Please post ideas for new threads, tips on relevant and interesting threads elsewhere, and notes about pretty much anything you like here.

The scissors will be wielded to commercial spam, lewd suggestions, and anything else I don’t like. 8)

  1. tchannon says:

    Suggestions-10 is open for business

  2. craigm350 says:

    Looking at sunspot activity during the MWP. The red aurora of 1192 which unsettled the natives – used to lesser storms of a different hue – is quite interesting:

  3. scute1133 says:

    Another BBC climate story with a header photo that flouts the guidelines on showing cooling towers emmiting ‘smoke’:

  4. scute1133 says:

    Regarding my last comment about the BBC. The main link to the article at the top of the Science and Environment page has a pic with an actual chimney emmiting smoke (a smaller and grainier picture). But when you click on the story, it has a larger, clearer header pic with a cooling tower emmiting ‘smoke’ (ie steam).

  5. Paul Vaughan says:

    If anyone comes across a link to the full paper, please let me know:

    Orbital forcing of climate 1.4 billion years ago

    “[…] sediment geochemical fluctuations reflect what appear to be orbitally forced changes in wind patterns […]”

    Let’s not forget records from ~200Ma (reported decades ago — includes ice-free (tropical mega-monsoon) 22ka, 100ka, 400ka, & 2Ma):

    Olsen, P.E.; & Kent, D.V. (1996). Milankovitch climate forcing in the tropics of Pangaea during the Late Triassic. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 122, 1-26.

    Community Alert:

    I’ve noticed an escalation in the disinformation about this at wuwt. An “academic expert” (a geologist) was out in comments there trying to engineer confusion by conflating 22ka north-south anti-phased tropical monsoons with 100ka north-south synchronized polar glaciations. This is someone who does NOT understand how Milankovitch amplitude envelopes physically relate to the geometry of the globe. I was astonished at the fundamental level of misunderstanding, coupled with false confident assertion. A lot of damage is being done to the credibility of wuwt by these “experts” that go out and thought-police over there. It’s to the point of total ridiculousness and the fact that the host affords the distortion artists artificial dominance is telling.

    But giving credit that is actually due:
    Bill Illis is the only sensible wuwt commentator worth reading. (On a few occasions I have seen him slip in a momentary lapse of judgement (unnecessarily volunteering undeserved flattery to artificially-elevated social dominants, presumably to try to stay in good favor with the primary distortion agents of the venue), but fortunately it’s rare (…although not rare enough).)

  6. Paul Vaughan says:

    This guy’s vision is a lot clearer than most — — — — Recommended Reading:

    Rial, J.A. (2012). Synchronization of polar climate variability over the last ice age: in search of simple rules at the heart of climate’s complexity. American Journal of Science 312, 417-448.

    Rial, J.A.; Oh, J.; & Reischmann, E. (2013). Synchronization of the climate system to eccentricity forcing and the 100,000-year problem. Nature Geoscience 6, 289-293.

    “[…] novel orbital forcing paper […] an important paper […] The authors provide a new approach to looking at insolation variations in the tropics. […] tropical climate boundary conditions […] this paper could have much wider implications than the authors acknowledge.”

    The Luke Strategy Handbook says:
    “Actively deny the role of (insolation-driven) wind in THC (thermohaline circulation).”

  7. Paul Vaughan says:

    The trust-undercutting wuwt campaign against insolation is shot down by 1 fact:

    π ≠ π/2

    π (tropical monsoons)

    π/2 (ocean surface vs. deep; polar north vs. south; CO2 vs. methane — see Rial 2012)

    supplementary reference for those sufficiently motivated to independently connect dots firsthand:

    Wang, P.X.; Wang, B.; Cheng, H.; Fasullo, J.; Guo, Z.T.; Kiefer, T.; & Liu, Z.Y. (2014). The global monsoon across timescales: coherent variability of regional monsoons. Climate of the Past 10, 2007-2052.

  8. Paul Vaughan says:

    @ Andrew (March 13, 2015 at 7:27 pm )

    Things are getting really silly.

    Advisory: Tsonis & Sugihara appear to be selling out.
    Those methods are based on false spatiotemporal assumptions (including spatial uniformity).
    It’s a common binning trick (reweight distribution of averages in a reformatted binning space that leads to more politically convenient conclusions — same trick abused by wuwt thought-police).

    But maybe they can’t hide forever (Peter Principle gamble) from clear-seeing true superiors:
    In human evolution that’s a key first step of historical significance.

    I warned about this many times — for example in a string of 3 comments here (chopped because 1 long comment triggered moderation):

    Caution: Bayesian’s no better, so I advise that they sober up even more and ban it too before that door left open undermines the needed philosophical correction.

    This is serious stuff.

  9. oldbrew says:

    Re PV’s abstract: ‘Same forces as today caused climate changes 1.4 billion years ago’ (report)

  10. Paul Vaughan says:

    OB, I remember you once asked what I thought of Muller & MacDonald (1997).
    Rial (1999) has the answer:

    Rial, J.A. (1999). Pacemaking the ice ages by frequency modulation of earth’s orbital eccentricity. Science 285, 564-568.

