Update: The Notch has passed away, peacefully, in the presence of family and close friends, with little fanfare. RIP. [Sou 1 August 2014]
Someone suggested I preserve this for the record. It shows how some deniers will waste an inordinate amount of time and energy in the fruitless pursuit of ABCD (anything but carbon dioxide). From Joanne Nova (Codling) and her partner David "not a rocket scientist" Evans, (h/t John Mashey) - Deniers in Residence, Australia.
This is a record of all their blog posts on the subject so far. I've already written about their Part VIII. In this complete set (so far), they set out why they reckon it's not really CO2 that's causing global warming, it's Force X from the sun. Force X, by a strange coincidence, has about the same radiative forcing as greenhouse gases.
Update: The WUWT article by David "funny sunny" Archibald on this subject has earned 533 comments so far, so here's the archive - latest here, with 638 comments. More than any article for years, I'd say. But it's not listed in as one of the "top four active stories". Wonder why (not)! Watch for the match between Christopher Monckton and Leif Svalgaard and comments by Wondering Willis Eschenbach. Sou 2 July 2014
The mechanism for Force X is not known at this time, we're told. Which they agree is a shame. It could be anything from UV light to puppy dog tails. All they know is that it can't be CO2 and, to prove it, the world is about to get very cold, any day now. David's very meticulous 18-month modeling effort allows him to make this extremely precise, extremely falsifiable prediction: it will cool by 0.8°C, or maybe 0.6°C, or maybe 0.1°C - next year, or maybe in ten or even twenty years.
Or, if you are David "funny sunny" Archibald, by two degrees:
|Data source: Marcott13 and WUWT|
If you're on the home page and you want to read about all their zany articles to date, click "read more". If you click on the title to their blog articles, it'll take you to the archived versions complete with comments.
BIG NEWS Part I: Historic development — New Solar climate model coming 14 June 14
For the last 18 months David pursued an idea, and developed something the climate debate has needed, but failed to do achieve after 30 years, despite billions of dollars in funding. He’s taken sophisticated silicon-chip maths and applied it to the climate system — analyzing the system as a black box to discover the filters and parts. He has built a working O-D model with 15,000 lines of code. In order to develop the model he had to produce a more advanced method of Fourier analysis (which on its own is an achievement and will be useful in many other fields). ...
...Over the last six months we’ve been quietly circulating this work amongst scientists we admire and seeking feedback. We want more, and open science is the only way to go. I will boldly predict that many papers will spring from this work and its implications, but for the moment we see no reason to wait for two unpaid reviewers and an editor (with little knowledge of the details) to delay or prevaricate on its release.
...The fans of the CO2 dominant models are not going to be happy. It seems the climate is an 80-20 sort of thing, where there is a dominant influence responsible for 80% of climate change and a tail of 20% of other factors. It turns out that the CO2 concentration is not the 80% factor, but in the 20% tail. An indirect solar influence seems to be the main factor....
...There is a big paper with all of the above in rigorous detail. It runs to about 170 pages. There is some groundwork to discuss before it is all released. This should produce a more productive discussion.Sou: 170 pages. It must be right. It passes the weight test :) (I hope he's not trying to get it published in Nature.)
...Let this be the last nail in the coffin of climate extremism... Christopher Monckton, Viscount of Brenchley.Sou: We can but hope.
BIG NEWS Part II: For the first time – a mysterious notch filter found in the climate 15 June 14
To put some numbers on it: TSI typically varies from the trough to the peak of a sunspot cycle by about 0.8 W/m2. If this was a long term change, the Stefan-Boltzmann equation would imply a change in radiating temperature of about 0.26°C, which would result in a change in surface temperature of about 0.5°C. Even allowing for some attenuation by a low pass filter, there ought to be a detectable temperature peaks.
Sou: No, not really. David "not a rocket scientist" Evans' estimate is a bit off.
