Much alarmist ado about AMOC and the subpolar gyre collapsing

Posted: March 24, 2015 by tallbloke in alarmism, Analysis, solar system dynamics
Tags: , , ,

There seems to be a buzz in the alarmosphere about the gulf stream stopping because emissions. I must admit I don’t have much time to spare at the moment for dealing with the ramped up rhetoric about ‘man made climate change’, but I spotted a typical tweet from Professor Ray Wills which I thought was worth a quick reply.

This is of course, nonsense.

I did a quick overlay plot of the subpolar gyre by adding the 10be proxy. Guess what:


The last few 10Be datapoints are missing off this, but we can refer to a plot I was sent recently by Rick Salvador, which shows 10Be vs the latest iteration of our solar activity model.

Forecasted dTSI

10Be is inverted in this plot as a solar proxy, but you can see the trend is in the same direction all the way to 2000, along with our prediction to 2100 for solar activity. Incidentally, Rick had a ‘Eureka moment’ and added a non-linear scaling to our model to mimic 10Be production’s relationship to solar activity, which has much improved the correlation we get for the last 4000yrs between Steinhilber et al’s 10Be based TSI proxy and our simple harmonic resonance model of solar system dynamics:

Update Steinhibler correl to resonance model

Apologies to Steinhilber for the mis-spelling of his name on this plot.

So I think we can safely conclude that most of the variation in the ocean circulation is more to do with the variation of the enormous nuclear reactor in the sky than it has to do with Al Gore, Mann and their alarmist friends jetting about the planet emitting co2 and hot air.

Contributor Jaime Jessop took Mann to task on facebook about this. Her comments, and Mann’s reply were deleted.

If Jaime can supply a more legible screenshot, I’ll post it here.

Censorship in science is something which will be discussed in a forthcoming book I’ve been working on with Nils Axel Moerner.

  1. Ishtar Babilu Dingir says:

    They’re really ramping up the fear porn, at the moment, and the only people not getting effected by it are those with the intelligence to read a bar chart …unfortunately, there are not many of them. Meanwhile, there’s plenty of people whose fight or flight sympathetic nervous systems have been tweaked so many times with various false or artificially created dramas that they’re on a hair trigger now.

  2. Ben Vorlich says:

    Mandy Rice-Davies “He would say that wouldn’t he?”

    Prof Ray Wills is Chief Executive of the WA Sustainable Energy AssociationAssociation, the only business peak body actively supporting substantive action on sustainable energy in Western Australia, and the largest state-based body of its kind in Australia. Ray continues his decade-long relationship with The University of Western Australia as an Adjunct Professor with the School of Earth and Environment and contributing to the academic program and lecturing on the science, economics and politics of environmental change. Ray also runs his own consultancy, Future Smart Strategies, providing strategic advice on ecology and sustainability, focusing in particular on climate change science, and policy and functional responses to mitigate and adapt to global warming.

  3. Jaime says:

    Hi Rog, thanks for the mention. It’s really weird, I have a nice enlarged view of the conversation on my Twitter but the photo link reproduces it too small to read. The original file is a pdf and it seems I can’t do much with it but I’ve done a quick blog post here:

    If you click on the image, it opens a new window and if you click again, it expands the image to readable form. Image link here:

  4. Jaime says:

    Ah! And there it is, right there!

  5. oldbrew says:

    The recent (most of the last century) run of shorter than average solar cycles is over.
    Historically, shorter cycles have tended to lead to slightly warmer conditions than longer ones.

    Now we’re moving through what looks like the longest cycle since the mid 19th century, with probably another long one to follow, the chances of net warming any time soon look slim to nil, as recent years suggest.

    El Ninos seem to have gone into a recession too.

    David Archibald’s 10Be chart (inverse relationship to global temperature):

  6. Jamie is exactly correct.

  7. Paul Vaughan says:

    I want to check something in relation to Rial’s work (on north-south pelagic-benthic synchronization) which we recently discussed.

    Can someone point to the studies _1_ & _2_ are from?

    And can anyone point to the raw data for the 3 time series plotted in _3_?

    If so, thanks much.

  8. Paul Vaughan says:

    OK, on the trail now thanks to Jaime’s link, but rudely obstructed by cursed paywalls.

    For a key insight into their influences, everyone should definitely have a look at figures 5 & 6 from this paper R&M cite on greenland mass balance:

    Click to access JCLI-D-12-00546.pdf

    I’ve run out of time for today but I’ll be back on the trail as the busy week permits and meanwhile here’s a winter NAO integral reminder to help trigger something more cognitive than whatever R&M are hiding behind cursed paywalls:

    Now we’re getting somewhere….

  9. Paul Vaughan says:

    typo reminder: that’s pc2&3 (not pc1&2)

  10. oldbrew says:

    Anthony Watts makes this point: ‘When actual Gulf Stream measurement data (the ADCP data cited by Rossby 2014) is available, why would Mann and Rahmstorf use proxies? And why try to say that temperature is the indicator, when you have actual speed data? The obtuseness boggles the mind.’

    Of course we all know why: to manufacture the result they wanted and get a headline. It’s all part of the climate spin leading up to the Paris (non-)event.

  11. Stephen Richards says:

    i sicerely hope that paris is a non event but there are an awful number of people, polis, money, leaders and reputations relying on a good result, false or otherwise

  12. Jaime says:

    That is amusing TB. I’m still waiting for a reply to my tweet to Rahmstorf btw. Could be a long wait . . . . .

  13. tallbloke says:

    Salvatore. No problem.

    It is interesting how closely global SST as well as NH and AMO are correlated. You’d think that since the Pacific is a lot bigger, it would have more influence.

  14. Thanks, ROG. I know you are a decent fair person.

  15. E.M.Smith says:

    I’d made a comment on this at WUWT before I found the current link to this paper about Florida…

    Click to access Jacobson%20et%20al.%202012%20Hg%20in%20L.%20Tulane%20ES%26T%2046%20%2011210-11717%5b1%5d.pdf

    The basic thrust of it being that when the Gulf Stream slows down (and the AMOC with it?) the heat tends to back up in Florida. At those times the Florida plant ratios change (and their pollen) with, for example, pine and oak swapping. Also the usually drier winter pattern becomes more like the wet thunderstorm driven summers.

    What this means is that for the Gulf Stream to be slowed, we’d need to see warm wet winters in Florida and higher water temps, thus MORE hurricanes. Now we’ve got LESS hurricanes, and having just left there a week or so ago I can assure you the winter was not being very summer like. (It was nice, yes, but far cooler and less humid than summers and without the typical summer midafternoon thunderstorms).