    As you can discover from his later work, his vision is a whole lot clearer.

  11. Paul Vaughan says:

    It’s the wind.

    Rial (2012) drew my attention to a fundamental correction that’s underway in oceanography (more notes forthcoming on this later) ….

    Lozier, Susan (2010). Deconstructing the conveyor belt. Science 328, 1507-1511.

    Though appealing in its simplicity, the ocean conveyor-belt paradigm has lost luster over the years […] the ocean’s eddy field, unaccounted for just decades ago […] figures prominently in the dismantling of the conveyor-belt paradigm. Another player in this dismantling is the ocean’s wind field. The traditional assignation of surface ocean gyres to wind-forcing and overturning to buoyancy forcing has ignored the vital impact of winds on overturning pathways and mechanics. […] the conveyor-belt model no longer serves the community well […] because it ignores crucial structure and mechanics of the ocean’s intricate global overturning.

    […] wind forcing, rather than buoyancy forcing, can play a dominant role in changing the transport of the overturning […]

    Although many past studies have invoked buoyancy forcing at high latitudes as the driving mechanism for the overturning […] wind forcing―by creating surface mass fluxes and/or by providing the mixing needed to return deep waters to the surface―is instead the dominant mechanism (14). […] 14. C. Wunsch, Science 298, 1179 (2002).

    — — — —

    Wunsch, Carl (2002). What is the Thermohaline Circulation? Science 298, 1179-1181.

    […] the deep ocean is in a near-equilibrium state, and it is not possible, without an intricate calculation, to determine if the density/pressure differences drive the flow field, or the reverse. Some authors claim to be able to separate the fraction of the flow derived from density field gradients from that caused by the wind field (definition 6). But the density gradients are set up primarily by the wind.
    The only possible sources of this work are tidal stirring and the wind field […] a convective mode of motion cannot generate the turbulence required to carry the MOC across the stable stratification.
    The conclusion from this and other lines of evidence is that the ocean’s mass flux is sustained primarily by the wind, and secondarily by tidal forcing. Both in models and the real ocean, surface buoyancy boundary conditions strongly influence the transport of heat and salt, because the fluid must become dense enough to sink, but these boundary conditions do not actually drive the circulation.

    The ocean is thus best viewed as a mechanically driven fluid engine, capable of importing, exporting, and transporting vast quantities of heat and freshwater. Although of very great climate influence, this transport is a nearly passive consequence of the mechanical machinery. When Stommel (10) first introduced the term “thermohaline circulation” in a box model, he explicitly provided a source of mechanical energy in the form of mixing devices. These devices disappeared in subsequent discussions and extensions of this influential model.

    For past or future climates, the quantity of first-order importance is the nature of the wind field. It not only shifts the near-surface wind-driven components of the mass flux, but also changes the turbulence at depth; this turbulence appears to control the deep stratification. The wind field will also, in large part, determine the regions of convective sinking and of the resulting 3D water properties. Fluxes and net exports of properties such as heat and carbon are determined by both the mass flux and spatial distribution of the property, and not by either alone.
    The term “thermohaline circulation” should be reserved for the separate circulations of heat and salt, and not conflated into one vague circulation with unknown or impossible energetics. No shortcut exists for determining property fluxes from the mass circulation without knowledge of the corresponding property distribution.


  12. Paul Vaughan says:

    Ice orography shapes wind field and wind field drives THC (salt, heat, buoyancy):

    Wunsch, C. (2006). Abrupt climate change: an alternative view. Quaternary Research 65, 191-203

    […] what was the major change between the glacial period and the Holocene? […] the disappearance of the Laurentide and Fennoscandian ice sheets. In effect, two enormous mountain ranges of high albedo, nearly bracketing Greenland, were removed. When these features are present, D–O events are observed. When they are absent, D–O events are also absent.
    […] ice sheet elevations had a large effect on the atmospheric stationary wave patterns. Roe and Lindzen (2001) calculated the influence of an idealized Laurentide ice sheet on the atmospheric circulation, including modification of the ice sheet itself by the atmospheric circulation. A reasonable inference is that the mean structure of the westerly wind system, the standing-wave patterns, encountering the massive ice sheets is quite different from its modern value, and that more than one equilibrium is possible.
    Earlier modeling calculations […] involving slow changes in the shape of Laurentide and Fennoscandian ice sheets, are strongly suggestive of their influence on the climate system.
    […] equilibrium position for a zonal jet can be quite sensitive to the underlying boundary conditions […] pattern of mean westerlies encountering Greenland would markedly change the temperature and precipitation patterns there, as well as induce a change in the wind-stress curl over the ocean to the south […] The modification and removal of the great continental ice sheets corresponds to changes in a huge orographic feature.
    How does this approach to rationalization deal with what may be remote indicators of D–O events both on land and suggestions of oceanic changes? The conventional theory of the ocean circulation […] represents the three-dimensional motions in terms, primarily, of the wind-stress driving. Energy arguments […] show that buoyancy forcing, while contributing in important ways to the structure of the circulation and determining to a large degree the extent to which it carries heat and moisture, cannot ‘‘drive’’ the circulation. […] The body of theory suggests that the most important and sensitive determinant of the circulation is the wind field. Any change in the high latitude North Atlantic wind field, even without more remote changes, would lead one to anticipate very rapid shifts in the ocean circulation patterns, and with a record of these changes appearing in the sediments. That is, one expects the ocean to promptly respond, possibly as seen in the Bond et al. (1993) high latitude North Atlantic records. Coupled with amplifiers in the form of sea ice feedbacks […]
    The primarily local interpretation implicates the wind field as the central element by which central Greenland temperatures change abruptly, and the mechanism by which larger-scale signatures would be carried to distant locations, including those induced by ocean circulation shifts under the changing wind system. Given the comparatively small contribution of the ocean to the high-latitude meridional flux of heat, it seems an unlikely primary stimulus of major climate shifts beyond the North Atlantic basin. It can readily operate as an integrator and as a transmitter of signals, but that is a different role.


