Paul’Vaughan posted a link to this plot on the tail end of a long running thread which has dropped off the front page now, so I thought I’s give it prominence today. It’s a ‘food for thought’ starter – the main course will be served as and when Paul has time.
It’s all coming together. Both Paul and I have been working on the sunspot integral over the last several years. Back in 2009 I found that by subtracting the average sunspot number at which the ocean neither gains nor loses energy from the monthly value and summing the running total, I could make use of the sunspot integral as a proxy for ocean heat content (OHC).
This is an important value because the ocean is the part of the climate system with a high heat capacity, and thus a long ‘memory’ which ‘integrates’ the energy Earth receives from the Sun. Now Paul has found a similar correlation with wind, we can also remember that Hans Jelbring’s PhD thesis: ‘Wind Driven Climate’ also recognises the link between atmospheric circulation and surface temperature. Wind is much more immediately driven by temperature (and pressure) differences, since the atmosphere has a much lower (by three orders of magnitude) heat capacity than the ocean.
But the difference in heat capacity is only part of the story. The atmosphere has mass which gravity acts on to create surface pressure which limits the rate of evaporation from the ocean. Wind increases that evaporation rate (as well as the ocean’s absorption of energy), setting up a complex system of feedbacks between air, ocean, humidity and cloud which regulates the tropospheric temperature across latitudes and landmasses and seasons. Paul additionally linked his document on the Southern Annular Mode, where some of these interacting variables can be seen in action and says a “more extensive illustration (including ENSO) forthcoming days-to-weeks from now”.
Tallbloke's Talkshop 
See blockade of the southern polar vortex at a height of about 30 km.
http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/10hPa/orthographic=130.66,-87.55,318
‘The atmosphere has mass which gravity acts on to create surface pressure’
Does this contradict Miles Mathis…
‘Abstract: I will show that atmospheric pressure is misinterpreted and that atmospheric weight is a myth.’
http://milesmathis.com/atmo.html
‘Go look at your bathroom scale. The atmosphere should be pressing down on that scale right now. Why doesn’t it register a number? That scale is probably about a square foot, so it should register about a ton, or 2,000 pounds. Why don’t we have to re-zero all bathroom scales to 2,000 pounds? If we did that, wouldn’t that mean that I really weigh 2,170 lbs?’
Is that argument a dud?
OB: This is what happens to Arnold Schwarzenegger when he gets exposed to the 0.1 bar Martian atmosphere in his famous movie ‘Total Recall’
Some of Miles’ ideas are good, but that one about the ‘floating atmosphere’ is ‘Total Bullshit’
ICOADS is nothing more than a dogs breakfast of WX obs meant for real-time marine navigation. It has zero utility for long term anything, and has been outdated for decades. I do not know any master who relies on (or even looks at) WX obs- though they are required to fill out the blue sheets and send them in to NOAA. A quark for whomever goes down that rabbit hole. Still, I likey the correlations.
Hi Sera. I think it makes sense from a theoretical standpoint. When the Sun gets more active, cloud diminishes, more energy gets into the tropical ocean, and so more energy has to get transported towards the poles so the Earth can get rid of it to space. Up to around 40 Latitude the ocean dominates meridional energy transport in currents such as the Gulf stream. Beyond that, the atmosphere takes over as the main transporter.
Roger Andrews did an interesting post here on the lag and lead of SST over MAT over the last century. I’ll try to find it.
TB: I’ll stick to 1 bar then 🙂
OB: Well to be fair, Arnie’s movie is total bullshit too, but it illustrates a point. A thin plastic airtight box isn’t crushed by the weight of the atmosphere because the pressure created by the weight of the atmosphere acts on all sides equally, including the inside. Remove the air from the box and it will crumple. Remove the air from around the box and it will explode, or at least puff outwards like a balloon.
@ Tallbloke:
I agree with that (what you said), and I also agree with Paul. But I was just ranting on the poor utility of ICOADS. BTW- We Floridians always get confused when others call the Northern Equitorial Current “the Gulf stream”. There is a ‘surface’ current that runs in and out of the Florida Straights (in and out of the Gulf of Mexico), and that is what we call the gulf stream. It is so powerful that you can only scuba between tidal forces in some shallow areas. You can also anchor your boat and watch the sun rise and set over the water. What little heat comes out of the gulf adds little to the deep thermohaline, regardless of what others say. On a hot day in summer, with glass water, the top two inches are warm but go down two feet and it is cold. If you float in an upright position, your neck will be warm, your chest will be cool and your feet will be freezing (yes, we get bored when the fish aren’t biting)- and that’s on a hot glassy day. Add a little wind and waves and it is so cold that you might have to add a mixed drink or two before you go in. All of the local mariners and divers will tell the same story, so please accept my confusion.
“Up to around 40 Latitude the ocean dominates meridional energy transport in currents such as the Gulf stream (sic). Beyond that, the atmosphere takes over as the main transporter.”
Absolutely agree.
TB: the sinking car may be another analogy. You can’t open the door while there’s water outside and air inside due to the water pressure, but once the inside is also full of water, the door can be opened – no problem.
I just read the page linked by Miles, http://milesmathis.com/atmo.html up above!
Was he drunk when he wrote that?
A column of air not weighing anything?
Does he not believe in hot air balloons or helium balloons?
As a thought experiment, you could construct a tank, connected to some weighing scales.
Record the weight.
Remove the air from within the tank, creating a vacuum.
Record the weight.
Subtract second reading from first and check if the figure ties up with the theory.
I am extremely confident that the figure will be spot on allowing for any errors you made in the experiment.
Why a thought experiment? A container that can be drawn down to a vacuum must be strong as it can not change in size or shape during the experiment.
I would like to think that we could all agree that the resultant measurement would tie up with theory.
Miles’ strength is in pulling apart ‘basic physics’ equations and seeing what’s inside. His reformulations of particle physics and gravity are interesting and thought provoking.
Atmospheric science is not his strong suit. In this case his faulty hypothesis is that particles from his ‘fundamental EM field’ emanating from Earth’s surface bombard air molecules and support them against gravity. To explain the density and pressure gradients he is forced to come up with an ad hoc notion that the elements of air are cycled through the surface and so have a greater concentration near it. This is true to an extent but I don’t think it is a full explanation.
Sera (August 3, 2014 at 10:08 am) wrote:
“ICOADS is nothing more than a dogs breakfast […]”
Sera (August 3, 2014 at 11:47 am) wrote:
“[…] I was just ranting on the poor utility of ICOADS.”