    So I think there is a ‘reality proof’ that the Gulf Stream is still moving heat out of the Gulf of Mexico and away from Florida out into the Atlantic (somewhere…) and from there, presumably, out to space as the poles radiate much more than the receive…

    FWIW, I first referenced that paper back in 2012 in this posting:

    There are a large number of well know ocean oscillations that are regularly ignored by the Warmers as the make up the latest excuses du jour…

  16. tallbloke says:

    EM: The Gulf stream just moves south a bit when less excess solar energy is driving wind and currents. It’s also less coherent and breaks up mid Atlantic. Dr Michele Casati did a post here a couple years ago worth a look.

  17. Jaime says:

    Salvatore, that WfT plot of AMO looks suspiciously like the non-detrended version of AMO to me, even though it says detrended. The AMO index is basically an index of N Atlantic SSTs of which the non-detrended version is IMO an expression of solar forcing coming out of the LIA.. Mann’s AMOC index is merely inferred from the difference in NH SSTs and the sub-polar gyre. RAPID data gives actual AMOC strength since 2004, which shows a sharp decline.
    AMO is very likely forced by solar activity (and quite likely lunar/planetary influences) – though its oscillatory nature is inherent as internal variability. NAO and AO are also implicit in this internal variability and are the medium through which external (solar etc.) forcings on N Atlantic SSTs are expressed. AMOC is partly ‘hardwired’ into the system and partly driven by external forcings. It’s incredibly difficult to tease out the subtle interplay between AMO/NAO/AO and AMOC, but solar variability is the overarching influence I believe – at least during the middle to late Holocene. In the early Holocene, a Chinese study suggests that AMOC was driven primarily by meltwater pulses resulting from the end of the last Ice Age.

  18. oldbrew says:

    Maybe these man-made climate experts ought to do a study of the Great Lakes.

    “Two especially severe winters back to back — we haven’t seen that in a long time,” said George A. Leshkevich, who tracks the ice for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory in Ann Arbor, Mich. “All the lakes seem pretty brutal.”

    Oh sorry, I forgot – the climate wizards are only interested in computer models.

  19. David A says:

    Jamie.. AMO detrended…

  20. Jamie, data seems to show solar forcing in this way as far as the AMO is concerned, which is when the NAO is negative due to prolonged weak solar activity the AMO seems to be in a warm phase/ positive phase, and when the NAO is positive in response to strong solar activity the AMO seems to be in a cold phase /negative phase.

    Then again one can make the argument the phase of the AMO contributes to the NAO phase not the other way around.

    My criteria for a negative NAO being more likely are the following in order of significance.

    Prolonged weak minimum solar activity (ap index 5 or lower)

    QBO – easterly phase, during weak solar conditions.

    AMO – in warm phase +.5 c or higher.

    High Latitude Volcanic Activity

    Below Normal Arctic Sea Ice.

  21. Jaime says:

    David A – yes, that definitely looks more like detrended; no upward trend, just captures the basic oscillation.

    Salvatore, yes, I basically agree and I forgot about the QBO. I would argue that the magnitude of the AMO index is solar forced (it has reached a max I believe coincident with 20th century solar high), but the sign (positive or negative) and periodicity are largely independent of external influence – whereas NAO/AO variability (on daily/monthly/yearly/decadal time scales) seems to be far more sensitive to external forcings and NAO/AO in turn drives N Atlantic SSTs and determines the severity of NH winters.

  22. tchannon says:

    This might be a good time to remember and reread some of Erl Happ’s blog, see sidebar. The penultimate post might be a good starting point, that mentions AO.

  23. M Simon says:

    Well that is odd. My comments (both) went into moderation.

    [Reply] I don’t promote Doug Cotton’s commercial interests here, as he shamelessly steals our ideas for commercial gain yet refuses to acknowledge the contribution made by this website.

  24. cfgj says:

    Where has this Solar System resonance Model been published? Any references?

    [Reply] It was published in our special edition of Pattern Recognition in Physics, which certain IPCC authors then had shut down by the publisher, Copernicus (The Innovative Science Unpublishers).

    You can access the papers from this website here
    See R. J. Salvador’s paper near the bottom of the page.
    The model has been refined and improved since.

  25. oldbrew says:

    Andrew Bolt at the Melbourne Herald Sun joins the discussion:
    ‘No, the Gulf Stream isn’t about to stop like the horror movies claimed’

    ‘But wait! Michael ”Hockey Stick” Mann? There’s a warning right there.’

    ‘Meanwhile, Watts Up With That notes that reader Jaime Jessop asked Mann an inconvenient question on his FaceBook page…’

  26. ren says:

    The current location area of low pressure in the lower stratosphere.

    The ice in the Arctic is growing (Svalbard).

    Constant circulation causes changes in ocean currents (and differences of temperature).

  27. David Blake says:

    Hello all,

    Why just look at the NH SST’s? The curious thing is that the AMO seems to fit the SH SST’s pretty well too.

    Which is why I don’t buy the “consensus” theory of ice ages. NOAA point out:

    >>”Solar radiation changes in the high southern latitudes near Antarctica are actually out-of-phase with temperature changes, such that the coldest period during the most recent ice age occurred at about the time the region was experiencing a peak in local sunshine. This means that the growth of ice sheets in the Northern Hemisphere has an important influence on climate worldwide.

    Much more likely (IMHO) that the Ewing and Donn (1958) theory of ice ages is closer to the truth. In short:

    Phase 1) When the Arctic is frozen over, the ocean below is prevented from radiating to space. Warm currents from the Equatorial Atlantic can’t lose heat via radiation to space at the Arctic, so energy builds up. And builds up. And builds up. Eventually there’s enough heat in the system to start melting the ice again, leading to…

    Phase 2) Only when the ice cap has lost sufficient area can the process shift to the opposite phase. As the Atlantic can now lose heat via the now Ice free (or mostly ice free) Arctic the energy in the system starts to fall. And fall. And fall. The Arctic is also evaporating water vapour, but there’s limited solar. So cold temperatures + moisture –> snow, snow, snow, snow, snow, and the ice builds up, and we move back to phase 1.

  28. M Simon says:

    Re: Moderators remark @ M Simon says:
    March 25, 2015 at 6:21 am

    I had no idea. I did think the centrifuge experiment he linked to was interesting. Basically it was the experiment you were asking for in your 2012 post on the subject.

    BTW my policy on theft of ideas without attribution – steal away. Good ideas should be replicated. There aren’t enough of them.

  29. Paul Vaughan says:

    RAPID AMOC isn’t measuring overturning in the SPG (subpolar gyre):

    Click to access 2011_DSRII_Rayner_etal.pdf

    It tells more about the subtropical gyre. (There’s some other program called OSNAP for SPG.)
    AMOC has more than one meaning and I agree with Mann about aliasing.
    The record from the array is way, way, way shorter than multidecadal and it’s very sensitive to sampling of western boundary fluctuations in a narrow spatial band, so I would certainly advise more sober comparative interpretation. One conclusive insight is that it’s informing about WIND in the subtropical gyre.
    One thing I note on the trail as I go through the lukewarmist propaganda is that THEY NEVER MENTION WIND. This is f**ked-up beyond belief and you can bet your family, home, & life that this is EXACTLY where they’re intellectually cornered. More to say as time permits (I’m amassing links), but severe OT at work this week (so I’ll be delayed in sharing)…

  30. dennisambler says:

    This is worth a read:

    “The Source of Europe’s Mild Climate: The notion that the Gulf Stream is responsible for keeping Europe anomalously warm turns out to be a myth” Richard Seager, 2006

  31. ren says:

    Polar vortex at an altitude of about 23 km. Reversed circulation over America.

