Bishop Hill The big news down under
Jun 17, 2014 Climate: solar I hope everyone is reading the series of posts by David Evans and Jo Nova about their new hypothesis on why variations in solar irradiance apparently have such a limited effect on the planet's temperature. It's probably fair to say that many sceptics have scratched their heads on this subject from time to time, but the team from down under have gone the extra mile, coming up with what is starting to look like a fascinating explanation, namely that there is a delay between the change in irradiance and subsequent changes in temperature. They hypothesise further that this may be something to do with changes in the Sun's magnetic field.
It's too early to say whether this all holds up of course, but I'm certainly going to be keeping a close eye on it.
Reader Comments (109)
[Snip - O/T]
David Evans is a bit of a rocket scientist, about 6 degrees with the odd Phd. Worked for the Australian GreenHouse Office for a short tenure but left when it looked a bit dodgy. Has written a few articles published in the Australian.
Rocky on Jun 17, 2014 at 9:05 AM
"... about 6 degrees ..."
What!
It that Fahrenheit or Celsius? :)
~ 3°
Many years ago i took a detailed look at d14C versus temperature variance and observed an approximate and imperfect 10 to 20 year lag. Grand solar maximum was around 1985, warmest year 1998 and so forth. For this reason the cold associated with current low solar activity may still lie in the future. The reasons for lag are simply thermal inertia combined with poor understanding of the physics. I personally believe that spectral changes in Sun are important and these need time to change the circulation patterns of Earth's atmosphere. Maybe time to dig this stuff out.
When Bob Carter saw figure six, Jo says he sat bolt upright in his chair...
> David Evans is a bit of a rocket scientist
Please don't denigrate him, he's an Engineer.
:-)
Yes, the hypothesis from Evans may be interesting when all the information is published. It's definitely a new approach which I'm tracking. I have no position on it yet of course; I'm content to read it as it is unfolded and then ask critical questions
What is equally interesting here, though, is the open publication approach that is being undertaken. It breaks the "Journal" mode of peer review and paywalls into itty-bitty pieces. This approach allows nutty comments as well as constructive ones, but it is a very refreshing change from the bilge of Press Release followed by paywalls one will become bankrupted by
Even Michael Mann noticed this 10-20 year lag many years ago. That part at least is not news.
Whenever an argument against solar forcing has been made by the Warmists it has always been predicated on an immediate reaction to TSI or whatever measure being discussed. That never made any sense to me, especially after reading Bob Tisdale's work. But, oh for a mechanism!!
In the old days of the solar forcing hypothesis (100 years ago and more) they had it the other way around: more sunspots meant cooling (or more storms). (That's as I remember reading it) . So i wonder if that fits with this lag business...
I especially liked the possibility Svensmark’s cosmic ray hypothesis may play a factor since it meets Occam's test.
Mechanism? How about gravity?
I posted this on Jo Nova's site:
Jupiter's orbital period is 11.86 years.
Jupiter and Saturn come together (in conjunction) in the night sky every 20 years.
They are 180 degrees apart every 20 years 910 years after conjunction).
I guess Jupiter and Saturn also have a magnetic field as well...
ianl8888,
There may well be some nutty ideas and some wry observations, however these may illuminate shards of a new truth by obscuring the obvious and known, thus allowing sight of new paths as yet untried.
I wish Davis Evans well in his endeavors.
Rats! I have a dodgy shift key - that errant "9" should be a left bracket...
"They are 180 degrees apart every 20 years (10 years after conjunction)."
Lots here on space weather, the sun, climate change and more. Updated every day:
http://www.youtube.com/user/Suspicious0bservers
Check out his c(lie)mate series of videos too.
Remember this, everyone:
Modelling a Negative, Or the Easy Proliferation of Hypotheses in Science Today
I'm afraid it's almost certainly wrong, from the outset of its basic assumption, as the likes of Occam and Newton probably would have seen instantly. (Just another reason why I say, there is no valid climate science, and no competent climate scientists--or engineers too, in this case).
Is there a direct link to the full paper?
(better a pdf)
By the way, ianl8888, I think it wouldn't be too difficult to start a new publishing model. It is working fine for physics (http://arxiv.org/). I think it shouldn't be too difficult to create a similar repository for climate related subjects
I do not know how well this new theory will stand up. However, a promising sign is being able to link diverse bits of science. along with relating it to establishing methods from other fields. David Evans also tries to show why the new theory is empirically better than the greenhouse gas hypothesis.
Following it avidly.
