Skip to comments.BIG NEWS Part I: Historic development — New Solar climate model coming ( 5 parets so far )
Posted on 06/18/2014 7:08:40 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
Behind the scenes a major advance has been quietly churning. It is something I have barely even hinted at. (Oh how I wanted to!)You may have noticed my other half Dr David Evans has been quiet its not because hes moved out of the climate debate, instead a strange combination of factors has pulled him full time into climate research. Things have been very busy here. Hes discovered something extraordinary, and like all real science, its been a roller-coaster where the theory appeared to collapse, and we nearly gave up, but then a new insight would turn out to be more valuable than the version that went before. Other times it all seemed so obvious in hindsight we wondered why no one had done this before. But the answer is that there is a very unusual combination of factors at work how many people have Ivy League experience in Fourier maths, and electrical circuits and have worked as a professional modeler, software developer, and have an interest in the finer details and theory of the climate debate? Who of the people with this background would also be prepared to spend months working unpaid to investigate a non-CO2 climate theory?
Dr David Evans is an electrical engineer and mathematician, who earned six university degrees over ten years, including a PhD from Stanford University in electrical engineering (digital signal processing): PhD. (E.E), M.S. (E.E.), M.S. (Stats) [at Stanford], B.E. (Hons, University Medal), M.A. (Applied Math), B.Sc.[University of Sydney]. His specialty is in Fourier analysis and signal processing. He trained with Professor Ronald Bracewell late of Stanford University.
David has worked in the climate industry, consulting full-time for the Australian Greenhouse Office from 1999 to 2005, and part-time for the Department of Climate Change from 2008 to 2010. He was the lead modeler analyzing the carbon in Australias biosphere for Kyoto accounting purposes, and developed the world-leading carbon accounting model FullCAM that Australia uses in the land use change and forestry sector.
For the last 18 months David pursued an idea, and developed something the climate debate has needed, but failed to do achieve after 30 years, despite billions of dollars in funding. Hes taken sophisticated silicon-chip maths and applied it to the climate system analyzing the system as a black box to discover the filters and parts. He has built a working O-D model with 15,000 lines of code. In order to develop the model he had to produce a more advanced method of Fourier analysis (which on its own is an achievement and will be useful in many other fields). Well be releasing the results of this independent work over the next week amongst other posts. Make no mistake, this is not like anything I have seen or read about. It fits, like all good science does, into a coherent theory that matches the data and connects many other papers. The jigsaw is coming together.
Over the last six months weve been quietly circulating this work amongst scientists we admire and seeking feedback. We want more, and open science is the only way to go. I will boldly predict that many papers will spring from this work and its implications, but for the moment we see no reason to wait for two unpaid reviewers and an editor (with little knowledge of the details) to delay or prevaricate on its release.
Historically this is how real science is done, one well-trained passionate researcher pursues a creative idea that breaks the current paradigm, then sets the theory free for everyone to test and review. 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.
Ill be announcing the releases through facebook, twitter and via emails so please update your details or register for emails if you are not already. Know that Im the only one who sends emails the register, I do not sell emails nor send spam. I have not been using the list for the last six months but will start as we release these most important articles Ive ever published.
As they say, bring your popcorn. Get ready to concentrate. : -)
Guest post by Dr David Evans, 14 June 2014
Weve been working on this for a year and a half, gradually building up the pieces bit by bit, gradually filling in a picture that is now almost complete. Weve been bursting to tell the world about it for months, but always noting it would be better if developed and tested before it went public. (How long is a piece of string?) The big danger is that an inadequately explained or prepared alternative explanation of how the climate works will not be given proper consideration, and thereafter will be ignored as debunked. There is never a perfect time, but weve reached the point where the theory will be tested and developed better by open review. Its time to set it free We will be serializing the project as a series of posts, one every day or two. The broad outline of the project, without revealing the major ingredients just yet, is as follows.
We explore some climate datasets and find something interesting, which provides a clue to building up a solar model. We think we have deduced the nature of the indirect solar force that largely influences temperature here on Earth. We get a physical model with physical interpretations (that is, not just curve fitting), working models, and decent fit to observed data.
Both the CO2 model and the new solar model are viable explanations of the global warming of the last century. Any linear mix (e.g. 60% CO2, 40% solar) also fits the observed temperatures. On the performance of the models over the last century, we cannot tell which is correct. However, over the next decade the models predict dramatically different things: the CO2 model of course predicts warming, while the solar model predicts a sharp fall in temperature very soon.
We dont have to wait to determine whether it is the CO2 or solar model that is more correct. The answer lies in the changes in the height of the water vapor emissions layer, because the influences of CO2 and the indirect solar force are different. From this we are able to determine the cause of global warming and the maximum extent to which the recent global warming was due to CO2. We also clear up a few theoretical befuddlements about the influence of CO2 that may have caused warmists to overestimate the potency of rising CO2.