__
I’ve been aware of the correlation (r^2 = 93%) since February, but said little.
I recall my own first reaction when I first looked at ICOADS wind data a few years ago. I thought: “That can’t be right.” So I never used it.
But then my awareness of the simplicity of aggregate terrestrial spatiotemporal pattern sharpened (by an order of magnitude). This (easily) pried my mind back open far enough for a careful revisit.
Aware that many (& probably most) so-called “experts” don’t know what to make of the data, I ran extensive EOF diagnostics and became aware that sampling is more than adequate at the global scale.
Important:
Did you know (?) that:
1. SAM & ENSO are perfectly represented in ICOADS wind data.
2. ICOADS wind fields are tightly spatiotemporally coherent with SST & SLP fields (e.g. ERSSTv3b2 & HadSLP2r).
I invite you and everyone else to check carefully firsthand via KNMI Climate Explorer. I have so little free time that you may finish and publish much deeper insights (of which I’m already aware) well before I ever have time to follow through with communication.
Here’s another tip: NAM is represented too …but mainstream thinking about what sets NAM’s boundaries is obstructively sloppy. I’ve already gauged that the community is not yet ready for that discussion, so it’s one step at a time (and we’ll see how it goes), starting with the easiest: SAM. Perhaps we can limit the pace to something people (including climate so-called “scientists”) can handle.
Regards
TB: If you’re curious enough, I can coach you through some of the steps at KNMI. There’s a bug in the y-axis labeling, but KNMI’s wavelet tool has a hidden feature that will summarize the amplitude of the annual cycle of global meridional wind. It might also be helpful if a few TalkShoppers volunteer to “Make EOFs” (as KNMI Climate Explorer invites via right-sidebar hyperlink). I would suggest that a good first exercise is to isolate SAM & ENSO from HadSLP2r. With guidance, this will only take a few minutes. If anyone is a willing volunteer, say so and I’ll coach the level 1 basics.
Paul: I’m game for it, but headed off for a hike abroad in a day or so. I hope others will take up your offer as well though.
Here’s an interesting experiment, grab a beer, put the rest in a cooler. Hitch a ride to your favorite park, beach, or back yard. Put on your favorite sun glasses. And observe the high clouds. Better yet away from an airport or major cross ways. See how the winds contort the clouds. Around noon, look for the top clouds, especially, ultra high , during sunspot times, they are really contorted, blasted, mixed from something higher, according to some, there should be a laminar flow up there. But it’s not. Many times during sunspots when the lights are fixable in the polar areas, you get to see holes blasted thru the clouds, coming from above 50 thousand feet. Or if the path is right, you can catch the warm downdraft,that’s really cool. I mean,warm,
Some partially-organized notes for pioneers willing & able to work ahead(-of-schedule) independently:
–
From an IPCC pillar written by David Thomson (1997) [not David Evans (2013)]:
• “transfer function […] telephone equalizers”
• “noncausal with a width about the length of a solar cycle”
Thomson, David J. (1997). Dependence of global temperatures on atmospheric CO2 and solar irradiance.
http://www.pnas.org/content/94/16/8370.full
• “[…] the impulse response estimated between Tn(t) and L(t) is noncausal with a width about the length of a solar cycle.” (where T=Temperature & L=soLar)
• “Similar problems are common in transfer function estimation problems ranging from […] to the design of telephone equalizers.”
CONTEXT:
http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?id=3458&method=full
=
The Scientific Case for Human-Induced Global Warming
The 1995 finding by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change of a “discernible human influence” on the global climate was based on several “signature” experiments in which researchers were able to distinguish natural warming from warming due to human burning of fossil fuels. […]
This list of nine signature studies excludes research on the impacts of climate change as well as findings that simply document the warming. […]
• A third contribution to our understanding of the global climate appeared in the spring of 1995 when David J. Thomson, a signals analyst at AT&T Bell Labs, evaluated a century of summer and winter temperature data. While some scientific skeptics had attributed this century’s atmospheric warming to solar variations, Thomson discovered the opposite: the accumulation of greenhouse gases had overwhelmed the relatively weak effects of solar cycles on the climate. He also discovered that since the beginning of World War II, when accelerating industrialization led to a skyrocketing of carbon dioxide emissions, the timing of the seasons began to shift. Since 1940, he wrote in the journal, Science, the seasonal patterns “of the previous 300 years began to change and now appear to be changing at an unprecedented rate.”
Citation: “The Seasons, Global Temperature and Precession,” by David J. Thomson, Science, Vol. 268, April 7, 1995; also, “Dependence of global temperatures on Atmospheric CO2 and solar irradiance,” David J. Thomson, 1997
=
Thomson, D.J. (1995). The seasons, global temperature, and precession. Science 268, 59-68. doi:10.1126/science.268.5207.59.
Click to access 59.full.pdf
Click to access 228341-2886492.pdf
Click to access p5207_0059.pdf
Criticism of Thomson (1995) met confident defense:
Karl, T.R.; Jones, P.D.; Knight, R.W.; White, O.R.; Mende, W.; Beer, J.; & Thomson, D.J. (1996). Testing for bias in the climate record. Science 271, 1879-1883.
Click to access 1879.full.pdf
Something dead simple (and important) was overlooked when a more extensive report was written a decade later:
Thomson, D.J.; Lanzerotti, L.J.; Vernon, F.L.; Lessard, M.R.; & Smith, L.T.P. (2007). Solar modal structure of the engineering environment. Proceedings of the IEEE 95(5), 1085-1132.
Click to access 04266886.pdf
Cracks began appearing a few years later:
Thomson, D.J. (2009). Climate change: shifts in season. Nature 457, 391-392.
http://www.nature.com/climate/2009/0902/full/457391a.html
Alarmists might approve of the first five paragraphs and certainly the last, but Thomson tears a few strips off mainstream climate science in paragraphs 6 through 10:
“Stine et al.4 also compare their observations with the results of a suite of two dozen climate models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and the results are dismaying.” (In the past I’ve pointed out these serious modeling failures at WUWT & Tallbloke’s Talkshop.)