For a long time I've noted that the only place to find a link between solar and/or CO2 warming is in the Arctic. It has no Urban Heat Islands, it has the predicted polar amplification effect, most of todays warming in all 6 temperature datasets (even the sub-standard BEST recon) is actually in the Arctic and now even the IPCC AR5 can find no man-made fingerprint except in the Arctic. But - lo and behold, the solar reconstruction of Solanki (and others) that includes TSI and magnetic effects just happens to sweetly coincide with the actual Arctic temperatures - with that 10 year lag included and prett much the same temperature now as in the 30's (see Joe D'Aleo's site for good presentations on this).
Well but that's torn it! Destroying the CO2 climate-driver myth is destroying the means by which we transform our society from consumerist, pro-growth, industrialist, unsustainability to the sweetness and light of using the wind, waves, sun, earth or pedal-power for energy and not just continually raping nature. So let's just ignore the Arctic again shall we?
Fascinating that this model is based on electrical engineering. As compared to social science, economics, grant funding, astrology or whatever the warmists have been using.
I wonder if it is (by the way) a hat tip towards the Electric Universe Theory?
http://www.electricuniverse.info/
Fascinating that this model is based on electrical engineering. As compared to social science, economics, grant funding, astrology or whatever the warmists have been using.
I wonder if it is (by the way) a hat tip towards the Electric Universe Theory?
http://www.electricuniverse.info/
Here are my comments made on the JoNova site
"Jo You don’t have to understand the physical mechanisms involved in order to make perfectly useful forecasts. For forecasts of the likely coming cooling based on the 60 and 1000 year quasi-periodicities in the temperature data and the neutron count- 10 Be data as the best proxy for solar “activity” see
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2013/10/commonsense-climate-science-and.html
The main uncertainty in the temperature forecasts is the exact timing of the 1000 year temperature peak. In order to tune models correctly you would need to run them backwards about 3000 years.The neutron count over cycle 24 suggests that we are just past the peak. The 11 or twelve year lag between solar activity and temperature was pointed out years ago by Usoskin. Looks like you are inventing the wheel.For convenience Here are the conclusions of the link
“It has been estimated that there is about a 12 year lag between the cosmic ray flux and the temperature data. see Fig3 in Usoskin et al
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/2005ESASP.560…19U.
With that in mind it is reasonable to correlate the cycle 22 low in the neutron count (high solar activity and SSN) with the peak in the SST trend in about 2003 and project forward the possible general temperature decline in the coming decades in step with the decline in solar activity in cycles 23 and 24.
In earlier posts on this site http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com at 4/02/13 and 1/22/13
I have combined the PDO, ,Millennial cycle and neutron trends to estimate the timing and extent of the coming cooling in both the Northern Hemisphere and Globally.
Here are the conclusions of those posts.
1/22/13 (NH)
1) The millennial peak is sharp – perhaps 18 years +/-. We have now had 16 years since 1997 with no net warming – and so might expect a sharp drop in a year or two – 2014/16 -with a net cooling by 2035 of about 0.35.Within that time frame however there could well be some exceptional years with NH temperatures +/- 0.25 degrees colder than that.
2) The cooling gradient might be fairly steep down to the Oort minimum equivalent which would occur about 2100. (about 1100 on Fig 5) ( Fig 3 here) with a total cooling in 2100 from the present estimated at about 1.2 +/-
3) From 2100 on through the Wolf and Sporer minima equivalents with intervening highs to the Maunder Minimum equivalent which could occur from about 2600 – 2700 a further net cooling of about 0.7 degrees could occur for a total drop of 1.9 +/- degrees
4)The time frame for the significant cooling in 2014 – 16 is strengthened by recent developments already seen in solar activity. With a time lag of about 12 years between the solar driver proxy and climate we should see the effects of the sharp drop in the Ap Index which took place in 2004/5 in 2016-17.
4/02/13 ( Global)
1 Significant temperature drop at about 2016-17
2 Possible unusual cold snap 2021-22
3 Built in cooling trend until at least 2024
4 Temperature Hadsst3 moving average anomaly 2035 – 0.15
5 Temperature Hadsst3 moving average anomaly 2100 – 0.5
6 General Conclusion – by 2100 all the 20th century temperature rise will have been reversed,
7 By 2650 earth could possibly be back to the depths of the little ice age.
8 The effect of increasing CO2 emissions will be minor but beneficial – they may slightly ameliorate the forecast cooling and help maintain crop yields .
9 Warning !! There are some signs in the Livingston and Penn Solar data that a sudden drop to the Maunder Minimum Little Ice Age temperatures could be imminent – with a much more rapid and economically disruptive cooling than that forecast above which may turn out to be a best case scenario.
