David Evans devises solar model to tame climate chaos

Jo Nova and David Evans reveal astounding new work

Will this be the magic bullet to destroy climate ignorance?

This from Jo Nova (note her lack of arrogance):

Behind the scenes, for 18 months, Dr David Evans (my other half) has been quietly working full time on climate research. The Fourier expert with six degrees who studied at Stanford has discovered something extraordinary using silicon-chip maths on the climate system. (Electrical engineers are really going to like this new approach.) This is real science laid bare. He has produced a new solar climate model that can explain the modern warming using mostly solar and natural factors. Thus CO2 could be a minor influence. Has he found the mystery factor that the other climate models miss? Watch one well-trained passionate expert pursue a creative idea that breaks the current paradigm. Over the next week we’ll be setting the theory free in post after post for everyone to test and review.

As they say, bring your popcorn. Get ready to concentrate.

BIG NEWS Part I: Historic development — New Solar climate model coming

Read about what has been going on behind the scenes and the background to this new approach. This work — should it stand the test of time — will be held up as an example of where independent research can succeed over the grand failure of expensive government-funded and bureaucratically-driven science. Christopher Monckton calls it “a devastating new approach to the climate question.”

BIG NEWS Part II: For the first time – a mysterious notch filter found in the climate

We start putting our cards on the table. We’re announcing the entirely new discovery of something called a notch filter in the climate. There are notch filters at home in electronic equipment, but everyone seems to have missed the largest notch filter running on the planet — and it’s an 11-year cycle. How significant?!

Looking for the short cut? Skip to Figures 5 and 6 for the most important action. Look at the spike down at 11 years. Figure 6 was the moment when Bob Carter sat up dead straight in his chair. The same mysterious effect happens in all the datasets .

A special thank you to all the people who have supported us over the years and make independent science possible.

Click the titles to read the posts.

Cheers from Jo!


74 Thoughts on “David Evans devises solar model to tame climate chaos

  1. Mike Jowsey on June 16, 2014 at 11:21 am said:

    I love their approach of open publication rather than peer-review. It’s very courageous, like learning to play the violin on a public street corner. They will be vilified and jeered at, but science will win in the end. It is not cloistered in government-funded academia (behind a paywall) but open for all to see. The comments on Jo’s site are fascinating. Apart from one or two heckling trolls, not one warmist has said anything of substance. Yet these two articles have generated a wealth of in-depth discussion by PhDs and learned gents like Willis and Monckton. It’s wonderful to see such open and honest science, even if my limited education only allows for 10% understanding. I will be following the rolling out of this breakthrough with the same intensity that I followed Climategate 1. Am making a special trip to Countdown to ensure their popcorn stocks are up to it.

  2. Heh, heh, nicely said. I entirely agree.

  3. Richard C (NZ) on June 16, 2014 at 1:09 pm said:

    Re open publication rather than peer-review, I think Jo has been paving the way for this e.g.

    ‘Failure of Peer Review, meaningless statistical significance, needs fixing says Doctor & journal’



    ‘Newton, Einstein, Watson and Crick, were not peer reviewed’


    I note that the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis has never even been documented in a definitive sense by anyone to allow proof or falsification — let alone peer reviewed and published.

    PSI has utilized open publication for a while now and very useful in an era of rapid communication, response, and correction to hypotheses without politically correct filtering by “peers”. We’ll see this at JoNova too.

    Lets not forget though, that David Evans is only really doing what many others like the Pangburn’s, Wilde’s, Scafetta’s, and Abdussamatovs have done in both published and unpublished spheres – advance an alternative climate hypothesis or model for public consideration i.e. there are others similar e.g.

    ‘On the Dynamics of Global Temperature’

    Authors: David R.B. Stockwell

    In this alternative theory of global temperature dynamics over the annual to the glacial time scales, the accumulation of variations in solar irradiance dominates the dynamics of global temperature change. A straightforward recurrence matrix representation of the atmosphere/surface/deep ocean system, models temperature changes by (1) the size of a forcing, (2) its duration (due to accumulation of heat), and (3) the depth of forcing in the atmosphere/surface/deep ocean system (due to increasing mixing losses and increasing intrinsic gain with depth). The model can explain most of the rise in temperature since 1950, and more than 70\% of the variance with correct phase shift of the 11-year solar cycle. Global temperature displays the characteristics of an accumulative system over 6 temporal orders of magnitude, as shown by a linear $f^{-1}$ log-log relationship of frequency to the temperature range, and other statistical relationships such as near random-walk and distribution asymmetry. Over the last century, annual global surface temperature rises or falls $0.063\pm 0.028C/W/m^2$ per year when solar irradiance is greater or less than an equilibrium value of $1366W/m^2$ at top-of-atmosphere. Due to an extremely slow characteristic time scale the notion of ‘equilibrium climate sensitivity’ is largely superfluous. The theory does not require a range of distinctive feedback and lag parameters. Mixing losses attenuate the effectiveness of greenhouse gasses, and the amplification of solar variations by slow accumulation of heat dominates the dynamics of global temperature at all time-scales.

    Comments: 55 pages

    Download: PDF [hotlink]
    Submission history [v1] 1 Aug 2011

    Unique-IP document downloads: 763 times


  4. Richard C (NZ) on June 16, 2014 at 4:19 pm said:

    From my comment under the previous post where Mike first pointed to the Evans model:

    I assume David is not including the ocean in “the planet” for this comment [quoted at link below] and that he’s just referring to atmospheric heat in some way (i.e. a sun => atm system in 11 yr cycle terms). I’ll wait for the next post (Part III) to see the details of that. In Part II, “Let’s build that solar model”, he says:

    “We are envisaging some sort of black box, whose input is TSI and whose output is temperature.”

    5 years planetary heat storage (decade max) [see Evans quote] would be at odds with just about everyone else thermodynamically if he is referring to a sun => ocean => atm system where heat storage is obviously the ocean and much much longer than 5 years (i.e. 11 yr solar cycles aren’t the driver of planetary heat).


    From Part II comments:

    bananabender #11
    June 15, 2014 at 9:17 pm

    “The Sun does not heat the atmosphere directly. It heats the ocean surface causing evaporation. This water vapour condenses in the upper atmosphere releasing latent heat. This latent heat warms the atmosphere primarily by conduction (sic, subsequently corrected to convection).”

    “The current atmospheric temperature actually measures historical (hundreds to thousands of years ago) solar activity. Ice core evidence suggest that the atmosphere CO2 levels represent the warming due to the MWP. [This is because the oceans and upper few metres of the crust combine to act as a massive heat sink (or capacitor) that stores energy and slowly releases it to the atmosphere (like a hot bath heats a cold bathroom for many hours after the water is poured).]”


    Note: “[This is because….]” by bananabender, not me.

    The difference in perspectives is, I think, due to impractical use (i.e. to relate to conditions of our lifetime) of planetary entropy (total energy of the entire climate system) by bananabender, rather than just the atmosphere by Evans (I think) for a timeframe where say, a human lifespan allows some standout experience. Obviously not the case when the timeframe is “hundreds to thousands of years” but has been over the 1950s – 2000s solar Grand Maximum of around 60 years.

    So while the current climate has a component of very old lagged heat in a coarse timeframe of hundreds of thousands of years (including the MWP obviously), the recent 60ish year “blip” is what we are all talking about and the peak of which is lagged in the order of a dozen years i.e. 2000s atm temperature peak is the result of solar input a dozen or so years prior in a relatively fine timeframe that we can all relate to in part if we’re old enough. But the “blip” is on top of heat accumulated over intervals of a day to hundreds of thousands of years including the MWP from which we will be experiencing some residual heat.

    In other words, in the year 2014+100,000 A.D. (102,014 A.D.) on a graph of the previous 1,000,000 years of global temperature, this 60 year blip wont stand out. In 3014 A.D. on a similar graph of the previous 10,000 years, it might just be discernible. But in a 2114 A.D. graph of the previous 1000 years, this 60 year blip should be readily identifiable.

    Essentially, “fast” temperature responses in the atmosphere (e.g. evaporation as described by bananabender above) due to insolation vs “slow” responses via the ocean (also described by bananabender). Over land, atmospheric responses are predominantly “faster” than over the ocean and any “slow” responses are due to the ocean which could be more than 2000 km away. Hence the difference between land-only, land+ocean, and satellite temperature datasets.

    I would add that bananabender is not correct to state “The Sun does not heat the atmosphere directly” because there are empirical studies (can’t recall citations offhand but diurnal in scope) that show there is an element of direct air heating by diurnal insolation. I do recall having a ding-dong argument with RT some time ago over whether “most” of the solar energy entering the ocean is released to the atmosphere relatively quickly (I think that was the substance of the argument) which I disagreed with and which resulted in recourse to the diurnal studies mentioned. I could probably search out that thread in the blog if I had to.

  5. Richard C (NZ) on June 16, 2014 at 4:35 pm said:

    David Evans credits David Stockwell:

    David Evans #14.3
    June 16, 2014 at 12:15 am

    I didn’t think the Fourier option applicable to climate. I noticed guys like Tim Channon at Tallbloke’s using it to find cycles, so they seemed to have that covered quite competently.