“[…] I was discussing the phase problem with members of a modelling group and learned that their model had Earth in a circular orbit with no precession. This was astonishing. First, we are trying to measure the effects of CO2 to high accuracy — say 0.01°C, in a system in which annual temperature extremes routinely exceed plusminus 50°C. Second, on an ice-age timescale, the effects of precession are immense, strong enough to be used as a clock. Third, we have known that the orbit is elliptical since Johannes Kepler in the seventeenth century, and about precession since Hipparchus (around 150 bc). The duration of the instrumental temperature record is now 1% or 2% of the 26,000-year precession cycle: when trying to measure small effects it is unwise to ignore large ones.”
“One should also note the contrast between the enormous computational resources used by the models and the relatively meagre effort required to analyse real data.”
Thomson next fatally stabs conventional climate modeling with a Feynman quote before asking:
“Where do we go from here?”
His answer:
The sun.
“This raises a philosophical question, as to whether the fascination with ‘chaoplexology’ in climate research has resulted in a failure to take observations and statistics seriously enough.”
Thomson (1997) delivered an informative (mis)interpretation:
“[…] CO2 explains over 3 times as much variance [as] changes in solar irradiance in the Northern Hemisphere, over 100 times as much in the Southern.”
Recapping the (mis)interpreted disparity:
SH: 100 times
versus
NH: 3 times
Stine+ (2009) did not appear to adequately appreciate the importance of this illuminating (mis)interpretive disparity, but they did duly stress the following:
“[…] wind-driven changes in mixed layer depth affect the thermal mass that the ocean presents to the atmosphere.”
supplementary climatology animation:
ocean MLD = Mixed Layer Depth
= function of insolation-driven equator-pole spatial gradients:
Credit (Figure 5 = MLD climatology):
de Boyer Montegut, C.; Madec, G.; Fischer, A.S.; Lazar, A.; & Iudicone, D. (2004). Mixed layer depth over the global ocean: An examination of profile data and a profile-based climatology. Journal Of Geophysical Research 109, C12003.
Click to access 2004_deBoyerMontegut_et_al_JGR.pdf
Supplementary:
Kara, A.B.; Rochford, P.A.; & Hurlburt, H.E. (2003). Mixed layer depth variability over the global ocean. Journal Of Geophysical Research 108(C3), 3079.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2000JC000736/full
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1029/2000JC000736/asset/jgrc8664.pdf?v=1&t=hwyu2i91&s=db18f70b8ca7f69dcc3ab3a2c09088f6a5462f9a
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2000JC000736/pdf
MLD climatology:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1029/2000JC000736/asset/image_n/jgrc8664-fig-0003.png?v=1&t=hwytjtjg&s=d5f68e9612d1a370d488a328da6e28685e051b0b
Stine and colleagues stayed on the trail long enough to eclipse Thomson. The cracks in the IPCC narrative started becoming really clear with Stine+ (2012).
Stine, A.R.; & Huybers, P. (2012). Changes in the seasonal cycle of temperature and atmospheric circulation. Journal of Climate 25, 7362-7380.
http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~phuybers/Doc/seasons_JofC2012.pdf (final)
http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~phuybers/Doc/Seasons_and_circulation.pdf (preprint)
=
[…] gradients give rise to anomalous circulation, with this anomalous circulation then causing convergence or divergence of heat by acting across either the land-ocean temperature gradient (a mechanism which is particularly important in Northern Europe) or across the pole-to-equator temperature gradient (an important mechanism in Eastern North America and in East Asia).
[…] the shift toward earlier seasons is not predicted by any of 72 simulations of twentieth-century climate made using 24 different general circulation models […]
[…] general circulation models forced with the observed twentieth-century forcing not only fail to capture observed trends in temperature seasonality, as mentioned, but also generally fail to reproduce the observed trends in atmospheric circulation […]
Thus, the hypothesis that changes in atmospheric circulation are responsible for changes in the structure of the seasonal cycle is consistent with the failure of general circulation models to reproduce the trends in either […]
=
Context:
Trenberth & Stepaniak’s (2005) classic VEOF mass distribution paper clarified 4 modes: 2 polar (NAM & SAM), 1 tropical (ENSO), & 1 hybrid (North Pacific pivot). See Table 3 (p.2820 = pdf p.9) here:
Trenberth, K.E.; Stepaniak, D.P.; & Smith, L. (2005). Interannual variability of patterns of atmospheric mass distribution. Journal of Climate 18, 2812-2825.
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/JCLI3333.1
(Caution: The mainstream fundamentally misinterprets NAM.)
Dwyer+’s (2012) figure 2 (a) & (d) remind us of the absence of a simple annual cycle in the tropics.
Dwyer, J.G.; Biasutti, M.; & Sobel, A.H.; (2012). Projected changes in the seasonal cycle of surface temperature. Journal of Climate 25, 6359-6374.
Click to access Dwyer_Journal_of_Climate_2012.pdf
(slowly) alternating maps of surface temperature seasonal cycle amplitude & phase:
Conclusion
With more careful attention to
(a) SAM (Southern Annular Mode),
(b) Sidorenkov’s (2009) section 8.7 (on equator-pole heat engines), &
(c) the works of Jean Dickey (of NASA JPL),
Thomson’s error can be corrected.
Spatial insolation gradients (not just insolation) change with the solar cycle (remember: insolation’s zero at the poles in winter). The Milankovitch framework needs expansion.
The interesting thing historically is that mainstream CO2 models give the exact opposite phase response from what’s observed.
The Stine & Huybers (2012) paper identifies NAM, NPI, & ENSO as factors in the observed phase response.
Why was the trivial extension of Stine & Huybers (2012) to SAM not reported??
The sun — not CO2 — governs the first multivariate mode of terrestrial climate.
SAM & Sun
(extension of SAM / Sun report forthcoming)
It will be interesting to observe how long it takes before the mainstream acknowledges and corrects Thomson’s error.
Further Reading
Thomson, David J. (2014). A time series analyst’s look at climate data.
http://ssc.ca/webfm_send/1504
McKinnon, K.A.; Stine, A.R.; & Huybers, P. (2013). The spatial structure of the annual cycle in surface temperature: amplitude, phase, and lagrangian history. Journal of Climate 26, 7852-7862.
Click to access McKinnon_Stine_Huybers_2013.pdf
Mann, M.; & Park, J. (1996). Greenhouse warming and changes in the seasonal cycle of temperature: model versus observations. Geophysical Research Letters 23, 1111-1114.
Click to access MannPark1996GRL.pdf
Hinnov, Linda A. (2013). Cyclostratigraphy and its revolutionizing applications in the earth and planetary sciences. Geological Society of America Bulletin 125(11-12), 1703-1734.
