[dohboi]

"we may be in a new regime"

Yes, that's the other grim possibility--step change.

If that happens, we'll be wishing the denialists still had something to crow about!

[Subjectivist]

Look on the bright side, maybe it's a small step?

[AgentR11]

Look on the bright side, maybe it's a small step?

boulders pushed off clifs don't have small steps. wise to not be underneath them.

[Simon_R]

Agent : -
I am not an AGW denier, quite the opposite. However all I was attempting to say was with a peak prediction of 2017 it will be easy to measure, and whilst you are right in that, IF he is right, the cooling effect needs to last decades again, time will tell, but until it does/or doesn't pumping tons of Co2 into the atmosphere is not a good idea.

Lore :-
If his model is an accurate backcast, it is not really enough to say that it is a

non starter

, you need to prove the model does not work.
I accept that an unknown and yet quantifiable factor is less than satisfactory, however IF the backcast is accurate and the forecast (peak heat in 2017) is proved (which as discussed above is not a simple thing) then the model is accurate (within limits).

[Tanada]

Look on the bright side, maybe it's a small step?

boulders pushed off cliffs don't have small steps. wise to not be underneath them.

Gee Agent between the climate catastrophe and global thermonuclear war talk I get the feeling you are in a pessimistic mood the last week or so. What has you so gloomy?

[Lore]

Lore :-
If his model is an accurate backcast, it is not really enough to say that it is a

non starter

, you need to prove the model does not work.
I accept that an unknown and yet quantifiable factor is less than satisfactory, however IF the backcast is accurate and the forecast (peak heat in 2017) is proved (which as discussed above is not a simple thing) then the model is accurate (within limits).

I pointed out by his own admission that his model doesn't work. It was also pointed out by other sceptics his math is wrong. I also gave a quote from Guy Brasseur why the 11 year solar cycle does not influence long term climate change to begin with. His model has not been successfully reproduced, or quantified by any science I'm aware of.

Therefore, his backcast is not accurate. It does not work for all the above reasons. What more do you need? He is simply forcing the data to reach a predetermined conclusion. That is a sham at best.

[Simon_R]

Hi Lore

If what you say is correct (and I do not know enough to disagree) then indeed he is torturing the data, and the model needs to be treated with scepticism.

It does seem odd that someone would say that their model does not work, and then push the results, hey ho,its a rum old world.

Simon

[Apneaman]

The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus

"" An enduring popular myth suggests that in the 1970s the climate science community was predicting “global cooling” and an “imminent” ice age, an observation frequently used by those who would undermine what climate scientists say today about the prospect of global warming. A review of the literature suggests that, on the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists' thinking as being one of the most important forces shaping Earth's climate on human time scales. More importantly than showing the falsehood of the myth, this review describes how scientists of the time built the foundation on which the cohesive enterprise of modern climate science now rests.

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10. ... BAMS2370.1

Reality Check: Most Scientists Never Believed In "Global Cooling"

"There was indeed hype in the 1970s about a coming ice age, but it was a media-invented hype that not only misunderstood the actual science of the era, but also egregiously misrepresented it."

http://io9.com/reality-check-most-scien ... 1617925806

Sorry, a TIME Magazine Cover Did Not Predict a Coming Ice Age
A doctored TIME magazine cover warns of a coming ice age. But the reality remains that the world is warming, thanks chiefly to human action

http://science.time.com/2013/06/06/sorr ... g-ice-age/


How the "Global Cooling" Story Came to Be

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... ame-to-be/

[KaiserJeep]

Lore :-
If his model is an accurate backcast, it is not really enough to say that it is a

non starter

, you need to prove the model does not work.
I accept that an unknown and yet quantifiable factor is less than satisfactory, however IF the backcast is accurate and the forecast (peak heat in 2017) is proved (which as discussed above is not a simple thing) then the model is accurate (within limits).

I pointed out by his own admission that his model doesn't work. It was also pointed out by other sceptics his math is wrong. I also gave a quote from Guy Brasseur why the 11 year solar cycle does not influence long term climate change to begin with. His model has not been successfully reproduced, or quantified by any science I'm aware of.

Therefore, his backcast is not accurate. It does not work for all the above reasons. What more do you need? He is simply forcing the data to reach a predetermined conclusion. That is a sham at best.

Let's get a few things straight:

One of the main applications for Fourier Analysis has always been to break down complex systems into constituent parts. The applications are many, but in my own profession of Electrical Engineering, Fourier series are used to understand complex signal analysis, acoustics, control systems theory, design reliability assessments, filter design, solutions to complex differential equations, etc. Fundamentally in fact, Fourier Analysis is a means of analysing a complex system output and breaking it down into the sum of constituent parts, those parts are trigonometric functions (sines and cosines).