  32. Jamie I agree with your reply to me that you posted at 12:07am mar 25.

  33. ren says:

    Dennisambler :
    “What we found in these tests was that, south of northern Norway, the difference in winter temperature across the North Atlantic was always the same, whether or not we let the ocean move heat around. This result would suggest that oceanic heat transport does not matter at all to the difference between the winter climates of western Europe and eastern North America! We concluded that the temperature difference must, as we had speculated before, be caused by other processes, most likely the seasonal absorption and release of heat by the ocean and the moderating effect this process has on maritime climates downwind.”

  34. Andrew says:

    Oh yes it is says Mann
    Oh no it’s not says NASA (via WUWT)

  35. Kon Dealer says:

    Has anyone else noted that Mann and Rahmstorf’s AMOC model is an inverted hockey stick?

    What is it with Mann and bent sticks and statistics?

  36. Doug Proctor says:

    Maybe my math is wrong, with all the conversions:

    Cum additional freshwater since 1900: 13,000km3.
    Time interval: 110 years (in their “study”)
    Time of melting during year: approx 180 days
    Volume of additional freshwater per day over last 110 years: 0.66km3

    Dispersal area: >500km X 500km

    Thickness of resultant dispersed additional fresh water per day over dispersal area: 2.6 mm/day

    The cumulative volume is immaterial as the Gulf Stream/AMOC is regenerated each day from its source west of tropical Africa. What counts is the daily input.

    Unless I am out by weird factors of 100 (?????), there isn’t enough (negative) energy to do anything.

    Also, the additional fresh water is ON TOP of what was already pouring into the North Atlantic, right? It isn’t as if the Titanic icebergs stayed in Greenland before 1912, right? So what is the proportional increment?

    Unless I have the math all wrong ……

  37. Bloke down the pub says:

    The only time man has had an impact on the Atlantic Conveyor was with an Argie Exocet.

  38. Bob Weber says:

    Salvatore, you can use this readme file to understand the data layout:

    Pretty basic, Milankovitch parameters on the date line, over monthly insolation per latitude per year.

    I looked for an alternative data source as there usually is one – I don’t know why NOAA feels the need to make threats like this to non-government data seekers:

  39. Bob thanks. I am still confused on the date. -900 ,-901 etc.

    Is that 90,000 years ago?

  40. Files BEIN1.dat through BEIN11.dat each contain 100,000 years of orbital calculations
    at 1000 year intervals. File BEIN1.dat contains calculations for 0 KYrBp through 100KYrBP,
    File BEIN2.dat contains calculations for 100KYrBP to 200KYrBP, etc.
    File BEIN11.dat contains calculations for the next 100 KYr into the future.

    I have it now. Thanks.

    Impossible without the info. you sent to figure it out with.

  41. oldbrew says:

    NASA study re AMOC (Andrew’s link): ‘Models of today’s warmer conditions suggest that a slowdown would have a much smaller impact now. ‘

    So Mann and co. must be wrong because it’s too warm?

  42. Jaime says:

    The NASA study may have been measuring more the Gulf Stream component of the AMOC transport, though I can’t say for sure. Perhaps this is why they failed to find a slowdown. RAPID finds that there is no significant slowdown in the Gulf Stream; the slowdown in AMOC is due to other mass transports which comprise the AMOC.

    Meanwhile Mann, astoundingly, deflects criticism of his and Rahmstorf’s paper by claiming that they are looking at the AMOC, NOT the Gulf Stream, but then allows himself/his study to be quoted ad nauseum as saying/implying that a catastrophic shutdown of the GULF STREAM may be only decades away!

  43. Streetcred says:

    Ben Vorlich says: March 24, 2015 at 11:17 am

    Ray continues his decade-long relationship with The University of Western Australia as an Adjunct Professor with the School of Earth and Environment and contributing to the academic program and lecturing on the science, economics and politics of environmental change.

    It is scary to think that this catastrophist is filling the little sponge brains of future scientists with his garbage. Such fundamental misunderstanding / deliberate catastrophism should disqualify him from teaching and qualify him for psychological treatment.

  44. Paul Vaughan says:

    paywall bypass available:

    Click to access RahmstorfEtAl_NatureCC15.pdf

  45. Paul Vaughan says:

    Watts hasn’t done homework on “conveyor belt” BS

  46. Anything is possible says:

    How many boxes did Michael Mann tick this time?

  47. tom0mason says:

    Anything is possible says:
    I think you hit the nail firmly on the head there.

    I find it interesting that some people would have us believe that billions of tons of circulating water will quite suddenly change direction because humans have increased some very minor trace gas in the atmosphere by a few hundredths of a percent.
    Or am I wrong?

  48. ren says:

    Bill Illis March 24, 2015 at 4:32 am
    The Gulf Stream is driven by surface winds (and then confined by the continental shelf that is at least 200 metres deep).

    It is driven across the Atlantic from Africa to the Gulf of Mexico by the Trade Winds. It is then runs up to the 200 metre depth continental shelf of North America, is squeezed along Florida into the North Atlantic. The water is constantly flowing in and it has to keep flowing out.

    It then picks up the winds now moving south-west to north-east flowing off of North America and this drives it all the way back across the Atlantic to the north side of Europe.

    The Gulf Stream is always going to flow as long as the Earth is rotating, setting up a certain pattern of winds and confined by continental margins.

    Has the Earth changed its rotation. Did the continents move. Did the winds slow down.

  49. ren says:

    When comparing forecast highs on Thursday with lows Saturday night, many locations will experience a 40-degree Fahrenheit temperature drop. In some cases the temperature change can be as much as 50 degrees colder.
    The chill moving in over the interior South could bring a freeze to some locations from parts of the Carolinas to the northern part of Georgia, Alabama and Mississippi.

  50. Jaime says:

    There is much confusion over the terms Gulf Stream, North Atlantic Drift, AMOC and THC. They are often used interchangeably, without justification.

    Yes, the Gulf Stream is an atmospheric phenomenon driven by wind stress via the Coriolis Force and yes, it is an ocean current and yes, it is part of AMOC! The best explanation I have come across is Wiki:

    “The Gulf Stream proper is a western-intensified current, driven largely by wind stress. The North Atlantic Drift, in contrast, is largely thermohaline circulation–driven.”

    The clue is in the western intensification.

