorithms for PID tuning. The noise is the system exciter. Does it always work? No. But it is a very good place to start most of the time. Or you measure the system response to small shocks at a given level and from that response determine the first order “constants” of the system at the level shock was introduced. I have done that. The math and engineering for that one is very easy and in fact is a classic way to determine how a system works.
00
I read his response before he took it down, and found it well off base. Perhaps as he studied your careful postings to date, he realized that himself and acted accordingly. Partial amends for bad manners?
131
I can think of much simpler and effective ways to make amends.
Jo says:
And we’d all do better to remember that especially when dealing with those that generally agree with each other about how science is to advance.
I sense that significant players in the skeptical world are extremely skittish when it comes to protecting their reputations. This likely because of the pressures applied by the mainstream demagogues attacking every weakness seen. Careers have been upset, lives have been upset. It’s a sorry state of affairs and the fear is affecting free speech, free discussion, even the freedom to be wrong.
230
That it couldn’t be arranged for the IPCC to get the Nobel Prize for Physics suggests that things are not as bad as I pessimistically think but people should not get hung up on an idea that there is some reward for proving CAGW to be wrong.
Proving that its a con would still cause you massive grief.
30
Prof Claes Johnson who has been attacked for his sceptical stance on Climate and who has had a run in with Lubos about relativity (and string theory) is to be awarded the Ludwig Prandtl Medal for his breakthrough on Fluid Dynamics (see http://claesjohnson.blogspot.com.au/2014/06/the-ludwig-prandtl-medal.html)and those who do not know of Prandtl see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Prandtl. There is hope that David Evans can be recognised.
70
D Evans1
well now you once again get proof of that to many arnt equipped with normal curtesy and pray upon anyone who can be considered to be a competitor? Dooing headlines for them selves on the behalf of even friends. Its a cannabalistic environment eithin science today?
But this man has to be of interest. He is a science auditor of rang. From his discoverys connected to his work on graphite he is taken on an fantastic heavy responasability to find out where the physics went wrong to understand the difference between his observations and theory.
Hold on to your hat!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8ijbu3bSqI
111
Hi Jo
Well Lubos has given you an opportunity to clear up some misconceptions. 🙂
Am I correct to assume that you are developing, like the GCMS, what is essentially a simulation model?
You are looking to fit equations to a pattern of warming on earth, assuming that warming (or cooling) is global rather than regional (I’m especially thinking of the polars when I say regional)?
You are not so much, at the moment, interested in physical mechanisms that explain the global warming.
But here I think there is perhaps opportunity to be more inclusive. A lot of work has been done by very many attempting to explain observable cycles in terms of feedbacks, particularly with reference to stratosphere cooling, ozone and cosmic rays. They (Nicola Scafetta, Rashid Akmaev, Habibullo Abdussamatov, Ichiro Yasuda, Qing-Bin Lu, Roy Spencer) haven’t used terms such as notch and delay, but given you haven’t explain these concepts in terms of a specific physical mechanism there is much opportunity for the mind to wander… .
Indeed very often people need more examples, and less theory.
Posted a long way down the last thread, I cited the work of Qing-Bin Lu at the University of Waterloo. His cosmic-ray-driven electron-induced reaction (CRE) theory produces 11-year cyclic variations of both polar ozone loss and stratospheric cooling. Also with remarkably good correlations between halocarbon concentrations in the stratosphere and a 9-year delay from surface based temperatures.
321
Jennifer,
I look at it this way, we know from the diurnal and annual cycles that changes in TSI cause changes in temperature, and we accept that geologically TSI due to orbital changes causes the ice ages. BUT among all this evidence that TSI affects temperature, we find that the eleven year sunspot cycle does NOT cause temperature changes.
David is looking at Why not? It’s a really interesting question?
What he concludes is that TSI does cause temperature changes, but there is another synchronised and opposite interfering effect that is cancelling out the TSI effects. If true it shows that there must be another Influence, a cooling effect, unique to sunspot generated TSI changes, and not present in orbital and seasonal cycles.
If David succeeds in showing this is the case, then all the studies that show weak effects of TSI on climate by inferring climate sensitivity to TSI from the sunspot cycle become invalid, except for the case of sunspot induced TSI changes. This opens the door to higher TSI sensitivities, and to longer term TSI not being cancelled in the same way. Modelling the climate using the true picture (two opposite factors) can properly take into account the dynamic changes in both forces over time. I can’t wait to see the outcome!
20
Perhaps Lubos was just having a bad day.
But his actions were constructive. Thanks for the further clarification.
41
Nope. The opposite. Spreading misinformation and insults! If that’s your idea of constructive then I’d hate to see your version of a perfect world.
It’s not just the ad hominems, I mean what was Lubos thinking when he wrote this:
“ But he doesn’t actually even have the electric circuit that behaves in this way …. But even if he had one, that would be very far from having evidence that the Earth’s climate is mathematically analogous to that circuit.”
Lubos complains that David should have added an electronic circuit design that would add no substance to the climate argument. It’s a great example of “thinking out loud” gone wrong. Having realised the circuit is pointless, he could have erased that whole paragraph and lost nothing of value, but he didn’t. The whole essay smacks of a pointlessly argumentative tone; the tone we see most often from warmists who wish that skeptic arguments were fallacious but can’t quite figure out how to make a substantive objection to them – so a barrage of heat, noise, or FUD becomes the substitute.
It reminds me of the time a certain commenter here did the same thing to me that Lubos has just done to David and Jo. As you say, perhaps Lubos was just having a bad day. If anybody can sometimes fail to read everything you’ve written, misinterpret it, then imagine all sorts of evil motives for saying things that you’ve never implied, then there’s no need to invent excuses as to why such recklessness might be somehow acceptable. Just because we can try to extract some good or move on from the event does not retroactively make such despicable behaviour okay.
Forgiving somebody doesn’t require a rationalisation of their wrongdoing, especially when there isn’t one.
200
What Lubos actually said (in the whole paragraph) was
“Thanks to his background, David talks about the “notch filter” and electric circuits that would emulate the same response function that suppresses the given frequencies. But he doesn’t actually even have the electric circuit that behaves in this way (although you may surely design a sufficiently complicated one, involving transistors as well as capacitors and resistors and coils, that would behave like that). But even if he had one, that would be very far from having evidence that the Earth’s climate is mathematically analogous to that circuit.”
I don’t know why Lubos says “electric circuit” when he likely means analytic mathematics corresponding to a notch – such things as poles and zeros, applicable to electrical and mechanical systems, and to models. David DOES discuss such a simple (2nd-Order) notch (Part III, Fig. 1), but not as any “circuit”. That would have been silly on David’s part, and Lubos uses the word “emulate”. So when Lubos says “electric circuit” in his SECOND sentence [and in the portion Andrew replaces with an ellipsis – indicates that he (Lubos) understands the “sufficiently complicated” nature], I therefore discount that Lubos had in mind a literal circuit. What David does NOT have is a full mathematical approximation (many zeros, and it is probably distributed rather than lumped) of the broad bottomed dip. The third sentence is of course entirely correct.
I’m not sure it was wise to call Lubos out here – on what I hope he and David would mostly agree on.
41
And Lubos is wrong about how complicated a notch filter is. It can be as simple as an inductor, a capacitor (condenser for very old hands), and a resistor. And funny enough Lubos has more than enough math to figure this out from first principles. And he didn’t even do that experiment in his head.
We would do much better if our theorists were required to do a year in the lab before being allowed near an equation.
00
Interesting observation, one could also argue that we would be doing much better if our engineers had to spend a year working as a technician prior to be turned loose on design but I don’t expect it will ever happen.
00
Robert
June 23, 2014 at 4:02 pm
Interesting observation, one could also argue that we would be doing much better if our engineers had to spend a year working as a technician prior to be turned loose on design…
Agreed.
00
“Interesting observation, one could also argue that we would be doing much better if our engineers had to spend a year working as a technician prior to be turned loose on design…
Agreed.”
There are places where the technicians are the journeyman and the young with a degree are the the apprentice. What a wonderful place to learn, after the nonsense brainwashing of university!
00
Andrew, that’s my reading of it too, I think you have it nailed.
50
Perhaps it can be a bad day when the little light bulb suddenly glows brightly and you realise you are late to the party ?
And it could have been your party ?
21
Lobos is known for being straightforward. I actually found his write-up quite interesting.
133
I wouldn’t use the word straightforward. “Cranky” is better word.
101
Lubos tells it how he sees it. IMHO there is far too little constructive criticism of Jo and David on this blog.
21
Perhaps David should call it “Force Lubos”.
00
Well yes. Constructive criticism. I’m particularly struck by Willis’ look a the response spectrum graph (Bode plot) and failing to notice the notch.
00
Lobos are wolves.
A bit off topic, but it is important that the range of comments are posted.
It is interesting that Andrew Bolt shows all the comments regardless of how critical of him they may be. The famous Bob Ellis only posts comments which support his warped sense of view.
60
PS. Should have re-read before posting the above.
I did NOT mean to suggest in the above comment that the works of Nicola Scafetta, Rashid Akmaev, Habibullo Abdussamatov, Ichiro Yasuda, Qing-Bin Lu and Roy Spencer are mostly/exclusively concerned with cosmic ray, ozone or stratosphere cooling theory. But rather that their research efforts attempt in various ways to understand global warming (and cooling) in terms of what could be broadly defined as notches and delays originating beyond the earth system…
191
I read Lubos’ comment and preferred the way he had written it as a convolution and then a spectral division over David’s description. I only prefer this because it is the geoscience language that I am familiar with in my everyday professional life.
I think Lubos has (had?) a point and I followed his argument and reasoning. Basically, if you divide the amplitude spactrum of the temps by the amplitude spectra of the TSI a notch appears at around a period of 11 years. As I understand it, Lubos’ argument was that this shows the solar TSI variation is not present in the temperature data. The Notch model presented here is seeking a physical mechanism to explain this. However, Lubos pointed out an alternative argument – the notch is present because the TSI cycle of 11 years is not present in the temp data because it does not inlfuence it. Either interpretation is valid on a prima facie basis.
He has a point. The “transfer function” argument can be used to find the “transfer function” between any two series even if they are not physically related in any way. Provided both time series are over a similar duration (and resolution) then the spectral division can be performed for any data. The result is effectively part of a cross-correlation (the other part would be the phase differences – more in a moment). A cross-correlation highlights those parts of the signal that are similar, and a notch says they are different at those frequencies.
Turning to the phase question, David Evans has not computed the phase spectra for these time series as he has stated they are unreliable for this purpose. It is not clear why this should be the case – in an FFT the result is actually a complex number in a frequency array. The amplitude at any frequency is the Pythogras computation: the square root of sum of squares of the real and imaginary complex numbers at any frequency. The phase spectrum is the division of the imaginary and the real components forech frequency. It is less relaible, sure, but it is very important to the validity of the argument that the notch is a real physical effect.
Because the spectral division to derive the “transfer function” can be performed for any pair of time series of similar time domain length, the transfer function is simply the inverse of the frequency domain function to map one to the other. Because phase is ignored in the work presented, the resulting notch filter is assumed zero phase. As David rightly notes, this results in a non-causal filter. But this would always be the case if the phase spectra are ignored – the ouput is simply assumed zero phase, or has an arbitrary start time.
To be a real physical process the notch filter must be causal, so have no negative time component. This is acheived by time delaying the notch filter. A 10 – 20 year delay will make apparently make it causal, but this is not evidence that any such transfer function is either physical or exists at all as it is constructed on a tautology.
To provide evidence that this is a real physical effect, the phase spectra need to be estimated and their difference plotted. Together with the amplitude spectra we would then be looking at the complete frequency domain version of the cross-correlation. The time domain expression of this would be extremely informative in proving or disproving the physical nature of this effect.
The time delay would appear as a linear slope of -2*PI()*time in the phase spectrum.
141
The first thing we stated was the aim of this project (in bold here and repeated here):
“The initial aim of this project is to answer this question: If the recent global warming was associated almost entirely with solar radiation, and had no dependence on CO2, what solar model would account for it?”
We are proceeding as if temperature is not independent of TSI. If they are associated, then there is a notch. By the way, we will later show some good reasons to think they are associated, but we haven’t got to that yet (but see the post introducing this series).
80
The empirical transfer function only has amplitude information, because the Fourier analysis of the datasets isn’t clear enough to provide reliable phase information.
We then noted that any notch filter, with a transfer-function-amplitude like that, is non-causal. (And to be picky, it is only necessary to show that there are some notch filters that require a delay, so the possibility of a delay exists. Then add a delay to the model and fit it all to the measured temperatures to show that that such a notch with a delay of 11 years is the best solution, which is what we did. Consequently I didn’t bother proving this point about all notch filters in the main paper, just asserting it.)
