Friday, August 1, 2014

A memorial to "The Notch" - RIP

Sou | 4:49 PM Go to the first of 33 comments. Add a comment

In the comments earlier, Don Brooks asked:
Is the "Force X" stuff really RIP? Nova and Evans don't seem like the types to give up easily, even when it's shown beyond doubt that they're talking tosh. 
And I couldn't believe they came up with that self-parodying term for it.

The Notch is RIP, dead but not quite buried. It was a muted announcement by Jo Nova and David Evans back on 21st July 2014. No "Big News" fanfare about it's passing, in contrast to its birth. I believe it died quietly, surrounded by family and close friends and is mourned greatly and will be treasured in denier memories.

In order for Force X to rise from the ashes, the rocket scientist from Luna Park is relying on David "funny sunny" Archibald and similar nutters to come up with a plausible explanation of their predicted rapid cooling over the next six years. Joanne wrote:
...the notch doesn’t guarantee a delay as we had previously thought. But there is independent evidence suggesting temperatures on Earth follow solar activity with a one cycle delay — the lag seen in studies like Archibald, Friis-Christainsen and Usoskin is still a lag.

David Evans wrote (archived here) that he's going to come up with some new parameters to replace The Notch (RIP) and forecast imminent global cooling:
So what does this mean for the notch-delay model? Possibly not much, but there will be a delay (ahem) while I recompute things and update the model and graphs.
The causality of a notch doesn’t support the mandatory nature of the delay that I thought I had established, but there is plenty of other evidence to suggest a delay is needed. There are half a dozen independent findings of a delay around about 11 years in the literature, and a solar influence fits better with a delay (e.g. Lockwood and Froehlich 2007 — they show that solar influence doesn’t fit without a delay). Either the sun has little effect beyond the small TSI variations, and we’re left with CO2-driven climate models that don’t work and a mystery about all the warming before 1900, or there is some solar effect that appears to be delayed from TSI changes. While the notch does not *necessarily* mean a delay, certainly the *possibility* of a delay is strong. So there is sufficient reason to include a delay in the solar model — so the model remains as before, with no change. (Clarification: the form stays the same, the parameters will vary).

David Evans is quite determined to throw good money after bad (donations from denier suckers are paying for it so what the heck).  He is also determined to reject climate science that explains changes in climate over the years. He is a greenhouse effect denier stuck on "it's the sun".

Click here and here for previous articles about Force X and The Notch.


  1. Evans writes.
    "e.g. Lockwood and Froehlich 2007 — they show that solar influence doesn’t fit without a delay"

    Evans must be high on crack to suggest this.

    The paper that he is referring to is here.

    And nowhere in the paper does Lockwood (or even the data) suggest any delay, in fact he says the COMPLETE opposite. That TSI and temperature have diverged, suggesting that the recent rise in temperature is NOT related to an increase in TSI.


    If Evans had understood even a small fraction of that paper he wouldn't have needed to created the absurd 'delay notch' hypothesis. This is what is so annoying with deniers. They seem so completely blinded by their own ideology, that they will read a scientific paper, and see the complete opposite, or totally invent things that the paper never suggested.

    This sort of ridiculousness is what gives deniers such a bad reputation and makes them look like complete loons. I wonder is it due to wilful ignorance combined with ideology, or is it just utter stupidity.

  2. Replies
    1. The proof of great comedy is that, even when you know the jokes, you still enjoy watching repeats.

      Thanks for the reminder of Bickmore's First and Second Laws of Monckton. Barry Bickmore sowed, and now he is bringing in the harvest.

  3. So their current set of nonsense crumbles about them, and yet the result that they are determined to predict remains the same.

  4. The level of groupthink self-congratulation on that thread is truly remarkable. Apparently the fact that it was one of their own that took the trouble to demonstrate that the idea casually dismissed as unworkable by the merely qualified didn't, um, work, um, actually, is one in the eye for the IPCC, if not perhaps the start of a second scientific revolution! Go Team!

  5. "and we’re left with CO2-driven climate models that don’t work and a mystery about all the warming before 1900"

    um...what does that even mean? anybody?


    1. It's gibberish, isn't it? Purest unadulterated garblage.

    2. Nick Stokes is right this minute working on addressing the pre-1900 CO2 increase. It is due to land management changes (i.e. mainly deforestation):

      That CO2 added to the air is ours

    3. They don't work for the fossil fuel industry.

  6. Is there space left in the denial cemetery of bad ideas?

  7. " I believe it died quietly, surrounded by family and close friends and is mourned greatly and will be treasured in denier memories."

    I predict that, like a good zombie, it will be back, superficially upgraded but with nothing new.

    1. Or, to put it another way, it will achieve the quantum superposition common to all refuted denier ideas, and simultaneously remain unrefuted.

  8. "...while I recompute things..."

    Pardon me for saying, David, but your epicycles are showing. :-)

  9. "This is what is so annoying with deniers. They seem so completely blinded by their own ideology, that they will read a scientific paper"

    Nobody here has mentioned that it was not widely accepted by sceptics and derided but a quite a few in comments on the blog and in other blogs.

    The comments here show the same contempt for knowledge that is complained about. http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/retrograde/copernican.html (about half way down)

    1. 'Not widely accepted'? Tell you what, how about you count up how many folks at Nova's just swallowed it whole, and then tally up those who didn't, and get back to us?