    Then David Stockwell talked me into looking for a low pass filter, in October 2012. He had done some initial analysis that showed there was a low pass filter in the solar signal, so I thought I would poke around and try to find the transfer function. Found the notch instead, and that turned out to be the key, as we shall see…


  6. Gary on June 16, 2014 at 8:39 pm said:

    Mean while the best that the green we are all doomed global warming/ hate C02 brigade can produce is this


    One week ago the NZ Herald Published this nonsense.
    Things are desperate when MSM publish this endorsed by scientists.(actually political activists)

  7. Andy on June 16, 2014 at 9:02 pm said:

    I don’t want to make a song and dance about it, but I don’t think much of Dame Sligo’s idea of convincing the public about climate change using performance art and poetry.

    After all, some limericks might spring to mind..

  8. Mike Jowsey on June 17, 2014 at 7:37 am said:

    Richard, I think your fuse was well-lit! 😉

  9. Andy on June 17, 2014 at 9:12 am said:

    As I point out at HT, the Evans paper is irrelevant because “our president” has decided that climate change “deniers” are like people that think the moon is made of cheese

    So all those 6 degrees that Evans has makes not a blind bit of difference to our glorious leader. The moon is made of cheese, according to him

  10. Richard C (NZ) on June 17, 2014 at 11:49 am said:

    I’d like to “bookmark” the following comment below from Part II (a reply to Willis Eschenbach by MSimon) because it’s a concise translation of what we are addressing (to my mind), what to look to in Part III, IV, V, etc, and touches on the fascinating aspect of it (to some of us but not to Willis obviously) yet to be disclosed.

    That aspect for me is that, although solar-centric, I’ve not been at all interested in the 11 Yr cycle as being of any relevance to long-term climate even though warmists fixate on it as being what they think of as the basis of the AGW-sceptic solar-centric case when it’s not (or hasn’t been – it may have to be included depending on whether what Evans presents stacks up). To my mind the basis of a solar-centric case is the bicentennial component of solar intensity (a line tracing 11 yr cycle solar intensity minimums) and what MSimon describes below as “Multi – 11 year cycles”.

    But now I’m obliged to consider what might be 11 yr solar cycle climate system processes I’d not bothered to get into previously because that would be what makes up multi-11 yr cycles obviously i.e. a possible extension to the basis of the solar case as MSimon encapulates below:

    MSimon #
    June 17, 2014 at 5:09 am

    But there is evidence of a notch. The 11 year cycle does not show up in the temperature record. Multi – 11 year cycles (which have a lower frequency component) do.

    Maunder and Dalton. And obviously the recent 20th century warming from multi 11 year cycles.

    Obviously without more information the case is not proved. But so far the results are “suggestive”. I look forward to future posts.


    I see in Part III that David is introducing a time delay in the notch filter which is NOT oceanic thermal system lag but that the delay is a a similar length of time (around 11 years but definitely between 10 and 20 years – Evans). David Evans (“not” is emphasized):

    “It is crucial to notice that this is a true delay, not due to a dissipative element like a store of ocean heat that declines at a rate governed by a time constant.”

    This is a subtle distinction worth grasping between the non-causal filter delay in the system being developed and the observed causal thermal delay for which there is plenty of evidence, some of which David itemises. Point being, they are mutual concepts in this case despite the distinction.

  11. Richard C (NZ) on June 17, 2014 at 11:53 am said:
  12. Richard C (NZ) on June 17, 2014 at 12:30 pm said:

    >“our president” has decided that climate change “deniers” are like people that think the moon is made of cheese

    James Taylor in Forbes:

    ‘Obama’s Climate McCarthyism Demeans Presidential Office’

    President Barack Obama demeaned the dignity of the presidency by ridiculing tens of thousands of scientists for simply disagreeing with his lay opinions on global warming. While the political left throws shrill temper tantrums against anybody who “disrespects” the Office of the Presidency by asking Barack Obama a challenging question (something they had no qualms about during the Bush administration), Obama himself is setting the applicable ground rules for disrespectful political discourse and climate McCarthyism.



    Still a version coming up in Google News (in Health Care News) . Current search:


    Top of the list:

    Obama slams climate change deniers
    Otago Daily Times – ‎40 minutes ago‎

    And in the weekend I think it was:

    Obama: Climate change deniers ignoring science

    This one’s a doozy:

    Obama Urges College Grads to Reject Climate-Change Skepticism

  13. Richard C (NZ) on June 17, 2014 at 12:36 pm said:

    BIG NEWS part IV: A huge leap understanding the mysterious 11 year solar delay


  14. Simon on June 17, 2014 at 1:21 pm said:

    The model does not explain why there has been an increase in temperature over the past 100 years.
    The notch filter is created to explain why there is no peak in temperature related to change in TSI. A more rational explanation is that the solar variation (approx 0.1%) is insufficiently large to be detected over natural variation.
    Part IV is a hoot. A mysterious ‘Force X’ caused by the flipping of the sun’s polarity. Good stuff.

  15. Richard C (NZ) on June 17, 2014 at 1:29 pm said:

    >”To my mind the basis of a solar-centric case is the bicentennial component of solar intensity (a line tracing 11 yr cycle solar intensity minimums)”

    Abdussamatov has documented this more than anyone else. Interesting that minimums (or minima) are used, not an average or integral. This effectively negates the peaks (maximums, or maxima) over multiple 11 yr cycles.

    Now here we are looking for some mechanism (“Force X”, Part IV) that may actually negate peak 11 yr solar intensity as an energy input to climate. I don’t recall why exactly the bicentennial component traces minima specifically, nor whether Abdussamatov addressed a mechanism that negates the maxima as an energy input to the planetary system. Time for a re-read of Abdussamatov.


  16. Andy on June 17, 2014 at 1:54 pm said:

    The IPCC only attribute 20th C warming to post 1950 anyway, which is the period 1976-1998

  17. Richard C (NZ) on June 17, 2014 at 2:25 pm said:

    >”The model does not explain why there has been an increase in temperature over the past 100 years”

    Stay with it Simon. The system being laid out progressively is only dealing with an 11 yr cycle so far. Once that’s developed and everyone is up to speed then I think we’ll be moving to multi-11 year cycles which obviously span solar output over the last 100 years as introduced in Part II. The highest solar output occurred between about 1950 and 2009 with the peak at 1986.

    The key as I see it is as MSimon upthread “The 11 year cycle does not show up in the temperature record. Multi – 11 year cycles (which have a lower frequency component) do”

    But until the single cycle phenomena is understood by all in this exercise it’s pointless moving on to a multi-11 year system. And note that this is primarily a system analysis exercise rather than a physical mechanism identification exercise. But as Part IV shows (brought forward due to so much interest in the physical mechanism), system leads to mechanism.

    >”The notch filter is created to explain…….”

    No. The notch filter is self-evident but only in regard to a single cycle, it’s just that it has only now been identified as such.

    >”……why there is no peak in temperature related to change in TSI”

    There should be. The actual phenomenon under consideration is the 11 year cycle peak, as David Evans puts it in Part II, after OFT analysis:

    Spot the big clue. There is no peak at 11 years!

    This is unexpected, because TSI is the energy input that warms the Earth. The TSI peaks every 11 years or so, yet there is no detected corresponding peak in the temperature, even using our new low noise optimal Fourier transform!

    (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.)


    >”A more rational explanation is that the solar variation (approx 0.1%) is insufficiently large to be detected over natural variation.”

    Not what SB implies or what OFT was designed for but go ahead, take your rational explanation directly to David (and everyone else) at JoNova if you’re confidant with it.

    >”Part IV is a hoot. A mysterious ‘Force X’ ……..”

    Hoot if it makes you feel good but yes it is a mysterious phenomenon isn’t it? Uncovered by system analysis never before attempted, certainly not by climate science.

    >”……caused by the flipping of the sun’s polarity. Good stuff.”

    And magnetic field force. You disagree that the sun’s has any force Simon? Again, this conjecture is system analysis leading to a possible mechanism. May be wrong but what other is there better? But don’t miss the opportunity to point out at Jo Nova the sheer impossibility of the sun’s magnetic field reversal being any part of causation for the apparent negation of 11 year output peaks.

  18. Richard C (NZ) on June 17, 2014 at 2:41 pm said:

    Re “…….negation of 11 year output peaks”

    For definition of the solar bicentennial component as used by Abdussamatov which effectively negates 11 year cycle peaks too and why that is relevant to an 11 year notch filter see this comment upthread:


  19. Richard C (NZ) on June 17, 2014 at 3:02 pm said:

    >”Part IV is a hoot. A mysterious ‘Force X’ caused by the flipping of the sun’s polarity. Good stuff.”

    But on earth what? Evans in Part IV:

    “We will soon deduce from the solar model that the notch and the delay work by affecting the albedo of the Earth (the fraction of solar radiation that is reflected straight back out to space by clouds, snow, ice etc. without warming the Earth, about 30%). We will also find by looking at the proportional changes in solar radiation and albedo that over the last few decades that the effect on temperature of albedo modulation has been at least six times greater than the immediate heating effect of variation in solar radiation. So it appears the notch and delay are associated with a powerful indirect solar influence that modulates the Earth’s albedo.”


    >”We will soon deduce from the solar model…………………….that the effect on temperature of albedo modulation has been at least six times greater than the immediate heating effect of variation in solar radiation”

    Get your contra-arguments ready for that Simon. I suggest you develop your critique beyond “hoot” and “good stuff” though while you’ve got a little time. You wont get much traction with either if you take them to JN.

  20. Richard C (NZ) on June 17, 2014 at 3:19 pm said:

    >”Part IV is a hoot. A mysterious ‘Force X’ caused by the flipping of the sun’s polarity. Good stuff.”