...Short-term variations of a few tenths of a percent are common during the approximately 11-year sunspot solar cycle (1.2.2 Key Concepts in Climate Science)
...Typical changes measured over an 11-year solar cycle are 0.1% for TSI and up to several percent for the ultra-violet (UV) part of SSI (see Section 8.4). Changes in TSI directly impact the Earth’s surface (see solar Box 10.2), whereas changes in UV primarily affect the stratosphere, but can influence the tropospheric circulation through dynamical coupling (Haigh, 1996). (22.214.171.124 Solar Forcing)
...Based on concentration changes, the RF [radiative forcing] of all WMGHG [well-mixed greenhouse gases] in 2011 is 2.83 [2.54 to 3.12] Wm-2 (very high confidence). (TS.3.2 Radiative Forcing from Greenhouse Gases)
BIG NEWS Part III: The notch means a delay 17 June 14
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).Sou: Oh my. Such precision! (David should become a rocket scientist.)
BIG NEWS part IV: A huge leap understanding the mysterious 11 year solar delay 17 June 14
The big mystery is what could cause such a long delay in the correlation of solar radiation with temperatures on Earth?
David and I spent months wondering “what on Earth” could drive it.
In the end, the answer was so prosaic, so beautiful – of course, the only possibility for a delay so perfectly timed with solar cycles was within the sun itself. Have we been fooled by a language slip? “Peak” solar activity doesn’t mean a “peak” in magnetic activity, actually it’s the other way around.
Think about the timing: At the peak of the sunspot cycle, while the sun is producing its maximum solar irradiation, it turns out that the Sun’s magnetic field is collapsing through its weakest moment. (Marvel at Figure 1 below.) The solar radiation only varies a little through the cycle, but the dynamo of the solar magnetic field is undergoing profound changes — flipping in polarity from North to South or back again. This causes the notch.
We don’t know exactly how this collapsing magnetic field reduces the effect of solar radiation on Earth. One obvious candidate is Svensmark’s cosmic ray hypothesis. He theorized that during the months of the weakest magnetic field the Earth loses its shield against cosmic rays, seeding clouds. But the mystery force might be electrical, or work through UV, or be something else entirely. Nonetheless, it was a leap to finally connect so many studies.Sou: Lol!
BIG NEWS Part V: Escaping heat. The Three pipes theory and the RATS multiplier 19 June 14
The problem then is to work out their order and to fill in any other bits needed by the model.Sou: Yes, that is an insurmountable problem, if you reject the greenhouse effect.
Lubos and a few misconceptions 19 June 14
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.
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,Sou: Obviously! Now why hasn't anyone else thought of that? I expect David is writing his next 170-page paper on how Force X affects the other planets. And in the interim, he'll be trying to figure out why his Force X only came into being at the exact same time as CO2 increased.
BIG NEWS part VI: Building a new solar climate model with the notch filter 21 June 14
The discovery of the notch filter means some other force (yet to be specified) from the sun acts with a delay of probably 11 years. This delayed force turns out to cause a lot of the variation in temperature.
BIG NEWS Part VII — Hindcasting with the Solar Model 24 June 14
Solar TSI appears to be a leading indicator for some other (probably solar) effect, that we are calling “force X” for now. If that factor, quantified by TSI, was fed into current climate models, then those models would work with less forcing from CO2.In other words, Force X by strange coincidence, has the same radiative forcing as CO2!
BIG NEWS VIII: New solar theory predicts imminent global cooling 27 June 14
The flickers in sunlight run a whole sunspot cycle ahead of some other force from the sun. ...Sou: Watch out for those sunny flicks!
The delay could be as much as 20 years, in which case the drop could be as late as 2024. Or it could occur as soon as 2014.Sou: Best to cover all bases!
Force X works by modulating the albedo of the Earth, or the amount of solar radiation reflected straight back out to space without changing the heat of the planet, by clouds and ice and so on.Sou: Clouds? Wait a minute, below David says it affects how much radiation comes into earth, not how much is radiated out.
Force X turns the tap that controls how much sunlight pours into the Earth’s climate system. This could be through UV, magnetic field effects, solar wind, or some form of electrical field.Sou: Puppy dog tails? Leprechauns? Hang on. I thought he just said it affected outgoing radiation, not incoming. I do wish he'd get his story straight. It's been 18 months after all.
Are transfer functions meaningless (the “white noise” point)? Beware your assumptions! 29 June 14
Some people are claiming that the transfer function is meaningless because you could use white noise instead of temperature data and get the same notch. It’s true, you could.
...It would be better if there was a known mechanism. Of course, but Rome wasn’t built in a day, steady on.
Sou: Hmmm....I guess you can't have everything. Oh, wait. In climate science the mechanism is well known, proven beyond a shadow of doubt. It's called the greenhouse effect!