    The Univ of Southampton RAPID paper clearly identifies the Gulf Stream transport as being part of the AMOC. AMOC itself is merely the identification of a mass transport of water north and south, not to be confused with the THC, which implies a causation. Need to write a blog post on all this stuff when I get the time.

  51. Jaime says:

    Paul Vaughan, re.paywall bypass.


    “Recent oceanographic measurements from the RAPID array at 26 deg N in the Atlantic suggest that the AMOC has been weakening again since these measurements started in 2004 (ref.
    39), although we cannot conclude to what extent this temporary decrease signals a progressive trend, and the connection between subtropical and subpolar overturning, especially on shorter timescales, is not clear.”

    Mann and co. identify their ‘unprecedented’ weakening of AMOC from 1975 to 1995 whilst conceding that data show it recovered at least partially from then on and that it shows a further weakening from 2004. What they neglect to mention is that their ‘catastrophic’ decline is based solely upon their inferred measurement of AMOC derived from some decidely dodgy proxy SST data, that the modern decline in AMOC is calculated using state of the art direct measurements of actual water transport and that the authors of the RAPID study in particular conclude that the large variability is most likely due to “decadal variability in the AMOC system rather than a response to climate change”.

  52. A C Osborn says:

    Ren, it is fascinating to use NuSchool to look at the cyclone/anticyclone winds around the Arctic and Antarctic coming off the sea and being cooled by that massive cold area and then going back to sea and cooling it.
    You can see as much as 10 degrees C difference in temps once the wind has passed over the land.
    There must be a lot of extra warmth escaping to space at the moment.

  53. craigm350 says:

    Picked up via a retweet by Rog. From climateaudit

    Only one thing can be surmised from Rahmstorf and Mann’s claim that the Mann et al 2008-9 network can be used to reconstruct not just NH temperature, but also SH temperatures and now Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation: using Mannian RegEM with the Mann et al 2008-9 network of 1209 “proxies”, one can probably “reconstruct” almost anything.  Are you interested in “reconstructing” the medieval Dow Jones Index?  Or medieval NFL attendance?


    Worth reading the full scathing post.

  54. This diagram is confusing.

    Can anyone offer a simple explanation as to why the subpolar gyre(blue) minus the N.H anomaly drops so rapidly after 1900?

    And just explain the point of this diagram in general? thanks

  55. Paul Vaughan says:

    Reminder to All:
    A fundamental correction is underway in oceanography.

    Jaime, you’ve independently zeroed in on what I see as the money quote:

    “[…] the connection between subtropical and subpolar overturning, especially on shorter timescales, is not clear40.”

    40’s lead author is Susan Lozier — the same Susan Lozier who’s (wisely) deconstructing the “conveyor belt” BS (please see my link above).

    Unfortunately Watts didn’t get the memo a few weeks ago and do prerequisite homework in advance of need, so this round he was caught unprepared, pushing outdated fundamentally-flawed “conveyor belt” conceptualization, which is well over a decade past due for correction as Wunsch has long advised.

    Wind is the mechanism.
    Wind is the mechanism.
    Wind is the mechanism. And everyone should read carefully what Wunsch has to say about how salinity & buoyancy (…& freshwater hosing) fit into the picture.

    We’re just getting started. There’s a reason I posted the CAM / Southern Ocean / stratospheric volcanism graph above. There’s a connection with Box & Colgan’s (2013) Greenland ice sheet mass balance article (R&M’s ref 33) (link above) (tip: LIA little ice age rebound….), but first thing first:

    Reviewing the R&M money quote:
    “[…] the connection between subtropical and subpolar overturning, especially on shorter timescales, is not clear40.”

    Focusing in:
    “[…] is not clear40.”

    Towards needed clarity, some due perspective (wind, wind, …& wind) from “40”:

    See bottom left p.732 (on wind) in Lozier+(2010) (R&M’s ref 40):

    Click to access Lozier.et_.al_2010.pdf

    Taking stock:

    subtropical overturning circulation
    subpolar overturning circulation

    maybe STOC & SPOC?
    and so ASTOC & ASPOC? (where A’s for Atlantic)

    R&M are highlighting a very useful index. Thank you R&M.
    But it’s utility is more along the lines being hinted by TB.

    Rather than try to redefine AMO & AMOC, maybe they could give a new index a new name (rather than try to steal an old name for a new purpose). On the other hand I’m thankful for the direction to the new index — and no worries really because it was a breeze avoiding misinterpretation / misunderstanding.

    I have more links & connections to share later or tomorrow.
    Next up: stratospheric volcanism, hemispheric asymmetry, & ice balance….

  56. Paul Vaughan says:

    Clarifying the paradigm shift that’s underway:
    Wind is overturning the “conveyor belt”.

    Forthcoming article:
    Wind: Overturning the Conveyor Belt

  57. What I am thinking from this and I may be off . If I make a fool of myself so be it.

    Here it goes what I think the point of this diagram is ,is when solar activity is high the sub polar gyre is more intense (colder) causing the temperature anomaly of the N.H to be warmer if the sub polar gyre is taken out of the data while when solar activity is low the sub polar gyre is less intense warmer causing the temp. anomaly in the N.H. to be colder if the sub polar gyre is taken out of the data.

    I may be totally out to lunch here. My best attempt.

  58. ren says:

    This is what happens with the polar vortex in the winter, due to changes in the solar wind speed. When the solar wind accelerates, vortex to shrink and accelerates the jet stream. The most important period in the northern hemisphere is October, when the polar vortex pattern is formed. When solar activity is growing the polar vortex center trying to get back on the pole. However, when interference is strong at the beginning of winter, the vortex anomalies only are aggravated.

  59. ren says:

    In the southern hemisphere asymmetry is already evident in the area of the ozone. Similarly like last year across the the stratosphere temperature quicker drops from the side of South America.

  60. ren says:

    In early April, the center of the polar vortex in the lower stratosphere will be in and around Svalbard and there will be expanded ice.,87.35,344

  61. Paul Vaughan says:

    TB, following Gosselin’s pointer to CA I noticed your comment:
    Deceptive CA methodology is based on false spatiotemporal assumptions.
    Glad to see you’re not fooled. (It’s informative observing who is.)

  62. Paul Vaughan says:

    The same technique is used at wuwt — i.e. underpinning “reasoning” with false spatiotemporal assumptions. I’ve always found it sleazy and downright creepy.

  63. ren says:

    See inhibiting polar vortex in the upper stratosphere. This is due to the decomposition of ozone in the northern hemisphere.,87.35,344

  64. ren says:

    This is due to the decomposition of ozone in the northern hemisphere.

  65. ren says:

    Visible growth of ice in the north in recent days.

  66. oldbrew says:

    Prof Curry is not impressed either.

    ‘So, who you gonna believe? Climate models and Mannian proxies, or direct and satellite observations of ocean circulation?’

  67. macrobeak says:

    Keep it up Ren, we are all enjoying your real climate comments.