    I don’t think you’re paying attention Simon. Evans:

    “It is important not to prejudge what this influence is, so let us call this influence “force X” for now”

    “The obvious candidate for force X is some aspect of the solar magnetic field that is responsible for deflecting cosmic rays……..”

    “It is possible that force X is not related to cosmic rays. For instance force X might be electric and modulate the ozone in the Earth’s stratosphere, or otherwise affect the Earth’s atmosphere by some electrical connection.”

    “Force X has ten to twenty times more influence on temperatures on Earth than changes in the direct heating effect of TSI (a result we will show later).”

    “I know that “force X” sounds speculative, but this is where the trail has taken us. We observed the notch, deduced the delay, and the 11 year clock leads us to the Sun. We find some confirmation in the synchronicity of the peaks in TSI with the troughs in the Sun’s magnetic field, so force X has something to do with the solar magnetic field. The story isn’t complete until we know what force X, is.”


    Obviously this is exploratory work so far unlike say, a hypothesis where the explanation is predetermined – like AGW and CO2.

  21. Richard C (NZ) on June 17, 2014 at 6:05 pm said:

    >”I don’t recall why exactly the bicentennial component traces minima specifically, nor whether Abdussamatov addressed a mechanism that negates the maxima as an energy input to the planetary system. Time for a re-read of Abdussamatov.”

    ‘Bicentennial Decrease of the Total Solar Irradiance Leads to Unbalanced Thermal Budget of the Earth and the Little Ice Age’


    Haven’t found anything yet. I may have to go back to his earlier papers (Gaaaggh!).

    Also sharing this at JoNova because there is much similarity between Abdussamatov 2012/13 and Part IV:


    Also see #43 ahead of that.

  22. Richard C (NZ) on June 17, 2014 at 6:12 pm said:

    >”……the flipping of the sun’s polarity”

    Simon, you’re aware that at the crossover point occurring at peak 11 yr TSI, the sun’s magnetic field strength decreases to zero?

    That’s non-trivial surely?

  23. Richard C (NZ) on June 18, 2014 at 12:10 am said:

    >”….solar variation (approx 0.1%) is insufficiently large to be detected over natural variation”

    That is in respect to one solar cycle and around 0.8 W/m2, also in respect to SCs 18 – 23 rather than 24. Some merit in that on the face of it I agree but not according to SB implication and low noise OFT which is what we have in front of us now and a notch filter to consider.

    But over SCs 18 – 23 there was little difference SC to SC i.e. a constantly high solar output higher than for about 11,000 years (the Modern Grand Maximum – see below). That’s all changed with SC 24 which is markedly weaker relative to the previous six. So we have a multi-11 year cycle timeframe from which to compare to other similar timeframes e.g. the last Grand Minimum (Maunder). According to Shapiro et al the variation between Maunder Grand Minimum and Modern Grand Maximum could be as much as 6 W/m2 which is easily sufficiently large to be detected over natural variation in temperature datasets. This is the real solar variation worth consideration in regard to temperature, one cycle by itself isn’t relevant except for attention to the phenomenon identified by Evans.

    I’ve taken Willis Eschenbach to task at JoNova over whether multi-11 year cycles spanning the latest Grand Maxima and Minima would show up in David Evans’ temperature spectra analysis. Willis says they don’t but I say they wouldn’t anyway and that Willis misconstrues David:


    More relevant to this comment is the link to ‘A History of Solar Activity over Millennia’, Ilya G. Usoskin, Sodankyla Geophysical Observatory (Oulu unit), University of Oulu, Finland at WUWT:


    In that post we see Figure 17: Sunspot activity (over decades, smoothed with a 12221 filter) throughout the Holocene, reconstructed from 14C by Usoskin et al. (2007) using geomagnetic data by Yang et al. (2000). Blue and red areas denote grand minima and maxima, respectively.


    Clearly, the Modern Grand Maximum stands head and shoulders above any other for about 11,000 years i.e. we’ve just lived through an exceptional period of the Holocene in terms of solar output and it is pointless haggling over insignificant 0.8 W/m2 variation over one 11 year cycle in that MGM when the significant scope is say 66 years of multi-11 yr cycles, both Maxima and Minima, in 11,000 years and possibly up to 6 W/m2 variation.

  24. Richard C (NZ) on June 18, 2014 at 12:25 am said:

    For reference from Part IV,

    Figure 1: When sunspot activity peaks, solar radiation is at a maximum but the solar magnetic field is at its weakest because it is reversing polarity. (This figure merely illustrates the timing; the solar polar field is but one aspect of the Sun’s magnetic field, and it is not proposed that this is force X.)


    More on solar magnetic field at minimum in Part IV:


  25. Richard C (NZ) on June 18, 2014 at 9:29 am said:


    “What the near-vanishing of R~(f) for 1/f close to 11 years really means is that the most obvious possible proof of the direct effect of the total solar irradiance doesn’t exist – the 11-year cycle isn’t present in the temperature data. This is a problem – potentially a huge problem – for any theory that tries to present the solar output as the primary driver even at the decadal scale and faster scales. It’s surely nothing to boast about”

    Not a problem at all, just reality and everyone knows the 11 year cycle isn’t present in temperature anyway. But why? Lubos preempts Part IV.

    What we’ve still yet to be shown is what happens in the multi-11 year cycle timeframe, say the TSI step from the early 20th C ending 1930ish to the Modern Grand Maximum (MGM) starting 1950ish i.e. to SCs 18 – 23.

    I don’t see David Evans claiming the 11 yr cycle is the primary driver — on the contrary in fact as I understand so far.

  26. Richard C (NZ) on June 18, 2014 at 3:52 pm said:

    >”……everyone knows the 11 year cycle isn’t present in temperature anyway”

    Depending on what datasets you look at and how you look at them of course:

    ‘Observed Tropospheric Temperature Response to 11-yr Solar Cycle and What It Reveals about Mechanisms’

    Department of Applied Mathematics, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington
    (Manuscript received 27 July 2012, in final form 10 October 2012)

    Using 54 yr of NCEP reanalysis global data from 1000 to 10 hPa, this study establishes the existence and the statistical significance of the zonal-mean temperature response to the 11-yr solar cycle throughout the troposphere and parts of the lower stratosphere. Two types of statistical analysis are used: the composite-mean difference projection method, which tests the existence of the solar cycle signal level by level, and the adaptive AR(p)-t test, which tells if a particular local feature is statistically significant at the 95% confidence level. A larger area of statistical significance than that in previous published work is obtained, due to the longer record and a better trend removal process. It reveals a spatial pattern consistent with a ‘‘bottom up’’ mechanism, involving evaporative feedback near the tropical ocean surface and tropical vertical convection, latent heating of the tropical upper troposphere, and poleward large-scale heat transport to the polar regions. It provides an
    alternative to the currently favored ‘‘top down’’ mechanism involving stratospheric ozone heating.


    I’m posting this at JN.

  27. Richard C (NZ) on June 18, 2014 at 7:21 pm said:

    ‘The long sunspot cycle 23 predicts a significant temperature decrease in cycle 24’

    Jan-Erik Solheim, Kjell Stordahl, Ole Humlum,
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jastp.2012.02.008

    Relations between the length of a sunspot cycle and the average temperature in the same and the next cycle are calculated for a number of meteorological stations in Norway and in the North Atlantic region. No significant trend is found between the length of a cycle and the average temperature in the same cycle, but a significant negative trend is found between the length of a cycle and the temperature in the next cycle. This provides a tool to predict an average temperature decrease of at least View the MathML source from solar cycle 23 to solar cycle 24 for the stations and areas analyzed. We find for the Norwegian local stations investigated that 25–56% of the temperature increase the last 150 years may be attributed to the Sun. For 3 North Atlantic stations we get 63–72% solar contribution. This points to the Atlantic currents as reinforcing a solar signal.

    ► A longer solar cycle predicts lower temperatures during the next cycle.
    ► A 1 °C or more temperature drop is predicted 2009–2020 for certain locations.
    ► Solar activity may have contributed 40% or more to the last century temperature increase.
    ► A lag of 11 years gives maximum correlation between solar cycle length and temperature.


  28. A C Osborn on June 18, 2014 at 11:09 pm said:

    I have always had reservations about TSI, but not about the other changes that take place, ie Magnetic and the actual make up of the energy, the changes in UV are quite dramatic.

  29. Richard C (NZ) on June 19, 2014 at 10:12 am said:

    >”the actual make up of the energy”

    Exactly. Energy-per-photon increases from IR-B to IR-A to Visible to UV-A to UV-B. i.e. along the EM spectrum and yes, the changes in UV are dramatic, much moreso than IR. Then there’s the material that the energy strikes where the energy is converted to heat or not depending on mutual “tuning” and varying penetration (“path length”) and photosythesis. But TSI becomes the simplified proxy for all of that because it is easier to handle (sunspots are another proxy for solar activity – see below).

    That’s without even beginning to look at magnetic flux interactions. However I don’t think magnetism necessarily needs to be invoked to counteract a notch as David and Joanne have. I think they’ve just used tools, techniques, and datasets for analysis that lead to that. I’ve pointed out at JoNova that there is a body of literature that does identify the 11 yr cycle response using different tools, techniques and datasets in the troposphere, sea surface, and stratosphere.

    I still want to see the rest of David’s model development because the notch issue may be insignificant once multiple consecutive solar cycles are covered and compared e.g. the Modern Warm Period (Modern solar Grand Maximum) versus the Little Ice Age (Maunder solar Grand Minimum). That’s where the temperature trend driver is – not variation in one single solar cycle which is impossible to drive trend. Much of this in the Part IV thread at JoNova.