We then showed in Figure 1 here the notch filter that arises in the solar model that best fits the measured temperatures, as an illustration of a notch filter.
Notice that that Figure includes phases, and they are not zero.
We then noted that a delay is the only feasible or known way of making a notch filter causal. In the frequency domain a delay only changes phases. (By the way, the resulting delay is effected by phases that rapidly change with frequency as shown in Figure 3 in the next post. That’s the slope you talk about, and it is steep and modulo 360 degrees so it wraps around pretty fast. This may have contributed to the inability to get reliable phase information in the Fourier analysis.)
The reason for saying the delay is likely 11 years but between 10 and 20 years is not from the example of notch given, but as stated in the article: “Later, when we fit the notch-delay solar model being developed here to the measured temperatures, we find that the delay is mostly likely around 11 years (but definitely between 10 and 20 years).”
There is no tautology, and the method used here is logically sound and was adequately sketched to indicate that I believe. In any case, the spreadsheet and main paper will soon be out and you will be able to check the calculations and play with alternatives. (For example, its fun to play with the parameters that describe the notch filter, then see the effect on the step response.)
The discovery of the notch and then the attendant corollary that there is a delay blew us away when I found it, and even more so when the delay was found from fitting the model to be 11 years. That seemed like a smoking gun, if the temperature was in fact associated with the TSI, which we later found good reason to believe. That’s why we have committed this much effort to rigorously writing up and documenting the project.
And once you know there is an 11 year delay then a solar solution becomes viable (eg overcoming the argument of Froehlich and Lockwood 2007, 1986 + 11 = 1997, which is when gw stopped). In fact, without a 10 – 20 year delay the solar case appears unviable, but to argue from that to the delay would be illogical.
100
Hi David,
Thanks for taking the time to reply, and so politely. Always a bonus!
To summarise my current understanding based on your reply – we could argue from the presence of the notch that TSI does not affect global temperature. This model has been used to ignore solar influence a instead argue for CO2 driven models. However, no influence of TSI and/or the sun seems illogical, it is the primary energy source after all.
So, if we consider the alternative that the empirical transfer function has physical meaning, then we have a system in which the sun interaction with earth must effectively include a notch filter operating. In order to be physical then it must be a manifestation of some other mechanism driven by the sun but with a delay.
Having read the latest post, I see a posited plausible mechanism could be an influence on albedo in some way. I also note the reminder that we have gone through a solar grand maximum in 1986 but albedo hit a minimum in 1998. And in the most recent period since 1998 we have no significant warming.
I understand where you are coming from now, in terms of your philosophy/reading of the meaning of the implied (empirical) transfer function. The key word I guess is IF we assume the climate model is entirely driven by the sun, what would it look like? I guess I read the wording of the earlier posts as though the empirical transfer function calculation was evidence of this physical model, which of course it could not be, as an alternative explanation would simply be that TSI does not influence climate. Ie the same calculation could be done with any unrelated data, a “transfer function” would always exist, but would simply be an artefact of the differences in the spectra of the two functions. I think this was Lubos’ argument and I certainly came to the same conclusion – maybe it was the way it was worded? I guess it likes sarcasm never works in writing. Your interpretation/argument concerning the empirical transfer function is clear to me now – its not evidence without independent corroboration – but it leads us on a path somewhere that may (I hope is) fruitful.
Anyway, I look forward to seeing in the next posts how you build up the evidence to support the model. Thanks for the replies – I withdraw my objections.
Regards,
ThinkingScientist
PS My advice would be to ignore Mosher and Willis. Mosher talks in riddles and Willis will argue every trivial point until he has the last word, no matter what you say. Publish on your timeline. Its your blog.
10
You’re welcome, ThinkingScientist.
“…as though the empirical transfer function calculation was evidence of this physical model…”. Yes, we noticed that a couple of the people we sent the long document took it this way also. Makes all the difference in the world. You’re not the first and you won’t be the last.
Wish Lubos would notice that, then apply the strong constraint that the system is assumed linear and invariant. Then he might get it. Oh well.
Thanks for being so considerate as to examine my reply, and so polite as to acknowledge the source of the difficulty.
And yes, if in fact there is no connection between warming and TSI then we have done nothing much of interest. For the first half of this series of posts, all we are doing is bulding the model that would account for a solar influence…if global warming was associated with TSI. In the second half we build a case that it is a dominant over CO2. But in any case, the world is about to live through the experiment in the next decade — we’ll all know soon.
10
‘Thanks for being so considerate as to examine my reply, and so polite as to acknowledge the source of the difficulty.'[
Hi David,
I agree with the source of the dificulty. A bit ago you said detaild open a can of worms! I agree! It is hard to flip between the temporal domain, and the frequency domain, and retain comprehension. The detailed math that Lubose uses seems more precise than the Fourier transform, but math is un-understandable, to me and perhaps, any mear mortal.
The Fourier transform with it’s necessary negative frequencies, perhaps opens a whole boatload of giant squid. Negative frequency implies negative time, reversing chirality, negative photons, negative temperature, negative beta, and negative entropy. Do any, of these have a physical observation, Does a negative electromagnetic 1/frequency of 22 years, suck lots of reciprocal heat energy from the earth? That giant squid, creates more fear than any Gerbal Warnings!
landscheid
00
The traditional Fourier transform has the problems you identify Will. I used a modified version in the computations.
If you inspect the OFT document where I defined the FT I was using, you will see I neatly use cosine and sine components at non-negative frequencies only — no negative frequencies, imaginary numbers, time reversals, equivalence of time and frequency, Hermitian symmetries, etc. 🙂
I did my PhD thesis on how to eliminate the unrealistic stuff from the FT.
00
This article is from “The American Thinker”. The author is referencing “A just-released climate model using a notch-delay filter….”
http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/06/a_cold_dawn_coming.html
110
So David is the graph at that site the one you are heading to here?
If so might as well post the remainder of your ‘paper’.
21
> you are developing, like the GCMS
No. This is nothing like a GCM.
As to Lubos: what fun! Naturally, I’m also unimpressed, but you won’t much care about that: http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2014/06/18/force-x-from-outer-space/
[If you have a point by all means state it and have it critiqued here rather simply use this to try to create traffic to your personal blog – Mod]
455
“I’m also unimpressed”
And sooooo unimpressive.. except in your own mind. !!
82
Go easy on William. Remember, he is a legend in his own lunchtime.
212
> If you have a point by all means state it
I could just repeat what I’ve said there, here, but that seems pointless.
The point of correcting JMs “you are developing, like the GCMS” error was, errm, to correct JM’s error. Do you get the point, now?
324
Hi William
GCMs attempt to simulate real physical processes. I can see that David and Jo are attempting to simulate a perceived pattern?
But both are simulations – are they not?
As opposed to say a statistical model that would mine data for patterns.
120
> But both are simulations – are they not?
As far as I can tell, we haven’t been presented with DE’s model yet. We have talk of xfer fns, we have a promise that we’ll be shown a model that will make predictions, but we haven’t seen that model yet; just background stuff. So it seems rather premature to be discussing the model itself. The original post claims “a physical model with physical interpretations (that is, not just curve fitting)” but, well, we’ll see I suppose.
> attempting to simulate a perceived pattern
That’s what GCMs don’t do. There’s no preconceived pattern they are trying to produce. They’re just a discretisation+parameterisation of the atmosphere/ocean with known physics.
112
And the warmunist problem is two fold. 1. The simulation models from first principles are now almost certainly falsified by the pause, using the goals post set up ny NASA in 2008 and Santer in 2011. Even Zweirs now recognizes the problem in his most recent paper. 2. They never could have worked as promised, from first principles. In my last book, with a very short summary posted as a comment at Climate Etc today. No need to repeat it here.I will have a more detailed explanation for you in my next book due yet this year. The essay is provisionally titled Models all the way Down. An Arizona weather front (Tstorms) is ised to illustrate the inescapable ‘fatal flaw’ foe folks like yourself who may not have read actual GCM documentation and are probably allergic to math.
00
Just like your edits at Wiki.
30
w.c.:
‘As to Lubos: what fun! Naturally, I’m also unimpressed, but you won’t much care about that:’
–
False balance. No-one would care if you WERE impressed!
50
“No. This is nothing like a GCM.”
Which gives it at least a fighting chance of actually being useful.
81
Science Blog! More like science fiction. What a total DH
72
FS, this is the weasel that corrupted a whole heap of real science about climate on Wikipedia.
Somehow he managed to weasel his way into be a chief editor.
A truly disgusting abuse of illegitimate power.
171
But then , he does want to get into the Green side of politics.. something he seems totally suited to.
Lies, BS, and wannabe totalitarian control agenda.. right down his alley.
161
Hey William,
The relationship of GCMs to Reality is the same as Lieutenant William Gorman’s Simulated Combat Experience to Real (story context) Combat experience.
Show us all some real empirical evidence of (1) the signature of man made global warming over the last 15 years, (2) drawn from calibrated instruments, with (3) clear and explicit descriptions of the methodologies used to gather and interpret the data — and you might just get some credibility.
70
Glad he took it down. He does tend to shoot from the hip somewhat. He has a fine detestation of Russian leadership and is a passionate advocate of string theory, aka science fiction.
134
David,
your “transfer function estimate” is wrong and produces nonsense in the presence of noise (and there is a lot of that in these data); see my earlier comment to part II and Mikky’s comment above. Again, in signal analysis, it is standard to use the cross spectrum to estimate a transfer function, at least to avoid bias due to noise in the output signal.
Your “estimate” can produce nonsensical results, and in this case, it does. A white noise on the output would give exactly the result you have obtained. With the output (T) spectrum equal to cS + N with S the input (TSI) spectrum (with c a positive factor and N the noise spectral density, both assumed frequency-independent) , dividing by S gives T= c+N/S for your transfer function estimate, which has a dip in the frequency band of the peak in S corresponding to the (~11 year) sunspot cycle. So your result is simply an artefact of using a wrong analysis method.
Again, your method would produce nonzero “transfer function estimates” from the data of total unrelated pairs of signals. Without using a properly averaged cross-spectrum, you don’t have anything that could be called “transfer function estimate”.
111
The first thing we stated was the aim of this project (in bold here and repeated here):
“The initial aim of this project is to answer this question: If the recent global warming was associated almost entirely with solar radiation, and had no dependence on CO2, what solar model would account for it?”
We are proceeding as if temperature is dependent on TSI, somehow. If they are associated, then there is a notch.
By design, the input and output of the system are assumed to be dependent, and we are seeing where that assumption takes us. No need for anything as complicated as a cross spectrum. Simply note that we cannot find the expected temperature signal corresponding to the TSI peaks.
See my answer to Mikky’s question above.
70
If that is so, David, then your initial article about the “transfer function estimate” is irrelevant, and gives readers the false impression that there is an empirical basis for your modelling. Without considering “noise” (e.g. due to unforced variability), you cannot interpret the spectra properly. In fact, what they appear to show is that this “noise” is fairly dominant.
There is nothing complicated about a cross-spectrum. It would actually tell you what is going on, so you do not need to speculate (or, if the error bands of the cross-spectrum estimate are too wide, it would tell you that the data are inconclusive and that we need more or better data)
That depends on what you expect. If your expectation is that the recent global warming was associated almost entirely with solar radiation, then this appears to be contradicted by your ratio of spectra of T and TSI, as it strongly suggests that “noise” (i.e. everything else, and probably mostly internal variability) is dominant. Instead, you go on speculating about obscure mechanisms that could explain these spectra. I am sorry but that does not make any sense to me. It would only make sense AFTER you have checked whether “noise” (unforced variability etc.) could explain the spectra. I am sorry to say this, but your “big news” is a dud.
00
So why the notch in the “noise”? We do know in fact that there is a strong enough 1/2 solar cycle signal because there is a strong signal at 5 years and 22 years. And the “11 year” 1/2 cycle signal is well known and observed.
So why the notch?
00
Why the notch appears in the ratio of spectra of temperature and TSI?
I answered that above (comment #15):
With the output (temperature) spectrum equal to cS + N with S the input (TSI) spectrum (with c a positive factor and N the noise spectral density, both assumed frequency-independent) , dividing by S gives T= c+N/S for your transfer function estimate, which has a dip (“notch”) in the frequency band of the peak in S corresponding to the (~11 year) sunspot cycle.
So the “notch” is very likely CAUSED by the combination of
(a) weak dependence of temperature on TSI , the “noise” (unforced variability etc.) being dominant.
(b) a strong peak in the TSI spectrum at approx. an 11 year period.
So the “notch” contradicts the hypothesis of dominant solar forcing.
