Jaime Jessop: Climate Wars – CO2 vs. Solar in the Battle to Lay Claim to Jet Stream Anomalies

Posted: February 23, 2014 by tallbloke in alarmism, Analysis, atmosphere, Forecasting, general circulation, Ocean dynamics, Solar physics, solar system dynamics, Tides, waves, weather, wind

Reblogged from Jaime Jessop’s nascent climatecontrarian site:

Climate Wars – CO2 vs. Solar in the Battle to Lay Claim to Jet Stream Anomalies
By Jaime Jessop – 23-2-2014
Mat Collins of Exeter University admitted to the world a week ago that the direct cause of the UK’s wet and windy winter was/is the North Atlantic Jet Stream. It has been directly responsible for the ‘conveyor belt’ of powerful storms which have hit the UK, one after another, in seemingly endless succession, since December 2013 all the way into February of this year. The rain precipitated by those storms has resulted in widespread river flooding.

In addition, a particularly deep depression which coincided with a very high tide on the 5th/6th December also resulted in fairly severe coastal flooding along eastern coastal areas. Nothing as bad as the devastating tidal surge of 1953 but that was more down to massively improved flood defences in the last 50 years. The Dec 2013 tidal surge was probably only a shade less menacing in terms of actual sea level rise than was the 1953 event. Severe gales and storm force winds have also driven huge waves over sea defences in Wales and the West Country, resulting in yet more localised flooding.

All this chaos due to the Jet Stream, due to the run of extreme weather caused by that Jet Stream. But, given the exhaustive news coverage and the opportunity for a propaganda coup, it was inevitable that the proponents of CO2 induced global warming would figure out some way to link in the storms with ‘climate change’ and, right on cue, up stepped Julia Slingo to claim that ‘all the evidence’ pointed to a link between the UK floods and ‘climate change’.

It turns out that what she really meant was that there was moderate confidence in climatological circles that a warmer world would result in a more humid atmosphere and hence increased frequency and intensity of downpours. Not at all comparable to increased storminess, especially in winter, but the effect was immediate and very favourable – the warmist press and politicians leapt on the bandwagon to claim that this winter was due to global warming. Scientific proof not needed, only the word of the Met Office chief scientist.

It has become increasingly apparent that the Jet Streams are implicated in the patterns of extreme weather which we seem to be increasingly seeing across the globe. There are four altogether, two in each hemisphere, the stronger polar jet streams and the weaker subtropical jet streams, each marking the boundaries between major air masses.

For example, it was a deep ‘meander’ in the Northern Hemisphere polar jet stream which created the ‘blocking’ conditions responsible for the Alaskan heatwave last year. Similarly, the ‘washout summer’ of 2012 here in the UK was caused by an abnormally southerly trending jet stream, again driving Atlantic storms over the British Isles, but this time during summer. The meandering jet stream over the USA this winter has allowed polar air to push far into the continent, giving Americans an exceptionally cold winter. Last winter (2012/13), the UK experienced a very cold late winter/early spring due to the jet stream moving way down south, missing the UK altogether and allowing the ingress of cold polar air and that memorable run of savage east/north-easterlies. A ‘normal’ UK winter would have the jet stream sitting generally a little further north, across Scotland. This winter it has been ‘stuck’ over southern Britain and has been abnormally strong.

With global mean temperatures static for 17 years but extreme weather seemingly on the rise linked to a changing jet stream, it is hardly a surprise that the man-made climate change advocates are looking to associate these changes with global warming. Hence Jennifer Francis at Rutgers University now postulates that a warming Arctic has ‘slowed’ the polar jet stream and made it meander more, much like a river meanders when it loses kinetic energy on the gently sloping flood plains way downstream of its upland source.

The speed of the jet stream is driven primarily by the temperature difference between the polar and subtropical air masses. If Arctic air is warmer due to accelerated warming in the polar regions because of global warming, the theory is that the difference in temperature between polar and subtropical air will be less. Thus the jet stream will slow and start to meander more, producing the ‘loops’ which have been responsible for weather getting ‘stuck’ in various locations, producing localised droughts or deluges, heatwaves or extreme cold spells.