    There’s still the inescapable temperature correlation PDO+AMO+Sunspot Integral too (R^2 .96). The sunspot integral provides the trend in temperature as a proxy for solar activity, The PDO and AMO provide the oscillations.

  30. Richard C (NZ) on June 19, 2014 at 10:28 am said:

    Or in other words, the solar case suffers from oversimplification because all the aspects require a screed and everyone’s eyes glaze over. And CO2-centric warmists eyes are already glazed over beforehand of course.

  31. Richard C (NZ) on June 19, 2014 at 11:10 am said:

    ‘The global warming hiatus? Climate models all wrongly predicted warming, so let’s call it a discrepancy’

    Ross McKitrick, Special to Financial Post | June 16, 2014 |

    “The IPCC briefly discussed the seriousness of the model-observation discrepancy in Chapter 9 of the 2013 report. It reports that over the 1998-2012 interval 111 out of 114 climate model runs over-predicted warming, achieving thereby, as it were, a 97% consensus.”


    Check out his ‘CLIMATE MODELS VS. REALITY’ graph.

  32. Richard C (NZ) on June 19, 2014 at 11:25 am said:

    State-of-play synopsis:

    [McKitrick] – “According to the IPCC, estimated “radiative forcing” of greenhouse gases (the term it uses to describe the expected heating effect) increased by 43% after 2005.”

    [McKitrick] – “To the extent climate models overstate the effects of CO2, so do IAMs, thereby yielding exaggerated estimates of the social cost of carbon emissions and overly stringent policy prescriptions.”

    [von Storch] – “If things continue as they have been, in five years, at the latest, we will need to acknowledge that something is fundamentally wrong with our climate models.”

    [Curry] – “If the 20-year threshold is reached for the pause, this will lead inescapably to the conclusion that the climate model sensitivity to CO2 is too large.”

    [McKitrick] – “We will reach the 20 year mark with no trend in the satellite data at the end of 2015, and in the surface data at the end of 2017. With CO2 levels continuing to rise, it will at that point be impossible to reconcile climate models with reality and the mainstream consensus on how the climate system responds to greenhouse gases will begin breaking apart.”

  33. Richard C (NZ) on June 19, 2014 at 10:00 pm said:

    Solar Terrestrial Activity Report


    SC 23 peak vs SC 24 peak (average measured solar flux on earth, W/m2)

    SC 23, 2001.12, 235.1 (See archive)
    SC 24, 2014.02, 170.3

    Difference: 64.8 W/m2

    Posted at JoNova

  34. Richard C (NZ) on June 20, 2014 at 9:57 am said:

    Junk Science Week: IPCC commissioned models to see if global warming would reach dangerous levels this century. Consensus is ‘no’

    Matt Ridley, Special to Financial Post | June 19, 2014 |

    “That is to say, even if you pile crazy assumption upon crazy assumption till you have an edifice of vanishingly small probability, you cannot even manage to make climate change cause minor damage in the time of our grandchildren, let alone catastrophe. That’s not me saying this – it’s the IPCC itself.”


  35. Richard C (NZ) on June 20, 2014 at 10:18 am said:

    ‘Scientist Reveals Inconvenient Truth to Alarmists’

    By Larry Bell

    Dr. Christian Schluchter’s discovery of 4,000-year-old chunks of wood at the leading edge of a Swiss glacier was clearly not cheered by many members of the global warming doom-and-gloom science orthodoxy.

    This finding indicated that the Alps were pretty nearly glacier-free at that time, disproving accepted theories that they only began retreating after the end of the little ice age in the mid-19th century. As he concluded, the region had once been much warmer than today, with “a wild landscape and wide flowing river.”


    Schluchter criticizes his critics for focusing on a time period which is “indeed too short.” His studies and analyses of a Rhone glacier area reveal that “the rock surface had [previously] been ice-free 5,800 of the last 10,000 years.”

    Such changes can occur very rapidly. His research team was stunned to find trunks of huge trees near the edge of Mont Mine Glacier which had all died in just a single year. They determined that time to be 8,200 years ago based upon oxygen isotopes in the Greenland ice which showed marked cooling.

    Casting serious doubt upon alarmist U.N.-IPCC projections that the Alps will be nearly glacier-free by 2100, Schluchter poses several challenging questions: “Why did the glaciers retreat in the middle of the 19th century, although the large CO2 increase in the atmosphere came later? Why did the Earth ‘tip’ in such a short time into a warming phase? Why did glaciers again advance in the 1880s, 1920s, and 1980s? … Sooner or later climate science will have to answer the question why the retreat of the glacier at the end of the Little Ice Age around 1850 was so rapid.”

    Although we witness ongoing IPCC attempts to blame such developments upon evil fossil-fueled CO2 emissions, that notion fails to answer these questions. Instead, Schluchter believes that the sun is the principal long-term driver of climate change, with tectonics and volcanoes acting as significant contributors.

    Continues >>>>>>>>


  36. Richard C (NZ) on June 20, 2014 at 10:22 pm said:

    Tatiana Barlyaeva says she sees a temperature wavelet spectra corresponding to a solar cycle of “about” 11 years in some specific stations around the globe over the latter quarter of the 20th C (odd for a start). Personally I don’t quite see what she is seeing.

    ‘New paper finds solar cycle changes Earth temperature’


    ‘Solar, volcanic and geomagnetic forcing on air–surface temperature: Geographical distribution of sensitive climate zones’,

    Poster, Tatiana Barlyaeva


    ‘External forcing on air–surface temperature: Geographical distribution of sensitive climate zones’

    Tatiana V. Barlyaeva (2013) [Paper available as PDF via Google Scholar]

    I don’t expect to see an 11 year signal in globally averaged datasets at the surface, the sensitivity has been lost when all the stations are lumped together. If if was apparent it would show up in localized data as Barlyaeva has analysed and only where the locality allows (forget CET for example), but I don’t think she has proved anything conclusive. And SC 23 peak to SC 24 peak was 12 years 2 months (Dec 2001 to Feb 2014), not 11 years.

    I think Zhou and Tung’s look at the entire troposphere is the best approach. But to see any relationship between solar activity and the temperature of the surface (land), the best place to look is underground. See:




    See page 1629,

    Figure 12. Underground temperature records (diamonds) below the Paris Observatory (depth 28 m) compared with sunspot number: (a) data from Cassini. (b) data from Arago using the Lavoisier thermometer

    Annual subsoil temperature exhibits a similar profile, higher when energy input is higher (summer), lower when energy input is lower (winter). The “pulses” of energy at around 11 years are analogous to “pulses” of measured flux at the surface over a year or a month which monthly averaging smooths out but can be seen in monthly update graphs of solar activity i.e. the surface does not “see” a smooth flux curve but underground and subsoil does. See the period including the SC 24 peak (Feb 2014) for example of energy pulses seen by the surface:

    Solar Terrestrial Activity Report http://www.solen.info/solar/

    The other obvious solar “pulse” is diurnal. The temperature response at the surface is equally obvious but subsoil and underground doesn’t know about it.

  37. Richard C (NZ) on June 21, 2014 at 11:27 am said:

    Correction. Solar flux is measured by F10.7 index above – not W/m2.

    Refer the latest update graph:


    Solar flux is measured by the 10.7cm Solar Radio Flux index in this case, defined as:

    The F10.7 index is a measure of the noise level generated by the sun at a wavelength of 10.7 cm at the earth’s orbit. The global daily value of this index is measured at local noon at the Pentictin Radio Observatory in Canada. Historically, this index has been used as an input to ionospheric models as a surrogate for the solar output in wavelengths that produce photoionization in the earth’s ionosphere (in the ultraviolet bands).


    A proxy for solar-at-surface too (measured at surface) so the difference of SC 23 peak to SC 24 by F10.7 is still an indication of the relative activity.

    SC 24 peak 27% weaker than SC 23 peak on monthly average of F10.7.

  38. Richard C (NZ) on June 21, 2014 at 1:50 pm said:

    Richard C (NZ) #33 @ JoNova
    June 21, 2014 at 11:45 am

    In simple terms (my zone)

    >”The step response of the immediate path”

    Fine, the “fast” response path. No problem there. No departure from anything known already.

    >”The step response of the delayed path”

    Fine again, the “slow” response path. Out to 15 years, entirely consistent with anyone else who has calculated a planetary delay (land+ocean) by other techniques e.g. stats, thermo principles. Abdussamatov calculates 14 +/- 6 years by thermodynamic principles, Scafetta 12 years by stats, Trenberth 6, and 10+ years out to 100 years oceanic delay simply by observation I think. To name some.

    But then, apparently, slow response “is due to force X”.

    Slow response (without the notch) is simply due to the thermal characteristics of surface material i.e. thermal inertia of: ocean (mainly), land, lakes, rivers, rocks, sand, soil, grasslands, vegetation, foliage etc and human modification of all that.

    So the model is thermally conventional up to this point despite the introduction of the term “Force X” to describe the entire slow response which to me is fallacious.

    The only departure from convention is the notch (requiring Force X), identified by an absence of a cyclic “pulse” of temperature in the globally averaged surface datasets at around 11 years by temperature spectra analysis. Plenty of literature covering how the pulse does translate to climate using other techniques and datasets. At the surface, in the troposphere, in the stratosphere, at the sea surface, in the subsurface, and underground down nearly 30m. Not necessarily as a temperature pulse at 11 years though but there is evidence of it.

