Paul Vaughan: Sun-Climate 101: Solar-Terrestrial Primer

Posted: May 31, 2015 by tallbloke in Astrophysics, atmosphere, Celestial Mechanics, climate, Cycles, Natural Variation, Ocean dynamics, ozone, solar system dynamics, wind

Paul Vaughan has produced a six page .pdf document crammed with the fruits of his research into the ways in which solar variation affects Earth’s climate. Several of the observations and concepts coincide with the work we have been doing here at the talkshop over the last six years to unravel the mysteries of solar system dynamics and their effect on Terrestrial variation. Paul has applied his stats and visualisation skills and thorough approach to referencing, including direct links to data. This has resulted in a landmark document which readers will find both useful and inspiring. It demonstrates the progress that has been made in solar-terrestrial theory, (with hints about the underlying planetary solar relations too).



One of the figures which caught my eye was this one comparing changes in Antarctic ice mass with longer term changes in Earth’s length of day (LOD).


Hopefully, Paul will find time to tell us more about his differential equations. Another question which springs to mind is: can the gravity measuring satellite data be used to update this figure?

Another interesting section of the document is this one.


A useful reminder that globally averaged statistics are useless in diagnosing causation in climate studies.

Download the full document here.

  1. oldbrew says:

    Unusual image of the Sun here…

    Giant filaments on the face of the sun say “keep right”:

  2. Paul Vaughan says:

    a lot of ground has been covered since then …but the work week is commencing…..

  3. tallbloke says:

    So no LOD-SSB-X-Y plot for now then? 🙂

    My second prp paper explains what I mean by a damped oscillation. They lag behind and don’t reach the short term amplitudes of undamped oscillations. In this case, the lag is of the same order as the smoothing on the planetary data. That in itself is a clue.

    If there’s no lag in X-Y, you need to explain the lack of J period signal in the curve.

  4. Richard111 says:

    The claim that land has low heat capacity troubles me. Having lived and worked several years in desert regions I offer these personal observations. At night, especially under clear skies, air temperature near the surface can drop close to zero C. But dig down about 12 inches or so into the sand and it will be much warmer.
    During the day, again under clear skies, air temperature near the surface can be blistering hot. But dig down about 12 inches or so into the sand and it will be much cooler.
    Back in those days temperature extremes in the desert were regarded as normal so no effort was made in recording temperature changes, but now, with hindsight, I suspect the ‘much warmer’ and the ‘much cooler’ temperatures were close to being the same.
    Also again in the desert I have encountered small rocks that flake off pieces from the surface at night with a loud crack that attracts attention. On examining the rock it feels warmer where the flakes broke off than the actual surface of the rock.
    Back here in Pembrokeshire, West Wales, during a day under clear skies with little to no wind air temperature can get quite warm, close to 20C or so. Shortly after sunset, if skies are still clear, air temperature drops fairly rapidly and can reach 5C or lower if skies remain clear. But if a blanket of cloud moves in overhead the temperature will start to rise again. I have noticed this effect many times over the years I have lived here. I have noted the rise in temperature can reach close to the late afternoon air temperature but NOT exceed that temperature.
    My suspicion is that the land stores a considerable quantity of heat energy but the rate of heat transfer from a foot or so down is much slower than the loss of heat from the surface by radiation.
    The air itself does not have much cooling effect unless driven by a steady wind.
    Would appreciate any links to explanations as to why land has low heat capacity.

  5. ren says:

    Factors that affect specific heat capacity[edit]

    Molecules undergo many characteristic internal vibrations. Potential energy stored in these internal degrees of freedom contributes to a sample’s energy content, [14] [15] but not to its temperature. More internal degrees of freedom tend to increase a substance’s specific heat capacity, so long as temperatures are high enough to overcome quantum effects.
    For any given substance, the heat capacity of a body is directly proportional to the amount of substance it contains (measured in terms of mass or moles or volume). Doubling the amount of substance in a body doubles its heat capacity, etc.

    However, when this effect has been corrected for, by dividing the heat capacity by the quantity of substance in a body, the resulting specific heat capacity is a function of the structure of the substance itself. In particular, it depends on the number of degrees of freedom that are available to the particles in the substance, each of which type of freedom allows substance particles to store energy. The translational kinetic energy of substance particles is only one of the many possible degrees of freedom which manifests as temperature change, and thus the larger the number of degrees of freedom available to the particles of a substance other than translational kinetic energy, the larger will be the specific heat capacity for the substance. For example, rotational kinetic energy of gas molecules stores heat energy in a way that increases heat capacity, since this energy does not contribute to temperature.

    In addition, quantum effects require that whenever energy be stored in any mechanism associated with a bound system which confers a degree of freedom, it must be stored in certain minimal-sized deposits (quanta) of energy, or else not stored at all. Such effects limit the full ability of some degrees of freedom to store energy when their lowest energy storage quantum amount is not easily supplied at the average energy of particles at a given temperature. In general, for this reason, specific heat capacities tend to fall at lower temperatures where the average thermal energy available to each particle degree of freedom is smaller, and thermal energy storage begins to be limited by these quantum effects. Due to this process, as temperature falls toward absolute zero, so also does heat capacity.
    No clouds, but the degree of saturation of the air with water vapor determines the speed of the vertical heat loss in the atmosphere. Decide air circulation, especially in middle and high latitudes. The water vapor is produced mainly in the tropics. That is why it is very important wind speed over the oceans in the tropics. The higher the speed, the more water vapor.