The theory is tentative and Francis admits that there are uncertainties, but it does illustrate that alarmists are starting to line up in order to link jet stream changes (and hence patterns of extreme weather) with AGW. Trying to explain this year’s flooding in the UK using such a theory runs into a big problem however – the jet stream may be meandering, but it has actually increased in speed over the North Atlantic, hence the ferocity and persistence of the storms which it has spawned and driven to our shores.
This belies the somewhat simplistic theory which equates a slower moving jet stream with a more meandering one and a faster jet stream with a much straighter course. Also, in a warmer world, climate models predict the jet streams will move polewards, just as they do during summer each year due to increased solar insolation, sinking southwards again during the winter months. This appears not to be happening.

Which rather neatly brings us to explanations for jet stream changes based upon solar activity, not seasonal changes in insolation but longer term changes over the 11 year solar cycle and beyond, plus – and this winter being a particular case in point – very brief changes marked by sudden bursts of increasing sunspot activity (solar flares and coronal mass ejections – CMEs). For it may be no coincidence that this winter has seen the Sun burst into life in what has otherwise been a remarkably subdued solar cycle, so remarkably subdued in fact that scientists are predicting a Grand Solar Minimum, at least as severe as the Dalton minimum, possibly even as pronounced as the Maunder minimum, which coincided with the coldest period of the Little Ice Age.

What we need to investigate, especially as far as this winter is concerned, is a link between solar activity and the character of the jet stream which might lead to increased extreme weather/storminess. Stephen Wilde, in his New Climate Model, equates a more active sun with a ‘tighter’, faster, more northerly tracking jet stream; conversely, a less active sun with a slower, more meandering, southerly trending stream. We seem to be at the stage of the latter now, where the general decrease in solar activity has rendered the jet stream more ‘sluggish’.

But bursts of solar activity within the envelope of a generally less active period of solar activity seem to have energised this ‘sluggish’, meandering jet stream, not enough to push it northwards and straighten it out, but enough to make it move faster, at least along certain sections. Hence we have the storms which have slammed into the British Isles this winter.

The mechanism whereby increased/decreased solar activity affects the jet stream is not totally clear. Total solar irradiance (TSI) varies little but there are increasing numbers of scientific papers suggesting amplification mechanisms. Stephen Wilde states: “The cause [of change in position and behaviour of the jet stream] appears not to be raw solar power output (TSI) which varies too little but instead, the precise mix of particles and wavelengths from the sun which varies more greatly and affects ozone amounts above the tropopause”. Svensmark of course postulated that periods of decreased solar magnetic activity allowed greater influx of galactic cosmic rays (GCRs) which he correlated with increased cloudiness leading to global cooling, and vice versa.

It might be worth noting that, apparently independently, earth’s own geomagnetic field has weakened considerably over the last 100 years or so, possibly as a precursor to a complete geomagnetic field reversal. We can expect the geomagnetic field to weaken further in the coming years, allowing even more GCMs plus radiation from our sun to penetrate our atmosphere, affecting our climate in ways which may be hard to predict.

Coming back to solar activity and the effect it has had on this winter, particularly here and in the US, Tallbloke’s Talkshop has a timely contribution from Polish contributor ‘ren’, which seeks, with somewhat limited clarity unfortunately, to explain why the polar vortex ‘locked’. He says:

“In October 2013 there was a decrease in solar activity, as evidenced by the growth of cosmic rays at that time. This decline resulted in a short-term rise in temperature in the stratosphere, the ozone zone. . . . . . . . . . . Smaller solar activity means an increase of ionizing radiation over the Arctic Circle, which in turn affects the reactions taking place in the area of ​​the ozone over the Arctic Circle. As is known the temperature drops in the troposphere and the stratosphere borders later grow depending on the amount of ozone formed in the ozone zone.
These seemingly small changes in the stratosphere were the beginning of the lock polar vortex, which lasts all winter and causes influx of polar air over North America and warm, with short breaks over Europe.”

A comment from Stephen Wilde on this Tallbloke post is as follows:

““This decline (in solar activity) resulted in a short-term rise in temperature in the stratosphere, the ozone zone.”
Yes, this is what I’ve been telling everyone for several years.
A quiet sun is supposed to REDUCE ozone and lead to COOLING of the stratosphere and I think that is right above the equator but not right above the poles.”

Which only serves to confuse me further!