  68. ren says:

    Macrobeak, thank you.

  69. I was able to solve my questions. That diagram lacked clarity.

    I think one area that is lacking with many post and articles is the assumption that everyone knows everything about everything which leads to lack of clarity.

    I think items that are posted which are technical in nature(Paul for example) need to be explained more or at least have a definition with them.

    Paul is very advanced in the areas he is into much more so then many of us who are interested but do not have the same comprehension of things he has which is needed sometimes in order to try to understand better what he is trying to get across.

    That said I do understand to various degrees depending on the subject Paul, is presenting what he is getting at but it could be that much better if more clarity was given .

  70. Andrew says:

    Incase anyone has not seen this. (Via J.Curry)

    Atmospheric origin of the bipolar seesaw

  71. Paul Vaughan says:

    Salvatore Del Prete (March 26, 2015 at 6:34 pm) pointed and asked:

    Paul does this tie in with your CAM? I think it does.”

    Lozier’s suggestion to carefully reconsider wind shaping of subtropical versus subpolar gyres is a good one.

    Overturning circulation (OC) isn’t uniform over the whole Atlantic. OC is chopped up into segments by enduring features of the wind field.

    There is of course coupling. The nature of the coupling includes nonlinearity but on a whole higher level of aggregation awareness it’s necessary to recognize that it also includes LOTS of spatiotemporal switch-flipping SO UNIFORM LINEAR THINKING IS OUT.

    …and anyone at CA or wuwt or ce persistently and chronically trying to reroute (unrealistically dumbed-down) intellectual traffic back towards uniform linear thinking should be straight-up banned from commenting because they are SYSTEMATICALLY DESTROYING any possibility of sensible discourse (presumably in response to a misguided political strategy).

    I advise that we think very carefully about what each index is actually measuring versus what someone is calling it.

    Are the (turbulent) multi-axial differentials balanced?
    Yes, but the balance is coupled to external factors (meaning it doesn’t average to 0).

    How do we know this? We see in observational records analogous differintegral structure (including frequency modulation) across timescales from semi-annual to 100s of millions of years. Sure insolation inputs energy, but on a whole higher level of aggregation awareness recognize that insolation spatiotemporal PATTERN governs the evolving shape of the wind field.

    Tides are of course the other factor interfering with clearer perception of the non-zero-sum insolation field integral.

    The silly implicit notion that the integral of solar activity is constrained to zero-average by something internal to Earth can be dismissed. Pushing such a notion is a clear indicator of dark agency.

  72. Paul Vaughan says:

    Salvatore Del Prete (March 25, 2015 at 5:28 pm)

    Anyone know how to read this data? Thanks.”


    Insolation Calculator

    Don’t make the really stupid mistake you saw at wuwt — i.e. limiting your goofy look at the equator to June (!!!!) — one of the biggest goof-ups ever — and it was by wuwt’s supposed cowboy poster-boy — the idea that someone capable of such a blunder can lead????…. There are 3 commentators over there who make watts look like a used-tool & clown. Hopefully he realizes one day, gets angry, and tells them to f*** **f once and for all….


  73. Paul Vaughan says:

    oldbrew (March 27, 2015 at 10:01 am) wrote:
    “Prof Curry is not impressed either.”

    The problem Curry has trying to go head-to-head with Mann is that her lack of quantitative foundations leave her monstrously uncertain. Better to ignore whatever she says now and wait to see if she co-authors something on the subject with someone more qualified like Kravtsov. Curry’s wise enough to know what she doesn’t and can’t know, but the fatal problem she has is that without help from colleagues like Kravtsov she’s reduced to permanent, harshly-entrenched, genuine monstrous uncertainty. I don’t find it very helpful when “leaders” can’t recognize a proof as simple as 1+1=2. Under such leadership the community is paralyzed. (We each have a different role to play.)

  74. Paul Vaughan says:

    Andrew (March 27, 2015 at 5:41 pm ) wrote:

    Incase anyone has not seen this. (Via J.Curry)

    Atmospheric origin of the bipolar seesaw […]”

    Visbeck’s (2009) SAM (what he calls it) – an interesting, informative index – is based on a bad assumption IF it’s supposed to represent SAM (no quotes).

    There’s an analogy with the controversy R&M have stirred. Conflation of subtropical & subpolar patterns is coming into sharper focus as a conceptualization problem.

    Visbeck projected a subtropical pattern to a subpolar realm. He created an informative index, but I wouldn’t call it “SAM” —- just like I wouldn’t call R&M’s index “AMOC” even though it’s telling us something very interesting and very important about NH contrast with SPG. (Deep sincere thanks to TB for making time to flag this up visually even though (indicating the level of importance) he’s very busy.)

    I just hope all these people have read and understood what Rial (2012) is teaching about differintegral structure because all of this unnecessary drama (caused by fundamentally flawed uniform linear thinking) is becoming tiresome.

    For example, it will be quite informative if Wyatt & Curry decide to take the “SAM” bait uncritically (what I’m expecting). If they opt to limit themselves to narrowly focused 60-year publicity reruns without demonstrating more generalized exploratory capacity (e.g. centennial integral & multidecadal-frequency-modulation of decadal semi-annual-volatility timescales), they risk write-off as stalled one-hit-wonders who lack the cognitive power to recognize a proof of sun-climate 1+1=2 (thus counterproductively planting yet more seeds of cynicism, suspicion, & mistrust).

    So that probably clarifies how I would interpret an extension of the stadium wave to include this particular SAM. I’d ponder: “Are they pro-AGW infiltrators via lukewarmist-network facilities?” I’d instantly arrive at “What does it matter?” …and dismiss them permanently as quantitatively clueless …scolding myself for not doing so much sooner. How’s that for due cynicism? Palatable enough?? ((sense of humor required to interpret as intended))

    what to do when imposters redefine (AMOC “AMOC” SAM “SAM” TSI “TSI” etc…) or otherwise steal names for new (questionable) purposes….

    I would say the answer’s pretty simple: Take independent responsibility for patiently developing deep awareness & understanding firsthand …with neither need nor vulnerable inclination to rely on the dark agency of activist “experts” & “authorities”.

  75. Jaime says:

    Salvatore, here is Mann’s reconstruction of NH temp and sub-polar gyre over the last 1000 years. Excuse the Twitter pic; it’s the only way I could work out to post pics on here at the moment.

    Though I think his reconstructed sub-polar gyre is open to question, particularly after 1600, it clearly shows the significant dip in temp during the LIA. Likewise, during the MWP, subpolar gyre and NH temps BOTH show maximums, so I’m guessing that NH temp and temp of subpolar gyre fall during periods of low solar activity and rise during high solar activity – which leaves me rather suspicious about Mann’s instrumental subpolar gyre measurements, showing, as they do, a massive drop around 1970 (larger than that which occurred during the LIA), followed by a complete recovery.