  6. ren says:

    Hydrogen-containing polar molecules like ethanol, ammonia, and water have powerful, intermolecular hydrogen bonds when in their liquid phase. These bonds provide another place where heat may be stored as potential energy of vibration, even at comparatively low temperatures. Hydrogen bonds account for the fact that liquid water stores nearly the theoretical limit of 3 R per mole of atoms, even at relatively low temperatures (i.e. near the freezing point of water).

  7. ren says:

    Water is unique because its oxygen atom has two lone pairs and two hydrogen atoms, meaning that the total number of bonds of a water molecule is up to four. For example, hydrogen fluoride—which has three lone pairs on the F atom but only one H atom—can form only two bonds; (ammonia has the opposite problem: three hydrogen atoms but only one lone pair).

  8. wayne says:

    Of ren says May 31, 2015 at 8:50 pm

    Well explained ren. I should have gone to such lengths as you did to explain to everyone why the specific heat capacity of each planet/moon’s atmospheres have the temperature profiles they do per the data from the probes in that old thread “A small sceptical voice in the lukewarm wilderness” last October. Might have made more sense on what I was presenting in the comments of that thread and why the degrees of freedom end up in the polytropic exponent.


  9. Chaos in a box. What BS! Deterministic plus random noise appear as chaotic. Paul, you have done much in identifying the cyclic within the the deterministic. Thank you! If we can get down to extraction of the deterministic, thou cyclic, and are only left with the statistical noise, perhaps we can go “out” with only an umbrella, rather than an armored vehicle capable of floating! 🙂
    All the best! -will-

  10. Dan Pangburn says:

    Proof that CO2 has no significant effect on climate and identification of the two factors that do cause climate change are at (now with 5-year running average smoothing of measured data, R2 = 0.97+ since before 1900)

  11. Richard111 says:

    Thank you ren. There is much to learn.

  12. Paul Vaughan says:

    Start with section 8.7 (on heat engines):

    Sidorenkov, N.S. (2009). The Interaction Between Earth’s Rotation and Geophysical Processes.

  13. Paul Vaughan says:

    At the bottom of p.2 of ERSST EOF 1234 I left a loose end.

    Over the past few days I’ve been following that up in informal comments on these 2 threads:

    Bottom Line:
    ENSO variance envelope = intersection of annual & semi-annual volatility weaves

    Sometimes when you swing the baseball bat really hard and it makes a good connection with the ball… (((**crack**)))….

  14. ren says:

    The visible blockade of the southern polar vortex at an altitude of about 27 km. The increase in galactic radiation.

  15. ren says:


  16. tallbloke says:

    Paul V: “Bottom Line: ENSO variance envelope = intersection of annual & semi-annual volatility weaves”

    Numbers man, we want numbers. 🙂

  17. tallbloke says:

    Dan P: Looks like we’re in agreement that the likely GMST drop to 2035 is around 0.2C

  18. The only item that I think Paul needs to address is the role the earth’s magnetic field plays in all of this.

  19. oldbrew says:

    ‘Settled Science Update : New Paper Finds 18 Year Warming ‘Pause’ Not Due To Missing Heat Hiding In The Deep Ocean’

    Biased media take note.

  20. Paul Vaughan says:

    numbers given here:

    …or TB do you mean you want links to CAM, SAOT, KNMI (for ERSST), etc.?

  21. Andrew McRae says:

    Hi, 3rd member of the Cooling Club, checking in. 🙂

    Dan’s old work was highly inspirational in the beginning (2013), but I found the SSN integral to be too artificial, so I re-expressed the same idea (Svensmark effect) in the form of an SSN dependant albedo reduction which affects the net surface forcing in each year, with the integration being implicit in the rather simple linear equation for year-on-year temperature change.

    Obviously all of these models (Dan’s, Roger’s, mine) all look great on paper, but you guys have to admit that we are rather short of experimental evidence to support some of the parameter values and hypotheses that we’ve made here. Obviously the solar activity affects the climate, but the uncertainty is in exactly how it does that and quantifying the relation.

    The biggest question mark for me is… where are the measurements that can tell us exactly how much cloud cover is reduced by a given solar magnetic field strength? Once you establish the solar magnetic field strength at earth (B), and even assuming that on a century scale the background cosmic ray sources are basically constant, how do you then convert B into an albedo change? There has to be an empirical basis for that somewhere.

    Also, Stephen Wilde’s ideas about UV altering the ozone and tropopause might find a place in a cohesive “big picture” model of the climate, but again the requirement for evidential support is still there and I don’t know exactly how he supports it beyond the theory.

    Konrad has been repeating his “no greenhouse” claims and he’s starting to wear me down. Just because I don’t know how heat can flow from the atmosphere to the ocean doesn’t mean it isn’t happening. Just because he can’t measure any temperature increase from LWIR on water doesn’t mean it isn’t happening. It’s all still a bit uncertain to me. And yet still I have that standard CO2 forcing term in my model, like it’s some sort of minimum requirement for playing the climate modelling game. Heh, fashion huh?

    If only the science were settled.