Another timely post on Tallbloke provides reference to a science paper which purports to show that the sun has distinct ‘modes’ of activity. I quote:

“Conclusions. The Sun is shown to operate in distinct modes – a main general mode, a Grand minimum mode corresponding to an inactive Sun, and a possible Grand maximum mode corresponding to an unusually active Sun. These results provide important constraints for both dynamo models of Sun-like stars and investigations of possible solar influence on Earth’s climate.”

This is important in that it demonstrates that the Sun behaves differently in these 2 (or possibly 3) modes and that variations in solar activity, increases or decreases, may not have exactly the same effect upon our climate and the general circulation, the specific effect being dependent upon what mode the Sun is in at the time. So, for instance, bursts of activity during a Grand Minimum may affect the jet stream differently than they would say when the sun is in main general mode. Likewise, quiescence during a Grand Maximum may be different in character than very quiet periods which occur during a Grand Minimum.

There is well documented evidence that the Little Ice Age, besides being considerably cooler, was also a particularly stormy period, especially in Northern Europe. The Great Storm of 1703 occurred on 26 November 1703 and remains the most violent and destructive storm ever to hit Southern England and the Channel. Virtually every ship in the English Channel was sunk on that fateful day, with the loss of 8000-10000 lives. Historical records abound which testify to its ferocity, seemingly unmatched before and certainly since. Even October 1987 paled in comparison.
What is fascinating is that 1703, in particular late 1703, marked an end to a very long period (from about 1645) during the Maunder minimum when virtually no sunspots were observed at all on the face of the Sun. A minor maximum of solar activity occurred in late 1703/early 1704 as shown here:


The graph was taken from this paper entitled ‘The Revival of Solar Activity after Maunder Minimum in Reports and Observations of E. Manfredi’. The authors state:

“We have found in our archives a very great number of references to sunspots in the years 1703 to 1707.”

So, 1703 marks a very important year in the revival of solar activity after the very pronounced Maunder Minimum, and indeed, we can see this revival on the record of sunspot activity stretching back 400 years from 2000:


It’s the small red peak visible just after 1703. Insignificant one might feel against the backdrop of the much greater activity in the centuries which followed. But is it any coincidence that, at almost exactly the time when the Sun first first burst into life after decades of inactivity, the monster storm of 1703 hit our shores?

In summary then, the jet streams, in particular the faster, more powerful mid-high latitude polar jet streams, drive our patterns of weather. When they are in ‘meander’ mode, they can produce prolonged spells of severe weather, be it droughts, heatwaves, severe floods or bitingly prolonged cold. They shift north or south according to the seasons. An energised North Atlantic jet stream has been responsible for the remarkable run of UK storms this winter and the resultant flooding.

The race is on to discover what drives the jet streams and determines their character, whether ‘sluggish’ and meandering or faster moving and straighter. The CO2 warmists obviously have a vested interest in proving that global warming is responsible for the current jet stream anomalies, because then they can ‘prove’ that severe weather really is down to ‘climate change’ – rather, that is, than just stating it without any scientific evidence whatsoever.

For my money, there is far greater evidence and a lot more research in the literature which demonstrates that solar activity drives the jet streams – the exact manner and the specific physical mechanisms involved still yet to be pinpointed exactly, but we’re getting there, fairly rapidly now

  1. The first thing anybody should do, before trying to find “extra-natural” causes, is look to see if such events have happened before.

    In the 1960’s and 70’s, Hubert Lamb found just the same jet stream meridionality, but thought it was due to ARCTIC COOLING.

    Whether he was right or wrong is irrelevant – the fact is it has happened before, and therefore had to have a natural explanation.

    Indeed, even the Met Office found that Spring 2013 atmospheric conditions were almost identical to 1962. And, surprise, surprise, the results were identical – a very cold Spring.


  2. tchannon says:

    Well, I wrote up the first level of why the UK has had a train of storms but the next level, no idea. Nicely disagrees with lots of opinion including Collins.

    Maybe he is terrified of connecting the dots hence the blinkers, omitting to mention North America in effect blocking left the North Atlantic to do a dump on us instead of getting broken up by regular movements.

  3. tallbloke says:

    On another site, my good friend TurboBloke says:

    I don’t want to get too scientific on LongQ’s climate politics thread but have no choice (that’s the excuse over with) and after all Slingo, Miliband and CMD have done a good job in contemporary politicisation of this debate.

