[dissident]

I don't know Evans' work. If I understand KJ's description correctly, Evans' method can produce an accurate description of climate from after the Maunder Minimum until today, and shows a periodicity that matches the 11-year solar cycle. Is that correct?

No such periodicity exists in any reconstruction or instrumental temperature record. So this "theory" is BS before it gets started.

Does the model include a mechanism or mechanisms that account for the climate history?

Of course not.

[AgentR11]

Whether you can change KJ's mind is irrelevant; its impact on an undecided reader can be significant if others do not chime in to point at, and name the fool.

Everyone viewing this topic is a member of the forum that has long ago made up their mind. So, basically he is preaching to nobody here.

There are a ton of drive by readings and google indexing and all manner of page loads. What you write is read by hundreds of people that never post, and many of those won't even have an account on po.

[Lore]

Whether you can change KJ's mind is irrelevant; its impact on an undecided reader can be significant if others do not chime in to point at, and name the fool.

Everyone viewing this topic is a member of the forum that has long ago made up their mind. So, basically he is preaching to nobody here.

There are a ton of drive by readings and google indexing and all manner of page loads. What you write is read by hundreds of people that never post, and many of those won't even have an account on po.

Check the guest view. The category is for members only. Even if a search engine managed to crawl it, you would still need to signup to read the link. Guests are restricted to only reading the allowed P.O. related topics now.

[KaiserJeep]

It simply boggles the mind. One man finds a model of climate that works, that predicts future temperatures with an astonishing accuracy. He uses a form of mathematics created by a one of the world's great mathematician in the 19th century, which has been successfully applied to complex systems of all types all over the world for almost two centuries. But his work has one fatal flaw: his predicted temperatures say that the living planet will partially heal itself of the effects of excess carbon dioxide via a previously unknown negative feedback mechanism, and that the carbon dioxide forced temperature swing will be lower than anyone else predicts. His very success casts severe doubts on all other climate models, because his astonishing results indicate that "bottoms up" modelling does not work, cannot be made to work with our current computing resources, and in fact, may never be within human grasp because of the complexity of the system being modelled.

Thousands of men attempt and fail to model climate. Millions of dollars, countless man-hours are wasted. Their models do not work, failing to predict temperatures or future temperature trends. The world does not warm as quickly as predicted, and these men become increasingly shrill, labelling the lower-than-expected temperatures "anomalies".

This situation will continue, apparently forever, until that obstinate global climate complies with the majority opinion. Meanwhile the only person successfully predicting the future temperatures is labelled a charleton, and is ignored, and his accurate model is ignored, even though he has successfully defended it against all attempts to discredit his results or his method of analysis.

Now I have a question for those of you whose head is apparently filled with neutronium or some such dense substance. Evans has predicted that the current temperature trend will peak in 2017 and begin to reverse by 2020, and that we will enter what he has labelled a "Mini Ice Age" around 2030.

What if these predictions of Evans come about? Will you be convinced that he is correct then? If not, what would it take to convince you that burning fossil fuels will not doom us?

Will you still stubbornly cling to climate models that demonstrably don't work simply because they predict the Doom you so desperately desire? Is the only acceptable answer the one that you demand: a near time Doom from excess carbon dioxide in our atmosphere?

Inquiring minds want to know. Who will speak up and explain why Doom is the only acceptable answer?

[AgentR11]

captcha destroyed my post.
i forgot to save it to the clipboard before clicking submit.

KJ.. you are in error, and your post reads like you have a guilty conscience about all the burning of fossil fuels. you need not feel guilty. our civilization as a whole has decided, through its elected representatives to bbq the planet. They aren't deluded, or misinformed. They know exactly what the consensus is, and they're going to burn it all anyway.

I'll choose to rely on the consensus view for my outlook. If your guy can convince the people that matter that he's right, and they're all wrong, thats fine. Till then. Not.

[Cog]

Well 2020 is not that far off. If the trend starts down then evidently he is on to something. There will be many tears in the "we are all doomed" community but they will get over it.

[AgentR11]

I won't shed any tears for a reprieve; but a "trend starts down" won't impress me at all. Show me late summer Arctic Ice cover&mass like 1970. Show me a Greenland with increasing ice mass, and reduced glacial velocity. Show me dropping ocean heat content. That stuff is the most important, and holds vastly more heat than the atmosphere.

[Subjectivist]

I won't shed any tears for a reprieve; but a "trend starts down" won't impress me at all. Show me late summer Arctic Ice cover&mass like 1970. Show me a Greenland with increasing ice mass, and reduced glacial velocity. Show me dropping ocean heat content. That stuff is the most important, and holds vastly more heat than the atmosphere.

As Dr. Richard Alley points out, if you carefully pick your starting point you can select a large number of 5 year or longer "cooling trend" periods in the last sixty years. It takes a whole lot more than 5 years to change the course our climate Titanic is steering.

Unfortunately darn few humans can even picture five years into the future, most of us are so caught up in today and next week we can't even think about next year.

All those super optimistic 2100 forecasts for example predicting just a single foot of sea level rise. Those are mostly predicated on thermal expansion alone with no expectation of much change in Greenland or Antarctic ice sheets.

I am almost certain to be dust by the time 2100 rolls around and the same is true of all the politicians choosing to ignore the future. They either don't care at all, or expect their descendants to be on top of the power structures and relatively immune from the negative impacts.