  22. tallbloke says:

    Hi Andrew M: Thanks for dropping by at the pariah’s parlour Tallbloke’s Talkshop.
    I think the Ozone idea is something that was being developed on climate audit back in 2008 or so by Erl Happ amongst others. Steben Wilde was around there too. Erl emailed me a few days ago with a reply he’d left at WUWT. I’ll repost it here when I gt a moment.

    The “standard CO2 forcing term” does appear in my simple model above, at a lower value (non-feedback). But it might easily be around the same value as the undocumented ‘adjustments’, which will tail off in magnitude now John Christy has their feet to the fire…

  23. Paul Vaughan says:

    TB wrote: “Hopefully, Paul will find time to tell us more about his differential equations.”

    That’s trivial.
    I’ve shared it many times going back years:


    where SCL = solar cycle length …and of course SCL’ = SCD = solar cycle deceleration

    That’s how I generated the stadium wave .gif animation, which should also be viewed primarily as suggestive.

    If I had high-level university-style computing resources and programming staff and an order of magnitude more time (to program and/or direct programming), I would take it to the next level. For example, as I’ve noted before I’ve prototyped a spatiotemporal wavelet method that can track the spatial migration of the bidecadal oscillation (BDO). I’ll never have time to automate it while involved in a busy day job. It’s too tedious doing the calculations manually at high resolution, so I left it at the prototype stage. I’ve known for many years how to develop it further. There will probably never be the opportunity though. I would need local, secure, longterm pay and pension to be able to put aside interference and devote due, deep focus to such a consuming project. The flexible (generalized) methods could be applied to any & all cycles in a spatiotemporal domain and it differs from CEOF in that it relies on no spatial stationarity assumptions. The climate is not spatially stationary. The methods being used in climate exploration currently are too limiting because they make FALSE assumptions (like static spatial organization). There are exploratory work-arounds to current methodological limitations for someone intuitive at attractor recognition, but of course an audience will never have the experience & judgement to appreciate and understand what an experienced practitioner is doing. We need to develop the next generation of methods that don’t make assumptions that harshly limit the types of features that can be recognized.

    Like the stadium wave .gif animation, the LOD / Antarctic ice specific mass graph was intended to be suggestive. Basically climate scientists should understand Rial and be able to think in complex numbers. I would say most — probably almost all — fail on both counts. If they’re looking at that graph and they don’t know how to intuitively reproduce it, that’s certainly informative.

    So that graph was meant to be suggestive.

    IN CONTRAST, you will see me hammering the weaves (annual-12.8 & semi-annual-11.07) & weave rate shift (SCD). These are take-to-the-bank proofs and failure to accept them is failure to accept 1+1=2.

    I no longer accept ignorance as an explanation for why people expect geometric axioms & laws (of large numbers & conservation of angular momentum) to be violated. When academic procrastination drags on for years & years …and then more years …with no end in sight, it’s natural to increasingly suspect deception.

    AT THE VERY LEAST they are deceiving themselves …and of course many will be quick to assert that they’re also deceiving the public.

    I’m developing the distinct (…ok it’s crystal clear if I’m more frank) impression that the community is ignoring structured volatility simply because it cannot be detected with their favorite methods. Now THAT makes me suspicious…..

    Refocusing Discussion…

    What’s on my mind now is weave intersection. I’m here to discuss that.
    (How’s that for managerial spirit?
    [ : (…on the Pareto Principle)) It’s too busy of a week at work to indulge peripheral tangents.

    I put some technically detailed notes on the Suggestions-11 thread in response to Ian Wilson’s post on multifractals.

    Best Regards

  24. Paul Vaughan says:

    tallbloke (June 1, 2015 at 6:56 pm) mentioned:
    “Erl Happ”

    Erl: thanks

    It was Erl’s many writings that motivated me to learn about circulatory topology.
    (It’s a very steep learning curve for beginners.)

    A result: the flood of animations in the 2nd half of the Sun-Climate 101 document …to help visually cure conceptually-derailing anomaly-think (…which leads even academics to think you can swim in ice and skate on warm water…. way to go Livina & Lenton!! classic – sorry we’ll never forget — it’s a good teaching aid – thanks!)

    I animated all that stuff to help the community with a LESS STEEP learning curve.

    Try to read endless boring paragraphs describing it???
    Too tedious — efficient alternative needed….

    Animations in contrast:
    Just watch(!) them!
    That’s easy.

    DOZENS of animations linked from the 101.

  25. Paul Vaughan says:

    Dan & Andrew: Ocean cycles aren’t drivers. They’re driven. I recommend Rial links on Suggestions-10 (See how he crushes Muller). The energy comes from insolation. Accumulated energy input is one thing, but scrambling is related to the pace of input. It’s like adjusting the speed on a fan that drives poleward advection. We have the evidence Andrew. Stop ignoring it.

  26. Paul Vaughan says:

    Salvatore Del Prete (June 1, 2015 at 4:04 pm) suggested:
    “The only item that I think Paul needs to address is the role the earth’s magnetic field plays in all of this.”


    Physically nature does whatever nature does physically.

    I observe a dog jumping up & down and barking.
    Am I going to let myself be brainwashed by CHURCH OF LUKEWARMIST AGENTS that dog is not jumping up and down and barking???? just because I can’t model dog’s behaviour from deoxyribonucleic (DNA) acid???? and what then even if you could? They’d say, well you haven’t taken it down to the atomic level, so the dog isn’t jumping and barking.