    Rial’s (2012) figure 11 crystallizes temporal coincidence of Heinrich events with the steepest pole-pole & ocean bottom-surface temperature gradients. Carefully compare with figures 7 & 1 for clear big-picture insight.

    Maybe some industrious climate explorer can assemble a one-stop-shop comparative catalog of climate symmetries to help modelers get real about wind.

  13. oldbrew says:

    Professor: ‘Last year, at the request of the president, I produced a paper that urged the [Royal] Society’s council to distance itself from the levels of certainty being expressed about future warming.
    I said it ought at least to have a ‘plan B’ if the pause should last much longer, so calling the models into still more serious question. I got a polite brush-off.’

    ‘The project to ‘solve the climate change problem’ is a modern version of the biblical Tower of Babel. We do not know how much the project will cost, when it will have been completed, nor what success will look like.’

    Dim-witted would-be climate saviours plough on regardless, oblivious to their own frailties and failings.

  14. oldbrew says:

    Climate loons claim Australia’s food is going to be ‘tasteless’ in future.

  15. oldbrew says:


    ‘Overall, Essex believes that climate change arguments have evolved to the point where we don’t talk about any science, but end up talking about people. “It’s wrong, it’s inappropriate and utter political nonsense,” he stated. There is “no merit” to the climate change arguments. He says that, “it is time to leave the scientists alone.” Essex explained that the climate change advocates are going to have to “get over the fact that they lost the scientific argument.” ‘

  16. oldbrew says:

    Mercury getting smaller?

    ‘Tom Watters told the conference that since the end of a period in Solar System history called the Late Heavy Bombardment, Mercury had been contracting – and geological evidence of this could be found across the planet.’

    Link shows close-up of ice crater on Mercury.

  17. J Martin says:

    Apparently the little ice age was now caused by the white man slaughtering nearly 50 million indigenous people in North America back in the 1600s. This allowed forests to grow and suck co2 out of the atmosphere causing a drop in temperature leading to the little ice age.

  18. oldbrew says:

    J Martin: yes, a 7 parts per million (quoting the report) ‘drop’ in CO2 must have been almost like blotting out the sun – LOL.

  19. oldbrew.
    This CO2 is truly the COW with a million teats, Keep on milkin y’all! :)

  20. oldbrew says:

    ‘Researchers study fluctuations in solar radiation’

    ‘Although the weather and the climate on Earth take place in the atmospheric layers near the ground – the troposphere – the processes that take place in the layers above that have a major impact on the troposphere. Even today, researchers don’t really understand the processes taking place in the middle atmosphere. Knowledge about the Sun’s impact is also fragmentary. Natalie Krivova and her colleagues at the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research will therefore continue, again and again, to explore uncharted solar territory.

  21. Ian Wilson says:

    Rog, oldbrew, and Tim,

    You might find this very interesting:

    The Titius-Bode Law (and it’s Phi foundation) may be Universal!

  22. oldbrew says:

    IW / TB,

    Somebody noticed this before. Check out the comments here ;-)

    The Exo-planetary System of 55 Cancri and the Titius-Bode Law

  23. A C Osborn says:

    Roger I am surprised that you have not picked up on this, at least 3 of the yobs having a go at Nige in the pub were part time Guardian Reporters and youth activists.

  24. tchannon says:

    Look in Bishop Hill comments ACO.

  25. oldbrew says:

    Science contradicting itself again? – ‘Wrecking ball Jupiter paved way for Earth’

    The claim is that Jupiter smashed up various bodies near the asteroid belt, then:
    ‘Later, a push from another massive planet, Saturn, could have taken Jupiter further out again.’

    A push? Isn’t gravity supposed to be a force of attraction only?

  26. scute1133 says:

    The Daily Mirror gets the scoop on comet 67P, in another incisive science report. Includes 8.7 km flyby by the space station, no less, to snap house-sized alien skull:

  27. oldbrew says:

    ‘The government has no convincing case for spending £50bn building the HS2 rail link between London and the North, a report by the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee says.