[PrestonSturges]

It's funny but in 1958 they were talking about a 2.5 C increase by 2050 with Miami flooded out, and it looks like they were right on the money.

[Synapsid]

dissident,

Without a mechanism to account for the history his model describes then his model is just what used to be called "saving the appearances", like the Ptolomaic model of the heavens. It described the observed motion of the planets on the sky but had no basis in nature.

[Keith_McClary]

It simply boggles the mind. One man finds a model of climate that works, that predicts future temperatures with an astonishing accuracy.

Some guy with a blog you found on the internet. No qualifications or published climate related papers.

He uses a form of mathematics created by a one of the world's great mathematician in the 19th century, which has been successfully applied to complex systems of all types all over the world for almost two centuries.

I guess you mean Fourier. As Luboš Motl points out, all Evans is doing is dividing the Fourier transform of the temperature by the Fourier transform of the total solar irradiance to get his "notch filter". The 11 year "notch" is just the 11 year cycle in the TSI.

Even you Silly Valley types should know that you can fit any data to arbitrary functions, but using them to predict the future is ... Silly.

[Cid_Yama]

Trend? 2100? Please. Try getting to 2020 without everything predicted for 2100 happening, except the sea level rise, which will take longer for obvious reasons. Though it will be dramatic, even so.

Do you guys, after witnessing the last 5 years, think it will take 85 more years? Really?

Ha! I hope the internet, this website, and me, survives another 5 years for the 'I told you so'.

Actually, it doesn't matter. It won't take me to tell you. And I'm almost ready to move on. It pains me to see.

The Age of Stupid

[Simon_R]

Guys and Gals

not wanting to stick my finger in the hornets nest .... but

in modelling, the 'backcast' is actually a valid method of analysis.

As for not understanding the exact method, the world is full of such models, if the model predicts correctly then the part not understood gets a cool name and people hunt for it.

if the dude is right from 2018 we should see a cooling year on year

As for people being misled, I would hazard that this issue is much like the EU, people have already made up their mind and are only looking for reasons to back their point of view

Simon

[Cid_Yama]

Yeah, right. Please. Stop already. Your blindness astounds.

And you did want to stick your finger in, otherwise you wouldn't have posted.

The Age of Stupid

[Simon_R]

Yeah, right. Please. Stop already. Your blindness astounds

In what respect, could you elaborate ?

Please, try to rise above playground rhetoric

[AgentR11]

if the dude is right from 2018 we should see a cooling year on year

year on year is fun and games, but its irrelevant. decade on decade kinda matters, if you must do that sort of comparison.

What matters a lot more than either is ice coverage in the Arctic. If there was real cooling, the amount of ice in the arctic, and in particular its summer minimum extent and volume, would go through the roof. But that won't happen, and you know it won't happen, because you're like most denier preachers; you actually know the deal, you know where that heat went, and what it did; you just keep preaching these short term interval air temps when it suits your purpose, or talking up outlier theories that have no consensus support and won't end up with any consensus support.

All you're proving measuring year/year surface temps, is that the heat didn't go into the atmosphere, it went into the ocean, where its MORE dangerous.

Look, I'm kinda with you; since I believe we will burn all our coal, gas, and oil; I'd like to get the most profit out of *OUR* oil, gas, and coal; and taxes or other regulatory nuisances would reduce those profits. And for the lefty crowd, all AGW is turning out to be is simply a method of justifying additional tax revenues and/or welfare payout schemes to people that don't work.

But I also don't like to lie to myself. The addition of CO2 to the atmosphere, on this scale, is sufficient to put the Earth into a completely different climate system. But, we're gonna do it anyway, and attempt to deal with the consequences as they arise; which is the normal pattern for our species.

[dohboi]

Since we're in the midst of a super El Nino, it is quite likely that at least one and probably a few years in the coming decade are going to be cooler globally than 2015 and probably than 2016.

At that point, jokers like this will be jumping up and down claiming, "Look! I said there would be cooling, and there IS! GW is a hoax! I proved it!"

It's really all just too idiotic to fathom.

[Subjectivist]

Since we're in the midst of a super El Nino, it is quite likely that at least one and probably a few years in the coming decade are going to be cooler globally than 2015 and probably than 2016.

At that point, jokers like this will be jumping up and down claiming, "Look! I said there would be cooling, and there IS! GW is a hoax! I proved it!"

It's really all just too idiotic to fathom.

Sad but true, depending how this winter goes we will get five or six years (probably) of air temperature lower than 15-16 that will replace the 1998 pause rhetoric.

[Lore]

Yeah, right. Please. Stop already. Your blindness astounds

In what respect, could you elaborate ?

Please, try to rise above playground rhetoric

Well, because...

A) His math doesn't work, neither does the use of a mysterious Factor X (what kind of science is that?)

B) More importantly, the whole 11 year solar cycle influencing long term climate change is a non-starter to begin with.

[Lore]

Since we're in the midst of a super El Nino, it is quite likely that at least one and probably a few years in the coming decade are going to be cooler globally than 2015 and probably than 2016.

At that point, jokers like this will be jumping up and down claiming, "Look! I said there would be cooling, and there IS! GW is a hoax! I proved it!"

It's really all just too idiotic to fathom.

On the other hand we may be in a new regime. The trend will still be up. While the effects of El Nino will subside the PDO has switched to positive, which is a 20-30 year state. On top of that positive feedbacks will be really starting to kick in within the next five years.