In this application, Evans is analysing global temperatures and assigning sources to them. The most dominant influence on temperature is the TSI (Total Solar Insolation) which is proportional to the number of observed sunspots. (Hint: sunspots are NOT one of the unidentified sines, even though this assertion has been made, and jealous "climate scientists" have suggested there is something else in play that matches the sunspot cycle with three significant digits of precision.)(Some people will dispute anything, particularly on the internet.)

I mean, who'd a thunk that ===> The Sun affects global temperatures? Apparently some "climate scientists" would argue the point, because they have. As have some of you here. The fact that Evans has not yet identified all of the sine and cosine climate inputs to his model is irrelevant, because the math works. But it DOES offend the "bottoms up" modelling crowd, not only because his model works where theirs have failed miserably, but because his very success indicates strongly that their very methodology is faulty and doomed to failure.

It is a misrepresentation to say that Evans says "his own model does not work". His model obviously DOES WORK, with far greater precision than anyone else's climate model. He has said that many of the trigonometric constituents (those sines and cosines contributing to global temperatures) remain unidentified. That is true in a great many applications of Joseph Fourier's work - for example the astronomers LaGrange and Gauss used what was then known as "harmonic analysis" (before Fourier's rigorous work) to deduce the existence of two unknown gas giants beyond the two (Jupiter and Saturn) that were then observable from Earth. When observations of the perturbations in the orbits of known planets were calculated with extreme precision (a task of daunting complexity in the era before computers) then we knew the orbits of Neptune and Uranus, and they were also observed, in the orbits predicted for them.

Without any doubt whatsoever, Fourier Analysis works. What we need to do now is further refine Evans work with better temperature observations, better solar observations, and (yes indeed) better ways of understanding the distribution of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere (because many models erroneously assume such distribution to be uniform). Evans is not saying after all that carbon dioxide has no impact, only that there are negative feedback constituents that reduce the climate impact to approximately 10% of the value shown in other models.

That the nature of these feedback loops is not yet understood is irrelevant because it does not affect our ability to model climate when we have unknown values in the formulae that forecast temperatures. Indeed there is an incredible research opportunity here: refine the observations of global climate and identify those trigonometric inputs which dominate the equations of the model.

Bottom line: The Evans climate model works with incredible precision.

P.S.: Apneaman, I think you wanted to post that last in my other thread "Cold Sun Rising".

[Lore]

His model does not work. Please link to where it has been scientifically and verifiably reproduced?

[KaiserJeep]

I did so in the very first post. Sniff around that web site, see the model itself, and read the bibliographies.

The true status of many climate researchers exposed to the Evans model is best described as "shocked dismay", because the basis for their own funding of a "bottoms up" climate model is jeopardized by a recognition that Evans model has accurate and repeatable results. They have their heads down now, but increased numbers are making grant applications that will allow them to extend and elaborate on Evans' model.

Arrayed against Evans and his work are the vast majority of climate scientists, including two very prominent ones who previously employed Evans to work on their own climate models - and very probably, inspired him to apply Fourier Analysis to climate modelling. Note that the two 900-pound Gorillas (IPCC models and NASA's GISS) are among the opposition parties in danger of being proved wrong and irrelevant.

Oops.

The huge problem that has to be worked around: The IPCC and NASA control almost all of the R&D funding. This is a true test of how "open minded" these "climate researchers" are - and whether they can control their pet government functionaries with the R&D budgets.

[AgentR11]

Government funding almost always follows the consensus model. You want to overturn the model, you get to pay the initial cost of doing so.

[davep]

I did so in the very first post. Sniff around that web site, see the model itself, and read the bibliographies.

Has it been peer reviewed? If so, please indicate where (and not on the same site).

[Apneaman]

Another one bites the dust.


Remember the forecast of a temporary global cooling which made headlines around the world in 2008? We didn’t think it was reliable and offered a bet. The forecast period is now over: we were right, the forecast was not skillful.


http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... winner-is/

[Keith_McClary]

I did so in the very first post. Sniff around that web site, see the model itself, and read the bibliographies.

You keep telling us not to trust anything online. I would prefer to wait for something resembling an academic paper which clearly spells out the assumptions, inputs and outputs, and theory and methods.
From the site:

Notching up open review improvements — a correction to Part III. Originally we thought a notch in a linear invariant system necessarily implied the existence of an associated delay. However electrical engineer Bernie Hutchins showed that a notch filter can be causal, not necessarily non-causal as we thought in Part III. [We later discovered the original calculations using FFTs were correct, just incomplete -- a notch filter can be either causal or non-causal. However there is a lot of physical evidence for an 11 -year delay, so perhaps this misconception was a lucky accident, alerting us to the delay. Apart from the notch-causality, the rest of the theory stands. Oct 2015.]

They are claiming to make predictions but are confused about "causal or non-causal" transforms? This is longstanding textbook mathematical physics (Fourier transforms are a prerequisite for these books).

Since you have spent many hours wading through all these webpages, do you disagree with Motl :

This frequency-based Evans response function is simply the ratio of the Fourier-transformed global mean temperature and the Fourier-transformed solar output!
https://motls.blogspot.ca/2014/06/david ... ry-of.html

[Lore]

I did so in the very first post. Sniff around that web site, see the model itself, and read the bibliographies.