    The government’s main arguments in favour of HS2 – increasing railway capacity and rebalancing the economy – were still to be proven, peers said.’

  28. Ron Clutz says:

    Here is a post that may be of interest here:

    It seems that climate modelers are dealing with a quandary: How can we improve on the unsatisfactory results from climate modeling?

    Shall we:
    A.Continue tweaking models using classical maths though they depend on climate being in quasi-equilibrium; or,
    B.Start over from scratch applying non-equilibrium maths to the turbulent climate, though this branch of math is immature with limited expertise.

    Post is here:

  29. Chaeremon says:

    [Published online 25 March 2015] Saturn’s fast spin determined from its gravitational field and oblateness [method validated with Jupiter]. Access to abstract with figures:

  30. oldbrew says:

    @ Chaeremon

    If correct that would give a spin ratio of 16:17 (S:J) with Jupiter.

  31. Chaeremon says:

    @oldbrew: Yay, the Jovians in harmony (n+1):n :cool:

  32. craigm350 says:

    Oh my…

    Deadly Japan earthquake and tsunami spurred global warming, ozone loss

    the new study shows the importance of including the release of gases from natural disasters in emissions estimates. Although the global effect of one event is small — emissions associated with the Tohoku earthquake accounted for 4 percent or less of global emissions in 2011 — the cumulative effect could be larger, he said. Natural disasters accelerate the release of halocarbons and replacement of these gases could lead to the use of more halocarbons, according to the study. National halocarbon emissions estimates by the Japanese government did not factor in the release of the chemicals due to the earthquake and are likely underestimating the amount of these substances in the atmosphere, according to Saito. Governments rely on inventories of chemicals and generic data about how they are used to estimate their amounts in the atmosphere — called a “bottom-up” approach” — whereas the new study uses actual measurements of the gases — called a “top-down” approach. “It is apparent that there are unreported emissions,” Saito said.

    The new study shows that there could be a need to include the amount of halocarbons released by catastrophic events in emissions estimates, said Steve Montzka, a research chemist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in Boulder, Colorado, who was not involved in the research. It also highlights the need for more measurements of halocarbons in the atmosphere, he added, rather than relying on bottom-up emissions estimates from inventories.

    “Atmospheric scientists often say that relying solely on bottom-up inventories to tell you how greenhouse gas emissions change is like going on a diet without weighing yourself,” Montzka said.

  33. tchannon says:

    I’m up to something. After installed a DOS compiler I successfully compiled an ancient program of great interest to readers.
    Expanding slightly, the original program won’t run on later than WIN3.x but I can compile it using Lazarus, valid but hits a hard problem. So I have installed Turbo Pascal 5.5 under DOS emulation under Win 8.1 64… and it all works.
    This now looks viable for hacking the program to untangle some binary format data files, lookup tables. If I can figure this we are go for a new version.

  34. Bob Weber says:

    Sea Ice Increase. Better run it by Willis though ;)

  35. Bob Weber says:

    But not according to this

    Starting the evaluation in the tail end of SC22 skews the results. We also should take into account that SC21-22 were two of the highest cycles in modern times, after SC19, the very highest, and since we know from other studies that there is about a 12 year lag (~one cycle) the reduction in ice coverage 1994-2003 was from peak solar heating from SC22, and the more rapid supposed ice loss after 2003, the last max year of SC23, was a result of solar heating from just after that cycle max, thereafter with it’s lag. SC23 was about as energetic as SC22 because it was a longer cycle.

    Your image data posted above appears to contradict the other video’s claims that I linked.

    Solar F10.7cm flux daily averages per cycle:

    19- 139
    20- 113
    21- 135
    22- 123
    23- 122
    24- 104

  36. tchannon says:

    Bob, assuming radio-noise flux or optical sunspot count equate to terrestrial heat flux is one possibility. Other candidates exist. Naming two, magnetic field, spectral balance (EUV etc.)

  37. Bob Weber says:

    Agreed. Vuk has some good graphs on the mag field-polar temps connection, and F10.7cm radio flux is an excellent EUV proxy.

  38. Michele says:

    Volume 3, Number 1,March 2015.
    ISSN 2202-0039. Editor: Dong R. CHOI


    Giovanni P. GREGORI
    IDASC (Istituto di Acustica e Sensoristica O. M. Corbino (CNR) – Roma (Italy)
    IEVPC (International Earthquake and Volcano Prediction Center) – Orlando (Florida, USA)

  39. Michele says:

    @ Rog

    “Grazi…e” :lol:


    Solar Flare Five-Day Predictions from Quantum Detectors of Dynamical Space Fractal Flow Turbulence: GravitationalWave Diminution and Earth Climate Cooling

    Reginald T. Cahill
    School of Chemical and Physical Sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide 5001, Australia

    It is very interesting

  40. oldbrew says:

    One for stats experts to ponder:
    ‘Study finds freak frequencies from outside the Milky Way ALL form unexplained multiples of 187.5’

    Usual speculation about aliens.