00
When trying to forecast future temperatures or assign the main climate drivers it is useless to fiddle about with the mathematics of short term periodicities. From simple inspection of the temperature record it is obvious that 1000 year and 60 year quasi periodicities exist, see Figs 3,4,5 and 6 at
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2013/10/commonsense-climate-science-and.html
These are the keys to the future. Models that can’t be hindcast for 2-3000 years are a waste of time.
The chief uncertainty at this moment is the whether or not we are at or just past the latest peak in the 1000 year quasi-periodicity. The same link gives estimates of the possible coming cooling based on the working hypothesis that we are just past the peak.
In that same link I say
“Furthermore Fig 8 shows that the cosmic ray intensity time series derived from the 10Be data is the most useful proxy correlating solar activity to temperature and climate. – see Fig 3 CD from Steinhilber
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/03/30/1118965109.full.pdf
NOTE !! the connection between solar “activity” and climate is poorly understood and highly controversial. Solar ” activity” encompasses changes in solar magnetic field strength, IMF, CRF, TSI ,EUV, solar wind density and velocity, CMEs, proton events etc. The idea of using the neutron count as a useful proxy for changing solar activity and temperature forecasting is agnostic as to the physical mechanisms involved.
Because the cosmic ray time series is most closely related to temperature the most conservative working hypothesis would be that the cosmic ray flux itself is the main controlling factor a la some version of Svensmark’s ideas and albedo.
Report this
60
“Useless to fiddle with the mathematics of short time periods” is a bit strong. Or as I was taught, all absolute statements are absolutely wrong–except this one. Decadal time periods are useful for decadal forecasts. Simply do not take the method out of range. I doubt Dave and Jo will do that, but have not yet seen their model or it’s predictions. (well, it appears David Archibald might have leaked a little bit, although that could be his own use of if). They said it would falsifiable soon.
Similarly, the Wyatt/Curry stadium wave model is useful for the next wave iteration. That does not mean it is useful for predicting either the next MWP or the next LIA. It is usefull for predicting whether the Northwest passage will be closed or open in 2025. Judith says cooling through at least 2030. That means a prediction of closed. Nice and testable.
This is not to say that your own cyclic curve fit models might not also be useful in their own time frames. And if per chance different frequency peaks and troughs line up as you seem to imply, that would imply more rapid change than would be expected otherwise. That would indeed be nice politically, because it would allow a more rapid removal of the ‘CO2 as climate control knob’ meme currently driving UNFCCC, EU, and US policy.
71
Rud Obviously the 60 year periodicity is helpful in modulating the 1000 year periodicity when making decadal forecasts. But I’m not curve fitting anything- just looking at the actual quasi repetitive peaks in the actual temperature data. see the figs referred to earlier.I see no need to fit the data to any mathematical curves at all, In fact curve fitting often obscures the basic data . Mother nature is ignorant of sines and cosines which are constructs of the human mind.
33
> sometimes I agree with the IPCC
Errm, that’s a link to a post subtitled “Almost everything you thought you knew about man made global warming might be a worthless half-truth”. The “common ground” section is qualified by a question mark, and all you’re agreeing about is the direct affect, whilst implicitly quibbling the feedbacks. So I don’t think you can claim to be agreeing with the IPCC.
You get more credit for http://joannenova.com.au/2011/05/why-greenhouse-gas-warming-doesnt-break-the-second-law-of-thermodynamics/, though that’s pretty basic stuff.
[desperate quibbling! – Mod]
343
Hi William,
I have some wiki links here and associated quotes.
Could you please help me out, I want to be sure that the hypothesis of Catastrophic Man Made Global Warming is indeed Science, and not a pseudoscience like Lysenkoism or Astrology.
What would you deem to be the top three (3) quantified, published in the scientific literature, and measurable with current calibrated instruments, descriptions of falsification criteria for the hypothesis of Catastrophic Man Made Global Warming, such that if any one of these criteria were observed to occur – would definitively refute the the hypothesis of Catastrophic Man Made Global Warming.
I’m sure that such important refuting (as opposed to “confirming”) events are much discussed within the climate science community, as the members of that community would be sure to avoid unprofessional behaviours that instantiate pseudoscientific practices.
On a side note, If I was to posit a hypothesis that “All cats are black”, then a confirming observation would be to observe a black cat, a refuting observation would be to observe a non-black cat.
If I was to practice the discarding, elimination & obfuscation of evidence of non-black cats, and loudly trumpet that only “black cats can be found” – then I would be practising fraud. – Don’t you agree?
50
> Catastrophic Man Made Global Warming is
A strawman invented by the “skeptics”. So I’m afraid you’re responsible for its meaning, not me.
115
Then why waste so many billions on what YOU admit is a non problem.
How many feet can you fit in your mouth at once, [snip] !!!
51
Which part of “Catastrophic Man Made Global Warming” is the strawman?
(a) Catastrophic? – Then lets stop wasting money trying to stop it.
(b) Man Made? – Then all we can do is mitigate risk by adaptation and hardening of infrastructure & social systems.
(c) Global Warming? – Yep – That’s been absent for the last 15 or so years…
(d) All of the above?
OR – is your claim of finding a “Strawman” simply a transparent and vapid attempt at deflection, a poisoning of the well, to avoid having to actually engage with the concept that your side of the debate isn’t doing science?
Rhetoric without substance William?…
30
> (a) Catastrophic?
Yes
> Then lets stop wasting money trying to stop it.
That’s silly. If you can see nothing in between “nothing to worry about” and “catastrophic” then you lack discrimination.
08
So given your misgivings wrt the word “Catastrophic”, let me rephrase the questions.
links here
Could you please help me out, I want to be sure that the hypothesis of
CatastrophicMan Made Global Warming is indeed Science, and not a pseudoscience like Lysenkoism or Astrology.What would you deem to be the top three (3) quantified, published in the scientific literature, and measurable with current calibrated instruments, descriptions of falsification criteria for the hypothesis of
CatastrophicMan Made Global Warming, such that if any one of these criteria were observed to occur – would definitively refute the the hypothesis ofCatastrophicMan Made Global Warming.I’m sure that such important refuting (as opposed to “confirming”) events are much discussed within the climate science community, as the members of that community would be sure to avoid unprofessional behaviours that instantiate pseudoscientific practices.
On a side note, If I was to posit a hypothesis that “All cats are black”, then a confirming observation would be to observe a black cat, a refuting observation would be to observe a non-black cat.
If I was to practice the discarding, elimination & obfuscation of evidence of non-black cats, and loudly trumpet that only “black cats can be found” – then I would be practising fraud. – Don’t you agree?
How will you respond – with Rhetoric or with Substance?
20
I am not yours to command. If you want an interesting conversation, you’ll need to start off by being polite and sensible. Because you haven’t, you’ll get literal answers.
> Global Warming is indeed Science
Yes, it is. However, your ideas of science may well be badly confused. People who have never done any often have naive ideas about it; just like anything else they have no experience of.
08
Rhetoric then… as I issued no commands.
You clearly have no capacity to answer my questions.
(BTW: Majored in History & Philosophy of Science, & Mathematics, followed by Computer Science – been working in Technology R&D for 20 years).
20
I can see a lot of difference. I can also see a lot of things that cannot be changed because we do not have the means, and we did not cause them.
Your ignorance is your downfall.
00
So now only Sketpics are responsible for Algores dire proclamations?
I am sure Wiki will say exactly what you want it to.
10
Connolley, apart from destroying the reputation of Wikipedia have you ever contributed anything positive to anything ?
62
Nope.. he has not contributed one iota to human civilisation.
21
The Griss,
I disagree – William is contributing to the downfall of the renaissance civilisation that dragged western society part way out of a culture rooted in ignorance, superstition and dictatorship, and is now working to replace renaissance civilisation with a new instantiation of the previous culture – not one centred on a corruption of Christianity, but one centered on a godless illusion of brutal, human hating, pagan earth worship, where the highest value is blind obedience to Authority.
30
Oh… you meant “one positive iota to human civilisation”
30
Progressive (as a political term) = Regressive (The ultimate conservative – horrified by the last 400 years of progress and liberation of Humanity).
William is a Progressive = Regressive.
30
David, you wrote:
“(…) and then to the conclusion that an indirect solar force that is not TSI is potentially responsible for most of the recent global warming.”
If by this ‘indirect solar force’ you mean some ‘mechanism’ that abruptly changes the general ocean/atmosphere regime in the Pacific basin, like a shift in mean pressure patterns, then I’m (almost*) with you. Because that is what we see happening. Major ocean/atmosphere rearrangements occurred in the Pacific in 1976/77, in 1988/89 and in 1998/99. These documented regime shifts are ALL associated with sudden steps up in global mean temperatures, driven by ENSO-related processes, but always conspicuously being taken during the exact same critical phase of the ongoing solar cycle – as it’s moving toward its peak. In fact, the whole ENSO sequence, repeating itself four times since 1970, faithfully rolls with every new solar cycle in equal fashion. Post ‘the Great Pacific Climate Shift’ of 1976/77. There is some connection there which has yet to be unravelled.
http://i1172.photobucket.com/albums/r565/Keyell/Total_zps6eb56868.png
http://i1172.photobucket.com/albums/r565/Keyell/NINO34vsSSN-syklus_zps5da3dd00.png
Notice how the ENTIRE ‘modern global warming’ is contained within the three global steps relative to NINO3.4 in 1979, 1988 and 1998 …
*’almost’, because the last two instances of pressure regime shifts (1988/89 and 1998/99) happen during and after major pools of warm water have accumulated and spread out over vast areas in the West Pacific as a result of the waning of huge (solitary) El Niños into equally huge La Niñas. These pools could themselves have forced the change in general pressure regime. So not necessarily solar in origin. The solar connection in this case would simply be ‘control of the ENSO sequence’.
30
Maybe the connection is due to a harmonic oscillation, where periodicities in the ocean are reinforced by the minor, but regular, solar variation?
21
Such periodicities would necessarily be perfectly harmonic with solar variation, which is, again, highly suggestive of ‘ForceX’.
20
This might be a valuable insight, and fit with where we are going. However we are staying at the global temperature level.
30
“Notice how the ENTIRE ‘modern global warming’ is contained within the three global steps relative to NINO3.4 in 1979, 1988 and 1998 …”
Now look at the small ElNino in 2010… no residual warming at all, ..
…in fact it had a kick downwards just before the Elnino, almost as though it lacked any energy.
30
Bob Tisdale shows this quite well.
http://oi35.tinypic.com/j0f89k.jpg
(keep clicking on the image, it has 4 screens)
30
Jo writes:
This reminded me of an interesting blog post I saw the other day regarding social media. Forgiving was easier when people’s memory was the main record of wrongdoing. Now that we have an Internet that never forgets, purging past misdeeds is almost impossible. Yet the only way society can function is through forgiveness (as much economic research into reputation systems shows). It is almost cliche today to say that technology is evolving so rapidly that it creates problems faster than society can cope with. Maybe this is an area where the cliche is true. Perhaps in the age of the Internet we are going to have to increase our capability and willingness to forgive, since forgetting is no longer an option.
In other words, how does Jo do this?
“Hey Lubos, no hard feelings, but next time […]”
If these words are more than perfunctory then it shows forgiveness capacity of a grand scale.
150
Please can we have the old JoNova blog back please?
This article is exactly the kind of thing sceptics hate from the propaganda wing of The Team: debunking a critic.
I think David needs to pause and review for several months to avoid what is looking to me like a slow motion train crash.
Most sceptics stick to observations and avoid theory, both winning strategies.
Observations: The Team cannot establish that the climate today is anything out of the ordinary.
Theory: The Teams theories are not worthy of the name.
Australia is a shining light in a world of green eco-doom, I’d hate to see this blog suffer.
1112
What ever happened to serendipity in science? Just as long as he explains his ideas instead of jumping on a soap box, he’s fine regardless of the outcome.
Since when did sceptics avoid theory? Calling modelling ‘experiments’ (I was in field were a theoretical chemistry liked to refer to the runs as experiments), yes but not theory.
70
Disagree…thought I was pressing thumb down….mobile touch keyboard doesn’t always react properly.
FWIW…I am glad to read David’s work. It’s giving my brain a very good challenge as it’s years since I did much maths! I think it’s all very exciting.
60
Me too Annie, haven’t had so much fun in ages, which just shows what a geek I am!
20
If Lubos took the post down it’s now back up.
00
I have followed Lubos’s comments for quite some time. From his own words, he detests anything approximating philosophy: metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, …. He persistently and implicitly uses his version of those things anyway. His only choice is to use an unexamined implicit philosophy that he unthinkingly absorbed over the years or an explicit one that he has been examined and validated according to his own choosing.
