Wednesday, June 7, 2017

David Archibald (again) predicts an ice age to cometh @wattsupwiththat

Sou | 8:57 PM Go to the first of 39 comments. Add a comment
No sooner had I predicted that an ice age cometh article would appear at WUWT than Anthony Watts posted one. My wish is his command :)

David "funny sunny" Archibald wrote another of his solar articles (archived here) and, despite all the failures of his previous predictions, snuck in this comment (my emphasis):
On that assumption, Solar Cycle 25’s amplitude is likely to be two thirds of that of Solar Cycle 24, and thus 60. Further climatic cooling is therefore in store.
What climatic cooling has there been? How can there be "further" climatic cooling in store, when there's not been any so far?

For the chart enthusiasts, I've combined two of David's charts with global average surface temperature charts, to highlight how silly his claim is.

First of all here's a chart of temperature above his solar chart, marked with his own annotation that claims that the sun caused cooling in the 1970s. In 1973 it was an extra hot year for the time, despite the fact that by his measure (F10.7 Flux and Oulu Neutron Count) it should have started cooling in 1969 or 1970:

There's no relationship that I can see between David's solar chart and surface temperature. The actual reason for the cooling in 1974 was a strong La Nina from 1973 to 1976. Conversely, 1973 was extra hot because of the 1972-73 El Nino. Both of these occurred while the world continued to warm.

Does a colder sun heat the planet?

This next chart shows the global average surface temperature from 1985 to the present, over David Archibald's chart of sunspots. As you can see, while his sunspot chart indicates if anything a decline in the sun's energy output, the temperature here on Earth has kept on going up and up and up. If there was no other information, one could almost be forgiven for thinking that a drop in solar energy makes the earth hotter!

There is no sign of David Archibald's claimed "climatic cooling". He's a long time climate disinformer who Anthony Watts trots out from time to time to please his "ice age cometh" alarmists.

David Archibald's funny and wrong prediction

For the record, I've updated the chart showing his 2006 prediction. Back then he predicted the temperature in 2020 would be 1.5 C below that in 2006. That is, below the coldest temperature ever seen since civilisation began. For his prediction to be realised then between now and 2020, the temperature would need to drop by 1.85 C.:

From the WUWT comments

There are not a lot of comments yet. Some people are challenging David, which is a healthy sign. Not most, which is an unhealthy sign. Then there are the "it's cold in winter" people. Tom Harley thinks the fact that it's winter means that an ice age is coming.
June 6, 2017 at 10:34 pm
Thanks David, looks like a lot of work has gone into this. I guess Leif will be along throwing stones soon. To a layman like me, this is looking like a cold episode has already started. it sure feels like it down under. But then, it’s still only weather. https://pindanpost.com/2017/06/06/the-looming-cold-in-oz/

Mark - Helsinki isn't satisfied with the "testing of theories" that has been done to date, he wants to put it off for another decade.
June 7, 2017 at 12:31 am
above and below 40 latitudes the energy from the sun in low periods is greatly reduced, while the southern mostly ocean, it’s the northern area that will cool faster with less warmth being shipped up there by surface waters too, it’s a double edged sword. Less energy less heat transport, growing cap.
Imo anyways and now we get to test the hypotheses and theories in the next decade so that is at least good :)

Added a few minutes after posting, using an updated archive: Bill H quizzed David Archibald on his 2006 prediction:
June 6, 2017 at 11:20 pm
Mr. Archibald,
In your Energy and Environment paper of 2006 you stated:
“Based on solar maxima of approximately 50 for solar cycles 24 and 25, a global temperature decline of 1.5°C is predicted to 2020. ”
In other words you predicted a decline of 1.5 degrees between 2006 and 2020. Since we are more than 80% of the way through that period, and surface temperatures are actually significantly higher than they were in 2006, is it time for you to declare that your predictions at that time are unfounded, and make some sort of assessment of why your 2006 work got things so wrong. Incidentally a 1.5 deg fall would lead to global temperatures lower than anything in the paleo record for the “Little Ice Age”.

David Archibald replied sarcastically with this. archibaldperth wrote:
June 7, 2017 at 4:03 am
Bless you Bill. You remembered something I wrote over a decade ago. That is so flattering. 
What neither David or Bill mentioned was David Archibald's prediction from 2014, less than three years ago, when he predicted a drop in temperature of 2 degrees! That was when he was touting the now apparently quite dead and defunct if magical and mysterious Force X and the Notch.


  1. What climatic cooling has there been?
    Well, after a nice warm Sunday both Monday and Tuesday were cold and IT WAS ONLY 5 degees when I got up today (Wednesday) and we are supposed to be in summmer! Clearly there is a distinct cooling trend.