    Come on get real. Don’t let them f**k your head like that.

  27. My thought is the magnetic field strength will moderate solar effects.


  28. tallbloke says:

    Andrew M and Paul V: Herewith the WUWT comment Erl Happ emailed to me a few days ago:

    This comment on WUWT on a thread relating to the cause of the ozone hole
    over Antarctica encapsulates some recent discoveries. It’s at

    Phil. You got this bit right:, “the lack of UV light does not causes ozone
    production to plummet in Spring the absence of UV light through the winter
    stops production and depletion of O3″.

    And in this statement you touch on the dynamics that actually determine the
    issue. The critical dynamic is actually the reduction in the depletion of O3
    due to a lower incidence of short wave ionising radiation from the sun in
    winter. But spatial relations are all important. Read on.

    First let’s look at the ozone free vortex that is due to a local depression
    of the stratopause over the Antarctic continent. The air here has virtually
    no ozone and an enhanced content of NOx because it is mesospheric in origin.
    It is pulled into a cone shaped depression by the vorticity of a very large
    high pressure cell co-extensive with the Antarctic continent, that extends
    from the surface through to the mesosphere. In winter, atmospheric pressure
    over Antarctica reaches a global peak. This vortex (simply a local
    expression of the mesosphere) is what is measured as ‘the ozone hole’. The
    absence of ozone here has nothing to do with chlorine chemistry. It has a
    lot to do with the process of photolysis. Above the stratopause temperature
    declines due to diminishing levels of O3 and increasing levels of NOx. This
    is normal atmospheric chemistry relating to the wave lengths that will split
    the smaller nitrogen and the larger oxygen molecule and the even larger O3
    molecule. The stratosphere is an expression of the relative freedom from
    photolysis that allows ozone to proliferate below 1hPa. Its partial pressure
    is greatest at 10hPa. Its density is greatest at 30hPa and it is manifestly
    present in the atmosphere at lower altitudes in diminishing quantities
    strictly in accordance with prevailing atmospheric dynamics at different

    Second, lets look at the margins of Antarctica between 60-70° of latitude
    where ozone concentration peaks in October. It does so with monotonous
    regularity between Antarctica and Australia where surface pressure is
    lowest. In fact the entire zone 60-70° of latitude south is a very
    particular place where the enhanced presence of ozone, peaking in the month
    of October is associated with a marked trough in surface pressure. Nowhere
    else on the entire globe do we see such a severe trough in surface pressure,
    and its obviously ‘annular’ or ring like in its shape. The presence of
    ozone in the profile at this latitude is associated with convection
    throughout the atmospheric profile and a marked increase in wind speed
    between the surface (where wind speed is already extreme) and 10hPa in the
    middle stratosphere.Air temperature declines throughout the profile
    favouring convection. Ozone is excited by long wave radiation at 9-10um from
    the Earth itself provoking a local increase in the temperature of the air
    above 500hPa (5.5km) and especially noticeable as low as 250hPa. The
    presence of ozone drives convection. It is important for surface climate
    because the process of convection involves what we think of as the
    troposphere AND ALSO what we think of as the stratosphere. What goes up must
    come down. Ozone rich air descends in high pressure cells, all high pressure
    cells, GLOBALLY. The consequence of the descent of ozone rich air into the
    troposphere is local heating and a consequent loss of cloud cover with a
    consequent increase in surface temperature. Change the ozone content of the
    stratosphere and you change surface temperature.

    I reiterate: Change the ozone content of an atmospheric column and
    geopotential height is observed to increase throughout the profile. The
    500hPa level is representative. And as GPH increases, in terms of the
    surface, a coextensive area is seen to warm as more solar radiation reaches
    the surface.

    If you are as diligent in learning about atmospheric dynamics as you are
    your chemistry you will change your mind about the nature of the ozone hole.
    Here is a great place to start.
    el_pressure/orthographic=-340.09,-31.31,410 Notice the circulation of the
    air in the south East Atlantic is anticlockwise from 500hPa through to
    10hPa. Click on the word ‘Earth’ and toggle around to see wind speed,
    temperature, surface pressure and lots of other interesting stuff.

    In terms of changing climate at the surface, the concentration of ozone in
    the Antarctic atmosphere (that is globally influential in determining
    surface temperature and the flux in the planetary winds) appears to be
    locked into a 200 year cycle that relates to the changing quantum of
    material that the sun flings into its extensive local environment.

    In fact, what I am talking about here is the nature of the ‘annular modes’
    of interannual, decadal and centennial climate variation. See:

    Click to access ThompsonWallaceJClim.pdf

    This should be mainstream knowledge. That it isn’t reflects the inability
    of particular practitioners of particular branches of scientific endeavour,
    useful and worthy of respect as they manifestly are, to look beyond the end
    of their nose.

  29. Andrew McRae says:

    June 1, 2015 at 7:37 pm, Paul Vaughan says:

    It’s like adjusting the speed on a fan that drives poleward advection. We have the evidence Andrew. Stop ignoring it.