His other mania is his belief that reality IS math. The simple principal that the math is one way to describe some of the behavior of a chunk of reality seems to be beyond his willingness to conceive. His math is his god and it creates the only reality he is willing to accept: still more math. He chases after mountains of equations and loses sight of what is real. Some day he might discover reality in all its wonder and glory but I won’t bet on it. Most likely he will continue to calculate and never grasp that there is anything real underlying HIS equations.
I find it all quite sad but not uncommon.
153
For what it’s worth, the shape of the peak of solar cosmic rays alternates each 11 year phase from flat to sharp and then back. This leaves approximately two of each shape and one of the other in each phase of the PDO, the following phase having the alternate configuration.
I thought of this elegant, clock-like mechanism several years ago, but Leif Svalgaard calls it a lower order effect, and it probably is, but I’m reminded of it when I read this ‘mysterious, original’ stuff.
==================
31
Open: “In typical style skeptics love to criticize, it is our strength. Sadly, diplomacy, manners, courtesy — burned at the door on a moment’s notice.”
Conclusion: “It was the worlds sloppiest reading job.”
Uhm. Perhaps the exaggeration of the conclusion better supports the general proposition (that diplomacy is disposable, among skeptics ) than that the specific “reading” was incompetently or maliciously conducted.
30
It, erl, Happens I like ultry-violet rays, but cosmic rays are so seductive.
================
21
I have absolutely zero idea whether David is right in his theory. But I do get the feeling that if he is wrong, he will stick his head in his hands, shout ‘bummer’ then ask jo to pass him the cactus.
and thats good enough for me
120
I think that most physicists cringe at the notion of a new “force”, particularly against the background that an appellation “Force X” constitutes a degree of reification. Physicists are in the business of reducing the number of uniquely known forces. Since Force X is admittedly unknown anyway, why not just report the observation as unexplained at this point. “Force X” may be a semantic shortcut in writing, but it generates its own luggage.
32
Evans didn’t postulate a new FUNDAMENTAL force. Jusy sayin’.
90
Don’t confuse the label for something, with the materiality of that something.
61
In an ideal world – true. In the real world sounds too much like “Force X – Order in the next five minutes and get a second bottle absolutely free!!!!” First impressions matter.
12
Only to the impressionable.
70
I was silly enough in a draft to use a smiley while I dithered about which letter to use for a parameter.
First impressions do matter.
00
I’d not call anything Evans did as discovery. Willis Eschenbach has already claimed multiple times that you cannot find 11-year cycles in many climate datasets, and with data to support his claims.
You can put this fact in terms of input and output, and then the lack of 11-year cycle in temperature data is described by a “notch filter”.
28
I disagree.
I am perfectly comfortable with the notion that David Evans has discovered a new application for the principle of notch filters, and the associated math. If you disagree, then give us a reference to whomever discovered it previously.
162
Dividing input by output, both from observation, is a valid approach. It reveals what we should have been asking ourselves all along. Given 130 years or so of temperature data, why don’t we see SOMETHING of the ll year cycle? We should be seeing something, yet we don’t. Why? Maybe it’s the notch filter. Time will tell.
40
It has always been the case that skeptics disagree on the details of how things actually work, even though they disagree with the AGW thesis. I’ve read numerous debates on this blog that prove this point. The comments about the Solar Model being built up part by part right now also demonstrate this.
Putting aside Lubos’ transgression and taking a cue from politics, those with the single problem description, single problem mechanism and single solution always seem to come out on top. I know why this is so and I suspect everyone knows why. The concerted position, especially if it can also play upon fear in some way can easily get attention. There’s no tendency to confusion on the part of the target audience and no problem believing what they’re told because all the apparent authorities say the same thing.
This leaves skeptics always behind the 8-ball. The question in people’s mind is who’s understanding or theory of climate behavior do you believe? Who is the authority on the subject?
Now what are we going to do about this?
As everyone surely knows, the climate change monster has thoroughly infiltrated popular culture and the halls of government. And even as polls show more and more people don’t believe the hype, we’re more and more forced into the mold that the fanatics want us in. We may win every battle but lose the war.
We have to stop appearing to argue with each other and present a concerted, sound argument that says global warming isn’t happening and have a single, easy to understand explanation as to why. With that we have a chance to turn the tide in favor of common sense because in spite of there being much work to do in the science arena, the problem we have is not science but politics. “Carbon” has been made the villain in the court of public opinion. We need a defense lawyer in that court to show how “carbon” is not a villain.
I’m impressed with the knowledge of many who comment on this blog. I’ve been impressed by Jo’s work for a long time. I’m impressed with the work Jo and David have done on this Solar Model. I’m impressed with David’s Optimized Fourier Transform (OFT) — Indeed, I was finally snowed under by it. He’s no slouch at the math and some of mine is as rusty as a discarded tin can. But I reiterate, the problem is politics, not science or math. And we need to attack it the way our opponents are working against us — get an act together that will be consistent and counter the basic claims of AGW or I think we’ll end up on the losing side.
And I hate being repetitious. But I think we all know I’m basically right.
160
You make a good point about skeptics. But the best attack on the Warmunist momentum built up since 1988 is to say it isn’t (only) CO2. But I can assure you from many board room level equivalent debates, that by itself is politically weak. You need to also say what else and why.
To get even more precise, to mount an effective political counter attack, there are at least three components.
1. The GCMs cannot be right. The pause surely helps there, but see 2. But there are deeper inherent reasons. The finest grid scales possible are insufficient to resolve convection cells. Therefore they cannot model the equivalents of Lindzen ( and later Eschenbach) adaptive iris. Therefore they get humidy wrong ( too much because not enough precipitation) and clouds ( too little). Evidenced in things like CMIP5 tropical troposphere hot spot when none exists. The model solution was parameterization tuned to hind cast over a period where natural warming also occurred . Asakofus point that of course they run hot with too high TCR and ECS. But now reduce that to a sound bite. Hard.
2. Natural varaibility is in the mix. The pause. But we already know the counters. Temporary, deny invalidate models, cannot wait another 20 years (precautionary principle.) and we don’t have counter counters because we don’t know enough. Stadium wave is one of the first powerful counters. Another is PDO. Another is AMO, especially if Arctic ice recovers. Still years before it bites. Judith Curry’s uncertainty monster is not slowing ( yet) the science is settled momentum in the US.
3. Natural variability includes the Sun. This is immediately powerful (intuitively), and because warmunists have insisted it isn’t true because of relatively invariant TSI. That is why they have been fighting Svensmark, who says it isn’t TSI. Now if David can come up with a model using ‘force X’ (Svensmark being the leading physical mechanism candidate) that makes predictions just a year or two or three out that are right when GCMs continue to be wrong, then we have the political sound bite needed. It wasn’t (mostly) CO2. It was mostly the Sun and the oceans. See? Artic recovering. See, colder temps predicted by solar magnetic reversal and weak cycle 24 actually happened. Things voters will get.
So I hope and trust that is where David and Joanne are driving this. Then useful by the next US presidential election, at least.
160
That’s very good, Rud, both scientifically and politically
If shorter-term predictions are accurate, without invoking CO2 … well, that is potent
90
Thanks. And of course I always agree with myself… Except when I dont on further reflection.
70
So, 0.6 degrees C by June ’16, per Archi? Close enough for comfortable bellybuttons and government horseshoes.
================
00
I agree with you that the issue is not science but politics. It’s politics in its most pathological sense: power and control just for the sake of power and control. That being said, I have often found that the political system can be unsettled and moved to a new set point by a stream of sufficiently operative technological artifacts. To do that, one must have the correct science, correctly understood and applied. When done well, the politics are irrelevant.
In other words, the politicians can’t cross their river of desire until some engineer designs and builds a bridge strong enough to carry their fat a**s*s over the river. THAT is our strength and their weakness. It represents our point of entry and leverage! We need to learn to use it wisely.
70
Politics is a chaotic system, it consists of a set of strange attractors, it has some major attractors, green ideology (communism), Left centre (Labor ideology) and right centre ( Lib/Nat ) and floating round those major attractors are minor attractors being major factions, minor parties and “issue groups” to dislodge an idea in politics, one needs to change the morals of the population to approach one of the attractors closely enough, public opinion will tend to flip to the nearest attractor.
Some other strange attactors, are Christine Milne, Jilia Gillard and Barrack Obama, less attractive…. more strange… /joke
20
I don’t think science will do it. With the current makeup of the voting public in the U.S. (just for instance), how many of the likely voters will recognize one of the most elementary principles of mechanics, f = ma, something relatively easy to demonstrate? How do they get a grip on something like heat and temperature which are not so easy to demonstrate? And then there are those with no college. A lot of them can’t tell you who their senators and representative are or who is president right now.
Science, especially physics and chemistry, not to mention the math required for those subjects, just doesn’t reach most of the people I have seen every day over the years. And there’s another dimension to the problem, those who think they know more than they really know. I’ve no idea how to deal with them if we can’t confront what they’re now hearing everyday is “their” problem.
I’m open to another approach but we need it now, whatever it is. Everyone hears or reads these days about the danger of “carbon”. It seems to me that you can attack that directly some way or another. But if someone has a different idea I’m all eyes with which to read about it.
60
Roy, I am trying to finish a third book on this. Bite sized essays, each the seeds for a sound bite, every one constructed for the (low) intellectual level of politicians. My next personal contribution, some essays partly test driven courtesy Judith at Climate Etc
Now is relative. The warmunists spent from 1988 to now gathering momentum. With the right science, the right ‘polar bear’ simplifications, a lot of grass roots work, and some eloquent politicians, we can prevail over this madness. Not immediately; Rome was not built in a day.
So rather than lament, a challenge: what can you personally do that will make a difference this year? In the next election cycle? Beyond. Joanne has been doing it. David has been doing it. Judith Curry been doing it at considerable professional cost. Dick Lindzen, Steve McIntyre, Anthony Watts, Lucia, TonyB, Ross McKintrick, Nic Lewis, … Each in their own way. Figure one out, and just do it. Glad to help out if anything to contribute.
BTW, I vote in the US. But usually for neither political party. Being socially liberal and fiscally conservative just does not fit in well.
140
I think Andy West does quite a reasonable job of the CAGW CO2 phenomenon, which has also been described on WUWT as a ‘cultural creature’. It is far removed from science and reason and defies all norms of falsifiability.
It strikes me a new meme is required, largely for displacement purposes. Science, rational thought, economics simply won’t change things much – that much is obvious. However, us skeptics do increase in number and represent an growing mass of social inertia. Where the ‘tipping’ point for change lies, Gaia only knows. I hope it is soon. The madness and social narcosis is maddening, with individuals like Kerry babbling about green energy solutions as a cure for the poverty that lies at the cause of for ISIS fanatics, for example.
30
When the only tool you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail.
When you’re an EE everything looks like ‘black box’.
00
Shocking! 🙂 (Traditional EE joke.)
10
Definitely! There is a running debate now over Leif Svalgaard’s comments on solar cycles (I really would like to see him commenting on Jo’s blog). I have no idea if he is a skeptic. But the skeptic commentators are divided with half arguing with him, and half arguing against him.
I do not know enough to comment one way or another so I just read and learn.
00
I meant to add that the comments are at WUWT.
00
Thank you all for your interest in what I had to say.
Here’s what I would do — and without any name calling or ad hom attacks — go after the failure of their predictions to come true. They have at least 2 decades of things they promised us would happen and they haven’t happened.
— sea level hasn’t risen enough to endanger anyone (in spite of Al Gore, et al)
— Polar Bears are not in any danger and are thriving in most of their range (in spite of…)
— CO2 levels have continued to increase but temperatures are slightly declining
— actually, in terms of climate, winters have been getting colder in many places…uncomfortably so
— and hot days vs cold days may be nothing more than natural variation within a stable range of climate
— and when asked,not one member of the IPCC could state what the Earth’s ideal climate should be, so how then do they know it’s wrong?
— the north pole was open water in the mid 1960s with pictures posted here to prove it
— Kilimanjaro has been losing ice for over 100 years (probably more but no one was there making a record of it)
— then there’s all the documented cheating and lying
— I can go on but you get my idea I’m sure
We make the case, prediction vs. actual, point by point. I know this can be convincing except to those with the vested interest because it’s what convinced me.
And to make my case all the more convincing to all of you, here’s my confession:
When I first heard about global warming it sounded like another fad that would soon disappear from public view, much like the ozone hole. But it kept coming around and around and around. So I began looking more closely at sites like junkscience which I alrady knew about. That led me to the Heritage Foundation and one day (unannounced) they sent me a copy of Jo’s The Skeptic’s Handbook. I read it and was impressed with how she pinpointed the real argument, evidence. So I began reading this blog and finally dared to say something. All that while I was “looking over my shoulder” half afraid that the predictions might be true. It was not until I had seen a substantial circumstantial case building up that contradicted the “conventional wisdom” that I became convinced that, yes global warming is fraud and I could quit worrying about it.