    In particular:

    “The mechanism whereby increased / decreased solar activity affects the jet stream is not totally clear. Total solar irradiance (TSI) varies little but there are increasing numbers of scientific papers suggesting amplification mechanisms.”


    “For my money, there is far greater evidence and a lot more research in the literature which demonstrates that solar activity drives the jet streams – the exact manner and the specific physical mechanisms involved still yet to be pinpointed exactly, but we’re getting there, fairly rapidly now”

    There was no mention of Bucha (Advances in Space Research, Volume 6, Issue 10, 1986, Pages 77-82) or Bucha and Bucha (Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, Volume 60, Issue 2, January 1998, Pages 145-169) and the Auroral Oval solar eruptivity forcing mechanism cited therein. Has more recent work discredited it in some way? If so do you have references as I haven’t seen anything in the literature.

    From one of the papers cited above:

    “In the hypothesis proposed here for explaining Sun-weather relations, downward winds following the geomagnetic storm onset are generated in the polar cap of the thermosphere and penetrate to the stratosphere and troposphere, where the atmospheric response can be observed as a sudden increase of pressure and temperature. The subsidence effects along the northern margin of the subpolar high pressure areas (mainly the Siberian high) are accelerated and strong eastward winds participate in the intensification of the northern jet stream and in the successive zonalization of flow in mid-latitudes.”

    In the light of the above I’m drawn to what Jessop says: “it may be no coincidence that this winter has seen the Sun burst into life in what has otherwise been a remarkably subdued solar cycle” and “the jet stream may be meandering, but it has actually increased in speed over the North Atlantic” which fits well.

  4. tchannon says:

    Cold spring Paul…. that’s exactly what might be appearing in GCM as high pressure over Russia and Azores tries to join. If this is blocking on the way we might be seeing a repeat of March 2013 yet repeats of a previous year are rare.
    I watch.

  5. tallbloke says:

    LMAO! 🙂

  6. Konrad. says:

    Over at WUWT, Willis is running the attack on the Usoskin solar paper. I left a response to a comment by BobG that may be relevant here –

    “It is notable that the high priests of the Church of Radiative Climatology have no solid explanation for recorded historical events such as the Medieval Warm Period or the Little Ice Age. They prefer to erase these events from their adjusted records with hockey sticks and other religious iconography.

    While Willis’ issues with the paper here discussed are valid, Leif’s dismissal of the possibility of significant solar influence on climate is considerably less robust.

    To illustrate this point, consider the oceans. The priests of the Church of Radiative Climatology have decreed that direct solar SW alone does not have the power to heat our oceans above freezing. They support this conclusion by using instantaneous radiative flux calculations using average solar radiation at the oceans surface, instead of calculating for SW heating at depth in a diurnal cycle where radiation peaks at over 1000 w/m2.

    Empirical experiment shows a very great difference in average temperatures between intermittent SW heating at depth in transparent materials than averaged SW heating at the surface of opaque materials. Direct solar SW alone has the power to warm our oceans and sacred downwelling LWIR need not be invoked to keep them from freezing.

    If the high priests of the Church of Radiative Climatology do not understand even the basic physics of how the sun heats our oceans, how reliable is their gospel that solar variation has little influence on climate?”

  7. tallbloke says:

    Konrad: Thanks, gave me a chuckle. You are absolutely right about the diurnal cycle and the peak solar radiation. And because the ocean has to rise in temperature to get to the point where it can lose heat from a 2D surface as quickly as it gains it in 3D from the sun to depths of 100m, we have a nice warm well energy buffered planet to live on.

    The Cult of Carbon Culpability has had its day, and is waning. Not before time. They won’t go quietly into the night though, so we need to keep our wits sharp and remain vigilant for a while yet.

  8. Brian H says:

    Just to clarify, am I wrong in my understanding that warming of the stratosphere can & usually does correspond with cooling of the troposphere, and vice versa?

  9. Konrad. says:

    I’m snowed under with work at the moment, but I would like to do a write up of an experiment into this effect using clear and opaque acrylic blocks at some point in the future –

    In full sun tests a clear acrylic block with a black base can reach a stunning base temperature over 115C in just three hours with a 17C average temperature differential between clear and opaque blocks. In the indoor version (shown) with intermittent halogen lights, not only does the clear block with black base exceed the average temperature of the opaque block, but its skin temperature is also higher.