    Unfortunately I don't have a snowball to prove that I am correct.

    1. Which is why you should always keep a store of them in your freezer for emergency use.

  2. Sou, I have to say that this time you've really made me laugh. Besides your graph headings being plainly wrong (the headings on both graphs say "Anomaly from 1881 - 1910", while the axis labels are much closer to present), the absolutely hysterical thing about your graphs is the 0.3 degree increase in global temperatures over the last 3 years. Even the home of climate panic (their national broadcaster, the ABC) hasn't produced anything that ludicrous... LOL.

    1. Stoic defense of Archibalderdash noted, 'skeptical'.
      Anything else to add?

    2. The labels and chart headings are correct, skeptical. Do you know what an anomaly from a baseline is? Here is an explanation from NOAA, and here is an illustration from a previous HotWhopper article.

      About your 0.3 C difference - it's real: according to NASA (which is the data on which the above charts are based), the average surface temperature for 2016 was 0.98 above the 1951-1980 average, while in 2013 it was 0.66 above the 1951-1980 average, a difference of 0.32 C.

      The difference is the same. It's only the baseline that differs: 1891-1910 vs 1951-1980.

      (I suggest in future you think before commenting. You run the risk of being laughed at for your laughter.)

    3. So Skeptikal, if we can get you beyond the bluster, what do think of Archibald's predictions?

    4. Millicent, it's quite possible in his disturbed state of hilarity, Skeptikal thinks the actual, real, measured difference of 0.32 C is unreal, but Archibald's projected drop in temperature of 2.0 C is quite realistic.

      Deniers are strange creatures.

    5. Well, it should have said it was a from a baseline. Doesn't matter, it still looks odd.

      0.3 degrees rise in global temperatures over 3 years is thermageddon... I wonder why their ABC isn't declaring this the end of life as we know it? That graph does make me feel really warm in what would otherwise be a fairly cool night in Queensland.

    6. The charts are labeled "anomaly from the 1881-1910 mean". What more do you want - to be fed by a baby's bottle?

      Perhaps you still don't understand that any anomaly by definition is from a baseline. Read the links I gave you. They might help, but probably won't (given what I've seen from you so far).

    7. Yes, an anomaly is from a baseline... but it's rare to see the baseline stated in the heading. It's usually noted on the axis or as a footnote.

    8. You're now arguing that I made it too obvious for you. Seriously? You want me to hide it in a footnote? Yet you saw the label, and copied it word for word (while laughing).

    9. Normally a heading would state the period being graphed... but hey, it's not that important. Have a few drinks and chill out.

    10. Bluster bluster bluster.

      "Normally a heading would state the period being graphed"

      We have seen graphs at WUWT where the period being graphed isn't even the same as the period displayed on the time axis. Now, if you were a skeptic you would be aware of this. So tell us which WUWT graph I am referring to. Or at least have the grace to choose a more appropriate name (I suggest YetAnotherShill) for yourself.

    11. Millicent, it sounds like you spend more time at WUWT than I do.

      Are you always like this, or is your head still exploding over Trump showing some real leadership?

    12. "Millicent, it sounds like you spend more time at WUWT than I do."

      ROFL. Your powers of deduction are nil. Seriously how do I know what goes on at WUWT? How could I know? So hard to figure it out! Well, given where we are right now, do you think it is possible I might obtain my knowledge of WUWT by reading HotWhopper?

      Seriously: how stupid must you be not to figure that out?

    13. A skeptitroll who's too lazy to download and plot GISTEMP data and opts instead for a public display of his own ignorance?

      Well that's a shock. I may need to lie down.

    14. @skeptikal

      give up man - you are making yourself look like an idiot

    15. Oh skeptical! :)

      That is just a hoot. You overstretched yourself there and ventured to criticise a graph and showed even that was little above your competence. All you did was prove you have never investigated the science and just form your opinions from the echo chamber.

      But it is not important so we will all chill out. (Is that a sort of acknowledgement you agree you were wrong?)

  3. Millicent, I think that Archibald's predictions are somewhat optimistic. I think that a cooling of 0.1 - 0.2 degrees over the next two decades is more realistic.

    1. 'optimistic' as in utter rubbish? Because Archibald has blown hard, twice, and been completely wrong. His response? Never apologise, never explain. The guy's a fraud: copy some graphs and pontificate. Thus perfect for WUWT, where idiots gather to comfort one another.
      Why is any cooling 'realistic'? You must be able to describe some processes. Surely? Make it 'real' for us. You could start by explaining exactly why Archibald was 'optimistic'....