    [from New Scientist]

  41. Andrew says:

    Satellite view of quasi equilibrium states in tropical convection & precipitation microphysics

  42. tchannon says:

    Request for help. Are you in France or French speaking?
    I am trying to contact Jean-Pierre Desmoulins, last seen 2007, updating this site

  43. Paul Vaughan says:

    proposed cyclostratigraphic tuneup based on AROS:
    download pdf / abstract

    (so it looks like TB & I will yet bridge the interdisciplinary communication gap on orbital LoD)

    h/t Linda Hinnov article pointing to AROS (hope everyone acted on that tip when I originally gave it because as with Sidorenkov’s book, good material vanishes…)

    [mod note] Hinnov link expired 31st March 2015

  44. Bob Weber says:

    Paul there was a big 404 just now on the download pdf link you just gave… and do you mean this book by Sidorenkov ?

  45. tchannon says:

    [moderator] Fixed the link Bob, Paul had the http drop off during composition, easy to do.

  46. Paul Vaughan says:

    Bob, Regarding Sidorenkov:

    I assigned homework on THERMAL WIND and HEAT ENGINES in Sun-Climate 101 (extended version).

    So far as I’ve been able to tell, few if any did that crucial homework.

    Fortunately Sidorenkov’s book is once again available. I strongly advise people to take a look at it now while it’s available …before it disappears again:

  47. Paul Vaughan says:


    Priority # 1 = section 8.7 (of Sidorenkov’s book)

    I’ve seen a lot of lame excuses for ignoring it. All of them suck.

    By the way I have new results that tie all of this (sunspot integral (RI); solar cycle length & deceleration (SCL & SCD)) to JEV (Jupiter-Earth-Venus).

    The Milankovitch framework applies to ALL timescales.

    Here’s what I predict (I rarely do predictions, so take note): I’ll show the new results and people will be forced to realize they weren’t able to deduce that from what I showed earlier (which gave ALL the necessary ingredients…)

    This will establish something useful….

  48. Paul Vaughan says:

    tchannon (April 2, 2015 at 4:21 am) wrote:
    “I am trying to contact Jean-Pierre Desmoulins, last seen 2007, updating this site

    The (JEV) race is on …..

  49. Bob Weber says:

    Thanks Paul.

  50. Chaeremon says:

    NASA and CO2 killers, they write [March 25, 2015] … The primary purpose of NASA’s Orbiting Carbon Observatory 2 (OCO-2), which launched in July 2014, is to monitor global carbon dioxide. But the spectrometer on OCO-2 has a secondary function: It also measures fluorescence. This means that with this one instrument, we can now see photosynthesis from space and find out how much carbon dioxide plants are removing from our atmosphere. That’s killer!

    [reply] check out the NASA blogroll list — all the usual alarmists, LOL.

  51. Doug Proctor says:

    I got this from Judith Curry’s weekly review of interesting stuff: More insight into the chicken-egg relation between CO2 and temperature during glacial cycles: [link]. Article in Nature: Causal feedbacks in climate change [link]

    The attached graph of SI, Temp, CO2 and CH4 from Antarctic ice sheets shows temp increasing BEFORE CO2 and CH4. It shows a feedback, though, so the argument is still valid that GHG cause an increase, but the data on the process should show the breakdown in initial SI and feedback from GHG.

    At any rate, it should refute Gore’s claim that CO2 increases cause the temp rise, as opposed to respond to the temp rise.


    [reply] see

  52. Paul Vaughan says:

    Doug, they’re using the same trick used at wuwt to mistreat the insolation variable. They’re thus not being physically realistic about pacing. There’s a nonlinear integral due to ice. You can’t debate this level of ignorance.

  53. Paul Vaughan says:

    Doug, note 2 of the authors. We already know in hilarious detail about Lenton’s totally unphysical way of conceptualizing ice-water relations. (Remember Livina & Lenton??? comedy show where summer swimming is physically the same as winter skating — no joke – TB ran an article where we tore this apart). Also, beware the author Sugihara, who now appears to be a sell out, pedaling mathematically beautiful methods, but applying them based on false assumptions (assumptions about the real world that fail diagnostics). That’s the dirty trick that separates activist or partisan “science” from more sensible exploration and interpretation. I’ve noticed it’s getting really bad. So bad that 80% of crap in medical journals is BS and so bad one psychology journal has banned statistical inference (confidence intervals & p-values, which are always based on model assumptions), requiring instead the more sensible option: descriptive statistics (which are NOT based on model assumptions — the difference is fundamental, even though a typical lay reader may conflate the 2 as if the same). It’s really true that Sugihara has some mathematically beautiful stuff, but this dark trick of mistreating insolation and neutron count rates (his other recently co-authored paper using same methods) is unforgivably dirty &/or ignorant. The trick they use with insolation is to use the wrong quantity. They do the same thing with neutron count rate. Instead of acknowledging the metrics that actually show coherence, they deflect attention to metrics (based on different aggregation criteria) that do NOT show coherence. This is dirty beyond dirty and patently unphysical. I cannot begin to tell you how angry this sort of trickery makes me. It’s a strictly mathematical trick designed deliberately to severely obfuscate what observations reveal about physical reality. It’s the exact same trick they use at ce & wuwt, so I’m seeing a pattern. These people are all associated with one another in a campaign somehow. It really bothers me to see that there aren’t more people realizing (at the fundamental level) what they are actually doing with the false assumptions. Wuwt & ce are clarifying that they have no integrity if they run with this stuff and especially if they put it on a pedestal. It’s a sophisticated distortion act and the fact that people aren’t able to see through it firsthand is discouragingly telling.