  76. Paul Vaughan says:

    I haven’t had time yet to hunt down R&M’s SPG T reconstruction and the 10Be TB overlayed to wake us up. It’s brutally busy at (paid) work and threatening to get much worse, so if someone can help out with links that could cut weeks-worth of delays off my analysis & commentary. If necessary, simply write to R&M politely requesting that the SPG T series be posted publicly somewhere in a concise text format. Once I have links to concisely-formatted data, analysis will speed up by orders of magnitude. Sometimes data hunting goes rapidly in a single search. Other times it can consume a whole day and result in failure. I don’t like to go on a hunt if I’m not sure I’ll have time to complete the hunt in a worst-case scenario. Does someone else maybe have the time-freedom to “do whatever’s necessary” to wage a successful hunt, even in a worst-case scenario?

  77. Paul Vaughan says:

    Figure 3 from R&M (2015):

    Figure 1:

    (Just change the “1” or “3” in the links to 2, 4, & 5 to view the other article figures.)


  78. Paul Vaughan says:

    Turns out I already have some of the data on file.
    One thing I’m wondering: Why isn’t vukcevic here linking to his 10Be, CET, McCracken pages?

    Tip: Search for images with keywords and then track down articles & info fast — usually much faster than laboriously searching for articles & info directly.

    Turned out to be effortless to track down TB’s image source:

    That’s figure 1 from a free-access article:

    The data source is clearly indicated. Even just at a single glance it’s easy to see that it would be easy for someone serious to improve upon this. For example, just look at the systematic difference in structure between Antarctica & Greenland. Anyone planning to travel this exploratory trail should see Rial (2012) for a dead simple but totally elegant clue.

    When I see such simple stuff overlooked I wonder why the professional solar & climate scientists leave such easy hits for hobbyists. Could it be because the scientists publishing in public are second-rate and the top-notch investigators work for government agencies that keep high-grade insights classified? More & more I suspect something along these lines, because this stuff has profound implications for North Atlantic security. It additionally makes the whole propaganda campaign make sense. The security perspective is the only one that makes any sense to me. For security you do what’s necessary, even if it’s ugly (for example brazenly lying to the public about sun-climate relations).

    Does everyone see what coupling TB’s insight with R&M’s NH-SPG contrast implies??

    Some people might not like what this means for ice core 10Be as a (direct) TSI proxy, but don’t forget about frequency modulation — e.g. solar cycle deceleration ((& the relationship to stratospheric volcanism once the spatial dimensions are taken into more careful account)) …so it’s still solar, but with a new & whole lot more interesting interpretation…

    I’ve got a few more hours to dig around some more, but let me say this now as it’s already crystal clear without even looking any further:

    McIntyre owes Tallbloke (and a lot of other people) a sober, sincere apology. He has really blown it on this file. This is only the 3rd time I’ve looked at any of McIntyre’s work and he’s 0 for 3, leading me to wonder how his status got elevated. Frankly, that makes the supporting community suspect, but that’s hardly surprising given some of the other clowns the community has supported at wuwt. I advise sober 2nd thought.

    @ David Blake (March 25, 2015 at 10:22 am)

    Thanks for the link to a stimulating article. I recommend the works of Jose Rial to you.

  79. Paul Vaughan says:

    Ice core 10Be informs about hydrology. TB’s 10Be image can also be found over here. Box & Colgan (2013) looks worthy of a thorough dig when time permits. If someone knows of a link to concisely-formatted SPG T I’ll appreciate it.

  80. Jaime Jessop says:

    M&R’s AMOC index doesn’t line up too well with NAO, but NAO obviously has some close link with ACTUAL AMOC.

    “The annual mean MOC strength from 1 Apr 2009 through 31 Mar 2010 was only 12.8 Sv, reaching a minimum on 22 Dec 2009 of -3.7 Sv. While the negative MOC is remarkable, the longer
    term changes represent a reduction of more than 30% that was sustained for over a year.”

    So we had a combination of a longer term reduction in AMOC with rapid, significant short term fluctuations around 2009/10, which of course gave the UK that brutal cold winter.

    “In this paper, we show that this change is partly due to extreme Ekman transport from Dec 2009 –
    Mar 2010 but mainly due to a longer timescale strengthening of southward gyre transport above 1100 m.”

    You can see what NAO was doing in the winter of 2009/10.Massive spike downwards, lowest value for at least 60 years, probably longer. So short term fluctuations in NAO are linked with short term fluctuations in AMOC – at least they were during 2009/10.

    Mann’s precipitous SPG decline around 1975 bears no relation whatsoever to what was happening with NAO, either in the short term or the longer term 5 yr running mean (black line). So one wonders if it represents actual variability in the AMOC, or something else.

  81. aequitas45 says:

    The alarmist agenda is not working on the American public. Global warming rates dead last on Gallups latest poll of worries.

    “The urgency has since vanished into the ether. When asked “Do you think that global warming will pose a serious threat to you or your way of life in your lifetime?” Americans now overwhelmingly — 62% — respond “no.”

  82. so I’m guessing that NH temp and temp of subpolar gyre fall during periods of low solar activity and rise during high solar activity

    The above from Jamie, which I appreciate.

    Jamie, this is so confusing but I think(let me emphasize think) the data shows the sub polar gyre is maybe in anti-phase with solar activity with a small lag time of various years.

    For example from 1650-1700 the sub polar gyre seems to be warmer during the MM then it was from 1950-2000 modern sunspot maximum.

  83. Paul Vaughan says:

    FYI some of the authors have been involved in research in the direction TB has suggested with his overlay graph. I looked at some of those papers, but none were satisfying. The authors had hunches, tried to do some analyses, got part way, and got mostly stuck. They’re running into tantalizing aggregation criteria challenges and they haven’t yet found the (well-constrained) forest-level perspective that tames (in central limit) the aggregate multi-axial turbulence of trees.

    The one clean take-away I get from all this is that negative Greenland ice sheet surface mass balance (Box & Colgan (2013) Figure 6) happens when stratospheric volcanism is turned off. (This explains the aggregate subpolar timing deviations from subtropical SCD.)

  84. Jaime says:


    “For example from 1650-1700 the sub polar gyre seems to be warmer during the MM then it was from 1950-2000 modern sunspot maximum.”

    Exactly. It doesn’t make much sense. If we make the reasonable assumption that the MWP coincided with increased solar activity, we see that the SPG and NH temperatures both respond positively. During the LIA, they both respond negatively. But M&R’s diagram shows this huge drop in SPG only – NH temp is still climbing – in 1975 when we might expect SPG to also be approaching a max. My best guess is that the temporal resolution of the proxy data is inadequate to capture rapid fluctuations in SPG over 20 years or less, hence we don’t see this variability in the reconstructed proxy record. Tagging the instrumental data onto the smoothed proxy data gives – once again – a wholly artificial picture of what’s really happening.