Click to access 73-Hinnov2013-Cyclostratigraphy%20and%20its%20revolutioning%20applications%20in%20the%20earth%20and%20planetary%20sciences.pdf
• concise overview of heat engines
= p.433 = pdf p.10 here:
Sidorenkov, N.S. (2005). Physics of the Earth’s rotation instabilities. Astronomical and Astrophysical Transactions 24(5), 425-439.
• elaboration on heat engines
= section 8.7 (begins on p.175 = pdf p.189) here:
Sidorenkov, N.S. (2009). The Interaction Between Earth’s Rotation and Geophysical Processes. Wiley.
–
Regards
oldbrew says:
August 3, 2014 at 9:45 am
Because the scale mechanism would have to be evacuated to measure atmospheric pressure. That is in fact done when you want to measure its weight. We call those devices barometers.
What happens in that bathroom scale is that the pressure on top of the mass sensing device is nearly equal to the pressure on its bottom. So near that for ordinary results the difference is accounted as zero.
However. If you are measuring mass to a very fine degree the buoyancy of the atmospheric pressure must be taken into account. Just as it would if you were measuring the weight underwater.
I would waste no further time at that site. The fellow is an idiot. A first order idiot.
You know – we might gain more traction when pointing out scientific fraud in AGW to note that it happens often. It will strike a chord wit our leftist friends if we note all the scientific fraud used to support Drug Prohibition.
And of course it will also give our friends on the right a headache. A twofer.
Attention Moderators: A lengthy link-laden comment (August 3, 2014 at 4:48 pm) triggered moderation (as I suspected would be inevitable). Thanks if you can approve it. It really piles on the homework, I acknowledge, but maybe it’s better to pile up these links here & now so people are afforded some time to get up to speed on background context. These appetizers may overfill in the short term, but in the longer term they’ll help with more efficient digestion of the main (forthcoming) course. Best Regards
Paul: Thanks for sharing, this is a valuable resource.
Paul Vaughan says:
August 3, 2014 at 4:48 pm
Thanks for the links. Some interesting stuff there, will go through it sometime.
………………..
Re:Miles Mathis
I was age when 12 our techer told us about Oto Magdeburg. I just found a link to his experiment from 1654 (?)
http://www.eoht.info/page/Magdeburg+hemispheres
Since school didn’t have such implements, not to mention the horses, our teacher produced two of these
and pushed them against each other, with a small thick glass plate inserted in between.
I have also spent some time looking at the duration of high SSN, say >75 in the records. As you say, TSI variability is too small to make much difference. I noticed that the solar minima associated with cooling seemed to have longer lasting cycles of not much happening and periods of high solar activity were bunched together with a higher frequency.
I began to see sunspot cycles as pulses of activity, bunched together in high, low and sometimes mixed periods of activity, where the envelope was more important than the individual cycles.
That is one aspect. Another aspect was to considerer what the sun was throwing at us during its cycles. This has been covered in a comment above, but the meaningful emissions included UV which influences atmospheric chemistry such as ozone creation. The other one that could have influence as proposed by Svensmark is the solar wind through modulation of GCRs. The microwave output is a nice clean signal but very weak.
There still seems to be something missing because the Svensmark effect seems to be weak.
The energy emissions seem to be too weak to regulate climate in a noticeable way, so logic would favour a cloudiness effect such as Svensmark’s. Something must be influencing the albedo and that must be cloudiness.
After these thought processes I admit to getting a bit stuck. I feel that there is an albedo affect influenced by the sun but it is much more effective than Svensmark’s mechanism. (if his effect was stronger, it would be the answer).
Maybe the answer has not been discovered yet. For example, climate science is obsessed with radiative physics, but the answer to the cloudiness question may lie with gamma radiation ionisation of xyz in the atmosphere. It may involve solar magnetic field inversion which leads to flocculation of particles that then seed clouds. The key processes may be chemical in nature. Ionisation, opposite charge attraction, flocculation, free radical enhanced polymerisation, there are lots of chemical possibilities that can lead to the macromolecules needed for cloud seeding.
So, my speculation is that high energy particles/UV/magnetic field effects/atmospheric chemistry can influence cloudiness and hence albedo. I admit this is all without evidence apart from Svensmark’s work.
The final thought is that this effect, if it exists, could be David Evan’s Force X.
@ Schrodinger’s Cat (August 3, 2014 at 7:47 pm)
Do you really think that is driven by clouds??
Have you understood Sidorenkov’s heat engine overviews (linked above)?
The ICOADS data base has been getting a bum rap for years. I’m pleased to see someone (other than me) making good use of it.
The Importance of COADS Winds for Understanding Climate Change
J.O. Fletcher
Click to access Kiel.Fletcher.pdf
Joe got some stuff pretty seriously wrong, but some of what he wrote was nothing short of visionary.
Let’s also not forget that CO2 modeling depends on wind speed cubed (which some of you will note is available pre-computed at KNMI Climate Explorer):
Click to access 1999_geophys.pdf
Roger Andrews,
Can you clarify the date range you used to isolate the ENSO/solar patterns you recently illustrated? (This relates to my recent comments about refining Nicola Scafetta’s figure 8B (a casual side-project), which Nicola pointed Ian Wilson towards in the recent Scafetta thread (to which TB linked at the top of this page in his intro).) I suspect we had a rather unproductive misunderstanding a few weeks back when I made a false assumption about the date range you used. I think I can now roughly guess your date range (following a quick check I did a few days ago), but I’ll prefer direct clarification. Thanks.
Fletcher’s Vision:
=
We are left, however, with a big question. How long can the size of the warm pool and the circulation strength continue to increase while the global ocean is losing heat? It cannot continue indefinitely. Ocean transport of heat into the warm pool is necessary to maintain its large and increasing size and this must deplete heat storage at higher latitudes. […] I suggest that forecasting the end of the present increasing trend [Fletcher’s referring to ICOADS wind from a 1990s perspective], with its regional climate changes, is the pressing challenge facing the climate research program.
Forecasting the size of the warm pool and strength of the circulation is the heart of the problem.
=
Shamefully no one took Joe’s advice. (I find this compellingly sobering.)
I’ll be releasing EOF maps at a later date, but let me tell you now what they emphasize:
SST: the warm pool
SLP: SAM
None of this makes sense without a foundation. There isn’t one.
ICOADS is a large gridded entity. Wind, what about it? Where?
ICOADS Wind ENSO EOF
That’s no fluke. It clarifies the adequacy of the sampling for resolving global-scale spatiotemporal pattern.