  54. J Martin says:

    Oldbrew, 187.5 would be more convincing as a form of ET communication if it were that combination of Jupiter and Saturn (189 ?) which could perhaps be observed from light years away in the same way that NASA spots planets orbiting other stars. Its also a shame that it comes from outside the milky way, and publishing potential ET stories on the 1st of April also doesn’t seem like a good idea. If it were an ET signal then there would need to be clear signs of encoding within the signal.

    It would be great if we were to one day find unequivocal signs of intelligent life elsewhere in the Milky Way, might help reduce some religious war tendencies here on Earth.

  55. David Blake says:

    Seasons of the sun revealed: Twisted bands of energy may be driving super storms every two years

    Scientists in Colorado have found evidence for a new solar season cycle
    Every two years it appears ‘bands’ of magnetic field move to the surface
    The sun was already known to have an 11-year solar cycle
    When the two combine it can create amplified and dangerous storms

  56. Carol says:

    I’ve come across an interesting article in the NCGT journal (geology) March 2015 which is at – click on March and trawl down to page 71-86. I would be interested what you might think. The idea is that Earth’s rotation may periodically wobble, and the spin rate change temporarily. The author, Peter M James of Tasmania, appears to provide some useful mechanism for anomalies of the past – and even as recently as a few centuries ago. These include the eclipse calculations of Eratosthenes and Hipparchus, and those of Ptolemy. Modern astronomers are perplexed at them as they do not conform with modern retro-calculations. Eclipses very often do occur on the dates claimed – but in different places where alleged. Other eclipse data is perfectly okay with modern retro-calculations which has led to the accusation that ancient astronomers were not precise enough – but Hipparchus was the most meticulous of people, and Eratosthenes was likewise famed for his prowess.
    I was at an archaeological talk the other week by Jon Cotton of London Museum who was inspired by all the rain we had in 2013 (or was it 2014) so he had a look at various excavation sites around London and found that it was something that happened very often in the past. He also found that the tidal reach of the Thames often migrated upstream. In the Late Roman period it was as far as Dorney, near Maidenhead. Currently it is at Teddington but has often been further, at Staines etc. Mesolithic people even migrated upstream of the river Colne as a result of rising river levels and a drowned floodplain. The point is that rising sea levels around the coast of Britain could account for the migrating tidal reach. For instance, the river Ouse also has a history of migrating tidal reach – and no doubt many other rivers around the country. What can cause sea levels to periodically go up and down. Well, this is also explored by Peter M James as part of his theory of periodic wobble.
    I thought this article might compliment the recent one you did on Dodwell’s curve. Dodwell would be vindicated in a way if there was a wobble – as that is what he was exploring, the idea of a diminishing wobble. Peter M James takes the idea further that wobbles occur on a lot of occasions. Presumably this would require an influence on the Moon/ Earth system, a planetary influence perhaps. The article also mentions historical rapid climate change.

    [reply] thanks for the link, definitely worth a read

  57. oldbrew says:

    ‘A second explanation – and one favoured by many modern astronomers – is that the maverick latitudes recorded by Hipparchus and Eratosthenes are the result of faulty observations.’
    – NCGT Journal, V. 3, No. 1, March 2015

    Blame the data!

  58. Anything is possible says:

    New solar paper which may well be of interest :

  59. oldmanK says:

    oldbrew’s comment above “blame the data” is food for serious thought. I recall something that Velikovsky once said, that humanity is in denial of what it experienced in the past.

    Reading the ambient temperature variations in the holocene up to Dodwell’s event, these match Dodwell’s hypothesis and also agree perfectly with the data from the ‘tree rings’ (certainly for 31xx and 23xx). The 23xx event has also been linked to the biblical flood.

    After about 2000 bce both the temp levels as well as their cyclic variations (read wobble) diminished some, and things have been relatively quiet for the past 5000 years. But now there is a distinct sharp upward trend again.

    There is an instilled religious belief of a promise that there will be no more destructive floods. Was that, after all, wishful thinking? Is vindicating Dodwell too wide a psychological divide to handle?