    The experiment above was an initial verification of a more expensive experiment I hope to find a cheap way of building at some point –

    Initial results show that direct SW alone is enough to heat the oceans. What I hope to be able to demonstrate with the full experiment is how hot our oceans would get if all atmospheric features except pressure were removed. This would empirically demonstrate the net effect of all atmospheric processes above the oceans is cooling. And the atmosphere of course has only one effective cooling mechanism – radiative gases. Game over for AGW.

    The good news is there is still hope for WUWT. The Reign of Willis and Leif is not absolute. Anthony started his journey with empirical experiment and may yet see the (SW) light 😉

  10. ren says:

    Polar jet streams are the winds in the stratosphere to the troposphere border on the edge of the polar vortex and depend on the state of the polar vortex (weak-strong). Please look at the jet stream at an altitude of about 17 km (70 hPa) and about 8 km (250 hPa). Balance as at 24 February 2014.

    You can see that the shift of the polar vortex has an impact on the Jetstream. This is particularly evident over the Alaska.

  11. p.g.sharrow says:

    Forget about WUWT, Willis and Leif. They are not contributing to advancement of understanding of the atmospherics system. A key to weather system movements is the high and low pressure areas that steers the weather systems.
    Meteorologic explanations of surface heating and cooling as the cause leave something to be desired. Stephen Wilde points the way with gravity causing surface heating. Compressing a gas does not heat the gas but it does concentrate the energy into a smaller volume. The temperature goes up, the pressure goes up, the gas is more dense. Meteorology says the surface heating caused the high pressure area. Perhaps high pressure caused the surface heating, Pressure caused by gravitation or magnetic changes, even static charge changes can change the local density of a gas.
    Forget proving or disproving this CO2 GHG thing. Max Planck disproved that in 1906 in argument with Arrhenius and got Arrhenius to admit his science was poorly done and his conclusions flawed. Global climate change is normal and humans have nothing to do with it. Let’s get on with advancing real science, figure out the real cause and effect of weather changes and the climate thing will solve it’s self. pg.

  12. ren says:

    Tallbloke new publication.

    Click to access aa23391-14-1.pdf

  13. Konrad says:

    p.g.sharrow says:
    February 24, 2014 at 5:12 am
    “Forget about WUWT, Willis and Leif.”
    I am happy to forget about Leif, he was the one who bullied Jack Eddie into reducing his claims about solar variability. Leif’s “stamp the record flat” shame burns eternal on the Internet. I can smell the stench of his guilt in every comment he posts.

    Willis? Meh! That Stefan-Boltzmann hack lost the “does down welling LWIR slow the cooling of the oceans” argument to a roll of microwave safe cling wrap. Loser now. Loser forever.

    But WUWT? That’s different. Anthony Watts may have fallen under the influence of Willis and Leif, but he started his journey via empirical observation and experiment. I believe Anthony to be a hero of the Internet age. Anthony’s work with surface stations is solid and I will not remain silent when he is attacked.

  14. Jaime Jessop says:

    Thanks for replies. Guess what I should have said is that I am not aware of any generally accepted mechanism whereby solar variation influences the jet streams. If the truth is ‘out there’ in the scientific literature, I fancy it will soon come home to roost. For my part though, I feel that further research is needed to refine our knowledge of how solar variability affects the General Circulation and the climate, especially with regard to the many systems which govern internal climatic variability.

    The main point which I am trying to make is that there is tentative empirical evidence to suggest that when our Sun is very inactive, as in a Grand Minimum, the jet streams may become ‘sensitised’ to relatively small bursts of solar radiation. Much like a coiled spring which stores potential energy requires only a small disturbance to make it uncoil and release that energy as kinetic. If we are headed into a Grand Solar Minimum, this has obvious implications for climate change policy and disaster planning/management. But of course, solar variation is largely ignored by policy makers who choose instead to concentrate on the illusory threat of CO2 thermageddon rather than ‘admit’ (Richard Betts at the Met Office doesn’t like that word!) that solar activity may drive global temperature changes and extreme weather patterns.