    Physically nature does whatever nature does physically.
    I observe an ocean oscillating up and down in temperature.
    Am I going to let myself be brainwashed by A CRAZY CANTANKEROUS GROUCH that the ocean is not oscillating up and down???? just because I can’t model the ocean’s behaviour from poleward advection???? and what then even if I could? He’d say, “well you haven’t taken it down to the multi-axial scrambling level, so the ocean can’t be a driver.”
    Come on get real. I’m not gonna let him f**k with my head like that.

    Did you like your own medicine?
    I can’t “ignore” evidence to which I had never been referred and have never seen, you crazy cantankerous grouch.

  30. Paul Vaughan says:

    Andrew, I’m not saying the ocean is not oscillating.

  31. Paul Vaughan says:

    not 65%

    “Alert & Clarification: The 15% of the variance I previously (August 4, 2013 & December 20, 2013) left allocated to a linear component is actually part of the solar-governed variance. I had set a parameter arbitrarily to force that leftover, knowing that militant climate discussion agents would apply extreme social force to unfairly shut down a proof that did not leave wiggle room for CO2. It was a negotiating tactic. My sense was that at best militants would be willing to budge only in baby steps and that they decisively would not be willing to jump straight to the truth. Competent parties doing careful diagnostics will discover that there’s no justification for arbitrarily forcing the 15% linear leftover. It was stolen from the solar component to engineer an olive branch, afford a face-saving climb-down, and help smooth a period of trying social transition, but it was not appreciatively received with good will, so I’m promptly giving full disclosure and withdrawing the offer of a graceful climb-down.”

  32. Paul Vaughan says:

    Cyclic ENSO Volatility

    Dickey & Keppenne (1997) Figure 3a (p.24)

    semi-annual J+N


    Dickey & Keppenne (1997) Figure 3b (p.25)

    annual J-N


    (The opposite (anti-phase) happens near Greenland.)

    (164.79132)*(11.862615) / (164.79132 – 11.862615) = 12.78279303 years
    (164.79132)*(11.862615) / (164.79132 + 11.862615) = 11.06602004 years
    (164.79132)*(11.862615) / ( (164.79132 + 11.862615) / 2 ) = 22.13204008 years = harmonic mean

    (12.78279303)*(11.06602004) / (12.78279303 – 11.06602004) = 82.39566 years
    (6.391396515)*(5.9313075) / (6.391396515 – 5.9313075) = 82.39566 years
    (5.9313075)*(5.533010019) / (5.9313075 – 5.533010019) = 82.39566 years

    Dickey, J.O.; & Keppenne, C.L. (1997). Interannual length-of-day variations and the ENSO phenomenon: insights via singular spectral analysis.

    Click to access 97-1286.pdf

  33. Paul Vaughan says:

    ^ typo alert: PC1&2 should read PC2&3 ^

    [Mod note] In the title of the graphic at
    PC being what? Principal components? – Rog

  34. ren says:

    This demonstrates that acidity
    is satisfactorily explained by the sum of the three mineral
    acids H2S04, HN03 and HCI. The proportion of the latter
    (CI- exc) is, however, nearly negligible, especially in the
    coastal area (Table 1I). The percentages given in this table
    also show that in the last part of the traverse, acid
    contributions amount to about 2/3 of the total ionic budget,
    HN03 being the major ionic trace element present in
    Finally, it must be noted that NH~ concentrations are
    found to be very low and stable all along the traverse. This
    observation shows that the degree of neutralization of the
    acidity is low (as already found at other Antarctic
    locations), and also that the Southern Ocean is not a source
    of ammonia, a conclusion which is in agreement with most
    works on the origin of this gas in the troposphere.

    Click to access igs_annals_vol07_year1985_pg20-25.pdf

    The first part of winter 2008-2009 has been characterized
    by a stable and cold polar vortex which allowed
    the persistent formation of PSC particles. In
    mid-January of 2009, however, the most intense sudden
    stratospheric warming (SSW) ever observed occurred
    [Manney et al. 2009, Di Biagio et al. 2010]. SSWs strongly
    affect the dynamics and thermal structure of the Arctic
    stratosphere causing the breakdown of the eastward
    winter circulation, the build up of a westward circulation,
    and the reversal of the latitudinal temperature
    gradient. As the 2009 SSW developed, the stratopause
    lowered, the mean zonal circulation reversed, and ultimately
    the polar vortex in the lower stratosphere split
    in two (see Figure 12).
    Figure 13 shows the lidar backscatter ratio (both
    parallel and cross polarized components) and the de
    over Thule on January 26, in agreement with the N2O
    concentration displayed in Figure 14, but there are signs
    of out-vortex air intrusions also a few days earlier.

  35. tallbloke says:

    From the SAOT info on that plot, I’d say we’re going to get a big volcano in the next few years. No doubt the carbon munchers will seize on that to explain the lack of warming…

  36. ren says:

    In my opinion, there has been a volcanic eruption off the coast of Oregon. Evidence of this series of strong tremors of the earth.

  37. ren says:

    The dark area (low pressure) shows why so slowly melts the snow on Greenland.

  38. Konrad. says:

    Andrew McRae says:
    June 1, 2015 at 6:27 pm
    Andrew, you say –

    ”Konrad has been repeating his “no greenhouse” claims and he’s starting to
    wear me down. Just because I don’t know how heat can flow from the atmosphere to the ocean doesn’t mean it isn’t happening. Just because he can’t measure any temperature increase from LWIR on water doesn’t mean it isn’t happening. It’s all still a bit uncertain to me. And yet still I have that standard CO2 forcing term in my model, like it’s some sort of minimum requirement for playing the climate modelling game. Heh, fashion huh?”