There’s plenty more to say as the months unfold.
_
Tim, I agree that climate exploration demands a lot of independent multidisciplinary learning. Background info on ICOADS is an easy web search away and the data are effortlessly accessible via KNMI Climate Explorer (a fabulous resource). If you have trouble navigating the Climate Explorer, I’m willing to field related questions. Question: Have you had time/interest to analyze Extended MEI? I’ve been quite curious to see what related insights you might share.
Regards
Paul,
There is a serious blunder in all the Thompson papers.
He claims that:
“Analysis of instrumental temperature records beginning in 1659 shows that in much of the
world the dominant frequency of the seasons is one cycle per anomalistic year (the time
from perihelion to perihelion, 365.25964 days), not one cycle per tropical year (the time
from equinox to equinox, 365.24220 days), and that the timing of the annual temperature
cycle is controlled by perihelion.”
i.e. the CET temperature time series drifts in phase by ~ 50.256″ per year with respect to the tropical year (equinox to equinox). He attributes this to the difference between the lengths of the anomalistic and tropical year.
This is false. anomalistic year drifts with respect to the tropical year by ~61.90″/year not 50.256″/year. What he is observing is the drift between the sidereal year (365.256363 days) and the tropical year which is 50.288″ per year.
This is a serious flaw in his argument.
In addition,
Thompson does not seem to be worried by the thermal lag of the Atmosphere-Ocean system with the seasons. The hot/coldest part of Southern/Northern Summer/Winter is not the solstice or even Perihelion but late January to early February. Any long-term change in the lag in warming/cooling of temperatures would have a dramatic effect on changes in phase of the World mean temperature with either the tropical, anomalistic or sidereal years.
Ian Wilson says: August 4, 2014 at 8:16 am
Thompson does not seem to be worried by the thermal lag of the Atmosphere-Ocean system with the seasons. The hot/coldest part of Southern/Northern Summer/Winter is not the solstice or even Perihelion but late January to early February. Any long-term change in the lag in warming/cooling of temperatures would have a dramatic effect on changes in phase of the World mean temperature with either the tropical, anomalistic or sidereal years.
WOW! Nice, and true! Are we having fun yet?
Reblogged this on CRIKEY !#&@ …… IT'S THE WEATHER CYCLES and commented:
How about this !! Correlating the earths wind with solar activity!!
Who would have thought.. !!
Well done Paul… I see a match!!!.
Now….. to read on…
steverichards, this one by Miles Mathis has always intrigued me. I understand the notion that air pressure derives from the ‘weight’ of the atmosphere giving us around 15 psi at the earth’s surface. That is, the air pressure derives from the weight of the column of the atmosphere. This means that air pressure and weight are in some way equivalent in this context, as Miles observes.
If I take your tank and scales and place it inside a larger tank and remove all air from this larger tank, leaving a vacuum, will the tank still weigh the same? There is after all now no column of atmosphere.
Question about the method Paul
Wind.. what cross section of the troposphere did you sample from
lower, mid, upper troposphere?
which latitudes,longitudes?
What is the unit of the y axis?
Average wind speed?
——————–
Just an eye ball glance of your graph initially infers a phase length of ~2000- ~1935 = ~ 65 yrs
maybe cycle ~ 130yr?
quick look at my data shows Jupiter/Saturn beat trough ( by TLMango) at 1933 and max peak at 1994 = 60.9 yr ( as wind increases the Jupiter Saturn beat is on the way up toward max
approx. 7 schwabe cycles (17-23)
ENSO links
I have a graph here( hard copy) that matches your wind cycle but can’t find my source link
Basically
As your wind cycle increases the Nino 3 index anomaly increases( warmer) but ALSO so does the RANGE of Nino 3 anomalies
I will have to scan that graph or find another..similar
This graph also shows a Nino 3 sst cycle of 100 yrs! peaks 1900 and 1990 ( 990 yr)
AND
As ‘wind’ increases the ENSO cold tongue index changes
https://picasaweb.google.com/110600540172511797362/TIMESERIESAndTrends#6026966751583522882
Hi Ian,
Isn’t the lag of the warmest surface T’s behind summer solstice due to the thermal inertia of the ocean? Same as the warmest part of the day is early afternoon rather than midday.
The ~80W/m^2 swing in TOA insolation between perihelion and aphelion doesn’t cause a big semi-annual swing in global average surface T. This must be down to the ocean’s ability to store and release heat, acting as a buffering capacitor in the climate system. This raises the question of how much difference the shifting alignment of Earth’s lines of apsides and equinoxes makes to the energy budget over the half period of equinox precession.
Paul,
Forget it.
“Extended MEI”
As I recall the data is too poor, thought I said so.
Weathercycles,
A pretty impressive set of graphs at:
https://picasaweb.google.com/110600540172511797362/TIMESERIESAndTrends#6026966751583522882
One small point you have posted a graph from my blog site without attribution. It’s the one about the 1470 year lunar cycle. It should be attributed to:
http://astroclimateconnection.blogspot.com.au/2013/06/are-dansgaard-oeschger-d-o-warm-events.html
Thanks
Paul:
“Can you clarify the date range you used to isolate the ENSO/solar patterns you recently illustrated?”
Well, I probably could if someone could point me to where I illustrated these ENSO/solar patterns, but right now my mind’s a blank (advancing age for sure) 😦
@ Ian Wilson (August 4, 2014 at 7:41 am)
Thomson addressed that issue in his 1996 reply (buried somewhere in the flood of links I gave above above):
Karl, T.R.; Jones, P.D.; Knight, R.W.; White, O.R.; Mende, W.; Beer, J.; & Thomson, D.J. (1996). Testing for bias in the climate record. Science 271, 1879-1883.
Click to access 1879.full.pdf
_
Ian, I would appreciate strategic commentary from you about something I read in Linda Hinnov’s article (to which I linked above):
Hinnov, Linda A. (2013). Cyclostratigraphy and its revolutionizing applications in the earth and planetary sciences. Geological Society of America Bulletin 125(11-12), 1703-1734.
There are sections on “Climate Friction” (glacial loading obliquity/oblateness feedback) & “Precession Resonance” (terrestrial precession Jupiter-Saturn resonance) that point to Laskar+’s (2004) Figure 14:
Laskar, J.; Robutel, P.; Joutel, F.; Gastineau, M.; Correia, A.C.M.; & Levrard, B. (2004). A long-term numerical solution for the insolation quantities of the Earth. Astronomy & Astrophysics 428, 261-285.
http://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/ref/2004/46/aa1335/aa1335.html
See also Figure 13b.
