New Solar Climate Model Coming

toubab

Literotica Guru
Joined
Oct 7, 2010
Posts
12,592
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/06/bi...c-development-new-solar-climate-model-coming/

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

"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 — it’s not because he’s 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. He’s discovered something extraordinary, and like all real science, it’s 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 Australia’s 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. He’s taken sophisticated silicon-chip maths and applied it to the climate system — analyzing the system as a black box to discover the filters and parts. He has built a working O-D model with 15,000 lines of code. In order to develop the model he had to produce a more advanced method of Fourier analysis (which on its own is an achievement and will be useful in many other fields). We’ll 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 we’ve been quietly circulating this work amongst scientists we admire and seeking feedback. We want more, and open science is the only way to go. I will boldly predict that many papers will spring from this work and its implications, but for the moment we see no reason to wait for two unpaid reviewers and an editor (with little knowledge of the details) to delay or prevaricate on its release.

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.

I’ll 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 I’m 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 I’ve ever published.

As they say, bring your popcorn. Get ready to concentrate. : -)"

Real science.
 
I look forward to the armchair programmers now being able to find fault with a black-box computer model of a chaotic system based upon scientific bias and a false strange attractor. The sun in you, know, like 93 gabillion miles away and CO2 is right here you big dummies...

:mad:

Ocean currents? Ocean currents? Don't talk to me about Ocean Currents, I just hope we don't emit one more molecule of CO2! Ocean Currents???
 
I look forward to the armchair programmers now being able to find fault with a black-box computer model of a chaotic system based upon scientific bias and a false strange attractor. The sun in you, know, like 93 gabillion miles away and CO2 is right here you big dummies...

:mad:

Ocean currents? Ocean currents? Don't talk to me about Ocean Currents, I just hope we don't emit one more molecule of CO2! Ocean Currents???

Anything that doesn't blame man for climate change will be attacked viciously.
 
Someone brought the Sun into the equation? How bizarre.

Ishmael
 
I look forward to the armchair programmers....
Every programmer I know sits in an armchair, though I knew one about 6 years ago who used one of those kneeling chairs.

Though they don't say it outright, I hope the code for their model is open source as well.
Glad to see the spreadsheet calculations work in more than just Excel.
 
Every programmer I know sits in an armchair, though I knew one about 6 years ago who used one of those kneeling chairs.

Though they don't say it outright, I hope the code for their model is open source as well.
Glad to see the spreadsheet calculations work in more than just Excel.

15,000 lines of code seems a little skimpy for a model with so many variables.. But hey, I'm not in my armchair. :cool:
 
15,000 lines of code seems a little skimpy for a model with so many variables.. But hey, I'm not in my armchair. :cool:
I was thinking the same thing, but really, measuring code quality by number of lines is actually quite simplistic.
MS, for example, always brags about how many millions (of lines of)* code their products are, ignoring how bloated and poorly coded they are.
It depends, in large part, on how efficient the code is.

Hopefully we'll find out.

(typed from my armchair)

* edit
 
Last edited:
"The Project—An Introduction

Guest post by Dr David Evans, 14 June 2014

We’ve 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. We’ve 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 we’ve reached the point where the theory will be tested and developed better by open review. It’s 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 don’t 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 science—every 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, I’m bringing my original passion for Fourier research back to the climate. I’ve 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 Joanne’s blog. (Again, thank you! Without your support and encouragement we wouldn’t 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. It’s not a new way of funding scientific discovery; it’s 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."

A billion a day for more productive uses. Let us hope.
 
I was thinking the same thing, but really, measuring code quality by number of lines is actually quite simplistic.
MS, for example, always brags about how many millions code their products are, ignoring how bloated and poorly coded they are.
It depends, in large part, on how efficient the code is.

Hopefully we'll find out.

(typed from my armchair)

Exactly. Extraordinarily complex equations can be contained within a single line of code. This is especially true if the programmer is using recursion as a force multiplier. In this case the dude is working through an 'interpreter', Excel, and the vast amount of code entrained in that package is not counted as part of the program. He's leveraged off the work of others. Further a vast amount of code is usually dedicated to data movement, storage, and general housekeeping. Actual operators on those data sets are typically a small sub-set of the code. This less data movement, the tighter the code.