  15. Andrew says:

    To very badly paraphrase Eric Morecambe: all the right policy considerations (floods, drought, storms, cold) but not necessarily for the right reasons (CO2)

  16. ren says:

    Jaime Jessop says:
    The main point which I am trying to make is that there is tentative empirical evidence to suggest that when our Sun is very inactive, as in a Grand Minimum, the jet streams may become ‘sensitised’ to relatively small bursts of solar radiation.
    Jumping solar activity perpetuated polar vortex pattern because of the acceleration and deceleration jet streams from the autumn 2013.
    So it seems from observation.

  17. ren says:

    Radioactive rays shows current distribution of pressure over the Arctic Circle. You can see that the jet stream (15 km) of North America does not protect against the influx of arctic air. Jetstream (250-300 hPa) goes close to the edge vortex.

  18. turbobloke says:

    There’s always more research to be done. That said, it’s helpful to be aware of what’s already been done, so other workers can confirm and develop or refute existing ideas. The latter point doesn’t apply to AGW however which these days lays claim to any weather anywhere its disciples choose as being due to carbon dioxide emissions.

    More from one of the Bucha papers follows below, there are some headline claims which must be capable of increasingly severe testing – the data available being more extensive these days. It would surprise me if I hadn’t missed something over the years that already taken the ideas further one way or another particularly in terms of correlation and causation.

    “In order to prove that meridional flow changes into zonal flow as a result of auroral electrons and bremsstrahlung leading to an increase in temperature and pressure even in the troposphere, the relations between corpuscular (geomagnetic) activity and atmospheric pressure were statistically investigated in the northern hemisphere at the 500 hPa level. Correlation coefficients for daily, monthly and yearly values have confirmed that fluctuations in climate and weather including zonal and meridional circulations, blocking, invasions of arctic air and southern oscillation can be accounted for by the processes in the auroral oval.”

  19. Jaime Jessop says:

    Turbobloke, I presume this is the Bucha paper you are talking about: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364682697001193. Problem is, like many publications, it’s behind a paywall so difficult to assess how useful or relevant the actual research is. There are literally hundreds of scientific papers now purporting to demonstrate mechanisms by which the sun drives the climate: http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.uk/search?q=solar+amplification+mechanisms. I would dearly love to have the time to plow through them and sift those which seem more credible from those which do not, but climate blogging is very much a part-time ‘occupation’ for me.

  20. turbobloke says:

    Yes that’s one of the papers, and I understand about both the paywall and the time factor,

    The question we should be asking, though we both know the answer, is how can it be that this published science in all its forms from Bucha forwards isn’t mentioned and considered at length in IPCC publications. The focus on TSI is…convenient.

    If any confirmation were to be forthcoming from UK research, it would be a surprising sight for at least two reasons.

    One, the relatively low level of funding available for research with the aim of stress testing the weak science in AGW as delivered in soundbites by politicians who know little or nothing about it.

    Steve Baker: “We have agreed here that science proceeds by conjecture and refutation, so in an attempt not to have a cloying consensus, will the Minister fund some climate scientists who wish to refute the current thesis?”
    Gregory Barker: “I am afraid that I do not have a budget for that sort of research.”

    Two, it may well be kept out of sight by some individual or group acting to redefine what the peer-review literature is.

    If all else fails, the data will still be wrong and the gigo models will be right.

    Peter Lilley MP in Hansard 10 September 2013:
    “I asked the previous Government in 2006 how long the pause would have to continue before the Met Office amended its model to take the reality into account. They sent people from the Met Office to come and see me in my office, and we had an interesting discussion. However, the answer was—this answer is also in Hansard—that they would not alter the model, because the model is right. If the facts are rebutted then, in the words of Hegel, so much the worse for the facts. That has been people’s attitude about it all. It is not science, because it is not refutable.”


    The paradigm as reflected above is nonscience, junkscience, and within it resistance is futile.

  21. dscott says:

    Where is the effect of the Moon’s orbit in all this? Is there any evidence of current level of orbital declination having produced similar effects in the jet stream from previous decades?