The issue is also outlined in section 4.7.2 paragraph p0155 here:
Hinnov, L.A.; & Hilgen, F. (2012). Cyclostratigraphy and Astrochronology. [In: Gradstein, F.; Ogg, J.; Ogg, G.; & Smith, D. (editors) (2012). A Geologic Time Scale. Elsevier. Ch.4, pp.63-83.]
Click to access 62-HinnovandHilgen2012-Chapter-4-Cyclostratigraphy%20and%20astrochronology.pdf
Supplementary:
Laskar, J.; Joutel, F.; & Boudin, F. (1993). Orbital, precessional and insolation quantities for the Earth from -20 Myr to +10 Myr. Astronomy and Astrophysics 270, 522-533.
Click to access Laskar_etal_1993.pdf
Linda Hinnov articles:
https://jshare.johnshopkins.edu/lhinnov1/public_html/hinnovpubs/hinnovreprints.htm
Regards
Ian Wilson (August 4, 2014 at 8:16 am) wrote:
“Thompson does not seem to be worried by the thermal lag of the Atmosphere-Ocean system with the seasons. The hot/coldest part of Southern/Northern Summer/Winter is not the solstice or even Perihelion but late January to early February. Any long-term change in the lag in warming/cooling of temperatures would have a dramatic effect on changes in phase of the World mean temperature with either the tropical, anomalistic or sidereal years.”
…and Dwyer+’s (2012) figure 2(a)&(d) remind us of the absence of a simple annual cycle in the tropics:
animation: slowly alternating maps of surface temperature seasonal cycle amplitude & phase:
Please give Stine+(2012) some careful attention. They have moved the ball way up the field and I assure you it can be moved further without too much trouble.
_
Ian, I accidentally linked to the references section of Laskar+(2004) above. Try this hub to choose between full article html & pdf:
http://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/abs/2004/46/aa1335/aa1335.html
Strategic commentary from an astrophysicist (such as Ian Wilson) on figures 13b & 14 — & the related issues outlined by Hinnov — might be helpful.
Roger A: Starting here perhaps?
WC, maybe you mean this?
…from here:
http://paos.colorado.edu/research/wavelets/wavelet1.html
I mentioned that explicitly in my recent ERSST EOF 1234 article, where I posed a question for NASA JPL.
It’s important (crucially important) to recognize that interdecadal & multidecadal Pacific patterns are notched by celestial factors. The notching isn’t so clean in the North Atlantic where enso rides on it’s own integral. SCD (solar cycle deceleration) governs equilibration and thus defines attractor structure. NAM is basically SAM distorted by ENSO & ENSO’s integral, which is bounded by SCD. (Those intransigently clinging to oldschool spectral analysis methods based on assumptions that are strictly at odds with observations will never realize and acknowledge this.)
As for the background info you seek (e.g. on methods): I’m encouraging everyone to do the analyses independently via KNMI Climate Explorer so as to acquire firsthand awareness. For example, you’ll discover that you can easily construct alternate versions of Extended MEI. Most of my illustrations are aimed at an audience with (a) the background to understand at-a-glance and (b) the capacity to intuitively, independently reproduce. Everyone else is certainly welcome to (politely) watch. I sincerely thank you & others for supportive comments — much appreciated.
WC: Here’s another interpretive tip for the ERSST EOF 1234 article (relates to the question for NASA JPL):
Zhou, Y.H.; Yan, X.H.; Ding, X.L.; Liao, X.H.; Zheng, D.W.; Liu, W.T.; Pan, J.Y.; Fang, M.Q.; & He, M.X. (2004). Excitation of non-atmospheric polar motion by the migration of the Pacific Warm Pool. Journal of Geodesy 78, 109-113.
Click to access ZhouYH_2004JG_PM_Warmpool.pdf
Also: Sidorenkov (2009) Ch.1 p.4 [pdf p.18] paragraph 3:
“Polar motion with a one-year period is mainly caused by seasonal redistribution of air masses between Eurasia and oceans.”
I do hope everyone will explore the ERSST PC recombinations to see that the near-100% r^2 illustrations I deliberately left vague (so people would have to learn firsthand) are certainly no fluke. This is important, so it will be interesting to observe any evolution of response rate.
I’m still willing to help with KNMI Climate Explorer EOFs, but it’s straightforward enough that people will probably figure it out independently pretty quickly with only a small amount of effort.
I had hoped to find time to illustrate something about HadSLP2r that’s coherent with the illustrated Sun/Wind relationship, but an excessively busy work week is about to commence, so further illustration will have to wait.
I’ll check back for any replies — e.g. from Ian & Roger A.
Thanks.
TB: Thanks for finding the link. If Paul starts there and follows the comments down he will find pretty much the sum total of my work on the subject.
To answer one of his earlier question, I used the monthly Niño3.4 index from 1870 to the present to define Niño and Niña events (at least 5 months greater or less than 0.5). The events are plotted relative to a sine wave, but I allowed for solar cycle asymmetry by setting troughs in the SSN record to 0(360) and peaks to 180, interpolating linearly between the two.
Apologies IAN W for that oversight. I am usually diligent in noting the source
I have corrected and linked to your blog.
https://picasaweb.google.com/110600540172511797362/TIMESERIESAndTrends#6044010553479329026
BTW back up your images .. I lost heaps years ago with an imagehost changing hands. scheessh!!
I am still recovering them slowly
Thanks PAUL V
That is exactly what l was looking for !!
https://picasaweb.google.com/110600540172511797362/TIMESERIESAndTrends#6044043612836161746
What a ridiculous study.
The Seasons, Global Temperature, and Precession
Analysis of instrumental temperature records beginning in 1659 shows that in much of the world the dominant frequency of the seasons is one cycle per anomalistic year (the time from perihelion to perihelion, 365.25964 days), not one cycle per tropical year (the time from equinox to equinox, 365.24220 days), and that the timing of the annual temperature cycle is controlled by perihelion. The assumption that the seasons were timed by the equinoxes has caused many statistical analyses of climate data to be badly biased. Coherence between changes in the amplitude of the annual cycle and those in the average temperature show that between 1854 and 1922 there were small temperature variations, probably of solar origin. Since 1922, the phase of the Northern Hemisphere coherence between these quantities switched from 0° to 180° and implies that solar variability cannot be the sole cause of the increasing temperature over the last century. About 1940, the phase patterns of the previous 300 years began to change and now appear to be changing at an unprecedented rate. The average change in phase is now coherent with the logarithm of atmospheric CO2 concentration
and the explanation is solar activity or lack of it. My take short and to the point.