How confident should one be in these above predictions? The pattern method doesn’t lend itself easily to statistical measures. However statistical calculations only provide an apparent rigor for the uninitiated and in relation to the IPCC climate models are entirely misleading because they make no allowance for the structural uncertainties in the model set up. This is where scientific judgment comes in – some people are better at pattern recognition and meaningful correlation than others. A past record of successful forecasting such as indicated above is a useful but not infallible measure. In this case I am reasonably sure – say 65/35 for about 20 years ahead. Beyond that certainty drops rapidly. I am sure, however, that it will prove closer to reality than anything put out by the IPCC, Met Office or the NASA group. In any case this is a Bayesian type forecast- in that it can easily be amended on an ongoing basis as the Temperature and Solar data accumulate. If there is not a 0.15 – 0.20. drop in Global SSTs by 2018 -20 I would need to re-evaluate"
"Nik You are misunderstanding what I am doing – I’m not forecasting solar activity – I’m forecasting temperature.
In that same limk I say
“Furthermore Fig 8 shows that the cosmic ray intensity time series derived from the 10Be data is the most useful proxy relating 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 Svensmarks ideas and albedo.
If I am reading this correct, we should be looking at changes in cloud cover which correlate with changes in the Sun's Polar magnetic field strength.
Low polar field strengh = increased cosmic ray flux = more cloud condensation nuclei formation = more cloud cover and vice versa.
Anyone looked at this?
It's easy to see why solar irradiance has only a small effect on surface temperatures.
To first order, the change in temperature dT from a change in solar irradiance dS is, from the Stefan-Boltzmann law
dT/T = (1/4)(dS/S)
For dS = 1 W/m2, this gives dT = 0.05 C.
What is really good about the way they are presenting this is stepping through one part at a time, explaining everything necessary to logically define the next step. This is in contrast to the usual academic paper which assumes that if you are too feeble minded to follow the leaps from one step to the next without explanation, then you should just sit back and admire the obtuse vocabulary and perverted grammar.
This makes me think that David has a much better grasp of what he is doing than many of this so called climate scientists.
David Appel:
This presentation shows that the emissivity (and absorbtivity) of various substances vary, in contradiction of Kirchoff's law. Note that black body physics has the emissivity of Co2 and water vapour go up by the 4th power of temperature. In real live, emissivity falls with temperature. I note that of course, climate models use black body physics for GHG.
http://youtu.be/3Hstum3U2zw
His talk is based on this paper:
http://ptep-online.com/index_files/2014/PP-38-05.PDF
As a bonus, Robitaille says Kirchhoff's law is invalid. And Planck's equation.
I guess the science is never really settlled....
This is a very refreshing, encouraging development. An erstwhile insider in the climate alarmism industry, David Evans, is dismayed by what he saw there, and has not only criticised it over the years, but now has worked with Jo Nova to produce an original analysis of solar and earth data. An analysis which raises an intriguing hypothesis. Moreover, they are talking about refutable predictions, along with their very open sharing not only of data and software used, but also of their excitement during the development of this work. All on a shoestring budget. Kitchen table science. Inspirational stuff.
critique here
http://motls.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/david-evans-notch-filter-theory-of.html
clivere
"critique here"
There will be many, many more, long, way to go with this one. I have no idea about the pros and cons, just have to wait and watch developments
Les Johnson:
Note that I wrote "to first order."
--
Modelers are well aware that emissivity can depend on many variables, and when it can be assumed constant and when it can't. This description of the NCAR CAM model gives more details:
Description of the NCAR Community Atmosphere Model (CAM 5.0)
http://www.cesm.ucar.edu/models/cesm1.0/cam/docs/description/cam5_desc.pdf
pg 169:
"Within the longwave radiation model, the surface emissivity is assumed to be 1.0. However, the radiative surface temperature used in the longwave calculation is derived with the Stefan-Boltzmann relation from the upward longwave surface flux that is input from the land model. Therefore, this value may include some representation of surface emissivity less than 1.0 if this condition exists in the land model. RRTMG longwave also provides the capability of varying the surface emissivity within each spectral band, though this feature is not presently utilized."
Same goes for the emissivity of the atmosphere -- see the above PDF, equation 4.242.
Lubos has posted some trenchant criticisms of the theory (see link given by clivere above). This is also encouraging. Here is a theoretical physicist engaging with a climate data analysis and associated conjectures. Lubos is a free spirit, not in thrall to any oppressive climate establishment. Neither are Evans and Nova in any such thrall. I expect the greatest progress to come from such people, and not from a decadent establishment intent on exploiting the CO2 hypothesis at any cost, while being ruthlessly cheered on by powerful financial and political interests who have long spotted advantage there.