  60. tchannon says:

    Ukraine, what you don’t hear much
    ” The consumer price index in Ukraine rose 10.8% over a month and reached 45.8% year-on-year. Such figures were not observed in Ukraine since mid-1990s. Western experts estimated the price hike as 111% on an annualized basis. This is the second largest inflation rate across the globe. Ukraine gave the road in this underperformance rating to Venezuela alone, where the inflation indicator is 252%,” Arbuzov said.” — TASS

  61. Paul Vaughan says:


    “Warm blog in ocean linked to weird weather across US”

    wuwt calls it a “blob”

    either way it’s “warm” & it’s “in” the “ocean”

    I would say a warm blog is a better suspect for the “weird weather” symptom.
    …and why shouldn’t a blog be in the ocean? (RealClimate = drowning = true)

  62. Paul Vaughan says:

    “changes in ocean circulation in the North Atlantic linked to the closure of the Isthmus of Panama” — new deep sea evidence from Arctic Canada Basin: — see figure 4 — reminder: Bill Illis geography climate graph —- “The Lake Baikal data suggest that there is little to no time lag between the closing of the isthmus and the enhanced moisture supply to the Eurasian continent via atmospheric transport by the westerlies […]” — that quote’s from here, but I’ll be digging around for more background as it’s clear that a far superior narrative is feasible — (frankly they’ve made a fundamentally serious error, so looking at their article gives useful insight into evolution of “thinking” (if we really decide to generously call it that) that misled the mainstream off-track)

  63. Paul Vaughan says:

    Community Alert: I’ve been scrutinizing work by Mursula & colleagues on declining solar cycle easterly QBO winter NAO and I have to report something that will make Ian Wilson happy (but possibly trouble vukcevic & Corbyn).

    First a reminder: Long-run solar cycle synchronization with JEV is robust.
    Next: AGGREGATION CRITERIA — climate explorers you’re responsible for being careful with them. If you do naive aggregation as did Mursula & colleagues, you’ll get SYSTEMATICALLY CONTAMINATED statistics.

    I can show you EXACTLY how. What has been overlooked in this case is J/5 = QBO. This introduces into statistical summaries SYSTEMATIC BIAS. The long JEV cycle has period N. This cannot be sensibly ignored.

    In summary: Via inattention to J-commensurate QBO-subharmonics, Mursula and colleagues have introduced multidecadal-centennial-timescale CYCLIC CONFOUNDING.
    I suggest: A GENERALIZED approach to aggregation (solar cycle length & deceleration in the complex plane) is needed to see the attractors.

    Conservation of angular momentum is a fool’s errand. What this clarifies from a math-education perspective is that there aren’t any climate enthusiasts who know how to handle changing frequencies. Jose Rial seems to understand this.

    By the way: I now know exactly where the multidecadal-centennial SAOT (stratospheric volcanism) pattern comes from (and Ian Wilson should now be able to figure it out independently firsthand, armed with the content of this brief community alert). Confounded sampling – wow – sooo simple….
    [Edited to tone it down Paul. Don’t name people. Don’t pile it on. The bad word filter trapped it to moderation –Tim]

  64. tchannon says:

    20th March, day of the eclipse, Chilbolton Observatory data is now here and largely decoded.

    I’ll never see this again so I’d better put an article together. Probably not very interesting.

  65. Paul Vaughan says:

    “A dramatic shift toward radiogenic εNd values in the late Eocene is best explained by an influx of Pacific seawater into the Atlantic Ocean, signifying the opening of Drake Passage by 37 Ma. Increases in phytoplankton production throughout the Atlantic sector of the Southern Ocean also occur in the late Eocene, and indicate the development of upwelling cells associated with more effective latitudinal circulation. The Nd isotope data places important constraints on the timing of the opening of Drake Passage and indicates that flow through Drake Passage was established to shallow, and possibly intermediate depths, prior to large-scale development of ice sheets on Antarctica.” Illis geography climate graph

    addendum to 9pm/11th comment on QBO=J/5 (attention Ian Wilson ):
    Now we know where the multidecadal-centennial ENSO variance comes from. Let’s recall that it was Bill Illis who encouraged us to think about a “southern multidecadal oscillation” distinct from the northern one. Bob Tisdale’s Southern Ocean graphs deserve acknowledgement for helping to stimulate interest & focus. Hindsight’s 20/20. It’s not just southern. For example, as we know from our recent discussions of the North Atlantic SubPolar Gyre & Greenland ice sheets (triggered by Rahmstorf, Box, Mann, & Others’ recent paper), this is something global that simply has stronger signatures regionally. Now we know why it physically aliases N/2. (maybe Scafetta will get it too)

    This should make TB happy as it closes a longstanding cross-disciplinary communication gap originating long ago on z-axis & LOD.

    If anyone wants links to the Mursula papers that triggered me to sit down and finish figuring this out, just let me know and I’ll dig them out.

    Best Regards

  66. Paul Vaughan says:

    supplementary — (actually legible) geologic timescale graph (click to zoom in):

    Link to graph

  67. Paul Vaughan says:

    “[Edited to tone it down Paul. Don’t name people. Don’t pile it on. The bad word filter trapped it to moderation –Tim]”

    Something on which I disagree: Those 2 people need to be called out more clearly from time to time. However, it’s not unbearably unpalatable to cooperate on that.

    Here I have a little more trouble:

    Tim’s editing of the sentence referring to conservation of angular momentum is so far from what I wrote that I must ask community members to completely ignore it.

    Although they appear above under my name (April 11, 2015 at 9:00 pm), some of those are decisively not my words.