    Nevertheless, the notch is established on the narrow scope of globally averaged surface datasets that, intuitively surely, wouldn’t be sensitive enough even with filtering to reveal that cycle because only a fraction of the stations in the global set would have the local conditions allowing such sensitivity. I’m basing my opinion on the work of Tatiana Barlyaeva who says she identifies a cyclic pulse of “about” 11 years in some specific stations in some timeframes. Not conclusively in my opinion but I think that is where to look rather than in global averages.

    So my main question is: over the long-term (say steps of 100, 200, 400, 1000 yrs), how significant is the notch?

    And in the short-term (multidecadal)? This seems to be where Force X is significant. How does the model perform with vs without Force X (or notch transfer)?

    Could the model do without the notch if the basis for it is just too flimsy and still be validated by the fast path and slow path delay system?

    I’m inclined to think so but I’m certainly willing to be proved wrong if the model does actually track temperature progression in the short-term (to end of 2017 should be enough).


  39. Richard C (NZ) on June 21, 2014 at 4:52 pm said:

    Re #33

    >”Not necessarily as a temperature pulse at 11 years though but there is evidence of it”

    Like this:

    Solar signal detection: Wavelet analysis of 85- and 11-year cycles in solar activity and Mann et al. (1998) Northern Hemisphere surface temperature (Details: see Oh et al. 2003)



    ‘Natural External Forcing in the Climate System’


  40. Richard C (NZ) on June 21, 2014 at 8:22 pm said:

    Re #33

    >”Not necessarily as a temperature pulse at 11 years though but there is evidence of it”

    Like this (and see #33.2):

    ‘Eleven-year solar cycle signal throughout the lower atmosphere’

    K. Coughlin and K. K. Tung (2004)


    [1] A statistically significant atmospheric signal, which represents the influence of solar radiation changes on our climate, is found in global data (1958–2003). Using a nonlinear, nonstationary time series analysis, called empirical mode decomposition, it is shown that atmospheric temperatures and geopotential heights are composed of five global oscillations and a trend. The fourth mode is synchronized with the 11-year solar flux almost everywhere in the lower atmosphere. Statistical tests show that this signal is different from noise, indicating that there is enhanced warming in the troposphere during times of increased solar radiation.


    Read the entire (full) paper at the link.

    And this:

    ‘Observed Tropospheric Temperature Response to 11-yr Solar Cycle and What It Reveals about Mechanisms’


    Using 54 yr of NCEP reanalysis global data from 1000 to 10 hPa, this study establishes the existence and the statistical significance of the zonal-mean temperature response to the 11-yr solar cycle throughout the troposphere and parts of the lower stratosphere. Two types of statistical analysis are used: the composite-mean difference projection method, which tests the existence of the solar cycle signal level by level, and the adaptive AR(p)-t test, which tells if a particular local feature is statistically significant at the 95% confidence level. A larger area of statistical significance than that in previous published work is obtained, due to the longer record and a better trend removal process. It reveals a spatial pattern consistent with a ‘‘bottom up’’ mechanism, involving evaporative feedback near the tropical ocean surface and tropical vertical convection, latent heating of the tropical upper troposphere, and poleward large-scale heat transport to the polar regions. It provides an
    alternative to the currently favored ‘‘top down’’ mechanism involving stratospheric ozone heating.


    # # #

    I’m wondering how many papers like this I have cite at JoNova before the penny drops. Latest attempt above here:


  41. bananabender on June 21, 2014 at 11:49 pm said:

    Hi Richard,
    The Sun causes the Diurnal Bulge of the atmosphere as it passes over. This is not necessarily caused by direct heating of the air. In any case the extra heat is almost immediately converted to outward expansion of the atmosphere which results in little or no overall warming. [It is a basic physical chemistry principle that an unconfined gas, such as the atmosphere, cannot be heated because it simply expands to compensate.]

    Everyone seems to be forgetting that heat=work. They confuse ‘temperature’ (radiation wavelength) and ‘heat’ (kinetic energy of atoms). If you measured the temperature of the Top OF Atmosphere (TOA) it would be be extremely ‘hot’. If you measured the heat with a well shielded mercury thermometer it would be ‘zero’ because there are no atoms to conduct heat.

    The problem with using a radiative physics approach is that it completely ignores the fact that virtually all of the incoming radiation is converted to work (wind, rain, waves etc) within the dual fluids (air and water) of the ocean/atmosphere system. The energy that escapes the Earth could be visualised as a tiny amount of radiative ‘leakage’ from the outermost surface of a giant thermos bottle. [The Earth is surrounded by a vacuum]. Outgoing is not simply energy bouncing off the surface back into space or blackbody radiation from the surface.

    The radiation measured at the top of the atmosphere is ‘work’ carried upward to TOA by convection and directly radiated into the vacuum of space. Long wave IR radiation from the surface will be absorbed within a few hundred metres by any water vapour present in the atmosphere. It cannot reach space directly from the surface.

    I’m not a skilled mathematician (I originally trained as a biochemist) but IMHO I have the ability to perform some pretty impressive thought experiments. I also have a reasonable amount of experience in spectroscopy which is completely misunderstood by most sceptics as well as AGW proponents.

    David Evans seems to be a pretty smart bloke and obviously has some serious mathematical skills. However I feel he suffers from severe hubris. He is totally unwilling to consider any other viewpoint. He seems to have absolutely no knowledge whatsoever of chemistry or conventional meteorological theory (which is a Heat Pump model that largely ignores the alleged Greenhouse Effect) and no willingness to obtain that knowledge.

    Unfortunately Jo and David are going to be torn to shreds by the blogosphere. The announcement was the epitome of arrogance. Even Lubos Motl who was a chosen reviewer seems to think the Notch Hypothesis is nonsense. Rather than the accept the criticism Jo has chosen to head for the bunker, asked everyone to stop name calling and claim persecution by mysterious agencies (no surprises there.)

    I’m now a persona non grata at Jo Nova because I fail to genuflect at the feet of Dr David ‘Six Degrees including a PhD from Stanford’ Evans and had the temerity to criticise his ‘Nobel Prize winning’ hypothesis. [In all seriousness that reflects the current level of delusion found on the Jo Nova blog.] The ‘Notch’ work does not seem to be particularly original or insightful. Rather it is using new maths methods to rework the same old problems. Because most of the Jo Nova contributors are electrical engineers they have simply become obsessed with minutiae of their ‘brilliant’ theories rather than gaining any new insight.

  42. Richard C (NZ) on June 22, 2014 at 12:29 pm said:

    Latest attempt to get through at JoNova:

    Richard C (NZ) #
    June 22, 2014 at 10:35 am

    David #33.3.3

    >”Although the influence of the 11-year TSI peaks cannot be found in the global surface air temperature record (HadCrut, UAH, etc)”

    That is because there is no such thing as the “11 year cycle”. That is simply a term of convention due to the long-term average length of 11.2 years.

    I’ve replied to the last comment in Part II (Willis) with the the reasoning (recent actual SC lengths etc) here:


    That comment then refers back to this Part VI thread where the relevant papers are current (#33.3).

    Those papers show how, if you discard the spurious notion of an “11 yr cycle”, warming at the SC peaks when they actually occur is clearly identifiable.


  43. Richard C (NZ) on June 22, 2014 at 1:36 pm said:

    David Evans #33.5
    June 21, 2014 at 9:36 pm

    Over the long term the notch is unimportant


    # # #

    At least we got that sorted out.

    I contend that over the short term the notch is a spurious observation based on: wrong premise, wrong analysis tools, and wrong datasets.

    Wrong premise? The “11 year cycle” is a term of convention but that is not what it actually is – a recurring phenomenon of varying period.

  44. Richard C (NZ) on June 22, 2014 at 3:28 pm said:

    Richard C (NZ) #
    June 22, 2014 at 1:36 pm

    Re #33.5.1

    >”On the contrary, warming is observed at the SC peaks when they actually occur”

    I should point out that Coughlin & Tung and Zhou & Tung identify the very faint and very minor “fast” temperature response (immediate TSI path in David’s terms) to SC peaks.

    But the major response is “slow” and delayed by thermal inertia of the surface heat sinks. The delay is months, years, decades, and even centuries. To relate the delay to current climate the delay can be described as a thermal lag around a dozen years (I prefer 14 by Abdussamatov) plus or minus several years.

    So the major temperature response to solar change is “smeared” over a very long period and impossible to detect as a spike in temperature records except the difference between Grand Min and Grand Max (H/t Griss):


    For example, the Modern solar Grand Maximum (a series of SCs) peaked in 1986. The temperature effect of that is “smeared” over the period following so that the years coinciding with the lag (e.g. 2000 and either side @ 14 yr lag +/- 6 yrs) experience the effect of the maximum much more than 1986 does. This is what the guys at Skeptical Science don’t understand on their solar case rebuttal page.

    Similarly, SC 23 peaked December 2001 (by F10.7 monthly average). The temperature effect of that is yet to be experienced to it’s fullest extent (2001/02 + 14 = end of 2015 +/- several years).

    For this reason it is spurious to go looking for a recurring 11.2 yr average period temperature spike coinciding with TSI at SC peaks as evidence of the solar effect on temperature – or not..

    That temperature spike exists as a faint “fast” response but is an all but negligible signal. To focus on it (the “fast” component) as the temperature response evidence (or not) to solar change, is barking up the wrong tree.