  22. tallbloke says:

    Turbobloke: Thanks for joining us here. As I mentioned on PH, Phil Jones, as well as threatening to work with Kevin Trenberth to “keep them [any heretical views] out at all costs, even if we have to redefine what the peer review system is”, also produced this gem in response to a report that a scientist had been talking at a meeting about the very effects your highlighted papers describe:


    date: Wed Feb 13 10:20:00 2008
    from: Phil Jones
    subject: Re: A warning for Feb 7-8
    to: Robert Marsh

    Phil –
    The meeting was rather bizarre in scope, with positions ranging from
    “IPCC too cautious” (Hansen, Siddall) to “IPCC wrong” (see below). …
    The other talk was more scientifically searching, drawing attention to
    influence of coronal mass ejections on the mesosphere, residual
    atmospheric circulation & teleconnections between high/low atmosphere &
    high/low latitudes that support the extent & pattern of surface
    warming. Arnold also claimed that CO2 doesn’t really matter. I did pose
    a question to him, asking how he can ignore all the AR4 model evidence
    for attribution of 20th century warming to CO2, but he dismisses all
    OAGCMs as flawed in under-representing the high atmosphere/solar
    influence. I have abstracts for both talks that I can send on – are you
    interested to see them?

    Thanks for the summary – more than I was expecting.
    If you can send me the two offending abstracts when you have
    some time.


    That was in 2008.

  23. tallbloke says:

    500 page views for this article since last night. Most read post today. Well done Jaime!

  24. Jaime Jessop says:

    Wow, 500 – more than my actual blog!

    I totally agree Turbobloke. There’s been a lot of research on this but it’s been under-funded, under-publicised and undermined by the AGW consensus fanatics who have colluded, nay, possibly even conspired in many instances to keep competing research in a non-competitive position. Hence we are faced with having to dig around for rarely cited research papers which may indeed contain many of the answers we are looking for to explain the ‘new’ climate science. Dare to utter public disquiet about such goings-on and you will be labelled a denialist anti-science conspiracy theorist. But the cap isn’t fitting too well any more and the shine is wearing off the global warming jackboots, having kicked so many sceptics backsides, not to mention a fair few promising academic careers into the long grass over the years.

  25. tallbloke says:

    Further to my comment about Phil Jones, here’s a nice snippet from the norealcluemate website:

    July 7th 2010 – Realclimate:

    “The main issue is that they [The Muir Russell Inquiry panel] conclude that the rigour and honesty of the CRU scientists is not in doubt. For anyone who knows Phil Jones and his colleagues this comes as no surprise, and we are very pleased to have this proclaimed so vigorously.” Mike [Mann] & Gavin [Schmidt]


    Whitewash anyone?

  26. turbobloke says:

    Thanks tallbloke for that pointer to the offending remark from Jones about ‘offending abstracts’. Thanks also for your replies Jaime, we appear to be in violent agreement!

    There is compelling evidence for top-down mechanisms over bottom-up, and the former involve solar eruptivity. NASA finally began to acknowledge top-down, partially and grudgingly, last year in an article leading on EUV. The irony in Hal Maring’s comment appears to be unintentional.


    It’s annoying to see I-told-you-so content but I’m past caring – there are numerous comments from me over on PH across the years relating to the issue of solar UV variation and not just for terrestrial climate change. That’s before we get to CRF-LLC-albedo, and the science in Bucha’s papers.

    Bottom-up hasn’t explained the data and cannot, so moving on from carbon dioxide and the era of climate alarmism there now needs to be a wider and closer look at top-down, and the auroral oval will be a good place to start on the return path to climate realism.

  27. tallbloke says:

    TurboB: I wrote to N.F. Arnold to ask him where I could obtain a copy of his full paper, as only the abstract on adsabs seemed to be available. No response. I suspect he’s either very determined to stay out of the climate fray, or he got a government contract to continue his research with a gagging clause attached…

  28. tallbloke says:

    Jaime: “Wow, 500 – more than my actual blog!”

    Now people have seen the quality of your writing and thinking, I’ll only partially reblog your future posts so everyone has to click through to your site to read the complete article. 😉

  29. turbobloke says:

    @tallbloke and the no-reply (nfa from NFA):

  30. ren says:

    It is worth comparing the temperature at a height of Jetstreamu. Of course, on the outskirts is higher. On average oscillates of about -55 degrees C. So what gives kinetic energy? Do you see the impact of volcanoes?

  31. tallbloke says:

    ren: What gives the kinetic energy?

    What makes atmospheres co-rotate with planets in general?
    Could it be that back EMF through the magnetosphere from the solar wind interaction is driving paramagnetic multimer air molecules as well as the Earth’s iron core as a kind of homopolar motor?