The actual evidence doesn’t fit what’s happening. You have a lot of trouble arguing against a recognizable authority figure in science. But they have no end of trouble fighting back against documentable facts about what is actually happening, especially when those facts don’t uphold what the science authority says.
I sat on a jury once, a criminal trial where 100% of the evidence was circumstantial. The defendant steadfastly insisted he was innocent. I watched that jury become convinced of his guilt and we convicted him. People are not stupid. They may lack analytical skills or other intellectual tools but then, I didn’t have those things either when I started my adult life and had to make my way through the world, do or die. So if I can be taught by experience and by what someone else has to say, so can millions of other people. We need to quit arguing the details of how things work, except maybe privately, get our single position together and then keep putting it the public’s face until it has its effect.
But we need that way to get this in front of the public!
No real science is needed, just the comparison between predicted and actual.
I rest my case.
10
I read David’s postings the 1st time and understood the point he was trying to make. I am of course also an electrical Engineer who happens to work on amplifiers with filters with positive and negative feedbacks. Daniel G–Willis Eschenbach could not find the 11year sunspot in the temperature record. Duh–that’s the point David is trying to make. But he plotted a transfer function Vs frequency based off measured data which shows why the 11yr TSI is not there, It is filtered out by a notch filter! This has NOT been published before to my knowledge and in my opinion has already advanced the state of knowledge in climate studies. If he is correct as I think he is,then the Sun is creating this notch filter. And as all electrical engineers know (this is taught in early filter design classes) notch filters cause a delay. So to extrapolate from the measured temperature data and notch response, as delay in temperature response is notch a large stretch.
140
Bob B said in part “And as all electrical engineers know (this is taught in early filter design classes) notch filters cause a delay.”
I hope they taught you that ALL causal filters (low-pass, high-pass, band-pass, notch, even all-pass) have a delay.
30
They taught me that … in fact, I sometimes had to wait for weeks for some of my filters to pass anything 😉
60
Well, you do exaggerate just a bit! But I did have two students take an hour measuring the response of a filter that did not have its supply plugged in – the breadboard and attached supply all the way back to the open AC plug were easily driven by the function generator. The response was flat!
40
Oh, you noticed? Gosh! Note to self – decrease level of subtlety, increase level of sarcasm, and don’t bother including the wink icon.
80
I understood completely. Hence my reciprocal funny story.
But I am sorry, I have no idea how to produce a “wink icon” (if it’s simple – please tell me), hence the use of the traditional exclamation point in its stead.
You are not actually one of the two guys who left the power supply floating in my lab – are you ! (Joke)
20
Bernie “wink icon” on a qwerty keyboard hit ; then shift ) don’t worry I only learnt this recently also 😉
10
type ; then ) without the space 😉
10
All these winkies make me feel like I am at a hookers convention! 😉
00
Thanks Bob! I knew most of the EE’s would get it straight away.
30
David and Jo, just one point. You are assuming more or less an linear time invariant system. What if you view the effect more like a digital system where Force X is gated
ON/OFF every T=1/11 yrs?
20
Please disregard my last post! What I suggested will cause a 11 year frequency point to appear in the temp data—sorry—duh!
50
Jo & David,
I am saddened by the post by Mr Lubos Motl. This is precisely the type of statements that will be taken by the Lame Stream Media to vilify and put down valid research that may shed some light about warming/cooling cycles here on earth. That is the point of research, you are trying to figure out the unknown. Although I don’t have as much of a scientific pedigree (degrees/doctorates) as some, I do have published papers, two (2) Citations from NASA, my work has been written up twice in the publication, NASA Tech Briefs, and I have been a presenter at an International SAE conference. My innovative work on the International Space Station, Water, Laundry and Medical Aspirator Systems was a combination of physics, pure research and engineering. Lots of research leads to dead ends, or to inferences leading in a direction un-thought of before. That is the very nature of research.
I must admit that a lot of what has been presented so far is over my head, since electronics is not my field. I would not be competent to critique/review David’s work. That being said, however, I have no trouble following the path that this is taking, and may have some questions later as I digest the information further. By being knowledgeable in several disciplines I can sometimes see connections that you can’t when focused in one field. It is much easier for me to think out of the box than most scientist/PhD’s, because I, not knowing everything, still ask “why”?
Thank you both for the time and effort this work has taken. For some of us the quest for knowledge continues well into our semi-retirement. Again, I am a consistent reader of your blog, and always enjoy what is presented.
Best regards,
Neil D. Streech
201
Thank you, Neil, for your excellent comments.
Honesty and open sharing of information are probably required for the mutual survival of all of Earth’s inhabitants.
But we are each endowed with a selfish survival instinct that threatens our mutual survival.
Here is an approximate quote that suggests a way out of mankind’s dilemma:
“There is a bit of good in the worst of us,
And a bit of bad in the best of us,
But we are all children of God
And we each have a right to be here.
When I complain about me or about you,
I am complaining about God’s handiwork.
I am saying that I know better than God !“
10
Joanne, not having much training in Fourier transforms and the like, I too was skeptical. My reading of Parts I-III amounted to my own perception that the graph with the “notch” simply makes the statement that the sun’s total irradiance has a 11-year cycle, which of course is not news. I went on to think that you and Evan’s work amounted to looking for some force that cancelled out the expected 11-year peak on Earth’s temperature, rather than the simpler explanation that the 11-year cycle has no inherent effect on temperature. Isn’t that what Lubos said?
Maybe the presentation of the work should be overhauled completely. If the findings are so revolutionary, why not minimize misinterpretation?
I’m an AGW skeptic myself. I believe in being convinced, pro and con.
Brian
11
And if you should decide to rewrite, I’d nix the terminology “Force X.” It’s a magnet for ridicule.
10
The delay is the big deal Brian. We deduce the delay from the notch.
A solar solution only becomes viable with an delay of at least 10 years, to overcome the argument of Froehlich and Lockwood 2007 (four solar indicators rose to 1986 then fell away slightly, yet global warming continued until 1997 or so). With a delay 1986 + 11 = 1997, which is when about when gw stopped. Without a 10 – 20 year delay the solar case appears a non-starter.
30
The most important discovery is that there is a notch in the response which infers a likely 11 year delay (bounded as a possible 10 -20 year range) which fits with other independent studies and also with the larger solar cycle. David has marked out what we know about this force, and TSI seems to be signaling what will happen with it in the future. It is believable that there would be a resonant cycle inside the solar dynamo.
David initially was expecting to find a low pass filter pattern. If he had found a low pass with a long break point – say 20 years, that would support the idea that the 11 year variations are smoothed out and made invisible. That would have agreed with your simpler explanation, but that is not what he found. Initially the 11 year “spike” looked like the idea that he could show there was a simple low pass filter operating was not possible, and David was ready to dump the project (I have seen him do that before — he can be remarkably detached to things he has put a lot of work into if the data does not agree). But the spike was in every dataset, there was a message there. The notch implies a delay. It’s a true delayed effect, not a long smoothing. Solar TSI of 5 years ago does not correlate well with temperature changes, and nor does TSI from 15 or 20 years ago.
Unfortunately at the moment Lubos does not understand the main findings or proposals. I do hope he can just acknowledge the “bad day” and move on.
20
Quote WC, June 20, 2014 at 12:28 am:
“No. This is nothing like a GCM”
And, as ALL the GCM’s you refer to have failed, this can only be a good thing.
Unless you have a link to the GCM that predicted ‘the pause’ with carbon(sic) levels at 400ppm?
70
Incredible
I am not in the least bit qualified to comment on technicalities of
yours and David’s work, but even I noticed and commented on the fact
that you had ruled out any eathbound mechanism. I even suspected that
you were intimating that the sun was the perpetrator of force X.
Protocol Lubos Protocol, always
40
Let me offer a bit of encouragement. Neither, in a purely technical sense (as defined by them) am I. Delayed notch filters! EE! I struggle with carburetors and diesel fuel injectors back on my farm.
But I am reasonably well educated in other fields, and have brought that learning to this one. In the end, most science is common sense (OK, quantum physics excepted, but then I would cite Feynmann on that…just weird). Remember Einstein’s elevator though experiments that led to special relativity. You don’t need to follow his math, only his thought experiments in order to ‘get it’. You can Google those.
Here we have a direct climate analogy. Onward! More posts, please.
70
Please go to wolframalpha.com and type transfer function, then input 0.5*(s^2*11^2/(2*3.14)^2+2*0.04*s*11/(2*3.14)+1)/(s^2*7.6^2/(2*3.14)^2+2*s*7.6/(2*3.14)+1)
and you’ll se that the notch filter step response is all wrong!
However, that’s not important, since you cannot even show that TSI filtered by your model gives a reasonable temperature reaponse.
Lubos is quite right ….
alternatively, just goto
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=transfer+function&a=*C.transfer+function-_*Calculator.dflt-&f2=0.5*(s%5E2*11%5E2%2F(2*3.14)%5E2%2B2*0.04*s*11%2F(2*3.14)%2B1)%2F(s%5E2*7.6%5E2%2F(2*3.14)%5E2%2B2*s*7.6%2F(2*3.14)%2B1)&f=TransferFunctionCalculator.transferfunc_0.5*(s%5E2*11%5E2%2F(2*3.14)%5E2%2B2*0.04*s*11%2F(2*3.14)%2B1)%2F(s%5E2*7.6%5E2%2F(2*3.14)%5E2%2B2*s*7.6%2F(2*3.14)%2B1)&f3=UnitStep(t)&f=TransferFunctionCalculator.inputfunc%5Cu005fUnitStep(t)
32
The spreadsheet with all the calculations will be out soon. The computation of the step response of the notch filter shown in Figure 1 here is correct, and you will be able to verify that.
It is well known that notch filters are non-causal. No idea what WolframAlpha is doing.
20
Well, you can check Matlab or any other program for filter design. Anyway, independent of the causality, you have reversed the time and the sign in your response, looking forward to the final report.
00
Who is Henry Lubos? Never hard of him before today.
40
Jo and David
The electrical engineers are following the development of your ideas very well but others are obviously struggling a bit.
So I’ll repeat my suggestion from the other day. Please publish your 2 page version of the work’s results so we all get an idea of the “big picture” and then continue what you are doing with the blog posts giving the detail.
If we can see the big picture then it should be easier to follow the detail.( I thought I was alone with struggling with the approach you are taking until I read Jennifer M. #7)
60
Nova squealing that Lubos was rude is a bit rich don’t you think? She’s made a career out of insulting climate scientists. Now hubby produces some kitchen “science” and gets upset when someone knocks it over unceremoniously. Piss weak.
333
“climate scientists”. Really !. Please name the ones you are referring, to see whether they have any credibility.
Good Luck.
111
Did you just step off the set of Lord of the Rings?
/rhet.
41
Fin, most climate scientists deserve a sound factual insulting. Let’s see, Mann’s hockey stick. Dessler’s positive could feedback with an r2 of o.o2! Or perhaps you prefer Trenberth’s missing heat below 2000 meters, ignoring thermodynamics. I would go on, but it is after dinner.
You got some ‘ facts’ them bring them. Blathering does not cut it any more.
131
FIN,
“Nova squealing that Lubos was rude is a bit rich don’t you think?”
No, what’s rich is a troll who jumps in full of righteous indignation with spurious claims of insults on ‘climate scientists’.
To be expected, ‘climate scientists’ avoid any debate because that would necessitate providing evidence to support their case.
JoNova provides equal opportunity in an open forum for robust debate as evidenced by the very high number of comments on any given post.
Pro-AGW sites actively censor and veto commentors and debate as evidenced by extremely the low number of hits.
In fact the reason for trolls and pro-AGW activity on JoNova is more to do with their need for validation that is not otherwise fulfilled by posting on low-volume warmist blogs.
201
Well said James,
(I take it we are on first name terms now?)
The other thing is that the Pro-AGW acolytes just get pure confirmation bias on their own sites; and they are so seriously serious, it hurts.
So they are a bit like possums in the headlights when they come onto a science site with some banter. Perhaps the level of confidence bothers them.
31
Yes, Rereke, and we here on the West Island have a saying that adequately describes their bhaviour (and coincidently remains on the climate theme) – Hiwa Hau Maka – Beware the Blowhards…
11
That is very good. Koe aka te Reo — You speak the language.
00
Stereotypical trollish statement and agitator.
Also “piss weak” is hardly a cutting remark for a troll, good god man show some panache!!
51
No, Yonnie, in all fairness, I used it me self in your defense against Brian a couple of topics ago, I quite like it – simple yet… simple.