  45. Richard C (NZ) on June 22, 2014 at 8:01 pm said:

    The above comment link was:


    Following on:

    Richard C (NZ) #
    June 22, 2014 at 3:32 pm

    Re #

    >”…the Modern solar Grand Maximum (a series of SCs) peaked in 1986. The temperature effect of that is “smeared” over the period following”

    The lagged accumulating heat content effect of that series of SCs is graphed here:

    Change in heat content: ocean + land + ice + atmosphere


    SkS attribute all that [heat] to GHG forcing of course – a classic case of miss-attribution.


  46. Richard C (NZ) on June 23, 2014 at 11:12 am said:

    Evans model prediction in David Archibald article in American Thinker here (H/t Andrew @ JN):


    I don’t find that scenario plausible but we’ll know by 2017 whether it’s valid or not. I think David’s “clock” delay (based on spurious observation and fixation on the minor “fast” response IMO) produces a temperature response far too soon and far too abruptly. Yes historically, there is evidence of abrupt temperature falls when solar activity becomes relatively weak (the IPCC’s Mike Lockwood acknowledges this) but this is a radical fall.

    If the delay was derived by thermodynamic principles, the major “slow” delay is over a range of years and decades but concentrated on 14 years +/- 6 years (by Abdussamatov’s calc) i.e. the effect of solar conditions in December 2001 (SC 23 peak) has yet to experienced to its fullest extent (2001/12 + 14 = end of 2015 + 6 = 2021). That peak was at near Grand Maximum levels of 1986. The “slow” effect of the relatively weaker SC peak February 2014 wont be experienced until 2028 +/- 6 yrs = 2022 to 2034. Sure there will be a faster response in the meantime but faint and competing with ocean oscillations.

    We’ll see who’s got it right over the next 3 years or so.

  47. Richard C (NZ) on June 23, 2014 at 11:51 am said:

    EE guy @ #70 Part VI, Bernie Hutchins, not buying David’s “non-causal” notch filter:

    “Quite frankly, there are too many “cheerleaders” here (who wouldn’t know a notch-filter if they got one as a prize in a Cracker-Jack box) who are not appreciative of the extreme caution engineers usually (at least should) take when they are presented with a new device, tool, or theory. So many of the best skeptics are engineers precisely because of their normal practice of wanting to know, exactly, how things work”

    Continues in detail>>>>>>


    I’m not buying it either.

  48. Richard C (NZ) on June 23, 2014 at 3:11 pm said:

    ‘Sensitivity of the surface temperature to changes in total solar irradiance calculated with the WRF model’

    Carolina Cipagaut, Blanca Mendoza and Jorge Zavala-Hidalgo (2014)


    Excerpts here:


  49. Richard C (NZ) on June 24, 2014 at 11:43 am said:

    Bernie again #71.2.1

    David –

    I do appreciate that you respond, but you need to consider that you have this wrong. I think it makes significant differences. Further, doing it right probably not only corrects an error, but also simplifies the results.

    (1) I did no calculations, so there is no assumption about phase. Mine was an EXPERIMENT – components on a bench. Independently, the website I found DID do the calculation, and agreed with my experiment. In as much as the notch is just the sum of a LP and HP (with same poles), the notch step response is the sum of their step responses, widely published, and easy to sum.

    (2) I assumed you were familiar with filters, but it appears you are not. Butterworth CAN be low-pass but it can also be band-pass, high-pass, or notch. Butterworth refers not to the “type” but rather to the damping “characteristic”, the reciprocal of “Q”. Butterworth Q (for second order) is 1/sqrt(2). Your Fig. 2 response looks to my eye to be Q=1/2.

    (3) You said “Even if the causality argument was wrong, the delay works and is independently corroborated.” Well – if the causality is wrong, you don’t NEED the delay, and putting in an artificial delay misleads you further. Your Fig. 2, because it appears you chose critical damping, or nearly so, leads you to suppose that you can remove the anti-causal part with a time shift to the right (a delay). [In theory, since the anti-causal tail goes on to negative infinity, even with critical damping, you could not ever do this.] But even in a “for all practical purposes” scenario, this would NOT fix the direction of time. Because the step response is really causal, you not only don’t need a delay, but the delay you add IS destructive to a correct result. And perhaps “destructive” is exactly the right term – in summing immediate and delayed paths. (Is that perhaps where your “dagger” comes from in the overall response?).


  50. Richard C (NZ) on June 24, 2014 at 11:47 am said:

    Mikky #85
    June 24, 2014 at 3:25 am


    I think there is too much speculation going on, based on false conclusions from your data analysis:

    1. The data analysis does not establish a notch, just an absence of 11-year signal.
    You would have to see a dip in the SPECTRUM of the temperature data to establish a notch, and there is no such dip?
    Absence of 11-year signal could probably have mundane explanations, for example averaging due to thermal inertia.

    2. A notch filter does not require a time delay, unless you choose to implement it non-causally, which is not necessary.

    To me, the notch filter is just the method you have used to remove the 11-year signal from the TSI data, leaving the long-term variations.
    You could have used instead a flat 11-year average, which I suspect would give similar results.

    Assuming that there is a good correlation (with WOW factor?) between temperature and notched-and-scaled TSI data,
    then you can determine (roughly) the time delay between those 2 time series,
    giving you interesting scientific results without any theoretical speculations, and something with predictive power.

    The reason(s) for the absence of 11-year signals could be left as speculations, rather than proposing a specific notch filter that some are finding hard to accept.


  51. Richard C (NZ) on June 24, 2014 at 12:11 pm said:

    Synopsis of my criticism:

    Richard C (NZ) #73.1.2
    June 23, 2014 at 10:49 am

    >”observed the outputs” (crosspatch #72.1)

    That’s the problem I have with David’s rationale.

    1) A false premise that there is an actual “11 year solar cycle” based on average length, not actual length of each recurrence of the phenomenon.

    2) A very incomplete understanding of the major “slow” thermal delay and response vs the minor “fast” response he looks for as a result of 1) and this incomplete understanding in 2).

    3) From 1) and 2), a false assumption that 11 year periodicity “should” be observed in temperature at a significant level (also a false premise).

    4) Then, even in the narrow and spurious scope of the minor “fast” response, he uses inappropriate analysis tools and datasets thereby missing the weak “pulse” in temperature at SC peaks due to the fast response when other analysts using different tools, datasets, and not constrained by a fixed period of 11 years DO find the solar signal in the minor fast response of temperature.


  52. Richard C (NZ) on June 24, 2014 at 12:18 pm said:

    Steve Short #87
    June 24, 2014 at 9:59 am

    “Having discovered the pattern in the way TSI is tranformed into temperature (sic), David builds the model with the filters to produce the same “transfer function” as he found in empirical data.”

    But isn’t the problem here that the frequencies of surface temperature responses, in particular the absence of a temperature response (anticorrelation) to TSI around a frequency of 11 years were built up by examination of only a small number of ‘modern’ literature ‘records’ of TSI?

    What about the response/non-response frequency information from the ensemble (sigh) of all other TSI records (inclusive of modelled elements or not)e.g.

    Modern instrumented period:

    Stott et al. (2003) Do models underestimate the solar contribution to recent climate change? J. Clim. 16, 4079-4093

    Benestad and Schmidt. (2009) Solar trends and global warming. J. Geophys. Res. 114

    Historical – high inferred surface temperature dependence on TSI:

    Shapiro et al. (2011) A new approach to to the long-term reconstruction of the solar irradiance leads to large historical solar forcing. Astron. Astrophysics 529, A67

    Historical – inferred moderate surface temperature dependence on TSI:

    Steinhilber et al. Total solar irradiance during the Holocene. (2009) Geophys. Res. Lett. 36, L19704

    Historical – inferred minimal surface temperature dependence on TSI:

    Wang et al. (2005) Modeling the Sun’s magnetic field and irradiance since 1713. Astophys. J. 625 522 – 538

    This list goes on (and on and on). Notice these are all papers published in the last 10 years – and I still haven’t yet listed the Svalgaard et al. ‘its all damn flat for TSI’ stuff (most of which appears at conferences and colloquia….with all that that means in terms of the strength and affiliations of review or not…).

    So, my conclusion is perhaps that the frequency curve maybe should really have been made up of the ensemble (sigh) of all inferred responses? That’s a question please note.

    Relevant to also note that back in 2010, using the Wang et al (2005) TSI – temperature record for the last 400 years), and another means of frequency analysis Glassman could not find any trend at all associated any notch and delay around 11 – 22 years. I know that Glassman had also looked at the earlier Lean et al papers around 2000.

    This also leads into even more radical recent stuff like:

    Van Hateren (2012) A fractal climate response can simulate global average temperature trends of the modern era and and the past millenium. Clim. Dynam. 40, 2651 – 2670


    Schurer et al (2014) Small influence of solar variability on climate over the past millenium. Nature Geoscience. 7, February 2014 (published online 22 December 2013)

    Are we just dancing around on the head of a pin here?

    Notice I am carefully avoiding the dreaded and IMHO naive ch**** p****** slur here.


    In other words, not only is David’s observation of the outputs way too narrow, his observation of the inputs is highly questionable too.

  53. Richard C (NZ) on June 25, 2014 at 9:23 am said:

    ‘Laughing Stock Met Office…2007 “Peer-Reviewed” Global Temperature Forecast A Staggering Failure’

    By P Gosselin on 24. Juni 2014

    Frank Bosse at Die kalte Sonne here puts the spotlight on a global warming forecast published by some British MetOffice scientists in 2007. It appeared in Science here.

