Has Dr. David Evans, PhD. given up? — HotWhopper Chat HotWhopper Chat
Follow HotWhopper:

Welcome to HotWhopper Chat

Before you post, read the introduction to HotWhopper Chat in the Wiki.

Welcome to HotWhopper Chat!

Whether you're new to climate topics or an expert you are most welcome. Before you can comment you'll need to register or sign in. Click one of the buttons below.

Where Australia's electricity comes from

This widget is updated every couple of minutes and shows why Australia is such a huge GHG emitter.

Has Dr. David Evans, PhD. given up?

A little more than a year ago, David Evans was causing a lot of excitement among "skeptics" with his New Science series (the 2nd attempt at his "solar notch" hypothesis). He was going to revolutionize climate science and prove once and for all that it's the sun!

Now his last few articles have been coming at a pace every couple of months, but now there hasn't been any updates since June with the 25th(!!) article in the series. Remember, he said in the first article that this work had already been submitted for peer review; if that were true, he wouldn't need to be figuring this out on the fly, and merely posting a summary of his already-submitted work.

I'm sure you're all familiar with his series, but is Jo Nova just quietly hoping everybody will forget about it now that David Evans has apparently painted himself into a corner (again?) Obviously, posting an "I was wrong" article won't fly the second time since that's how his first series ended in 2014.


  • Interesting observation. The Watt et al. (2012) manuscript is also not moving fast. Stoat might be interested in this. He already had some Force X posts. Do you have his email, or shall I forward this?

  • Please continue with this story as you develop it.  I have a limited bandwidth and have stayed away from Nova and Evan characters, but looking at his blog Science Speak you've peeked my interest, please add more details (and links) as you develop them. 

    Climate Scientists Misapplied Basic Physics

    The basic climate model is the application of “basic physics” to climate. It is essentially why establishment climate scientists believe in the carbon dioxide theory, despite considerable contrary empirical evidence. Dating back to 1896, the model contains serious architectural errors. Fixing the architecture but keeping the basic physics, future warming due to carbon dioxide is a fifth to a tenth of official estimates. Less than 20% of the global warming since the 1970s was due to increasing carbon dioxide.
    Weren't these "architectural errors" actually conceptual errors that were corrected long ago in a thoroughly professional scientific manner?

    Strong claim here "future warming due to carbon dioxide is a fifth to a tenth of official estimates"
    Although it's an interesting slip using "is" when referring to future projections. - Seems to me it reveals a great deal of self-certainly.  You won't find that when serious scientists describe these matters.

    My first question would be has the warming attributed to increased "atmospheric insulation"* for the past century been a fifth to a tenth off the official estimates. 

    *Seems to me a grossly neglected concept "atmospheric insulation" when trying to explain what increasing CO2 means for our Earth to lay persons.

    And, what about all the modern applications of CO2 Science that would be impossible if scientist hadn't honed their understand to an incredible degree of accuracy
    CO2 Science dependent modern marvels. For your consideration.

  • Speak of the devil, article #26 is up!


    Most of it is (as usual) an introduction by Jo herself, telling the reader what to think bout David's post.

    In David's actual post, he's simply repeating the same prediction he made earlier in the series, with no new information. In summary:

    The notch-delay hypothesis predicts sustained and significant global cooling starting sometime from 2017 to 2022, of ~0.3 °C but perhaps milder.

    So the prediction is that it may start cooling slightly soon, or maybe not, sometime in the next 1 or 6 years, but possibly not. To me, it sounds like he's hoping for random variation to prove his hypothesis "correct."
  • anything is possible with Alt.Phisics I suppose
  • SouSou
    edited September 2016
    Thanks for the update, Ribbit74. I wonder how far David had to travel to find a publisher?

    Still no mechanism? And why does he keep watering down his predictions? Getting cold feet ;) .

  • His latest is to predict we will see a drop from the peak of El Niño.

    The  audience will think correctly predicting El Niño–Southern Oscillation will revert to  El Nina   is predicting climate and keep funding the nonsense on his wife's blog.

    It would be funny if it was not ripping off the stupid.

  • His latest is to predict we will see a drop from the peak of El Niño.

    The man's a genius.

  • edited September 2016
    What Journal would publish his nonsense? Maybe the same one that accepted the greenhouse effect denying Gerlich & Tscheuschner paper? 
  • I have no idea what journal would publish it, but apparently we'll find out in October? (Maybe it'll be self-published?)

    It seems as if he was making it up as he went with the blog posts, whereas if he had already submitted it for publishing, it would just be a matter of summarizing the research that had already been completed.

    At any rate, fans of Evans will find themselves in the uncomfortable position of having to accept the temperature data as valid. Despite all the protests about the validity of the data, it's the very same data that Evans used to build his hypothesis, and the data he will use to test it. So if they dismiss the historical and instrumental data, they're dismissing his hypothesis before it's even tested.
    (Falls right in line with that recent paper about the incoherence of denialism!)

  • Only a few days left in October, nothing yet on JoNova's site (and Evans' most recent article, #26, isn't even tagged so it doesn't show up along with other David Evans articles from the series if you search). It's almost like they're hoping people forget #26 existed.
    I suspect something will be pushed out on October 31... or not at all.
  • And to the surprise of nobody, October has come and gone without a mention of any published papers on Jo Nova's site.

  • Where did the October deadline come from?
    It came from Jo's preamble in article #26.

    "We are ramping up the end of this series because we’ve been informed that both of David’s papers will be published in October — one on the error in the climate models and one on the notch delay solar theory."

  • Thanks. The first comment is gold:
    I wish I could understand all of this, but nevertheless, I hope it delivers a knockout punch to the warming worriers.

    Wishful thinking. Openly admitted. Without any irony a reply is:

    I hope even more that this will jerk a lot of those who don’t know science and would rather believe a fallacy back into the reality of what constitutes real science.
    That is such a sad blog. All those sciency words and not a hint of science. Hard to believe.
  • Sou, I guess at this point maybe we should have a eulogy for Solar Notch-Delay Hypothesis, or whatever it ended up being called. 2016 has ended with nary a published paper to be seen. This is, of course, the second time the hypothesis died... first in 2014 when at least David announced to the world he was going to have to go back and, uh, re-figure some parts of it.

    Now they're just hoping that nobody notices that he gave up.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Getting around, etiquette, guidelines and terms of use.

HotWhopper Chat Close