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.
Forums
In this Discussion
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.
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.
Comments
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
http://archive.is/qkMwy
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."
Still no mechanism? And why does he keep watering down his predictions? Getting cold feet
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.
The man's a genius.
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!)
I suspect something will be pushed out on October 31... or not at all.
"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."
Wishful thinking. Openly admitted. Without any irony a reply is:
That is such a sad blog. All those sciency words and not a hint of science. Hard to believe.Now they're just hoping that nobody notices that he gave up.