    The peer-reviewed paper was authored by Doug M. Smith and colleagues under the title: “Improved Surface Temperature Prediction for the Coming Decade from a Global Climate Model“.


    Now that 2007 is some years behind us, even Smith et al have realized their forecast was overinflated and so they produced a new paper which appeared last year. The latest by Smith has taken natural variability more into account and he is much more careful with prophecy-making. Still, the range of uncertainty the new paper offers makes it “more or less useless”


    We’ll be revisiting Smith’s newest forecast in about 5 years time. In the meantime we have to ask ourselves if these people will ever learn. Science can take only so much damage.

    See more at: http://notrickszone.com/2014/06/24/laughing-stock-met-office-2007-peer-reviewed-global-temperature-forecast-a-staggering-failure/#sthash.o9CMLxUB.dpuf

  54. Richard C (NZ) on June 26, 2014 at 2:52 pm said:

    ‘Climate reveals periodic nature, thus no influence by CO2’

    Prof. H. Luedecke and C.O. Weiss


    We reported recently about our spectral analysis work of European temperatures [1] which shows that during the last centuries all climate changes were caused by periodic (i.e. natural) processes. Non-periodic processes like a warming through the monotonic increase of CO2 in the atmosphere could cause at most 0.1° to 0.2° warming for a doubling of the CO2 content, as it is expected for 2100.

    Fig. 1 (Fig. 6 of [1] ) shows the measured temperatures (blue) and the temperatures reconstructed using the 6 strongest frequency components (red) of the Fourier spectrum, indicating that the temperature history is determined by periodic processes only.

    On sees from Fig. 1 that two cycles of periods 200+ years and ~65 years dominate the climate changes, the 200+ year cycle causing the largest part of the temperature increase since 1870.

    The ~65 year cycle is the well-known, much studied, and well understood “Atlantic/Pacific oscillation” (AMO/PDO). It can be traced back for 1400 years. The AMO/PDO has no external forcing it is “intrinsic dynamics”, an “oscillator”.

    Although the spectral analysis of the historical instrumental temperature measurements [1] show a strong 200+ year period, it cannot be inferred with certainty from these measurements, since only 240 years of measurement data are available. However, the temperatures obtained from the Spannagel stalagmite show this periodicity as the strongest climate variation by far since about 1100 AD.

    The existence of this 200+ year periodicity has nonetheless been doubted. Even though temperatures from the Spannagel stalagmite agree well with temperatures derived from North Atlantic sedimentation; and even though the solar “de Vries cycle”, which has this period length, is known for a long time as an essential factor determining the global climate.

    A perfect confirmation for the existence and the dominant influence of the 200+ year cycle as found by us [1] is provided by a recent paper [2] which analyses solar activities for periodic processes.

    The spectrum Fig. 2 (Fig. 1d of [2]) shows clearly a 208-year period as the strongest variation of the solar activity. Fig. 3 (Fig. 4 of [2]) gives us the solar activity of the past until today as well as the prediction for the coming 500 years. This prediction is possible due to the multi-periodic character of the activity.

    The solar activity agrees well with the terrestrial climate. It clearly shows in particular all historic temperature minima. Thus the future temperatures can be predicted from the activities – as far as they are determined by the sun (the AMO/PDO is not determined by the sun).

    The 200+ year period found here [2], as it is found by us [1] is presently at its maximum. Through its influence the temperature will decrease until 2100 to a value like the one of the last “Little Ice Age” 1870.

    The wavelet analysis of the solar activity Fig. 4 (Fig. 1b of [2]) has interesting detail. In spite of its limited resolution it shows (as our analysis of the Spannagel stalagmite did) that the 200+ year period set in about 1000 years ago. This cycle appears, according to Fig. 4, regularly every 2500 years. (The causes for this 2500 year period are probably not understood.)

    [1] Multi-periodic climate dynamics: spectral analysis of long-term instrumental and proxy temperature records. H.Luedecke, A. Hempelmann, C.O.Weiss; Clim. Past. 9 (2013) p 447


    [2] Prediction of solar activity for the next 500 years. F.Steinhilber, J.Beer; Journ. Geophys. Res.: Space Physics 118 (2013) p 1861


    ‘Claim: Solar, AMO, & PDO cycles combined reproduce the global climate of the past’

    Guest essay by H. Luedecke and C.O.Weiss


  55. Richard C (NZ) on June 26, 2014 at 8:07 pm said:

    Re #

    >”David’s search for 11 yr periodicity has not been exhaustive and that he’s been looking in the wrong places. I’m sure more analysis of localized data such as M6 will identify an 11 yr signal eventually

    Sure enough:

    ‘Periodicity analysis of NDVI time series and its relationship with climatic factors in the Heihe River Basin in China’

    Huibang Han, Mingguo Ma, Ping Yan, Yi Song (2011)

    Just search the Web for PDF or:


    3.2 Periodicity analysis of air temperature time series

    The air temperature time series data sets of each pixel of 9 meteorological stations in the Heihe River Basin are analyzed by the EMD. Table 3 shows the periodicity of air temperature from 1982 to 2009.

    Yeniugou IMF3/a 10-11
    Qilian IMF2/a 10-11
    Tuole IMF3/a 10-11
    Zhangye IMF3/a 10-11
    Jiuquan IMF2/a 10-11
    Dingxin IMF3/a 10-11
    Ejin Banner IMF2/a 10-11


    It is indicated that the EMD method can be effectively used to analyze the periodic variation of the time series NDVI data. All the time series of SINDVI, air temperature and precipitation have periodic variation from 1982 to 2009 in the Heihe River Basin. The temperature and precipitation are significant driving factor affecting the vegetation cover changes. Furthermore, the periodicity of temperature and precipitation may be affected by air-sea interaction and sunspot activity. The period of 2-3 years is the most elementary cycle of the meteorological element in the world. Period of 5-6, 10-11 and 15-16 years may be concerned with the laws of motions of heaven bodies and the medium-wave cycle of macula, they are all caused by solar activity [29, 30].

    # # #

    7 of 9 stations exhibit 10-11 year periodicity in this set of local data.


  56. Richard C (NZ) on June 27, 2014 at 1:35 pm said:

    Evans model prediction in David Archibald article in Quadrant Online here (H/t Griss @ JN):


    Same article as American Thinker.

    1) Evans N-D prediction turns down in 2014 (I don’t think so – still might though).
    2) He has an 11 year solar-temperature lag (I don’t think so – 14 years).
    3) He neglects OHC because he says a low-pass filter accounts for it (I don’t think so based on upper ocean OHC peak).

    Add another 3 years to his initial 11 to give a 14 year solar-atmosphere lag. Then add about another 4 years (based on UKMO EN3 upper OHC peak 2004) or another 14 years (based on NODC upper OHC peak 2014) lag to 14 year solar-temperature lag (1986-2000) and you’ve got a competing prediction.

    That is: solar => ocean => atmosphere system, solar peak 1986, solar peak range 1960 – 2000.

    Lag to when temperature turns down based on UKMO OHC
    1986 + 14 = 2000 + 14 = 2014 + 4 = 2018

    Lag to when temperature turns down based on NODC OHC
    1986 + 14 = 2000 + 14 = 2014 + 14 = 2028

    We’ll see what’s right by 2018.

  57. Richard C (NZ) on June 28, 2014 at 10:07 am said:

    Part VIII: New solar theory predicts imminent global cooling


    My response #56:


    The model doesn’t capture the thermal damping effect of ocean heat accumulated over the last 100 years or so. Therefore the predicted fall is too soon and too steep – but there will be a fall.

    Time will tell on the shape profile and timing of the fall of course.

    There is a solar-temperature lag and a model built on that basis is on the right track. The lag is thermal inertia of planetary materials and transport/transfer of heat. The largest heat sink is the ocean so the system is basically sun => ocean => atmosphere.

    An 11 year lag goes some way to mimic the transfer of solar energy to air temperature but it’s not enough and development of the 11 yr N-D has not been compelling right from Part II.

    There are at least 4 papers documenting 11 yr periodicity in surface and tropospheric temperature including GISTEMP i.e. David not finding it doesn’t mean others haven’t. See Part VII here (troposphere and local surface China):


    And here (GISTEMP):


  58. Bulaman on June 29, 2014 at 10:36 am said:

    Off thread but is the Goddard/Watts adjustment saga the same (similar) thing that NIWA was taken to task on here?
    Certainly looks like the data sets have been “sexed up” to confirm “It’s worse then we thought” meme.

  59. Richard C (NZ) on June 29, 2014 at 5:50 pm said:

    >”…is the Goddard/Watts adjustment saga the same (similar) thing that NIWA was taken to task on here?”


    NZCSC may have a different answer to mine of course (but probably “no” too I’m sure) but the raw data for NZT7, however you compile it , is available in CliFlo and complete except for the odd missing data. The dispute is over adjustment methodology to the raw data.

    In the US, closed USHCN stations are still generating estimated data, among other things. This, on the face of it, is incompetence or just inattention. But it has been working out conveniently, hence the suspicion.

    BTW, Anthony Watts has been on the wrong side of this by a long shot:

    “…..the best thing about all this hoopla over the USHCN data set is the Polifact story where we have all these experts lined up (including me as the token skeptic) that stated without a doubt that Goddard was wrong and rated the claim “pants of fire”. They’ll all be eating some crow, as will I, but now that I have Gavin for dinner company, I don’t really mind at all.”