  32. tallbloke says:

    By the way Jaime, your earlier comment on this thread was comment 50,000 on the talkshop. It nicely summarises what this blog is mainly about.

    The reason we have expended so much time and energy over the last five years working out how to predict solar variability, putting up with heaps of abuse from Svalgaard, Eschenbach and Watts along the way, is because it will change the climate debate. Once we have demonstrated a method of calculating future solar changes and the effect they are likely to have on Earth’s climates through successful predictions, the Sun will be ‘rediscovered’ as an important climate variable. This is the long haul we are on.

    There are some powerful monetary forces which don’t want that to happen. Hence the suppression of our work as recently demonstrated by the sudden axing of the journal in which we published our special edition on ‘Pattern in solar variability, their planetary origin and terrestrial impacts’

  33. Jaime Jessop says:

    Tallbloke: many thanks 🙂

  34. ren says:

    Here it is interesting. In the center of the polar vortex about -78 degrees C, at the periphery of -33 to -60.
    This temperature gradient accelerates the polar vortex.

  35. ren says:

    Highest temperature is of course over the Siberia, where it is blockade.

  36. Jaime Jessop says:

    Hi Tallbloke. My comment just before got lost in moderation because I typo’d email address! Many thanks for your remarks. I came to this debate very late and many people have been beavering away tirelessly at this for years and there are literally hundreds of high quality interesting climate blogs. It will take a unique combination of circumstance, hard work, scientific revelation and tactical communication to shift the balance of power in the climate debate, away from the CO2 pundits and back onto neutral ground. We’ve reached a critical juncture when all the hard work is coming to fruition, aided by Mother nature herself, but the tactics of the opposing camp are becoming increasingly bizarre and unpredictable and, dare I say it, a little concerning. We all just need to keep at them and do what we do best – and try to avoid infighting in the process. It’s not over until the fat lady sings, as they say!

  37. tallbloke says: February 24, 2014 at 12:32 am

    The Cult of Carbon Culpability has had its day, and is waning. Not before time. They won’t go quietly into the night though, so we need to keep our wits sharp and remain vigilant for a while yet.

    They certainly don’t and we certainly will. As I noted yesterday on my blog:

    What does the United Nations do with a scandal-tainted former Secretary General? A Nobel Peace Laureate, no less, who succeeded in failing to bring peace to Syria. They hand him a script and off he goes to preach impending catastrophe due to … you guessed it … climate change!

    On Jan 22, Kofi Annan, former UN Secretary General had an Op Ed in the Washington Post (some excerpts from my excerpted):

    Climate change is the biggest challenge of our time. It threatens the well-being of hundreds of millions of people today and many billions more in the future. […]

    … typhoons in the Philippines … polar vortex … floods in Europe — of the increase in extreme weather events that experts warn is the inevitable outcome of climate change.

    … [obligatory] tipping point … terrible gamble with the future of the planet and with life itself.

    What is needed to prevent this catastrophe has been established. Global temperature rises must be limited to less than 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. … [turn away from fossil fuels … [accelerate] the deployment of affordable renewable energies … [set] internationally agreed price for carbon. … legally binding agreement on climate change …

  38. tallbloke says:

    Jaime: There’s a browser plugin called Lazarus which remembers stuff you’ve typed into text input boxes. Very handy sometimes!

    Avoiding infighting: Yes. Well it’d be nice to see some goodwill in that direction from certain quarters.

  39. Jaime Jessop says:

    Hilary, they have politics and money mostly on their side – a powerful combination. What they don’t have is a surplus of brains, as Annan’s comments clearly demonstrate. To perpetuate the myth, they rely upon the assumption that the general public is thicker than they are, at least those that are able to discern the fact that they are pulling a fast one as opposed to the many who have been rendered completely rationally inert by ideology and/or the promise of fame and fortune.

    TB: Lazarus; definitely need that. Hope it works with Firefox. Can’t stand Chrome. Alas ‘certain quarters’ seem to have alienated themselves from yourself and others, and seem quite happy for that state of affairs to continue.

  40. tallbloke says:

    Jaime: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/lazarus-form-recovery/
    Alas it doesn’t recall things you wish you hadn’t posted as well as remembering things you wanted to but couldn’t. 😉
    The big problem with ‘certain quarters’ is that you kick one and the other three quarters start limping in sympathy.