One of the precepts of any working theory is that it must be independently reproducible. I've been unable to find anyone else that has been able to verify The Notch as a working model. If you know of someone that has been able to replicate Evans work, please give us the link?



.

[KaiserJeep]

I did so in the very first post. Sniff around that web site, see the model itself, and read the bibliographies.

You keep telling us not to trust anything online. I would prefer to wait for something resembling an academic paper which clearly spells out the assumptions, inputs and outputs, and theory and methods.
From the site:

Notching up open review improvements — a correction to Part III. Originally we thought a notch in a linear invariant system necessarily implied the existence of an associated delay. However electrical engineer Bernie Hutchins showed that a notch filter can be causal, not necessarily non-causal as we thought in Part III. [We later discovered the original calculations using FFTs were correct, just incomplete -- a notch filter can be either causal or non-causal. However there is a lot of physical evidence for an 11 -year delay, so perhaps this misconception was a lucky accident, alerting us to the delay. Apart from the notch-causality, the rest of the theory stands. Oct 2015.]

They are claiming to make predictions but are confused about "causal or non-causal" transforms? This is longstanding textbook mathematical physics (Fourier transforms are a prerequisite for these books).

Since you have spent many hours wading through all these webpages, do you disagree with Motl :

This frequency-based Evans response function is simply the ratio of the Fourier-transformed global mean temperature and the Fourier-transformed solar output!
https://motls.blogspot.ca/2014/06/david ... ry-of.html

Motl's prime disagreement appears to be with Evans' identification of the prime constituent of climate being TSI. I find this astonishing in it's stupidity, to be perfectly frank. Any discussion of climate must take into account the total irradiance striking the Earth, it is fundamental and the amount of TSI will scale the impact of lesser order effects.

Saying that the model doesn't work - when it is the only model I am aware of that meets the "hindcasting" or "backcasting" verification - is also monumentally bone-headed.

The stupidest argument of all against Evans' work: "All he did was fit his equations to the data, that's why the math works." Duh, that's what Fourier Analysis does. But literally centuries of experience using the FA methods in dozens of myriad applications also confirm that the method is valid, and the results can be relied upon - even when one is unsure of the factors being modelled.

[KaiserJeep]

I did so in the very first post. Sniff around that web site, see the model itself, and read the bibliographies.

One of the precepts of any working theory is that it must be independently reproducible. I've been unable to find anyone else that has been able to verify The Notch as a working model. If you know of someone that has been able to replicate Evans work, please give us the link?



.

Everybody has been able to reproduce his work - download his model and dataset - you can do so yourself with less than an hour's work, I am sure. They tried to dispute the sunspot data, and failed. They tried to attack the methodology and failed - but it sticks in their craw because the figures are solid and call into question "bottoms up" modelling in all forms.

I'm going to go out on a long limb here, and appeal to what is normally called "common sense". You understand that global climate is an insanely complex system, do you not? It is composed of hundreds of thousands, possibly millions of distinct constituent inputs. Some of these, such as the often discussed El Niño and La Niña events, are obviously important. Others, such as whether a mouse farts in the midst of a Force III hurricane, probably are not significant. There is nothing wrong with Evans' approach of taking the observed temperatures, and then mathematically decomposing them into sinusoidal and co-sinusoidal functions, using Fourier techniques.

Evans' OFT tool was developed for signal processing applications in cell phones. It has usability in both acoustic noise suppression of cell handsets and electromagnetic noise suppression of cell tower transceivers in the chaotic electromagnetic environment of a city. That it has other applications is not a new thought, the older FFT and DFT tools have hundreds of diverse applications. In other words, there is nothing wrong with the concept of using Fourier Analysis to analyze climate - much as it offends the sensibilities of "bottoms up" modellers.

I'm done. You can either believe the math or not - it works. You can dispute the technique or not - but classically, when one can actually solve for a result using FA, that result is valid.

We will find out sometime between 2020 and 2030. But note that the "bottoms up" modellers are in full retreat, finding innumerable excuses - some repeated here in this thread - for "anomalous cooling trends".

[Lore]

Who is everybody? Just give us a link?

If everybody is able to reproduce it then why can't Luboš Motl?

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.

So he's really not just one level but two levels from having anything that could count as a physical justification of the model. Not only the physical mechanisms based on well-known physical phenomena are unknown. He can't even write down the differential equations for functions of time and their derivatives that would produce such a strange response function.

[KaiserJeep]

I'm NOT spending my time searching the web, seeking to spoon feed your head with knowledge. That would be your job. Note that there are beaucoups comments and web pages and blogs on this topic - and Evans has not been refuted - and any "climate scientist" would be foolish to attempt to do so, his mathematical skills dwarf theirs - the most prominent among them employed Evans to refine their own climate models.