The vast majority of variability in the instrumental surface temperature record is at annual frequencies.
Systematic changes in the yearly Fourier component of surface temperature have been observed since the
midtwentieth century, including a shift toward earlier seasonal transitions over land. Here it is shown that the
variability in the amplitude and phase of the annual cycle of surface temperature in the northern extratropics
is related to Northern Hemisphere atmospheric circulation as represented by the northern annular mode
(NAM) and the Pacific–North America mode (PNA). The phase of the seasonal cycle is most strongly
influenced by changes in spring atmospheric circulation, whereas amplitude is most strongly influenced by
winter circulation.Astatistical model is developed based on theNAMand PNA values in these seasons and it
successfully predicts the interdecadal trends in the seasonal cycle using parameters diagnosed only at interannual
time scales. In particular, 70% of the observed amplitude trends and 68% of the observed phase
trends are predicted over land, and the residual trends are consistent with internal variability. The strong
relationship between atmospheric circulation and the structure of the seasonal cycle indicates that physical
explanations for changes in atmospheric circulation also extend to explaining
LATEST GLOBAL TEMP. DATA SHOWING MORE OF THE SAME.
More of the same and solar is not any where near my criteria for cooling effect, although overall solar activity has been quite low post 2005 despite this recent maximum of solar cycle 24 which is now in the process of ending. Once it ends solar conditions should approach my criteria over a long duration of time which should start global temperatures on the decline.
What has taken place in year 2005 is a complete change from active to inactive solar activity.
This change in my opinion will be more then enough to have another climatic impact just as is the case when one reviews historical climatic data.
My challenge remains- Which is to show me the data which shows a prolonged solar minimum period being associated with a rising temperature trend or a prolonged maximum solar period being associated with a falling temperature trend.
I find no such data and the same result is going to happen as this decade proceeds.
Already solar activity is falling off and we are no where near the bottom of the solar cycle 24-solar cycle 25 minimum.
I think the data (especially post 2005/prior to 2005 ) supports the view that the sun can be quite variable and this variability can happen over a short period of time as is the case in the first decade of this current century.
Expect climate implications if this prolonged solar minimum keeps advancing going forward.
The problem with so many postings is there is a lack of understanding of noise in the climate system, thresholds in the climate system ,lag times in the climate system and that the climate system is non linear and never in the same state.
Therefore my point (which I have made many time previously) is DO NOT EXPECT an x change in the climate from given x changes in items that control the climate. This I have preached but with little fanfare.
Why- look read below.
The initial state of the global climate.
a. how close or far away is the global climate to glacial conditions if in inter- glacial, or how close is the earth to inter- glacial conditions if in a glacial condition.
b. climate was closer to the threshold level between glacial and inter- glacial 20,000 -10,000 years ago. This is why the climate was more unstable then. Example solar variability and all items would be able to pull the climate EASIER from one regime to another when the state of the climate was closer to the inter glacial/glacial dividing line, or threshold.
The upshot being GIVEN solar variability IS NOT going to have the same given climatic impact.
Solar variability and the associated primary and secondary effects. Lag times, degree of magnitude change and duration of those changes must be taken into account.
Upshot being a given grand solar minimum period is not always going to have the same climatic impact.
This is why solar/climate correlations are hard to come by UNLESS the state of solar activity goes from a very active state to a very prolonged quiet state which is what has happened during year 2005.
So the nonsense that post Dalton no definitive solar /climate correlations exist just supports my notions of what I just expressed.
Meanwhile, a quiet sun is correlated with a stronger more meridional jet stream pattern which should cause a greater persistence in Wx. patterns which I think is evident post 2005 for the most part.
Just my opinion but when the sun is in a regular more or less sunspot cycle , trying to correlate solar activity to the climate or link it to the climate is extremely hard because of all the noise in the climatic system ,not to forget the beginning state of the climate.
With the sudden switch from a very active sun to a now very quiet sun we now have a real opportunity to correlate changes in solar activity with the climate. We should know much in the very near future.
My answer to the many research papers that have been presented. Some very good some ridiculous.
Salvatore, you are leaving yourself open. SC19 is a great example of temperature not following solar activity. SC19 even allowing for Waldemeir’s changing of the counting method is probably the highest solar cycle measured and yet coincides with a drop off in global temps.
There is much more to the climate system than what solar thresholds can explain, and we all must include the other factors such as the PDO etc, which are perhaps stronger at times than the solar factor.
Salvatore,
I’m not sure it matters much but a number of people give 2003 as the year when solar output dropped significantly.
GEOFF, I agree look at what I said in the above which I just posted again.
The upshot being GIVEN solar variability IS NOT going to have the same given climatic impact.
Solar variability and the associated primary and secondary effects. Lag times, degree of magnitude change and duration of those changes must be taken into account.
Upshot being a given grand solar minimum period is not always going to have the same climatic impact.
I would never expect a temperature response from solar cycle 19 much less solar cycle 14 both were not long enough in duration.
Geoff ,I leave myself open if the solar criteria I have listed below is approached and the global temperatures remain steady or increase. If that happens I am wrong.
THE CRITERIA
Solar Flux avg. sub 90
Solar Wind avg. sub 350 km/sec
AP index avg. sub 5.0
Cosmic ray counts north of 6500 counts per minute
Total Solar Irradiance off .15% or more
EUV light average 0-105 nm sub 100 units (or off 100% or more) and longer UV light emissions around 300 nm off by several percent.
IMF around 4.0 nt or lower.
The above solar parameter averages following several years of sub solar activity in general which commenced in year 2005. These low solar parameters being the norm for many years.
IF , these average solar parameters are the rule going forward for the remainder of this decade expect global average temperatures to fall by -.5C, with the largest global temperature declines occurring over the high latitudes of N.H. land areas.
The decline in temperatures should begin to take place within six months after the ending of the maximum of solar cycle 24.
NOTE 1- What mainstream science is missing in my opinion is two fold, in that solar variability is greater than thought, and that the climate system of the earth is more sensitive to that solar variability.
Click to access cp-8-1473-2012.pdf
This study I agree with in contrast to the study I will post below.