20
“Feeble”, would be the word I would use to describe his post.
21
I suppose I agree. In relation to the subject it is not quite an appropriate comment about our host. Obviously uncomfortable with conversational Aussie vernacular.
20
James let’s just say I’m more than familiar with Aussie slang especially profanities 😉
My comment was to mock FIN’s attempt to insult with a reply that parodied a cliché aristocratic dialect which in turn countered FIN’s dubious use of a perfectly good Aussie saying.
That explanation seems a bit piss weak, sorry 🙁
10
Sorry, Yonnie, I was referencing FIN when commenting about unfamiliarity with Aussie slang.
I’m pretty certain you have a handle on it.
10
No worries cocko!
00
P.s. I still think it was an inappropriate comment towards our host.
10
By FIN…
10
Notcho Mama!
========
10
“Climate scientists” Really? Please name those who you are referring to see whether they have any credibility!
Good Luck.
50
The cross-spectrum reference. Is truly important!
You do not need a lot. Use the otf filter to choose five detectable frequencies on each side of the 11 year period. Use those 10 to show the output (temperature) does indeed have a response at each frequency, (phase delay) would be helpful to determine the actual transfer function over that range of frequencies. This will give the reference and an expected response to the 11 year cycle. Only then can you say that there is no 11 year response. Dividing any single frequency input into a constant output at all frequencies must result in just your 11 year notch.
10
It is a bit more complicated than you represent. Cross frequencies are the frequency domain equivalent of time domain cross correlations between two data sets. A subject with which I have more than passing familiarity. What, you want DE to explain the cross product eigenfunctions of the inversion martrix, here? Somehow, I suspect he. Learned about all that en route to the Stanford PhD.
That is for experts to dissect, given supposedly promised data and code, unlike most previous Warmunists. Marcott? Shakun? Mann? (until the last paper eviscerated by N. Lewis).
A suggestion. Wait to see what they propose here. Then critique.
00
I will wait! I was siggesting that some indication of a transfer “function” between the Sun’s irradiance variance spectrum and the surface temperature variance spectrum would be nice to see. All that has been demonstrated is a noise spectrum divided by a narrow band gausian function centered at 1/11 years gives a output dip at 1/11 years.
10
Will, good. So am I. And I see we both have typing challenges on iPad/iPhone or equivalents.
Make you a bet. Dr. Evans already knew all of our quibbles concerning transfer functions, DFT, and more…., and has answers. Stanford guys just do that stuff. Annoying for us non-Stanford guys.
30
They have a beautiful campus too. I didn’t get the job, but I enjoyed the visit.
10
See answer above. Thanks.
10
Without sufficient phase resolution in the data, what they ask would be meaningless would it not?
00
Hi David,
In note 5 above you make the following comment “See Fig. 31. Force X lags TSI by 180 degrees of the 22-year Hale cycle, presumably. Hence the timing and the notching.”
Is fig 31. same as fig 1. in Part IV or does fig 31. appear elseware? This could help me get my head around this issue.
Keep the posts coming. Most of us are waiting in eager anticipation.
10
Ron, fair point. Thanks. Figure 31 is a schematic about the model soon to be published. The comment about the lag and the hale cycle stands on it’s own without the figure.
Thanks for your patience. I realize this is less than ideal. We are trying to answer the questions raised by each post, but that slows down the new posts.
00
There’s a good reason why the 11-year solar cycle doens’t show up in surface temperatures — the climate’s sensitivity to changes in TSI is small.
To first order: By differentiating the Stefan-Boltzmann Law, we get
dT/T = (1/4)(dS/S)
where S is the solar constant. Rearranging
dT/dS = T/4S = 0.05 K per W/m2
Over a solar cycle, dS ~ 1-2 W/m2 (see http://spot.colorado.edu/~koppg/TSI/), so dT ~ 0.1 K is small compared to natural variability of a few tenths of a degree K.
36
But you have about 10 solar cycles worth of temp data. Surely that’s enough to filter out the annual noise.
00
Also, the solar cycles are not of constant lenght.
I calculated their length for the last three solar cycles, from peak TSI to peak TSI. The lengths were 10.3 yrs, 10.8 yrs, and 9.8 yrs, according to PMOD data.
02
I don’t see how that’s obvious. You have lots on natural variability on several time scales (ENSOs, PDO, AMO, etc), a couple of volcanoes, aerosol forcing that has been significant for some decades but not others, a solar cycle whose period can vary somewhat, all on top of a long-term warming trend.
The noise is complicated, and not random but autocorrelated to a significant degree. All this swamps the dT of 0.05 – 0.10 C over a solar cycle.
56
So you are saying that it is complicated, and complex, and generally awful, and yet you can autocorrelate to adjust for random events, like volcanos, “to a certain degree”, and the rest of the adjustment would be by eyeballing the trend lines? Do I have that right?
50
Autocorrelation does nothing like adjust for “random events.” It is a recognition that the temperature for a given month is not determined solely by the independent variable (time), but it also depends on nearby, previous temperatures.
It’s a recognition that there is inertia in the climate system. In this case, it significantly reduces the number of independent degrees of freedom of the HadCRUT4 system.
02
The trend line, and its statistical error, are calculated mathematically, not by “eyeball.” Come on.
02
For example, consider the HadCRUT4 dataset from 1850-2014. Using the Skeptical Science trend calculator, I get nu=11.425. That is, statistically the autocorrelation is such that the effective number of data points is not 12*(2014-1850) = 1968, but 1968/11.425 = 172.3 = 14.4 years.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/trend.php
13
Ah, you have just answered my previous question. It is all done with a magic black box that sits on an obscure website, that few people visit more than once. Silly me, I should have known.
70
Hey, don’t under-estimate the support base for SkS.
SkS propaganda shows up in some unlikely places, such as a TED-sponsored talk in Ohio. The quavering propaganda grind delivered limply by climatastrophologist David Bromwich is not for the faint of heart, conjuring images of 200ft of sea level rise, 4 degrees of warming, and of course the Escalator cheap shot direct from zee Cook’s Kitchen, mein wahrmerren.
By the end of his presentation there was really only two obvious questions: why must climatastrophologists now stoop to such fundraising tours and did he draw the short straw?
20
It is done with mathematics. I’ve done the same with spreadsheets, and get the same answers SkS does. I linked to them so anyone can confirm the number I posted.
02
See the second post, after “(To put some numbers on it:”.
We went looking for the low pass filter, but instead found a mess that we eventually realized was a notch filter on top of the low pass filter. We originally found it by paired analysis using DFTs. The data points with the best data and resolution were down in the V of the notch, which confused us until we realized there was a notch. Yes, we are pretty certain we would have found the 11 year signal in the temperature, even though it is in the noise.
Also, notice that the notch implies a delay, and a solar model with notch and delay finds the best fit for a delay of 11 years. Without a delay of at least 10 years, no solar causation seems plausible — see answer above. Also notice that there seems to be a natural notching mechanism on the sun. All kinds of fits.
20
Just for the record.
Under (2) in the main post under “Correcting Lubos’ Errors” there seems to be confusion about the term “Transfer Function”. As it is used today, Transfer Function (TF) is a mathematical animal that lives in the 2-dimensional (complex) Laplace “s-Plane” and is the ratio of the Laplace Transform of the output divided by the Laplace Transform of the input. It has the virtue of often being independently computable from physical elements (resistors, capacitors, inductors, amplifiers, etc.) of a system, and not inferred from a ratio. Mathematically it is general, although the actual cases where we do the Laplace integrals are pretty much only imposed against students! Restricting ourselves to the complex frequency axis in the s-plane (a vertical line) we have Fourier Transforms rather than Laplace Transforms, and the TF evaluated there is called the “Frequency Response” (FR), magnitude and phase. David uses the magnitude of the FR and calls it the TF. So Lubos in calling David’s graph a “Response Function” was in fact consistent with current usage – at least in my experience.
The terminology matters little, especially in cases exclusively between EEs (unlike here) where the equations are on display. So I decided to see what Bracewell (David’s mentor?) called a TF. Very curious. I look up TF in the index (the Fourier Transform book) and it directs me to page 179. But there is no TF on page 179! Instead Bracewell gives a new but similar term: “Transfer Factor” (TFactor). Now Bracewell’s TFactor is what others call the FR: David’s TF with the phase put back in.
Likely EEs here are slightly less confused, and everyone else even more so!
20
I should probably keep my mouth shut, as I’m not sure what good it will do to point it out, and it’s not relevant to the specific topic at hand but ….
____
” … some skeptics still wonder why people who are bad with numbers but good with people, control the institutions, the publications and big budgets. The mystery of it all!”
____
It’s an NT vs NF problem.
There is no generalized “conspiracy” that has caused the takeover of the MSM, corrupted the soft sciences and humanities, or gained control of the various bureaucracies. I have become convinced that it is simply the workings of natural inborn/hardwired temperament, and the refusal of most people to recognize that temperamental differences even exist.
Compare this description of the iNTp
https://www.personalitypage.com/html/INTP.html
with this description of the iNFp
https://www.personalitypage.com/html/INFP.html
Any of you Rationals really wanting to understand what makes the alarmists/greens/socialists tick should start with David Keirsey’s book “Please Understand Me II” and read the chapters on the four Idealist types. (Read your own Rational types too.)
______
*I just moments ago discovered …. Keirsey died a few months ago. Damn.
Kevin Hilde iNTp
30
Kevin, There is much to discuss – it deserves a thread of its own. I agree, there is a personality type sieve in most careers. It’s not just iNTp iNFp though. ENFPs are often journalists/writers/movie makers/(bloggers). Yes it seems obvious no conspiracy is needed, it’s a self sorting system. There are numbers-people and people-people in a big generic sense too.
Sorry to hear about Keirsey.
Jo – (ENFP)
10
Needs a thread later Jo, since I am one of the oddest types INTJ, discussing this would be lots of fun.
Bobl, INTJ and loving it
00
I am ENTP – let’s not get married.
00
Oops, and up till now I thought you were ok
00
I’m a LIBRA but I’m already married.
00
Any Thinker can experience the world of idealism by merely getting drunk to shut off their logical mind and also bring their possible introversion more towards extroversion. So just consider alarmists to be lacking in tight game in favor of collective hollering. Something like that. On the other hand, Idealists lack compassion towards Thinkers since there is no such smart drug yet that would let them try it out for an evening on themselves, such detached objectivity and delight in reason.
10
WC (so apt) reports from the frontline. rest easy all you warmist folk ; your Hero is doing battle on your behalf, and will no doubt carry the day.
But will his lunchbox be big enough?
Stay tuned!
http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2014/06/18/force-x-from-outer-space/
40
Sorry farmer, I respectfully decline your invitation to inspect the sewer.
61
Lubos may not be a Gorebull warming believer, BUT, he is definitely a member of the modern Scientific Consensus!!
Ask him why he doesn’t host Miles Mathis or Stephen Crothers on his site for some discussions on Physics and/or cosmology!! 8>)
10
Whatever else he might be, Lubos is a decent physicist. So he knows Mathis is a crank. Probably the King of Cranks.
15
Nobody was implying that Lubos was an indecent anything.
KuhnKat was actually saying that Lubos was skeptical.
Isn’t that what scientists are supposed to be? Or are you one of those with a more evangelical bent, that believes in the power of The Consensus?
20
You’re either arguing in peer reviewed literature, or you’re arguing in the blogosphere. Live by the sword, die by the sword. Sure Lubos’ post is a slap in the face, but that’s how it is in the blogosphere.
44
Ludos seems to have quite misread and misunderstood many things in the paper..
Just like you always seem to manage, the slap is more across his own face than David’s.
50
Believe me this sort of thing happens in peer review. In fact, a high percentage of a response to a reviewer can be justifying claims and sticking to them or informing the reviewer that they were mistaken and then either changing text to clarify or sticking to the original. Editors often have to step in and ask for a another opinion or realise that the original reviewer is not qualified or is vexacious, and dismiss them and get another reviewer.
None of this, of course, is done in public and in most journals the reviewer is not known to the submitting authors. The response of Jo’s is quite like a response to a reviewer apart from the language being employed.
The problem I am seeing here is that critiques are appearing here and there but they are short and without support. I can’t see how these will be either addressed in the present format and whether the final document will be adjusted or improved as a result. Of course all the full story is yet to be published so there is no reason to review yet anyway but I am sensing that it will be far more effective to have a dozen efforts like Lubos’s than the hundreds of tiny ones evident in the comments.
20
yes for sure I just mean it’s either out in public or behind closed doors. I thought Jo’s common theme was the out in public is how it should be done. Well here it is, suck it up.
13
Yes, Ludo needs to stop making a fool of himself.
That is your job.