Ishmael
 
The comments on this thread are impressing the hell out of me, so far.
 
I look forward to the armchair programmers now being able to find fault with a black-box computer model of a chaotic system based upon scientific bias and a false strange attractor. The sun in you, know, like 93 gabillion miles away and CO2 is right here you big dummies...

:mad:

Ocean currents? Ocean currents? Don't talk to me about Ocean Currents, I just hope we don't emit one more molecule of CO2! Ocean Currents???

As a glibertarian, I realize your lack of honor and integrity, the same lack of integrity and honor forged in fire during the sixteen days you lasted in the USMC, will be used to denigrate any model of climate change that does not agree with the glibertarian position.

Thus it has always been....
Thus it always will be...

Derp without end, Amen.
 
As a glibertarian, I realize your lack of honor and integrity, the same lack of integrity and honor forged in fire during the sixteen days you lasted in the USMC, will be used to denigrate any model of climate change that does not agree with the glibertarian position.

Thus it has always been....
Thus it always will be...

Derp without end, Amen.

As opposed to the honor and integrity it takes to wish death to people's children, and call them kikes and gooks?

Congrats to Cap'n Hypocrite Jr.
 
Thank you. Either he doesn't own a mirror or is too afraid to look into it.

Tell us again how it's not an atrocity when Israelis do it. :rolleyes:
Then tell us again how you are morally superior to me.
Those Palestinians are untermensch, right ?
 
Every programmer I know sits in an armchair, though I knew one about 6 years ago who used one of those kneeling chairs.

Though they don't say it outright, I hope the code for their model is open source as well.
Glad to see the spreadsheet calculations work in more than just Excel.

I always created an office environment with desk and chair because I felt the need to stay focused and professional. I did not eat Twinkies and drink Dr. Pepper in my jammies...
 
I was thinking the same thing, but really, measuring code quality by number of lines is actually quite simplistic.
MS, for example, always brags about how many millions (of lines of)* code their products are, ignoring how bloated and poorly coded they are.
It depends, in large part, on how efficient the code is.

Hopefully we'll find out.

(typed from my armchair)

* edit

Funny, when we point out the extreme diffy-Q involved in the CO2 models, people like U_D call us idiots...

:eek:

... NOW he's worried about simplicity? E=Mcc should be more complex?
 
Exactly. Extraordinarily complex equations can be contained within a single line of code. This is especially true if the programmer is using recursion as a force multiplier. In this case the dude is working through an 'interpreter', Excel, and the vast amount of code entrained in that package is not counted as part of the program. He's leveraged off the work of others. Further a vast amount of code is usually dedicated to data movement, storage, and general housekeeping. Actual operators on those data sets are typically a small sub-set of the code. This less data movement, the tighter the code.

Ishmael

Fuck Polish Notation...

:D :D :D
 
As opposed to the honor and integrity it takes to wish death to people's children, and call them kikes and gooks?

Congrats to Cap'n Hypocrite Jr.

I just took you off my ignore list, but if you continue to quote slime, back you go...
 
Tell us again how it's not an atrocity when Israelis do it. :rolleyes:
Then tell us again how you are morally superior to me.
Those Palestinians are untermensch, right ?

Yes Rob, I am morally superior to you.

I'm not a racist nor a bigot as you have proven to be on these boards on numerous occasions by your own words.

You're a liar, a hypocrite and a scumbag.

Oh, and the only things separating Palestinians from Israelis is religion and culture, not race.

Cap'n Hypocrite Jr. suits you perfectly.
 
Yes Rob, I am morally superior to you.
I'm not a racist nor a bigot as you have proven to be on these boards on numerous occasions by your own words.
You're a liar, a hypocrite and a scumbag.
Oh, and the only things separating Palestinians from Israelis is religion and culture, not race.
Cap'n Hypocrite Jr. suits you perfectly.

You are fucking religious bigot who routinely excuses Israeli atrocities.
Your claim to moral superiority is laughable.
You are nothing more than AJ with a yarmulke. :)
 
Back
Top