Analysis of instrumental temperature records beginning in 1659 shows that in much of the world the dominant frequency of the seasons is one cycle per anomalistic year (the time from perihelion to perihelion, 365.25964 days), not one cycle per tropical year (the time from equinox to equinox, 365.24220 days), and that the timing of the annual temperature cycle is controlled by perihelion. The assumption that the seasons were timed by the equinoxes has caused many statistical analyses of climate data to be badly biased. Coherence between changes in the amplitude of the annual cycle and those in the average temperature show that between 1854 and 1922 there were small temperature variations, probably of solar origin. Since 1922, the phase of the Northern Hemisphere coherence between these quantities switched from 0° to 180° and implies that solar variability cannot be the sole cause of the increasing temperature over the last century. About 1940, the phase patterns of the previous 300 years began to change and now appear to be changing at an unprecedented rate. The average change in phase is now coherent with the logarithm of atmospheric CO2 concentration
Do not agree with much of this study.
‘The decline in temperatures should begin to take place within six months after the ending of the maximum of solar cycle 24.’
SDP: the wait could be a few years according to this paper
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013JD020062/abstract
‘The analysis reveals a statistically significant 11 year solar signal over Europe, and the North Atlantic provided that the data are lagged by a few years. The delayed signal resembles the positive phase of the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) following a solar maximum.’
1870-2010 is a bad time period to use to try to extrapolate what might happen now going forward . Solar activity was in a regular strong cycle then up to 2005 and had no resemblance to what has happened to solar activity post 2005.
I am of the opinion that the sudden change from active to inactive solar conditions which really began in earnest in 2005 will start to impact the climate once the maximum of solar cycle 24 ends, which is not far away.
J-S coherence where Hale coherence not observed:
(29.447498)*(11.862615) / (29.447498 – 11.862615)
= 19.86503587 years
(19.86503587) / 2
= 9.932517933 years
subharmonic of terrestrial year nearest 9.932517933
= 10*(1)
= 10 years
(10)*(9.932517933) / (10 – 9.932517933)
= 1471.875173 years
subharmonic of terrestrial QBO nearest 9.932517933
= 4*(2.369717826)
= 9.478871305 years
(9.932517933)*(9.478871305) / (9.932517933 – 9.478871305)
= 207.5383206 years
Regards
PV: QBO correlates quite well with Jupiter too – five to one.
OB:
As a side-project I’ve been trying to apply the process of elimination to sort out claims about decadal & bidecadal variation.
For example (most notably), Tim Channon has suggested Hale for bidecadal, whereas Nicola Scafetta suggests J-S.
Keep in mind that Hale & Earth-Moon (EMn) angular momentum (AM) with respect to (wrt) the sun average 22.14 years = (J-N)/2 in the long run, whereas sun velocity wrt solar system barycenter (SSB) & EMn AM wrt SSB are tied to J-S = 19.87 years. (I suspect some have forgotten these nuances.)
Of course the thought police harassing other blogs would prefer that no one work on such problems in public view. I want to suggest that in this case it’s healthy to try to exhaustively brainstorm, carefully going over a whole wide range of possibilities. People pretending (or actually believing?) its sensible to treat this as a univariate temporal problem (instead of multivariate spatiotemporal) may be (accidentally?) steeply inclined to misinterpret the stats they compute.
I’m not yet ready to draw a final conclusion, but every now & again I’m sharing a few notes.
Regards
Paul Vaughan says: August 9, 2014 at 11:45 pm
“OB:As a side-project I’ve been trying to apply the process of elimination to sort out claims about decadal & bidecadal variation.
For example (most notably), Tim Channon has suggested Hale for bidecadal, whereas Nicola Scafetta suggests J-S.
Keep in mind that Hale & Earth-Moon (EMn) angular momentum (AM) with respect to (wrt) the sun average 22.14 years = (J-N)/2 in the long run, whereas sun velocity wrt solar system barycenter (SSB) & EMn AM wrt SSB are tied to J-S = 19.87 years. (I suspect some have forgotten these nuances.)”
Paul,
The total Internal energy of this planet determins the near surface temperature of this planet. Solar aborptance, and total exitance play little part in the internal energy. That is only fun games of irridance at the near surface.
The wiggles of all else determine the “IS”!
I’m not yet ready to draw a final conclusion, but every now & again I’m sharing a few notes.
Paul best of luck, -will-
Regards
Will, it sounds like you decisively prefer Nicola’s approach to decadal & bidecadal. I’ve now nailed a framework coherent with Nicola’s figure 8 and a whole lot of other things (multivariate dovetailing including Heristchi & Mouradian (2009), ENSO, & Chandler). There are just a few more diagnostics I need to do on SAOT (& other volcanic indices). Even when everything’s fitting together like a glove I admit I don’t find this part of the puzzle very interesting. Cracking the multidecadal-to-centennial attractors was orders of magnitude more satisfying. This tedious stuff – even when it’s all fitting together – is like overdoing dull housekeeping, ignoring the Pareto Principle. Have you yet managed to recombine ERSST PCs to get the near-100% r^2 I illustrated in the ERSST EOF 1234 document?
PV: is there anything in the idea that solar reversals are linked to the position of the SS barycentre i.e. could they be triggered when it crosses the solar boundary?
OB:
2 things look sure:
1. J-S
2. QBO/Chandler alignments with the terrestrial year / half-year
Beyond that it’s tricky figuring out exactly how/why the framework (maybe due to orbital resonances) points to SJEV. Deeper commentary would be premature at this stage of exploration, so I’ll leave it there for now.
Regards
PV: 3 Venus-Mercury = 1 Chandler, take it from there?
I think this study by XMETMAN supports yours findings Paul
http://xmetman.wordpress.com/2014/09/26/gales-across-the-british-isles-1871-2014/
There was a lull or downturn in gale anomlay from ~1950 to 1970 in Britain
.
http://xmetman.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/lamb-weather-types-gale-index-winters-djf-1872-2014.png?w=1072&h=782
This seems to ~match this cliver graph somewhat
https://picasaweb.google.com/110600540172511797362/TIMESERIESAndTrends#6018441570661953538
Good to get some more graphs on wind time series ..
There’s a simpler explanation for why the scales read 0: That’s where you set it when unburdened. All you want to know is the difference between that and when you’re standing on it. It’s an arbitrary 0, in other words.
If there was a column of hard vacuum down to the center of the Earth under the scale platform, you’d need a very strong spring to hold it in place, but you could still set that as 0 and use it as normal.