Archive for August, 2011

Contributor ‘Green Sand’ on WUWT offers this useful page on the Met Office site:

Where I grabbed a couple of graphs of annual sunshine hours and annual max temp for the UK:


Some background -

Willis Eschenbach had a guest posting over at WUWT in which he claimed that LWIR could heat Earth’s oceans. Myself and several others on the thread contended that this LWIR was likely to be stopped by the evaporative skin layer and would not slow the exit of heat from the oceans. Numerous requests for empirical evidence to support Willis’s claim only resulted in one inapplicable study used by the “Hockey Team” to support such claims. After several hundred comments without empirical evidence being offered, I gave up reading and designed and conducted an empirical experiment that shows that any effect of backscattered LWIR on the cooling rate of water would be negligible.


This is a quick pointer to news about the CERN CLOUD experiment.

Others have more time to do the topic justice.


Thanks to Tenuc for pointing out the [above] from Nigel Calder’s blog

As some others are saying, don’t go assuming too much just yet.

A good thread on WUWT containing many pointers to elsewhere.

I might add more later.

Delve into Hadcrut at the poles

Posted: August 21, 2011 by tchannon in climate

Figure 1

A previous post was about UAH lower troposphere and polar temperatures, so it is logical to look at Hadcrut3 in the same way.


Emerging sunspots

Posted: August 19, 2011 by tchannon in Solar physics

Figure 1

A new paper (18th Aug) has been published in Science. “Detection of Emerging Sunspot Regions in the Solar Interior” — Stathis Ilonidis*, Junwei Zhao, Alexander Kosovichev from Stanford


Much more information is in the Stanford press release

Polar temperature change during satellite era

Posted: August 18, 2011 by tchannon in climate



Figure 1

A minor fuss has errupted over ERA40 reanalysis data at Arctic latitudes so I thought it would be useful to post how I see some of the data.

[EDIT: SERIOUS ERROR CORRECTED, untested software, mistake by me, had an incorrect weighted mean showing a grossly small temperature range]

WUWT article

This pair of plots were produced here from gridded data for circles +70 latitude to the poles. UAH data does provide what seems reasonable data. Data to July 2011.


Solar cycle 24 is close to peak

Posted: August 13, 2011 by tchannon in Solar physics

Figure 1

Official version here as gif

I have plotted scaled square root ssn with the Sheet data. This suggests solar cycle 24 is already approaching maximum, the Sheet data nearing 70 degrees tilt.


Wikipedia says:
Small body orbiting a central body
In astrodynamics the orbital period T\, (in seconds) of a small body orbiting a central body in a circular or elliptic orbit is:

T = 2\pi\sqrt{a^3/\mu}


Note that for all ellipses with a given semi-major axis the orbital period is the same, regardless of eccentricity.


When the Sun was young the ‘solar wind’ was much stronger than it is now. So strong that it added large amounts of matter to the proto-planets orbiting it. The loss of such substantial amounts of material from the Sun reduced it’s angular momentum, and increased that of the planets. This created a ‘spin-orbit coupling’ between the Sun and its orbiting planets determining the eventual spin rate of the Sun and the mass and orbital distances of the planets. The strong solar wind pushed the planets out to the distances where the attraction of gravity overcame the strength of the radiant emission from the Sun.


From Wikipedia

A number of effects in our solar system cause the perihelions of planets to precess (rotate) around the sun. The principle cause is the presence of other planets which perturb each other’s orbit. Another (much more minor) effect is solar oblateness.

Mercury deviates from the precession predicted from these Newtonian effects. This anomalous rate of precession of the perihelion of Mercury’s orbit was first recognized in 1859 as a problem in celestial mechanics, by Urbain Le Verrier. His re-analysis of available timed observations of transits of Mercury over the Sun’s disk from 1697 to 1848 showed that the actual rate of the precession disagreed from that predicted from Newton’s theory by 38″ (arc seconds) per tropical century (later re-estimated at 43″).[2] A number of ad hoc and ultimately unsuccessful solutions were proposed, but they tended to introduce more problems. In general relativity, this remaining precession, or change of orientation of the orbital ellipse within its orbital plane, is explained by gravitation being mediated by the curvature of spacetime. Einstein showed that general relativity[1]agrees closely with the observed amount of perihelion shift. This was a powerful factor motivating the adoption of general relativity.


Did le Verrier correctly calculate the amount of precession of Mercury’s perihelion due to the perturbation of its orbit by the other planets?  As you can see from the table below, Einstein’s relativity theory plugs the gap between the observed precession and that calculated from Newtonian theory.