      Remember, you keep telling us you're 'skeptics'. Personally I rather doubt it...

      Also, the credulous self-congratulation just never relents: we've overcome mainstream science with our peer-to-peer variant; we're the new scientific revolution! oh, maybe not, after all; we're still the new scientific revolution!

      And the hateful groupthink re Mike Mann from every single freaking one of you is genuinely repulsive... truly cult-like.

    2. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  10. "derided by a few in comments"

    I should also add that someone politely made a valid bit of criticism that Jo politely wrote about and acknowledged that they did make a mistake.

    Science not bitching!

    1. Have you also noted the legal threats by one of J Nova's friends and also writing to the employer of one of the critics to try and get him into trouble?


    2. So long ago that it feels like a different life, Jo Nova's people did complain to my employer. My boss came to see me, and we had a chuckle about it.

  11. I have come to the conclusion that deniers are the first proof of the multiverse theory. They must live in another universe to arrive at the very strange theories they all propound. Not only are they all incoherent but they also seem to contradict each other and be totally oblivious to these contradictions just as if they lived in different universes with different laws of Physics.
    In fact we may even postulate they can travel between these alternate universes as their sets of ideas seem to cover all the conflicting 'strange' ideas that have no basis in Our Universe. Bert

    1. Riiight.... Bert from Eltham... as I've said to bill at Deltoid...the men in white coats will be round shortly to pick you up.

    2. It looks as if Mack has been smitten by the mysterious unmeasurable, unobserved, weightless, colourless, invisible Force X and the notch.

      Not a surprise.

    3. Mack I wore a white coat for over forty years in a real research lab. We did not go around rounding up non believers. I may wear it one last time to stave off the threat of an imbecile.

      I am retired now from paid work but I still do science. I have my observatory for astrophotography.

      Here is a picture of Antares


      Taken from my backyard. Bert

    4. That's a stunning photo, Bert. Thanks.

    5. Great shot indeed! Which camera, BTW?

    6. This is a very expensive system. Close to eighty grand with the observatory,

      Astrograph is an Officina Stellare RH200 which has a focal length of 600mm and is F3. Clear aperture is 200mm.
      FLI Atlas Focuser.
      FLI ten position filter wheel CFW-3-10 with 50mm square filters.
      Astrodon E series LRGB and HA, NII, SII and OIII 3nm NB filters. Also a continuum filter 5nm.
      Camera is a FLI PL16803 which has a sensor size 36.8 X 36.8 mm.
      The FoV of this system is 3.5 X 3.5 degrees.
      Mount is a Software Bisque PMX.

      I have given up wine women and song for this. Alright I lied I gave up song.

      I can put up pictures.

      If Sou likes I can send more images.

      This is not about my system. It is about my credentials as a scientist.


    7. Sweet rig!

      Bert - have you considered a Flickr account if you want to share these images? (All, including free accounts, have unlimited storage: you get extensive statistics and no ads if you choose the inexpensive 'pro' variant) You can also have your images download restricted if that's a concern.

      Here's a couple of example groups:


    8. Thanks Bill. It took a lot of careful calculation to put this dream system together. I have a site where I put up full resolution images. I do not care what people do with my images. If they are not viewed they do not exist!

      I am just an old fart that has not got his head around Flickr yet.

      I spent years trying to understand quantum mechanics now you want me to learn this thing called Flickr. Just joking.

      Sou really makes me feel inadequate as she surgically eviscerates the deniers and exposes the putrid rotting lies that fester in their bellies.


    9. Bert, would love to show some of your images if you can downsize for the blog (or if you're happy for me to do that). It would be nice to brighten HW with stardust :)

      Email me at sou at hotwhopper dot com.

    10. Bert, I can understand Flickr, like a lot of the web, looks intimidating at first, but it really is quite straightforward to manage. Certainly anyone who can get the hang of commenting on blogs should find it all relatively easy to sort out.

      Here's a methodical basic introduction -


      Note that if you already have a Yahoo, GMail or Facebook account you already have an ID Flickr will accept - otherwise it takes about 60 seconds to set one up.

      One of the big advantages is that it will create a whole bunch of different standardized sizes of your shots automatically, and enables easy distribution of these images appropriate to the context, e.g. smaller version ready to be pulled into a blog like Sou's.

      And if you get the hang of tagging your work effectively you really can get it seen on Flickr. My own site has had me providing images to organizations from the state and federal Departments of Environment, to National Geographic, to HarperCollins, to Australia Post (first-day cover due at the start of September!), ACF, GetUp!, the state library's permanent collection, and many others.

      I reckon it's worth considering given, as you say, unviewed images don't exist!

  12. "as I've said to bill at Deltoid...the men in white coats will be round shortly to pick you up"

    I'm skeptical of this. Link, please.

  13. Upon reflection I think a roadkill metaphor might be more apt. There's even suitable musical accompaniment.

  14. NOTCH, The — On the 21st day of July, 2014, aged 19 months. Beloved of David & Joanne. Survived by Chris Monckton, Rog Tallbloke and David Archibald. RIP in peace.


Instead of commenting as "Anonymous", please comment using "Name/URL" and your name, initials or pseudonym or whatever. You can leave the "URL" box blank. This isn't mandatory. You can also sign in using your Google ID, Wordpress ID etc as indicated. NOTE: Some Wordpress users are having trouble signing in. If that's you, try signing in using Name/URL. Details here.

Click here to read the HotWhopper comment policy.