    I may be wrong. The alternative is to assume that man-made CO2 dramatically lowered the temp of SPG from 1975-95. But why then – as CO2 in creased further – did the SPG make a complete recovery to 2000? It just doesn’t make sense.

  85. Jaime says:

    Aha! See also Andrew’s comment above.

  86. Paul Vaughan says:

    It’s probably difficult for many reading here to connect the NAM, AMOC, & SAM dots. I’ll take a minute to sketch the forest-level view. (If you think you’re going to line up all the trees you’re ignoring turbulence and state changes.)

    1. The sunspot integral (RI) is the main thing going on at centennial timescale globally. (CO2 does NOT match PC1. This confuses mainstream researchers and that’s why you see some of them chopping PC1 graphs off ~1920. They’re hiding the serious CO2 coherence failure that’s sharply inconsistent with interminable expectations.)

    2. AMOC aberrations from the sunspot integral pattern are governed by solar cycle deceleration (SCD). (We do not need 9-11 (lunisolar-solar timing) details to know this because we have hard aggregate constraints from basic geometry and the laws of large numbers & conservation of angular momentum. It’s simple frequency modulation of Schwabe clusters of semi-annual cyclic volatility (frequency modulation of cyclic clusters of bounded insolation-driven turbulence). To argue against this observation one has to propose violations of geometric axioms or laws or both.)

    3. Subpolar aberrations from the subtropical AMOC pattern are coherent with clustering of stratospheric volcanism (SAOT). (This suggests nonlinear polar sensitivity, which is hardly surprising given that ice is a factor in polar hydrology.)

    The preceding account for the overwhelming majority of the multidecadal-to-centennial spatiotemporal variance …and even the integral of ENSO is coherent no matter which indicator is chosen (pressure, wind, temperature, whatever — take your pick! — all (!) good, coupled in a package).

    The preceding are clearly evident in ERSSTv3b. (They’ve been systematically defaced in ERSSTv4. The only viable possibility is deliberately calculated vandalism, presumably to swiftly artificially engineer doubt. Only someone who really knew what they were doing could pull this off. I take this as an ominous indicator of the level of seriousness of the agency directing vandalism.)

  87. Paul Vaughan says:

    McIntyre screwed up again. He flagged up SPG where R&M indicate SPG-NH. (Maybe he’s color-blind?) He correctly quoted “blue”, but discussed orange/red.

    From R&M (2015):
    “Figure 3 […] The orange/red curves are averaged over the subpolar gyre, as indicated on Fig. 1. The grey/black curves are averaged over the Northern Hemisphere, offset by 3 K to avoid overlap. The blue curves in the bottom panel show our AMOC index, namely the difference between subpolar gyre and Northern Hemisphere temperature anomalies (that is, orange/red curves minus grey/black curves). Proxy and instrumental data are decadally smoothed.”

    As for McI’s “revelation” about higher SPG post-2000:
    We already knew that from the modern instrumental record.
    (It’s disappointingly informative seeing reactions that clarify that some commentators did not even know this.)

    Recommended exercise:
    Use KNMI Climate Explorer to comparatively review the ERSSTv3b2 instrumental record for:
    a) -40 – 240E, -90 – -60N
    b) -50 – -10E, 45N – 60N

    This exercise should give some insight into how SAOT clusters notch SCD. Those opting to participate in this exercise will learn that low 1970s-1990s is not mysterious at all.

  88. Paul Vaughan says:

    This is a note for the benefit of advanced readers:
    FYI the reversing NAO correlations Jason Box (2nd author here with R(1st)&M(3rd)) highlights are coherent with BDO (bidecadal) spatial moves. I have new (multiscale non-global) spatiotemporal methods I’ll never have time to share without some miracle (literally) of funding and time-freedom. Presently I have to do a tedious procedure manually. If I could hire a programmer to automate this, things would move far & fast, but I stopped exhausted after doing BDO manually at coarse (minimally fine-enough) time-step resolution. One thing I learned from the arduous exercise was that the BDO center moves …and climate enthusiasts would certainly recognize the dates when it does so. Vukcevic would love one of the centers it hangs on with high-amplitude during the early instrumental record: Hudson’s Bay. He would also love one of the places it later jumps to: the South Atlantic. Jason Box’s reversing NAO correlations aren’t mysterious at all. The way adjacent circulatory loops are configured in space changes systematically over time. So time-only methods are f****d for trying to make sense of this. Ignoring the spatial dimensions is DUMB. The method I’ve developed allows for variable temporal resolution, grain, extent, & span across all of space. Technical note: A special (quite often useless) case of the method (setting extent & span to infinity and integrating over space) is the (often spectacularly uninformative) temporally-global analyses one sees plastered everywhere in the literature & on blogs promising oh-so-much but almost always delivering sweet f**k all for “insight”. Why do “bright” people (by way of hopelessly dull implicit false assumptions) fix 3 of the key parameters like that?? (Never heard of Heisenberg Uncertainty??) I’ve never understood. Harshly-limiting old tradition is the only “reason” I can think of for such auto-pilot ignorance… So just to clarify, this goes beyond CEOF, but CEOF fans may be interested to know that the long-run BDO central limit spatial pattern (superposition of shifting epoch spatial patterns) matches ENSO.

  89. Jaime says:

    Actually, reading McIntyre’s post, I’m not quite sure where he’s coming from or going to with it, apart from showing that Mann’s gyre (blue) ends up higher than M&R’s gyre (orange). The post seems to just fizzle out after that.

    However, as it appears that M&R’s proxy reconstruction runs to 1995 and as it appears that the instrumental data matches very closely the proxy reconstruction, this might put paid to my argument above as it would seem that the purely instrumental part of the reconstruction only runs from 95 onwards, after the huge dip and recovery. I remain somewhat sceptical as to how Mann’s poor proxy data managed to so faithfully mirror the instrumental data however and I guess it would be instructive to look closely at Mann’s 2009 SPG reconstruction.

  90. Paul Vaughan says:

    This should help with visualization of SAOT biting SCD where ice is a big nonlinear hydrology factor:

    Image links to help understand the path Box traveled to arrive at B&C’s (2013) Figure 6 (an image which should be (but isn’t yet) posted to the net by itself, since it’s the apex of the chain):

    _a_ / _b_ / _c_ / _d_ / _e_ / _f_ / _g_ / _h_ / _i_

    ^That’s one side of of the balance (loss).

    The other (gain):
    If you know your climate blog history, you’ll recall that Goddard praised Box’s accumulation paper:

  91. Paul Vaughan says:

    moderators: I knew it would trigger moderation because of the number of links — immediately above — should help ease visualization & clarify derivation of Greenland surface mass balance chain of reasoning

    Jaime: McI added that blue line, so there are 2 different “blues” (possibly confusing some observers). McI has not at all shown R&M’s Fig. 3 blue (their “AMOC”), but rather independently derived R&M’s orange/red (misinterpreting it as their “AMOC” …somehow (color-blind? just sloppy? not sure…)) and plotted it in a different shade of blue. The whole post is sloppy. McI is now 0 for 4 in my 4 looks to date at CA posts. Not sure how he arrived at such legendary status…. (…but rapidly becoming suspicious of people who put him on that pedestal).