    The “experts”, “eating some crow”, can be found in the Polifact story here:


    Zeke Hausfather, data scientist with Berkeley Earth
    Gavin Schmidt, director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies
    John Nielsen-Gammon, researcher at Texas A&M University and is the Texas state climatologist
    Mark C. Serreze, professor of geography at the University of Colorado-Boulder
    Anthony Watts, popular skeptic of most climate change data

  60. Richard C (NZ) on June 29, 2014 at 6:15 pm said:

    While we’re on this, an interesting post by Bob Dedekind (NZCSET, NZT7):

    ‘Why Automatic Temperature Adjustments Don’t Work’


    Which prompted Willis Eschenbach’s:

    ‘Problems With The Scalpel Method’

    “The Berkeley Earth dataset is homogenized by the scalpel method, and both Zeke Hausfather and Steven Mosher have assisted the Berkeley folks in their work. Both of them had commented on Bob’s post, so I asked them the following.”


  61. Richard C (NZ) on July 4, 2014 at 9:27 am said:

    ‘On the relationship between global, hemispheric and latitudinal averaged air surface temperature (GISS time series) and solar activity’

    Souza Echer et al (2011)


  62. Richard C (NZ) on July 6, 2014 at 5:38 pm said:

    ‘The Cause Of Earth’s Climate Change Is The Sun’


    by Jeffrey A. Glassman, PhD April 2010

    Solar energy as modeled over the last three centuries contains patterns that match the full 160 year instrument record of Earth’s surface temperature. Earth’s surface temperature throughout the modern record is given by

    Equation (1)

    where Sn is the increase in Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) measured as the running percentage rise in the trend at every instance in time, t, for the previous n years. The parameters are best fits with the values m134=18.33ºC/%, m46=-3.68ºC/%, b=13.57(-0.43)ºC, and τ=6 years. The value of b in parenthesis gives T(t) as a temperature anomaly. One standard deviation of the error between the equation and the HadCRUT3 data is 0.11ºC (about one ordinate interval). Values for a good approximation (σ=0.13ºC) with a single solar running trend are m134=17.50ºC/%, m46=0, b=13.55(-0.45)ºC, and τ=10 years.


    For the conclusions reached in this paper, the energy in
    S134 is sufficient by itself. However, it is not sufficient as a
    radiative forcing were it to be received at the surface of
    Earth to have a measurable affect on climate. However, the
    accuracy of the model in matching Earth’s temperature
    record indicates that an amplifying process must operate
    on solar radiation.

    Dr. Glassman has a BS, MS, and PhD from the UCLA
    Engineering, Department of Systems Science, specializing
    in electronics, applied mathematics, applied physics,
    communication and information theory. Hughes Staff
    Doctoral Fellow. For more than half of three decades at
    Hughes Aircraft Company he was Division Chief Scientist
    for Missile Development and Microelectronics Systems
    Divisions, responsible for engineering, product line
    planning, and IR&D. Since retiring from Hughes, he has
    consulted in various high tech fields, including expert
    witness on communication satellite anomalies for the
    defense in Astrium v. TRW, et al, and CDMA instructor
    at Qualcomm. Lecturer, Math and Science Institutes,
    UCI. Member, Science Education Advisory Board. Author,
    Evolution in Science, Hollowbrook, New Hampshire,
    1992, ISDN 0-89341-707-6. He is an expert modeler of
    diverse physical phenomena, including microwave and
    millimeter wave propagation in the atmosphere and in
    solids, ballistic reentry trajectories, missile guidance,
    solar radiation, thermal energy in avionics and in
    microcircuit devices, infrared communication, analog
    and digital signals, large scale fire control systems,
    diffusion, and electroencephalography. Inventor of a
    radar on-target detection device, and a stereo digital
    signal processor. Published A Generalization of the Fast
    Fourier Transform, IEEE Transactions on Computers,
    1972. Previously taught detection and estimation theory,
    probability theory, digital signal processing.


    τ=10 years implies planetary thermal lag of 16 years.

    Glassman captured 65 yr and 208 yr periodicity, planetary thermal lag, and 19th and 20th century temperature trend up to 2006 with a 134-year running TSI trend line.

  63. Richard C (NZ) on July 6, 2014 at 6:07 pm said:

    V. CONCLUSIONS [Glassman, 2010]

    AGW is dead. Here are some topics for the post-mortem.
    Forensic analysis of proxy reductions for correlations
    caused by data set sharing, and subjective smoothing into
    the instrument record. Forensic analysis of whether proxy
    temperature reductions have any validity. An à priori
    model for the tapped delay line representation of climate
    based on ocean currents. An à priori model for cloudiness
    as it responds to short wave radiation.

    # # #

    The latter two model proposals being “slow” response and “fast” response respectively. Davis Evans (apart from an invalid Notch-Delay) doesn’t seem to grasp that the “slow” oceanic response has an overwhelming long-term effect on temperature and doesn’t capture what Glassman captured i.e. 65 yr and 208 yr periodicity, and planetary thermal lag longer than 11 yrs

  64. Richard C (NZ) on July 6, 2014 at 7:26 pm said:

    Glassman (2010), Figure 1:


    Solar radiation trend equates to near surface atmospheric temperature.

  65. Mike Jowsey on July 10, 2014 at 2:00 am said:

    Popcorn! Popcorn! Get your popcorn here!

    It’s called in-fighting. And Joanne’s up for it!


    Despite being abjectly wrong, and in a documented and obvious way, neither man has acknowledged, let alone apologized, for their disgraceful behaviour.

    … continues brilliantly…

  66. I read what Jo said; I was convinced. Then Willis responded; I was convinced.

    Now I’m out of popcorn.

  67. Mike Jowsey on July 10, 2014 at 11:35 pm said:

    Yes RT, I agree. Interesting reposte. We wait with bated breath…
    (Willis’ response here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/08/solar-notch-delay-model-released/#comment-1681583

  68. Mike Jowsey on July 11, 2014 at 12:16 pm said:

    The reply to Willis from Joanne: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/08/solar-notch-delay-model-released/#comment-1682221

    Willis, you are making false defamatory statements here, which you refuse to correct despite your obvious errors. We’ve provided all the data, all the methods, and been open and honest….

    And various volleys thereafter, including a good hit from Monckton. Svalgaard still goes on about “900 days of fabricated data”, despite clear and repeated variations on this quote from Joanne (emphasis mine):

    The largely irrelevant 3 dots are clearly listed on the graphs as an “assumed average” extension. They have no impact on the model (they are not used in it). They have little impact on the graph (except to make the fall slightly less dramatic by indicating it is ending).

  69. Richard C (NZ) on July 11, 2014 at 1:17 pm said:

    >”The largely irrelevant 3 dots”

    And the largely irrelevant and ill-directed fixation on smoothed data (noted by others also), thereby missing when the solar step change actually occurred. I tried to communicate that in this post thread around this comment:



    The sudden drop came around 2006.5 according to PMOD TSI (and all the other solar metrics e.g. magnetic, radio. as a few others note):


    1365.5 down to 1365.33. Now compare 1365.33 2007 level to SC 22 minimum 1365.5 1996-1997:


    1365.33 2007 is off that chart.

    2005 1365.5 drop to 2007 1365.33 = 0.17 W/m2.

    We can put 0.17 W/m2 solar forcing 2005 – 2007 in context using the IPCC’s formula dF = 5.35 ln(C/Co) and ML CO2 data. I’m not suggesting the IPCC’s RF methodology is valid (it isn’t) but the exercise is instructive.

    ML CO2

    2000 369.52
    2010 389.85

    dF = 5.35 ln(389.85/369.52)

    Opposing forcings wrt warming:

    dF CO2: +0.29 W/m2 2000 – 2010
    df SUN: -0.17 W/m2 2005 – 2007

    This is what it is all about. In the space of one year (2006) solar forcing achieved an offsetting forcing 59% of CO2 forcing for the entire decade.

    That -0.17 W/m2 is just the start of what, in worst-case (Maunder-type – Shapiro et al/Abdussamatov), could progress to 6 W/m2:


    Or any scenario less than 6 W/m2 (e.g. Dalton-type – Duhau and de Jager).

    Point being, the 2006 year was the beginning of solar decline from “normal” (comparable to SCs 21 & 22) 2005 level – not 2003 by smoothed data as per Jo/David in that post linked above. In other words, there was no solar forcing prior to and including 2005, the forcing began in 2006 not 2003..

  70. Richard C (NZ) on July 11, 2014 at 2:12 pm said:

    Jo/David’s graph of smoothed TSI (“big fall in TSI data” post) implies a TSI drop of about, say, 0.25 W/m2 from 2003 to end of SC 23 2008/9:


    But their next graph of unsmoothed TSI shows the 0.25 W/m2 drop occurred from 2005 to 2008/9. 0.17 of that occurred in 2006 alone.

    Given the TSI drop in the unsmoothed data that many knew about before the N-D model came along (the IPCC’s solar guy Mike Lockwood certainly knows for instance), I find Jo’s post title ‘The Solar Model finds a big fall in TSI data that few seem to know about’ a tad self-serving and alienating. I do recognize that the post is directed at Leif and Willis however.

    Maybe the title should read ‘The Solar [data shows] a big fall in TSI [ ] that [a] few seem [not] to know about’.

  71. Richard C (NZ) on July 11, 2014 at 2:21 pm said:

    >”But their next graph of unsmoothed TSI shows the 0.25 W/m2 drop occurred from 2005 to 2008/9. 0.17 of that occurred in 2006 alone.”

    Forgot the link to the graph, which is:


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Post Navigation