40
Nothing to suck up, Matt. Think for a minute. Peer review behind close doors is theoretically open to manipulation, by those with a vested interest in one opinion or another.
This way, it is all out in the open, with comments documented in real time, as they are typed. This thread can be analysed, along with others, and the useful comments can be applied to improve the research.
The less useful comments can be marked down against the person saying them.
There is a lot of intelligence in these threads – to much to get heads around right now, but it is all there.
40
Sorry, when I typed “intelligence” I meant to say, “evidence”, silly me.
10
My comment was not a criticism of doing it all out in the open. However a post called “responses to early critiques of this work” would have been pretty non-emotive. Lubos is no idiot and I think would generally have a reputation of being a bit of a gentleman.
11
Mattb, you seem confused. I am living by the sword. We asked for email reviews. If people make those public instead, we do public replies. If you think his post was a slap, read my post again.
If I wanted to hide his thoughts I wouldn’t have asked him to repost it, nor would I have copied and posted it myself. Could I do more?
My beef with Lubos was not that he criticizes it publicly, but that he is filling airspace with anti-information by arguing that we say something we don’t. That slows everything down, and confuses people. It could have been so easily fixed.
I just wish he had read David’s email reply to him from April 11. I’m sure it was just an oversight. I hope we can move on soon.
90
saying it is a slap in the face does not suggest he’s right. and sure you’ve slapped back. If he’s misunderstood then correct him, but for mine the tone of this particular post is overly theatrical and vaudeville, and highly defensive. The attack on manners for example. Just sayin’ it just does not come across as though are open to criticism/comment.
15
Paradigms can either expand one’s thought processes in a metaphorical box with full length windows on all sides, or constrain them in a box with a small window on one side. It’s normal to try to fit a new concept into an old one, but when it doesn’t work, most will then defend their own view of the world rather than welcome the potential to over-turn the old.
The former is an open mind to endles possibilities yet to discover, that allow new light into the previous void. The latter encompasses paradigm paralysis.
How many in the horse era said those mechanical contraptions won’t last, because they scared the horses? Or anything that wasn’t wood wouldn’t float, or an “aeroplane” would never fly? Now we can build CERN, guide vehicles from space and slice a human with magenetic fields, and we regard it as normal.
Hermit (and some other) crabs keep upgrading their “house” to a new one as they expand in size; giving up the old creates space for expansion. It’s not all that difficult to evolve to a higher level of understanding, but only if we are prepared to be challenged intellectually and welcome change that may well over-turn our previous view of the world and show it to be incorrect. That’s how we advance as a civil society.
What David and Jo are doing is shining new light into our limited understanding of how the sun works. It is, after all, literally our life force, not just the driver of climate. It’s our primary source of energy transfer. Without the sun, there would be no Earth as we think we know it. So rather than try to fit David’s and Jo’s insight into an old model (paradigm), we should welcome the challenge, if that is the case, to our own paradigms. The ability to think with freedom is eminently preferred to paralysis of thinking. Just hop outside the square, there’s endless light to be found outside.
Great work David and Jo. Some will come along with you, some will fall by the wayside, and some will let ego get in the way of intellect. Let that not be your concern. Your role is in bringing new light into the open skies for all to see and grow accordingly. This creates synergy in thought in the minds of many and moves entropy (consensus) aside with civility. It’s the latter that some can’t handle, because they are unable to accept a new paradigm.
101
Nicely put.
30
Excellent!
00
I understand your frustration, Jo Nova. You are exactly right. Skeptics “love to criticize.”
Meanwhile society continues to lose confidence in both government science and its critics.
42
I understood what you said and I think it very interesting and well done. Give yourselves a pat on the back.
Don’t let the immediate response (or the lack of one) get you down. Research can be an emotional rollercoaster if you allow it to be. You’ve just done something which you think is significant and important and it is human nature to expect others to instantly see that. But the choir isn’t going to stand up and shout hosannah. That just never ever happens. There is no cheering crowd for this kind of thing.
Be satisfied at this stage that knowledgeable people who read it use words like ‘interesting’ and don’t point out any serious errors. Victory is slow and happens quietly when others start using and referring to your work.
80
“You know you are over the target when you are taking flack.”
60
is the response of many who are way off target but taking flack.
48
Matt you are too young to understand the concept of flak (with correct spelling). Armies have never used flak to protect corn fields. They use it to protect things that other armies would wish to attack. That is why Lionell’s comment is “on target”.
40
sorry I copied the spelling. Yes I know what it is.
Regardless it is clearly a logical error to assume that because you are being criticised you must be right. If that was the case you’d agree I’m generally spot on when I post here.
31
Thank you Matt, for making my point.
Flack is listed as a variant of flak. See: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/flack British English and American English have many differences. The point is that my use of “flack” was understood to be a derivative of the WW II saying. We ARE over the target, the opposition IS feeling fear, and they are firing their best ordinance.
Stating the obvious: “Over the target and receiving flack” means you are getting too close to what the enemy feels he must protect at all costs. Matt’s comment is clearly part of the flack here. Matt is doing his best to protect HIS sacred ground because he feels it is under attack. It IS under attack by a method that is likely to cause serious damage to his side of the discussion. However, he is what he is and does what he does. I would expect nothing less.
52
Also I think you will find that the use of dummy/decoy targets was fairly common, and that those dummy targets would have included use of anti-aircraft artillery.
12
Decoys also served to waste enemy bombs http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2286276/Extraordinary-story-WW2s-Starfish-Sites-designed-look-like-burning-cities-saved-2-500-lives.html I think most methods of deception have been used in this debate.
30
I haven’t seen any inflatable tanks yet, although I live in hope.
20
Pointless to destroy an inflatable tank as it’s already blown up…… sorry 🙁
20
Matt, you continue to make my point for me.
Even the decoys and antiaircraft fire were to protect ground the enemy felt they had to protect at all costs. The allied forces were getting too close to the real target for comfort.
Your feeble comment is a good example of itself. You are protecting a decoy while we fly on to hit the real target. Why bother? You know your cause is lost.
Your side has stolen billions of wealth from us. We are doing what we do as volunteers with what we have left. Something your side has desperately attempted to destroy: our minds. We HAVE pushed back and have successfully executed our D day. Yes, the war is not over but this is the beginning of the end. We have a lot more work to do.
Keep on doing what you do. In the long run, it won’t matter.
61
Disagreeing with something that one has not got the full story on is a mugs game. Hence I will read and absorb the entire content of Jo and Davids paper, then analyse the arguments for and against before even daring to pontificate on it’s validity. That some front line troops from the opposing camp are setting up permanent residence makes me think the opposition are a tad concerned some real science may burst their bubble. Thanks troops.
90
Yes I’m with you W J. So many who had just read part one got it wrong. I’m not an EE but an E tech and think I’m on the same sheet as David. Is a bit of a test for the aging neurons though as I don’t have the maths.
I see Willis E has disappeared since his tantrum on wednesday. I had been specifically waiting for him to comment and expected a negative response; but not the simply I’m right and you’re wrong response that he gave.
40
Willis had just been making a big deal of the lack of 11 year signals in the climate. My suspicion is that he thought this was a claim of an 11 year signal and may have reacted a bit quickly because if it.
Now he has gone silent. What does that mean? Willis is clever guy. He knows what to do when you find yourself accidentally in a hole – you stop digging. I expect he is thinking about it and waiting to see the rest. Expect comments from him later.
40
Sorry Jo but I’m taking the side of Lubos. You basically announced that David has had an Annus Mirabilis, discovered the cause of global warming, invented a new form of maths and has a model to predict future climate. IMHO it was an absurdly rash action on the behalf of both of you. You will both probably end up looking very foolish once this pans out.
When people start making justifiable criticisms of David’s work you jump to his defence implying that anyone who cannot see the sheer ‘brilliance’ of David’s idea is too stupid to understand the significance of it. I’ll play the role of the very rude little boy and say that the ‘Emperor has no clothes’. Sorry but David’s climate model is completely and utterly daft and has no basis in reality (just like his bizarre monetary theories). [Isaac Newton may have been a physics genius but I’m not interested in his studies of religion, spiritualism or alchemy.]
As Lubos says you can’t be right just by being a contrarian. You must have a sound intellectual framework for your ideas. You can’t just claim that the Earth is analogous to some mysterious ‘black box’ electrical circuit and then use that to predict the future based climate.
Jo and David you may be surprised to know that real meteorologists have a very good idea how the climate works based on a century of empirical studies (hint: it is almost all about transfer of energy by water and very little to do with radiative physics). You both need to read some textbooks on spectroscopy (to discover the complete non-existence of the GE) and meteorology (to discover that climate and weather are chaotic, non-linear processes controlled almost entirely by internal energy transfers rather than radiative physics).
111
Feel free bananabender, though I’d appreciate you putting some effort into the arguments to convince me – I don’t believe I have ever said something that implied “that anyone who cannot see the sheer ‘brilliance’ of David’s idea is too stupid to understand the significance of it.” If I have, please quote it. I have always tried to put forward arguments.
If you can spot a problem with his “intellectual framework” please put it forward. I have published every criticism that has come through that was even half decently framed and some that were mere namecalling with no argument at all.
David did not know when he started whether this type of analysis would produce something useful. The results look solid, fit in with numerous other studies done independently, and produce a model that works. You can’t just say it doesn’t work without putting forward some kind of reason.
Meteorologists have much to say and I don’t disagree with most of it. I do not understand why you raise this?
Ultimately the planet loses heat through radiation so it is very much a question of radiative physics. David is looking at this from the far distant outside. Meteorologists are looking up very close. Both approaches are useful for different questions.
160
Joanne,
I much appreciate that you and David have taken this subject into the frequency domain. Only good can come of it, along with better understanding. Watch what happens when folk consider the fibonacci sequence so often found in this physical.
Suggestions: In the frequency domain, always use the euler identity to identify magnitude and phase, rather than real and imaginary. Drop the phase untill it is truly needed for inderstanding. For part V no radiation from the surface is needed. A supportable conjecture of how the atmosphere does what it does so well, is in the F. Miscolczi papers and several well written analysis thereof, the best by Noor van Andel!
00
Actually bananabender you CAN just claim that the Earth is analogous to some mysterious ‘black box’ electrical circuit. That’s called a hypothesis, any Engineer knows that almost any system can be described this way, in fact controls for heating systems work precisely this sort of way. Determining the transfer function of the physical heating system is one of the steps involved. In fact I designed an IR paint drying system for lead sheeting exactly this way, it was critical because lead has a low melting point, too much heat and 3 tonnes of lead land on the floor, too little and the coating won’t cure. IR emitters aren’t particularly linear. The thermal capacity and low conductivity of lead creates a delay, a lag in the physical system that has to be inverted and compensated and tbe IR emitters take time to ramp up. The first thing to do in this case is to characterise the physical system, then you can determine the algorithm (filters and delays) necessary to keep the temperature in bounds.
Everything David has done is perfectly valid, provided you remember that he is testing the hypothesis that TSI affects temperature exactly as he stated. What David has done is take a systems approach to it, exactly like characterising my IR paint dryers, How much IR causes how much heating and what are the delays, VS How much TSI causes how much heating, and what are the delays and that’s a perfectly valid approach.
He maybe is wrong, when he is finished then you will be able to prove it wrong, so far you can’t; well I certainly can’t (so far), and thus your post is just rhetoric. Until you or someone else can prove it wrong then it stands as a possible explanation. Just asserting it is wrong because you think “it is oceans that done it” is opinion, not proof.
80
Thanks bobl!
00
When you think about it “natural” changes in CO2 and H2O are probably feedbacks of changes in the sun and not ‘independent’ variables.
The configuration of the continents on the other hand would be an independent variable.
That is also what is being shown by Dr. Evans.
00
You can’t just claim that the Earth is analogous to some mysterious ‘black box’ electrical circuit and then use that to predict the future based climate.
Using a transfer function to predict the behavior of a plant (circuit, what have you) is standard stuff. Why can’t it be done for the Earth/Sun weather/climate system?
20
So you too BB. It seems really strange to me that the people who ostensibly are in the best position , knowledge-wise , to point out errors , are the ones who are now throwing their toys out of the cot.
Why is that?
40
Vanity – do not underestimate it
The most human and persistent of all our failings
00
Scientists can be afraid of having their name used to endorse a work/theory/paper just because they have been asked to look over it. (not entirely unlike Andy Pitman endorsed the Sceptics Handbook for instance, heh, heh. 😉
Lubos mentions a fear that his criticisms might just be dismissed as have been incorporated.
Such fear may be irrational, but is nevertheless very real as it’s being felt.
Fortunately Jennifer seems to have brought him back to the land of the living with Lubos’s first comment following his repost of the piece, by albeit inadvertently perhaps setting herself up as another target for his criticism.