    But also lament –

    ”but you guys have to admit that we are rather short of experimental evidence to support some of the parameter values and hypotheses that we’ve made here”

    But just what is it I back my claims with? Empirical experiments! Easily repeatable empirical experiments. Easily repeatable empirical experiments that no one disputing my claims has ever repeated….

    In 2011 I disproved the claim that DWLWIR could heat or slow the cooling rate of water free to evaporatively cool with experiments published first at Talkshop-

    But I didn’t leave it at that. In the following years I went further to explain exactly how the sun is quite capable of heating the oceans well beyond 255K. For an average of 240 w/m2 received in a diurnal cycle (Peaking near 1000 w/m2) it would be 335K or higher if not for cooling by our radiatively cooled atmosphere –

    Could an atmosphere without radiative cooling ability provide the same surface cooling? Um no, remember those experiments? –

    And the latests CFD run?-

    ”And yet still I have that standard CO2 forcing term in my model”

    In response, I refer you to my recent comments on Jo Nova’s excellent site –

    Andrew, until you understand the difference between a near blackbody and and extreme SW selective surface, molecular kinetic theory and why incident LWIR cannot heat LWIR opaque water free to evaporatively cool, or the critical role of radiative subsidence in tropospheric convective circulation you cannot be modelling climate correctly. There is no substitute for getting the “basic physics “ of the “[not so] settled science correct”.

    PS. Sorry for wearing you and other readers down 😉 (I work in design and engineering, being right is more important than being liked.)

  39. tallbloke says:

    Konrad: As I told Svalgaard years ago

    “You can lead a Norse to Walker, but you can’t make him think.”

  40. Konrad. says:

    tallbloke says:
    “You can lead a Norse to Walker, but you can’t make him think.”

    Quite so. There once was a time when I was foolish enough to try.

    My WUWT comment to Dr. Svalgaard in 2009 –
    “Dr Svalgaard, we of course respect your client, Mr. Sun’s right to scientific representation and we appreciate your participation in these informal interviews. As you may be aware Mr. Carbon was formally charged with carrying heat after investigations into climate irregularities. We now find that we need to reopen investigations, as a key witness against Mr. Carbon has been found to be a heavy abuser of Bristlecone pine extract. While we are prepared to overlook minor variations in TSI levels, which your client claims relate to personal use, we feel that this does raise questions about Mr. Sun’s character. We also have unconfirmed reports linking some of Mr. Sun’s activities with known heavies such as Mr. Jupiter. In light of this information we would like to ask that Mr. Sun surrender his passport and remain contactable should we need further assistance with our inquiries. ;-)”

    I was prepared to joke then, but not now. When I revealed the experimental evidence that component UV variance and cloud cover changes would have an effect easily an order of magnitude greater than previously calculated on ocean temperatures, did Dr S say “gee that’s interesting”? No, he doubled down on his inane efforts to “stomp the solar record flat” and wrote a piece of utter scientific drivel trying to stomp the record of solar UV variance flat.

    I have no respect for Dr. Svalgaard. He deserves none. Not until he apologises for his execrable behaviour.

    PS. Too harsh? Not by half. Anthony Watts got it right on surface stations, but who is his primary advisor on solar influence on climate? Dr. Svalgaard has a great deal to answer for…

  41. Paul Vaughan says:

    Yes TB, PC = principal component.

    Above I’m just finishing what I started on the 2nd half of p.2 of ERSST EOF 1234. That’s the ENSO variance envelope. The EOF maps & associated PC time series are summarized in the Appendix (p.5 = the last page).

    The ENSO variance envelope and SCD both bite Greenland temperatures as I outlined on the parallel multidecadal thread.

    I’ve yet to illustrate the SCD / JEV connection …. …. ….

  42. Paul Vaughan says:

    Just to reiterate what I’ve clarified for the community over the past few days:

    A. The semi-annual equator-pole volatility term is heliocentric.
    B. The annual interhemispheric volatility term is barycentric.
    C. ENSO is both heliocentric & barycentric.

    This information has now been public for 18 years.

    Someday historians will note how long it took for this information to enter mainstream academic conscience.

    If the US government cuts NASA JPL climate research funding (a dark agenda that’s being aggressively pushed), you’ll know for sure that they’re deliberately building in (climate realism) delays.

  43. Dan Pangburn says:

    Paul V – Ocean cycles, along with the time-integral of sunspot number anomalies, drive the **reported** average global temperature but not the true energy change of the planet. Thanks for pointing out something not particularly obvious in previous issues of the agwunveiled paper. It is now more explicit.

  44. Paul Vaughan says:

    Dan, multidecadal ocean cycles are due to solar cycle frequency shift. To believe otherwise one has to contend that geometric axioms are violated and/or that laws (of large numbers &/or conservation of angular momentum) are violated. Regards, Paul.

  45. Dan Pangburn says:

    Paul – Perhaps so. But this only leads to the question of what causes the solar cycle frequency shift. In the paper, I allude to planetary synodic cycles as a possible driver of the ocean cycles. Perhaps this drives the solar cycle frequency shift.