  92. Paul Vaughan says:

    addendum: It was Bastardi who alerted Goddard.

  93. Paul Vaughan says:

    This has been a productive session.
    It’s now crystal clear what was meant by “little ice age rebound” (LIA rebound).

    It sure looks to me like Box has outfoxed his wing-mates, R&M.

    One last piece of business is some links to THC papers from Rahmstorf modeling affiliates to clarify that the word “WIND” appears NOWHERE in THC modeling horror cited by R&M. (I would love to hear what Wunsch would have to say about this.)

  94. suricat says:

    Paul Vaughan says: March 28, 2015 at 11:59 pm

    I empathise Paul. Although I don’t understand many of your acronyms, I get the ‘gist’ of their meaning (I try to ‘expand’ upon the meaning behind acronyms, they tend to ‘converge’ into the logic of ‘other disciplines’).

    WRT ‘Steve_M’ (another alias of Steve McIntyre, whom hosts ‘CA’). The guy seems to be ‘burning’ his past connections! I considered this person a ‘buddy’ in the C4 Eve discussions about ‘TGGWS’ (The Great Global Warming Swindle) that Channel 4 aired:

    However, I can’t now post on ‘his site’ (‘CA’ [Climate Audit]) without a ‘moderation block’! Here’s my latest comment there:


    Posted Mar 22, 2015 at 10:08 PM | Permalink | Reply
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    Steve. Why do you persist with the minutiae of ‘model settings’ when we ‘already know’ that ‘models’ can’t ‘replicate’ the ‘real world’ of ‘climate’ as fast as the Earth re-configures it?

    ‘They’ (models) don’t have the ‘definition’ to ‘predict’! The ‘best’ assumption is a five day ‘weather forecast’.

    Get your ‘loft ladder’ out! Please? 🙂

    Best regards, Ray Dart.”

    Steve has just ‘shut me out’! You just ‘can’t’ get through to this type of guy anymore. I should’ve weighted my decision towards ‘SoM’ (Son of Mulder) more than ‘Steve_M’ during their dispute. 😦

    There’s no substitute for ‘hindsight’!

    Best regards, Ray.

  95. Paul Vaughan says:

    THC horror modeling

    no mention of wind (incl. rahmstorf, zickfeld):

    Click to access kuhlbrodt_et_al_09.pdf

    no mention of wind (ref 43) (incl. weaver, zickfeld)

    Click to access 2012_Weaver_et_al_GRL.pdf

    based on opinion survey + no mention of wind:

    Click to access 0809117106.full.pdf

    check all of their refs for wind

    would like to hear what Wunsch would have to say about this

  96. Paul Vaughan says:

    ray, acronym refreshers:

    _SAM_RI_ / _Sun_Wind_ (typo: negative pressure, not positive) / _SCD_AMOC_ / _SAOT_winterNAOintegral_CAM_ (typo: pc2&3, not 1&2) / _SST EOFs + link to Sun Climate 101_

    This selection should help people see how SAOT bites SCD in icy Greenland.

    The world isn’t ready to hear how all of these (plus BDO) relate to Salvador’s model. One step at a time. (Step 1 is better awareness of the spatial dimensions.)

  97. Paul Vaughan says:

    how could i forget this in this thread? _SCD Dalton Min & Mann_ (typo: Celsius, not Celcius) / Sun-Climate 101 (background)

  98. Jaime says:

    McIntyre has expanded his post which makes rather more sense now.
    Paul, I don’t think McIntyre is confusing AMOC reconstruction with the 2009 Mann gyre reconstruction (both blue) as you suggest. He used Mann’s 2009 gridded proxy SST temp data to reconstruct the gyre – as M&R must have done, but only to 1995 – and compared this to M&R’s reconstructed gyre (orange).
    As regards the instrumental data, it seems that Mann et all 2009 ‘calibrated’ the proxy data against the instrumental, which is probably why it ‘fits’ so well. Thus, the very close match between instrumental and proxy data is not as a result of them both being independently coincident, but as a result of statistical manipulation plus other “minor adjustments”. Therefore I still think that M&R’s comparison of the ‘moderate’ LIA gyre cooling with the massive dip during 1975-95 is probably invalid.

  99. oldbrew says:

    ‘This is typical: global warming alarmism is based on models, not data, and when the data contradict the models, the alarmists ignore the data.’

  100. Paul Vaughan says:

    There seems to be some confusion about what McIntyre & Mann have done. But it doesn’t matter. Nothing positive is coming out of all the negativity. My first impression is that McIntyre can’t stop criticizing other people for long enough to get any reconstruction work done himself, but even if he got focused he couldn’t do any better than the people he criticizes because he bases his “reasoning” on time series theory rather than spatiotemporal reality. Whatever. Doesn’t matter. Just a theatrical peripheral side-show distracting from what really matters.

    – –

    The really interesting thing that came out of all this:

    Greenland ice sheet surface mass balance
    = SCD bitten by SAOT

    simple, clean, elegant, beautiful
    washes away dirty climate politics

  101. Paul Vaughan says:

    more precisely:

    Greenland ice sheet surface mass balance
    = RI bitten by SCD bitten by SAOT

    (solar-powered little ice age rebound with teeth-marks)

    Frequency modulation has teeth.

    bites chunks out of ice

  102. suricat says:

    Paul Vaughan says:March 29, 2015 at 3:58 am

    It doesn’t and “The world” ‘is’ ready. However, your ‘links’ have a tendency to confound readers.

    Paul Vaughan says:March 31, 2015 at 5:13 pm

    Whilst I concur with you general opinion, the ‘dirt’ that “washes away dirty climate politics” also ‘washes away’ ‘dirty ice’.

    Paul Vaughan says:March 31, 2015 at 5:27 pm

    This is probably the propensity of UV insolation, but we need to prove/correlate that.

    Best regards, Ray.

    PS. I’m posting from a ‘foreign’ computer just now. I’m hoping that my laptop will be useable in the near future.

  103. Jaime says:

    Sou at Hotwhopper making much of McIntyre’s ‘mistake’ in assuming that a proxy used by Sherwood et al was a temperature proxy, whereas it ‘was’ in fact a mass movement proxy – inverted commas used as there seems to be some dispute as to whether indeed the proxy was in fact more relevant with regard to temperature rather than mass water movement. Mann of course has jumped on it. Whatever the case, the fallout from Rahmstorf et al 2015 has generated a lot of furious and often quite heated debate online, with much mudslinging from both sides.

  104. […] Much alarmist ado about AMOC and the subpolar gyre collapsing […]