This allows Lubos to demonstrate better that his point about being wary of setting your search up to find exactly what it’s looking for, is a general one and (dare I call it) even an ever present danger and not something directed or to be taken personally.
Lubos has some fantastic insight and Jo & David were right to seek it out. It would be unfortunate if that we’re missed , powers of expressions after a night on the Becherovka perhaps notwithstanding.
10
I hope you and David will keep exchanging emails with Lubos, as you were doing before the publication of this exciting and interesting series of posts. There does seem to have been communication failures of some sort between you, and Lubos sure went off on a high horse. But he has a giant brain, or so it seems to me, and you surely could still have a more positive collaboration with him.
20
Good scientists do not take criticism of their work personally, especially when it is valid criticism. Those most sensitive also seem to be more likely to mock others’ work.
00
It is always personal. You invest too much of yourself into your work for it to not be. That is one reason why it is important to strive to be professional in your interactions with others.
30
Nah, I make it a rule to never get too invested in my ideas and theories, that way I am able to take on criticisms and improvements to my work at face value.
There is a world of difference in saying “you are stupid” and “what you did was stupid”.
For example I could easilly be converted to the warmist faith, all they need to do is come up with a theory that works, doesn’t violate energy conservation, is consistent with the various established data points, doesn’t involve implausible feedback gains, doesn’t hurt the poor, doesn’t divert money from humanitarian needs eg like the previous government diverting aid to terminally ill cancer patients palliative care to fund green promises, and doesn’t cost 14 times global GDP.
20
Au-contraire Simon. Good scientists do not take criticism of their work lightly. I mean, if they won’t defend it, is it worth defending ?
10
As a fellow skeptic, no one gets a pass. A challenge and back and forth to Lubos actually helps us all. We do know that Lubos is most rational on CAGW issues, and his take on this from a country once soviet/marxist controlled is an important perspective. One thing Lubos communicates is that as much as worrying about the weather is a first world problem, being taken over and controlled by humans as “the state” is several orders of magnitude WORSE than what warming, CO2, and sea level rise will ever do to us.
40
Jo,
I doubt I’m alone in not fully understanding David’s new model; I have little expertise in maths or EE. Do you and/or David plan to produce a layman’s summary? One that preserves the essence of it as accurately as possible for chumps like me? I do hope so, and TIA if you do.
00
Jo and David,
Lubos is a brilliant guy who is somewhat isolated and who has attracted more than his share of peer disapproval by his outspoken right wing sentiments in an overwhelmingly leftist academic community. He is highly defensive with a tendency to assume that anything which does not agree with his ideas or is something he may not have considered must be wrong and can only be evidence of inferior mental capacity. To this end he may go to some effort to misunderstand and misstate ideas with which he finds reason to disagree.
That he is subject to the same kind of emotional irrationality as plagues all us lesser mortals became apparent a few years ago when he decided on the basis of self-diagnosis of a few perceived symptoms that he had developed some rare and terminal medical condition. He then announced this in a painful goodbye cruel world post on his blog.
Lubos is probably more valuable for his own ideas than for his assessment of the ideas of others.
In following the very logical and structured presentation of your notch filter hypothesis it is apparent that while thus far you have only presented the Background plus Materials & Methods sections of your presentation, some people are so eager to disagree they can’t wait for any Conclusions but are already busily setting up straw-men to dispute.
50
There’s a lot in what you say Walter.
However,
I’m glad you said probably, because Lubos and his way of looking at things gives insights that the rest of us may not see, even with the help of mind altering substances.
He may not always express them to best advantage but without them we are poorer.
Expression can always be worked on while insight doesn’t necessarily follow social norms.
00
I’m glad you said probably, because Lubos and his way of looking at things gives insights that the rest of us may not see, even with the help of mind altering substances.
Eating food again I see. Don’t overdose.
10
People generally rely far too much on observation alone and on far too little of it.
00
Do you mean how stuff appears to work, rather than how it’s supposed to ?
01
“Thanks to his background, David talks about the “notch filter” and electric circuits that would emulate the same response function that suppresses the given frequencies. But he doesn’t actually even have the electric circuit that behaves in this way (although you may surely design a sufficiently complicated one, involving transistors as well as capacitors and resistors and coils, that would behave like that).”
Lubos makes it clear that elementary filter design is foreign to him.
A two-port notch filter, with specified attenuation at the stop-band centre, specified stop-band centre frequency, and specified stop-band width, can be made as a potential divider with:
– One resistor in the upper branch.
– One resistor, one capacitor, and one inductor, all in series, in the lower branch.
Not exactly complicated. (And no transistors.)
00
Two twin T filters in parallel also work – A high pass and a low pass. Capacitors and resistors only. Three of each.
00
As a non-scientist but a strong supporter of good science, I’m quite unable to comment on the ultimate value of David’s analysis and tentative hypotheses (although I think he underpins those with deeper questions). However, the quality of much of the commentary on these threads about David’s work indicates to me that what he is putting forward is utterly worthy of the serious consideration it is receiving.
Another reflection is how critical are sites such as this, for the dissemination of fresh ideas and their vigorous debate and testing within the scientific and wider communities, given the present bias in many professional bodies and journals which have been captured by mediocrity, often self-seeking. How ironic it would be were an informal team within the sceptic community to construct a GCM that could relatively accurately hindcast the last 150 years, and the last 1000, then the last 10,000?
Incidentally, I support very much the need for courtesy from all those who are committed to the integrity of science practice and public affairs, both of which encompass climate issues. Life’s tough enough without being rude! As a sceptic, I find adhominem unnecessary, distasteful, and unproductive. In the matter of argument and opinions, every sensible sceptic should apply a personal vow of courtesy not only towards each other, but also to those with whom they most strongly disagree.
Meanwhile as I fill up the car with petrol, I shall continue to fund Big Oil, tip funds into the community through the petrol excise, and have an eye for Jo’s tip jar, because I want to see this good work continue.
10
At last Steven Goddard is getting some recognition for his invaluable gate keeping of climate data fraud http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/10916086/The-scandal-of-fiddled-global-warming-data.html
10
I am also among those who agree with Lubos and I am afraid that his criticism has been misunderstood here.
Basically what he is saying is that the “notch theory” is circular with no added value.
Once one ASSUMES that the 2 variables are linked in such a way that T~ = R . TSI~
where the ~ noted variables are Fourier transforms of the real variables T and TSI then almost everything follows tautologically :
1) There is necessarily a minimum in R~ (e.g the “notch”) because the spectrum of T~ is flat
2) There is necessarily a delay because the initial assumption is equivalent to assuming that in the time domain T is given by a convolution of TSI and R
3) R~ is independent from the spectrum of T~ as long as it has no dominating frequency (e.g you obtain the same R~ when you substitute to the real temperatures any random set which has nothing to do with real temperatueres measured). This last remark explains trivially why one gets the same R~ regardless of the temperature dataset used.
So basically what is obtained in the results was already contained in the assumption that
T~ = R . TSI~ and there is no added value.
I also agree with Lubos that it is probably mathematically provable that there doesn’t exist any complex valued R such as T~ = R . TSI~ and respecting causality. I am looking into this interesting question right now.
00
Thierry, look at the latest edition of the discussion and comment on how the notch theory has produced a reasonable hind cast of temperature. http://joannenova.com.au/2014/06/big-news-part-vii-hindcasting-with-the-solar-model/
I do not think anyone here misunderstood Lubos. Read carefully what Joanne said in the emails and look for what Lubos ignored. Besides, he’s walked away from the discussion calling it a “cesspool”.
In my opinion, he’s embarrassed himself.
20
Thierry,
It is obvious that the transfer function will find a relationship between entirely unrelated numbers, as any mathematical tool will when it’s misapplied. The only questions that matter then is whether the assumption is valid, and then whether the results appear to be useful.
Your tautology above — as stated — is dependent on the assumption that TSI is not associated with temperatures on Earth. Hm?
David starts from the assumption (stated openly and repeatedly) that IF solar TSI is associated with temperature, the transfer function may show us something useful. It appears to — the notch filter implies a delay of 11 years which is not only the length of the major cycle of the solar dynamo but is borne out by other independent studies ie Usokin, Archibald, Fritz-Christensen etc.
If you know of any reason why TSI can not possibly be a leading indicator for some other solar factor which acts with an 11 year cycle, please let us know.
00
Hi Joanne,
“If you know of any reason why TSI can not possibly be a leading indicator for some other solar factor which acts with an 11 year cycle, please let us know.”
Hints, hints, deliberately to keep intelligent earthlings like David from understanding the un-understandable! Mean, minor knowledgeable God? Perhaps not! The arrogant academics insist they understand the un-understandable! Perhaps from God, not to quickly, for the all! Whatever “to quickly”, may mean to a minor God.
00
I congratulate Jo Nova and David for a refreshing new investivation of the Sun’s influence on Earth’s climate.
In my opinion, human understanding of the Sun is far less certain than the official Standard Solar Model.
One example is measurements at Purdue and Stanford that show the rates of radioactive decay are influenced by distance from the Sun: http://blog.drwile.com/?p=8455
10
Sorry, I did not intend to link to a religious or creationist site.
The two groups making the measurements are reputable, but the findings are not understood and therefore the topic of debate:
http://phys.org/news/2011-09-physics.html
00
It is obvious that the transfer function will find a relationship between entirely unrelated numbers, as any mathematical tool will when it’s misapplied.
I said nowhere that it was “misapplied”.
I said that all “results” obtained here (e.g a minimum, a delay, a quasi independence on the data used) was already contained in the initial assumption.
The assumption T(f)~ = R(f)~ . TSI(f)~ is equivalent to the assumption T(t) = R(t)*TSI(t) in the time domain where * is a convolution.
This is also what Dr Motl noted and from the convolution the rest follows necessarily.
I am now sure that there is a misunderstanding.
This remark alone does NOT prove that T is not given by a convolution (neither Dr Motl nor myself is saying that).
Among others this remark does not assume that TSI and T are not related.
This remark is only pointing out that the properties of R~ (a strong unique minimum, a delay etc) tautologically follow from the initial assumption regardless whether T and TSI are related or not.
In other words the fact that R~ has properties and a graph of a form that it necessarily has to have, proves sofar nothing – it is just another way to say that T is supposed to be a convolution.
Now is T really a convolution?
Some people are saying : we are not sure but it is likely that it is not because it might violate causality. Of course it has to be proven and if it is, the assumption is dead. TSI and T may still be related but they are not related by a convolution.
You say on the other hand that : David starts from the assumption (stated openly and repeatedly) that IF solar TSI is associated with temperature, the transfer function may show us something useful.
Be very sure that I have perfectly understood this so that no capitalisation of the IF was needed.
It is precisely why I was saying that “if TSI is associated with temperature via a convolution then R~ has necessarily the form and the properties that you show it has.”
This is a definition of a tautology : “if X=A then X=A”
And that’s why R~ will only be useful if it shows something NOT already contained in the initial assumption (e.g something else than just the “notch” and the “delay” which are tautological consequences of the assumption that T is a convolution)
What I think about TSI is probably off topic but because you asked, I look at the problem from the point of view of non linear dynamics (e.g Navier Stokes).
The system must obey these equations where TSI is a periodical forcing and CO2 a perturbation.
So the system has a chaotic attractor and it is known that forcings and perturbations modify the attractor.
From that follows that T (talking here about the whole field T(x,t), not some global average) and TSI are necessarily linked.
However this link is necessarily only probabilistic because the orbit of the system on the attractor can never be exactly known.
So while I am reasonably sure about a strong probabilistic link between TSI and T(x,t), I think it unlikely that there is anything else than noise if one destroys the spatial structure of
T(x,t) by averaging over the whole sphere.
It was this what lead me to suspect that “your” T and TSI (with “your” T totally spatially filtered) are almost surely not linked by a convolution, e.g there exists no realistic R(t) such as in the frequency domain we have T(f)~ = R~(f).TSI~(f).
But I assure you, if I am among others reading your and Dr Motl’s blogs, it is because I am a true skeptic – I accept the possibility to be wrong and as long as something is not proven, it still may be wrong even if I strongly suspect it to be right 🙂
00
P.S
I just realized that I have written too many words when 4 mathematical statements would have been enough.
– let g(f) and h(f) be 2 hermitean functions such as g(f)=T~(f) and h(f)=TSI~(f)
– define R(f) = g(f)/h(f), R is also hermitean
– Does a real valued function of time f(t) exist such as T(t) = f(t)*TSI(t) ?
– Is f(t) realistic and physical ?
My answers are yes (R continuous and absolutely integrable) and no. Your answer are yes and probably yes (but you didn’t really think about question N°2).
00