    In any event, the correlation using the approximation of ocean cycles, combined with the sunspot number anomaly time-integral, assuming the influence of CO2 is zero, when compared to a 5-year running-average of measured average global temperatures achieves an R^2 of 0.97+ since before 1900.

    That does not leave much room for improvement.

  46. Dan Pangburn says:

    Oops, that should have said ‘synodic cycles as a possible driver of the solar cycles’

  47. Paul Vaughan says:

    Dan, Global temperature will certainly correlate with the temperature of a very large portion of the globe, especially when 5-year-averaged, so indeed you’re onto something. You’re telling an accessible sunspot integral + ocean oscillations story and I think that’s potentially helpful so long as people don’t think of the oceans as drivers.

  48. Paul Vaughan says:

  49. ren says:

    If we look at the raw data of the TSI, can be seen that the difference between mnimum 23 and 24 cycle exceeds 0.2 W / m ^ 2.

  50. ren says:

    For example, let us take any two months in 1996 and 2009.
    2009 9 1 1365.293
    2009 9 2 1365.249
    2009 9 3 1365.223
    2009 9 4 1365.177
    2009 9 5 1365.210
    2009 9 6 1365.203
    2009 9 7 1365.214
    2009 9 8 1365.227
    2009 9 9 1365.174
    2009 9 10 1365.180
    2009 9 11 1365.195
    2009 9 12 1365.167
    2009 9 13 1365.182
    2009 9 14 1365.178
    2009 9 15 1365.188
    2009 9 16 1365.221
    2009 9 17 1365.197
    2009 9 18 1365.184
    2009 9 19 1365.262
    2009 9 20 1365.218
    2009 9 21 1365.229
    2009 9 22 1365.273
    2009 9 23 1365.281
    2009 9 24 1365.279
    2009 9 25 1365.331
    2009 9 26 1365.350
    2009 9 27 1365.366
    2009 9 28 1365.409
    2009 9 29 1365.376
    2009 9 30 1365.445

    1996 9 1 1365.655
    1996 9 2 1365.679
    1996 9 3 1365.641
    1996 9 4 1365.540
    1996 9 5 1365.459
    1996 9 6 1365.402
    1996 9 7 1365.419
    1996 9 8 1365.440
    1996 9 9 1365.450
    1996 9 13 1365.401
    1996 9 14 1365.434
    1996 9 15 1365.429
    1996 9 16 1365.398
    1996 9 17 1365.464
    1996 9 18 1365.473
    1996 9 19 1365.479
    1996 9 20 1365.527
    1996 9 21 1365.618
    1996 9 22 1365.643
    1996 9 23 1365.674
    1996 9 24 1365.636
    1996 9 25 1365.656
    1996 9 26 1365.643
    1996 9 27 1365.613
    1996 9 28 1365.635
    1996 9 29 1365.621
    1996 9 30 1365.603

  51. ren says:

    SKY NEWS WEATHER ‏@SkyWeatherAUS 1 cze Zobacz tłumaczenie
    COLD MORNING! in SE Australia. #Canberra -6.8. Coldest morn in 10mths. #Sydney coldest June morn in 5 years with a low 6.1. (@jaynieseal)

  52. This might be in vain but I will ask Paul to explain why solar cycle deceleration/sunspot integral on his top chart is very low in 1910 in contrast to the bottom chart where it is high?

    The trends of SCD/RI in each of the three charts do not match why ?

    The top chart with R=82% I understand but it does not seem to correlate with the two lower charts which do not seem to correlate with each other?

    Questions I hope you will answer for me.

  53. oldbrew says:

    ren says: June 3, 2015 at 10:04 am
    If we look at the raw data of the TSI, can be seen that the difference between minimum 23 and 24 cycle exceeds 0.2 W / m ^ 2.

    SC 24 looks suitably weak compared to SC 23…

  54. Paul Vaughan says:

    Salvatore Del Prete (June 3, 2015 at 3:47 pm) asked about this summary:
    “This might be in vain but I will ask Paul to explain why solar cycle deceleration/sunspot integral on his top chart is very low in 1910 in contrast to the bottom chart where it is high?

    The trends of SCD/RI in each of the three charts do not match why ?

    The top chart with R=82% I understand but it does not seem to correlate with the two lower charts which do not seem to correlate with each other?

    Questions I hope you will answer for me.”

    This is a good question and actually this morning based on comments in this thread I began to suspect misinterpretation of this very summary.

    “Solar Cycle Deceleration – Sunspot Integral”
    “Solar Cycle Deceleration MINUS Sunspot Integral”

    “Sunspot Integral minus Solar Cycle Deceleration”

    Note that the order is reversed. Hence the mirror image — i.e. perfect correlation of 1.

    red curve = sunspot integral = RI
    blue curve = solar cycle deceleration = SCD

    The red curve minus the blue curve in the top panel gives the orange curve in the 3rd 4th panel.
    The blue curve minus the red curve in the top panel gives the orange curve in the 4th 3rd panel.

    The orange curve in the 3rd panel is therefore a mirror image of the orange curve in the 4th panel.

    The 3rd panel shows the interhemispheric temperature gradient as North minus South.
    The 4rd panel shows the interhemispheric temperature gradient as South minus North (mirror image).