David Appel:
"though this feature is not presently utilized."
Les Johnson wrote:
"Robitaille says Kirchhoff's law is invalid. And Planck's equation."
Sure. And he has convinced exactly nobody.
In 2002 Robitaille took out a very expensive ad in the NT TImes to promote his ideas:
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/19/us/ripples-in-ohio-from-ad-on-the-big-bang.html
that "...was described by other scientists as demonstrably incorrect."
In other words, he is a crank.
Broadly speaking I'm with Lubos on this one. But we shall see.
Read more carefully, Les. The "not presently utilized" refers to "the surface emissivity within each spectral band," viz., as a function of wavelength.
I'm afraid it's almost certainly wrong....
Jun 17, 2014 at 12:23 PM | Unregistered CommenterHarry Dale Huffman
Like the theory of evolution by random selection?
David Appel:
"...was described by other scientists as demonstrably incorrect."
Did these "other scientists" publish work refuting Robitailles published work?
Lubos' piece is a very strong critique, and apparently sound.
I think this should be treated with caution. I'm always suspicious of "hunting" for cycles. There are many ways to get cycles or frequencies of 11 or 20 or so years. It's a bit like numerology!
I've read through the posts so far, and I'm mystified. I can accept the assumption that a notch filter is required in order to leave a temperature signal that does NOT show a spectral peak at 11 years. What confused me is why the step transient response must start in "negative time" (i.e. prior to the stimulus)...
The peak in TSI spectrum looks like a fairly simple series resonance (in electrical analogue). A corresponding notch filter could be modelled by a parallel resonant circuit. The step response of such a circuit does NOT start before the stimulus. The entire subsequent discussion of the required 11 year lag is predicated on the shape of the step transient response, and I suspect a filter characteristic could be found that provided reasonable cancellation of the peak without any such need for a time delay. The lag requirement adds a complexity that may be a red herring.
Maybe I'm missing something here. I don't doubt that the notch shape was directly derived from the raw data, and that its impulse or step response appeared as shown in the post (presumably calculated by inverse FFT or OFT). But I didn't see any attempt to model the "real life" filters that might create analogous spectra.
Interesting underlying concept, however!
Sensorman,
I think his point is that a notch filter is of necessity resonant, and and resonant filter has a response time of the order of the period of the resonance multiplied by its quality factor. So any notch filter must delay the response to the input as well as notching out the undesired band.
I agree that a lot of the detail seems to be making too much of rather little, but to be fair we are seeing semi-popular versions at present.
I think Lubos has found the Achilles heel of this approach. Oh well.
> I think Lubos has found the Achilles heel of this approach. Oh well.
I'm not so sure.
Looking at Evan's background in maths and digital signal processing I think he'd fully understand Lubos' objections.
We haven't seen all the 'theory', I'm amused at how many are trying to refute it without the whole picture (I am not talking about Lubos here).
Nial
I'm with you on this. From Lobus's post on his blog there has been communication between him and David on the work well before Jo started publishing on her blog this week. David is not a fool and he would have rechecked / rethought any objections Lobus had mentioned before "going live". So we could end up with an online disagreement but that is how it should be. In the end it will either strengthen the conclusions or as David has already said, it will be binned.
The question is whether the correlation is unique or arbitrary. Do only the real temperature plots afford a working correlation or will it also manufacture correlation for time-mismatched temperature tests or some randomized model of temperature. Lubos suggests merely reversing the temperature plot in time to retain the spectral characteristics. His assumption is that no, it's not uniquely correlated.
@Patagon
> ... I think it wouldn't be too difficult to start a new publishing model<
I've lost count of the number of vague, supercilious hand-waves on this topic
None, repeat, none of these comments has presented a practical method of possible achievement. When questioned, the commenters prefer silence. Evans has put up such a possibility, bravely in my view. That view is irrespective of any validity that may or may not accrue to his actual climate model
I also agree with Lubos. He makes a number of points that make a lot of sense.
David Appell's response is curious, in computing the response I notice he uses a no-feedback climate response. I strongly agree with Appell's use of no-feedback response, much like Lindzen uses for CO2, as linearised positive feedbacks in the climate system are unjustifiable scientifically. Amazing to see Appell in such strong agreement with Lindzen, and the only reasonable conclusion from that is that CO2 is of little concern!
Sometimes in this debate it feels like people are unwilling to say "we don't know" - perhaps through the perception that this is a weak answer. Accepting that there are fundamental things we do not understand about climate is not a weakness. It is the core of a powerful argument. Much more powerful than grasping at weak explanations which will simply not stack up (whether CO2, or "other").