    2. What exactly do you think is going to cause that cooling?


    3. Nick, I'll make it real for you. There are forces strong enough to take Earth into an ice age and forces strong enough to bring us out of an ice age. Nobody knows what those forces are, but they are there. The planet cooled for the little ice age and then it warmed again... and nobody has a clue why, so they just call it 'natural variability'. Predicting cooling over the next couple of decades is no less realistic than predicting warming. Until somebody comes up with the processes involved in driving natural variability, it's all just speculation. Ruling out any short term cooling is, in my opinion, foolish in the extreme.

    4. "Nobody knows what those forces are, but they are there."

      ROFL. The actual causes are well known. But you are referring to the extra ones that have to exist in order for deniers such as yourself to make sense of the world. There is a name for them: illusionary forces that would have to be so powerful they can cause an ice age and yet at the same time be utterly invisible to science can reasonably be called climate elves. The name is indicative of the fact that to believe in them you have to be as ignorant of science as a very small child.

      "Ruling out any short term cooling is, in my opinion, foolish in the extreme."

      No: belief in climate elves is foolish in the extreme.

    5. Define carefully "...cooling of 0.1 - 0.2 degrees over the next two decades..."

    6. Nobody knows what those forces are, but they are there.

      This is the sort of ignorant statement that is expected on a climate hoax conspiracy blog. The fact that you don't know, Skeptikal, doesn't mean that nobody else knows.

      You could learn about "those forces" by reading some science, for example from the IPCC reports.

      Chapter 8 is about Anthropogenic and Natural Radiative Forcing and describes forcings such as greenhouse gases, volcanic eruptions, water vapour, clouds, solar irradiance and more.

      Chapter 14 is about Climate Phenomena and their Relevance for Future Regional Climate Change, and describes internal variability including ENSO and other ocean observations (e.g. Pacific Decadal Oscillation), monsoons, Madden–Julian Oscillation and much more.

      The latest WG1 report is worth reading if you would like to learn about climate and climate change. Allow plenty of time to digest it (weeks or months), and read some of the references.

    7. I guess skeptikal is really Papa Bear in disguise (taking time off from harassing the female help)...

      "The tide goes in, the tide goes out. You can't explain that!"

    8. Yeah. Makes you wonder what else he doesn't know. Does he have children and wonder how in the heck that happened?

    9. "Until somebody comes up with the processes involved in driving natural variability"

      you mean AGW

    10. "The planet cooled for the little ice age and then it warmed again... and nobody has a clue why"

      The tide goes in, the tide goes out. O'reilly is trying to make a comeback on HotWhopper!

    11. "Nobody knows what those forces are, but they are there..."

      Argument from Ignorance fallacy.

    12. Physicists are clearly wasting their time working on stuff like Unified Field Theory when there are immensely powerful forces - capable of affecting entire planets - that they know nothing about.

      Alternatively, our denier friend is parroting garbage without stopping to think about how stupid it is.

    13. "Nobody knows what those forces are, but they are there."

      Woo woooooh!

      Argument from supernatural fallacy.

  4. Minor typo in your first graph: the blue line is labeled "observed 1881-1910" but the data range is to 2016 or so.

    Maybe that obvious label error is what caused skeptical to be so confused. Well, that and several truckloads of ignorance.

    1. Thanks, the word "mean" didn't show up in legend under the bottom chart. That wasn't the chart that Skeptikal was referring to however. He was talking about the top ones, where the period started much later.

    2. Millicent you may enjoy this talk by Sean Carroll.
      It is about the Universe being composed of quantum fields rather than particles.

      It is well worth a look for all. Here


      When I was first introduced to quantum mechanics in 1969 it actually frightened me. Bert

  5. Totally off topic but fun.


    How do you Australians know where you are living? :)

    1. I didn't know about all those changes :)

      It gets worse. The whole of Australia is on the move.

    2. Australians are becoming nomads?

      I'll warn the TRANZAC Club in Toronto to expect a mob soon.

  6. Hi, Sou, I'm flattered that you released a "second edition" after seeing my comment at WUWT. I was gobsmacked by Archibald's tangential and sarcastic comment: no attempt to explain his gross failure on the grounds that it was more than 10 years ago. That said, there is a grotesque honesty about the man: "we keep changing our story, and, frankly, we couldn't care less if someone points this out" rather sums up the denialosphere.

    Thanks for pointing out that he dived head first into the factor X bovine faeces. I had no idea about that. Funny how there's no hint about that, as far as I could tell, in his latest effort


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.