    There’s no lack of correspondence —- quite the contrary: blue & red DEFINE orange.

    Simple enough now?

  55. Paul, thanks for that GREAT information. That helps immensely.

  56. Thanks excellent explanation/

  57. ren says:

    The drop in temperature in the north of the Atlantic since 2010 is already about 0.2 degree C.

  58. Paul Vaughan says:

    You’re welcome Salvatore.

    Correction (obvious from inspection):

    The blue curve minus the red curve in the top panel gives the orange curve in the 3rd panel.
    The red curve minus the blue curve in the top panel gives the orange curve in the 4th panel.
    [amended – mod]

  59. Paul Vaughan says:

    A big fuss about ERSSTv4 just started on Lukewarmist blogs today.
    The delayed response is suspicious.

    I issued serious warnings about ERSSTv4 on Jan. 2, Jan. 3, Feb. 22, Feb. 23, & Mar. 28.

  60. I am not surprised about this because they are agenda driven. I think the satellite data will keep things in true reality along with the continuation of radiosonde data. That is the data I use.

  61. Paul Vaughan says:

    Satellite observations (which — keep in mind — are subject to ground-truthing and related calibration diagnostics) don’t go back far enough in time to explore multidecadal-to-centennial spatiotemporal pattern. The best thing we have at multidecadal-to-centennial scale is ERSSTv3b2 (not Hadley ….and definitely not Berkeley Earth).

    Any efforts to hide ERSSTv3b2 — for example on KNMI Climate Explorer spatial interfaces — should be regarded as extreme provocation. How extreme? I would regard that as a FINAL lunge for FULL multidecadal-to-centennial narrative control. The Hadley datasets aren’t good enough to substitute for ERSSTv3b2.

    The other thing to watch for is a brazen attempt to control the narrative on annual & semi-annual earth rotation cyclic volatility by ascribing it to orbital aliasing. They haven’t tried that yet, nor have I seen any evidence that they’ve even thought of that tactic yet. It’s the kind of thing I would recommend to them if I were a contract worker paid by them for advice on how to issue a final deathblow to the most solid trunk of the skeptic movement. If they went for a suggestion like that, it would signal a pragmatic willingness to violate anything in their path to achieve a higher goal.

  62. Paul Vaughan says:

    Somebody should be asking:

    If changes to ship SST measurement methods (buckets to alternative) caused the WWII temperature bump, why does the bump show up in WIND …and other variables?

    (graph typo alert: negative global mean sea level pressure (not positive))

    Btw for those who haven’t noticed: They’ve regionally made that WWII feature decisively more jagged (it’s like a sore thumb sticking out) in ERSSTv4 vs. ERSSTv3b2.

    Why does a supposedly ship-water-bucket-related feature show up in wind??

    Try some better “reasoning” folks.
    Maybe the distribution and orientation of shipping lane transects is systematic rather than the (brain-dead mainstream standard) falsely-assumed random??

    Maybe something like a war systematically (not randomly) affected the number of paths, destination & origin of paths, and orientation of paths taken by ships??

    In the multidecadal-centennial context, it’s just a jagged blip in the data.
    It doesn’t need regional exaggeration like they’ve done in ERSSTv4.

    Has everyone noticed where they’ve amplified it? (…and thought about why?)
    Here’s a provocative hint:

    Sun-SAM pdf

    If you set the coordinates right, you’re going to find a monstrously jagged sore thumb in ERSSTv4 that wasn’t there in ERSSTv3b2. Maybe ask NOAA why ….

    There may be a tropical limit at 26 degrees C, but if you could ask Joe Fletcher about mode 1 (remember 1920 & how Dai always comically chops the graph there) what do you think Joe would say?

    size of the warm pool

    They call it “SAM” in Abram et al. …but what if we’re mixing and conflating definitions?
    I wouldn’t advise ignoring Fletcher’s point about the size of the warm pool just because you might have a vengeful hate on for Abram et al.

    Whatever you want to call it and no matter who you don’t want accredited for noticing, ERSSTv3b2 modes 1 & 3 have an ocean/land contrast-axis from the Indian Ocean to Eurasia and mode 4 has an axis over the American sector (from the Humboldt Current to the North Atlantic).

    Better investigate the v4 splash of red map paint if you’re not ready to wave the white climate flag.

  63. Paul Vaughan says:

    Update to provoke clearer thinking about US NOAA / UK Met Office HadjustedNMAT2 / oversized-corner-filtering / overbearing-poleward-infilling tag-team corruption of ICOADS & ERSST: (new graph to provoke better respect for geometric axioms & laws (of large numbers & conservation of angular momentum (the budget has to balance…))

    more suggestively abstract illustrations will follow

    more provocation now in the form of a question:

    Are these leaked insider tips based on a classified multivariate geophysical model of surface hydrology & core angular momentum?…. hehe…. it’s anyone’s guess whether v3b2 was (wink, *wink*, nudge, nudge…) infilled with that model……. (….and later “corrected” (cough, *cough*) to v4…..)

    ….How else would they have engineered such exact solar-ERSST EOF/PC1234 spatiotemporal matches??

    After all, the exact matches (sarc) could not possibly (/sarc) be natural (sarc) ! (/sarc)
    Right!! (….v4 best rightened rather than left as wrong)