The fans of the CO2 dominant models are not going to be happy. It seems the climate is an 80-20 sort of thing, where there is a dominant influence responsible for 80% of climate change and a tail of 20% of other factors. It turns out that the CO2 concentration is not the 80% factor, but in the 20% tail. An indirect solar influence seems to be the main factor.
All the data, model, and computations are in a single Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. It runs on any pc with Excel 2007 or later; it runs at least partly (and maybe fully) on any Mac with Office 2011 or later. This is completely open scienceevery bit of data and every computation is open for inspection. We will be releasing this towards the end of the series of blog posts.
There is a big paper with all of the above in rigorous detail. It runs to about 170 pages. There is some groundwork to discuss before it is all released. This should produce a more productive discussion.
This has been a long circuitous personal journey. From originally being involved in Fourier research in Silicon Valley, I moved to the climate world with the assumption that CO2 was the major climate driver. I became aware the evidence was gradually reversing sometime after 2003, and by 2006 had become skeptical. Now, completing the circle, Im bringing my original passion for Fourier research back to the climate. Ive vowed to leave this debate on several occasions but part of the reason I keep being pulled back towards climate is because Joanne, who runs this blog, is my wife. Yes, a strange combination of factors are at work.
This project was funded almost entirely by us out of our family savings, with help from donations by readers of Joannes blog. (Again, thank you! Without your support and encouragement we wouldnt have done this.) As well as being 18 months of very full time work, there were months of preparatory research, and years of learning and planning.
There are no conflicts of interest to declare. In particular we have no investments in fossil fuels, shorts on renewables, or any investments in the energy sector. There are no government grants or salaries to declare (unlike many supporters of the CO2 theory). We receive modest donations, occasional speaking fees and fees for writing articles, but no other income from climate activities.
Please visit the climate page of my website, at http://sciencespeak.com/climate.html. There is even a page there for the attacks and smears of the warmists.
You can help make more of this independent research, coding, and open source discovery possible with a donation through joannenova.com.au. Its not a new way of funding scientific discovery; its the way most of the biggest advances in science have always been done, though not so much in this era of government funded science since WWII.
The world spends almost a billion dollars a day on mitigating CO2 emissions. This project potentially could help make those funds available for more productive uses.
David Evans ground-breaking work is a devastating new approach to the climate question. I have been lucky enough to observe the development of this project, and am full of admiration for both Jo and David for their dedication to carrying out a breathtaking research project with no financial reward, simply because it so desperately needed to be done. Let this be the last nail in the coffin of climate extremism. I hope that, as a result of this work, David will be properly recognized by the Australian Government, which unlike its unlamented predecessor is open to the possibility that influences other than Man are the principal drivers of the climate. Davids work is heroic in its scale, formidable in its ingenuity, and as far as a mere layman can judge very likely to be broadly correct. One should not minimize the courage of David and Jo in persisting unrewarded for so long in what was and is a genuine search for the truth, starting not from any preconception but from that curiosity that is the mainspring of all true science. I wish this project well and congratulate its justifiably proud parents on its birth.
Thank you Christopher says Jo.
The short killer summary: The Skeptics Handbook. The most deadly point: The Missing Hot Spot.
Bottom line is that the progression of the alignment of the earth’s axis when combined with the polarity reversal of the sun causes a decrease in our protective magnetosphere at a point when we are vulnerable to CME’s.
It’s really that simple and that is what causes the ice ages and the periodic shifts in the earth’s crust.
The Pareto Principle applies to Ice Ages?
I’m interested to hear more about it.
Sadly, pre-announcing a scientific discovery through a press release was what got Pons and Fleischmann (of cold fusion fame) into trouble. If they had followed the usual scientific publishing route, they may not have stirred up so much controversy.
What is a CME?
the CO2 model of course predicts warming, while the solar model predicts a sharp fall in temperature very soon.
Why can’t they see the bigger picture. It’s like they are trying to figure out the oven temperature without realizing that there is a temperature control knob outside the oven!!!
Think a solar flare!
Could be Milankovitch Cycles!
Coronal Mass Ejection.
CME - Coronal Mass Ejection.
This is brilliant. Thank you for sharing this. Now I have a better idea of what to research.
A book you may be interested in, “Twilight of Abundance” by David Archibald.
“The Pareto Principle applies to Ice Ages?”
I would say that it is more 99% to 1 % than the 80% to 20% guideline of the Pareto Principle. Meaning that 99% of the result is due to the 1% influencing factor external to the earth. The earth itself is a function of its external environment.
This one is a perfect storm that does no happen very often in the earth’s history.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.