    Tim, I can certainly save you unneeded, unwelcome trouble by neutralizing the tone of my own writing.

    Proposal: Delete the edited comment and I’ll submit a tone-neutralized version of the comment …that at least won’t have compromised technical content.

  68. Paul Vaughan says:

    “Conservation of angular momentum is a fool’s errand.”

    Although edits make it appear that I wrote that above (April 11, 2015 at 9:00 pm), it’s far from what I wrote. I was making a technical point. The edit has thoroughly compromised it.

    The point was about what we know (not speculate) from the joint combination of the laws of (A) large numbers & (B) conservation of angular momentum. This is no trivial matter at which to scoff.

    We might as well roll with the opportunity created by this avoidable moderation incident.

    There’s an aggregation puzzle demanding careful attention:

    What to look for: cyclic confounding with long-run average period N/2 as solar cycle (which has variable frequency) slips relative to nearest QBO-subharmonic. (Alternatively: Chandler slip relative to nearest BDO harmonic.) This is an example of statistical paradox demanding heightened attention to aggregation criteria. I gave an algebraic proof cautioning about this sort of thing a few years ago.

    Does this mean they’re “wrong”? That’s probably not a very constructive way to question it. It might be better to simply realize that re-evaluation is advised following very specific diagnostics.

    I’m optimistic that insights into 10Be might pour out of such diagnostics if they’re done carefully.

  69. Paul Vaughan says:

    Moderator: A (neutral-tone) comment I submitted linking to the papers of Mursula & colleagues disappeared to the sin-bin. It does not show “awaiting moderation”. It disappeared completely.

    Alert: I’ve cracked NSJEV 27.0298 day solar rotation. So long Chandler wobble & 9 year phase reversal mysteries. So long SAOT tower cluster mystery. So long bidecadal & pentadecadal (52.4 year solar rotation) curiosities. All part of one simple framework. I’ll communicate the findings minimally & informally as time permits.

  70. tchannon says:

    “13 hours ago – Akismet caught this comment as spam”
    No other history note.

  71. Andrew says:

    Decadel modulation of global surface temperature by internal climate variability

  72. Paul Vaughan says:

    This new solar rotation result I have is as near a perfect planetary period match as I’ve ever seen. The error is 0.000016718%. That’s based on many decades-worth of observations. It will be humorous observing the reaction to observations that to within 0.000016718% match exactly what’s expected base on J-S & EV. The reaction I predict: ignorance.

  73. Paul Vaughan says:

    @ Andrew (April 13, 2015 at 6:21 pm)

    You see? Yet again they’re using that trick of cutting the analysis off at 1920. I have alerted the community about this many times. This is really important and brutally telling. They do this because they don’t understand PC1/EOF1 before then. It completely baffles them, so they ignore it. It contradicts their assumptions so harshly, they resort to just chopping it off and looking away. It’s not only ignorance. It’s shameful ignorance.

  74. Ron Clutz says:

    We hear a lot about CO2 as climate’s “control knob, but about the oceans’ pacemaker, AMOC? Not so much.

    The PDO entered its cooler period recently, and the current weak El Nino is evidence of this. Now the focus is on the Atlantic SSTs and what to expect from the AMO (Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation), which has peaked and is likely to trend downward. In the background is a large scale factor, the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) which is the Atlantic part of the global “conveyor belt” moving warm water from the equatorial oceans to the poles and back again.

  75. A C Osborn says:

    Anyone know what is wrong with Euan Mearns Energy matters website?
    Anyone have an email address for Euan or Roger?

  76. Ian Wilson says:

    I have suggested this before but I am doing so again because I think that it is important:

    Bovaird, T. & Lineweaver, C., ‘Exoplanet Predictions Based on the Generalised TItius-Bode Relation’ will appear in the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, and can be found on-line at

  77. Ron Clutz says:

    Okhotsk, Barents, Who Cares?

    Heraclitus (535 BC – 475 BC) famously said, “No man ever steps in the same river twice.” The same can be said for anyone sailing in these seas.

  78. Ron Clutz says:

    Here’s a post on this subject.

    The Oceans function as a Thermal Energy Flywheel

    I’m speaking metaphorically, since flywheels like the one pictured above store rotational energy,

    and thereby maintain a steady rate, resisting episodic fluctuations.

    It seems that oceans have the same effect on the climate, by storing thermal energy from the sun.

    That’s where most of the 1.9 days of accumulated solar energy is circulating.

  79. Paul Vaughan says:

    Ron, there’s one very important thing about the ocean cycles narrative that’s costing a lot of skeptics credibility (leaving them bankrupt and beaten frankly): deep ignorance of what observational records clarify about the role of wind. The thing I always find humorous is the way people implicitly insist that one of the laws of large numbers &/or conservation of angular momentum should be mysteriously violated to accommodate their narrative. Makes no sense today. Never will. Not sure what’s up, but it makes me suspicious.

  80. Paul Vaughan says: April 22, 2015 at 6:15 am

    “Ron, there’s one very important thing about the ocean cycles narrative that’s costing a lot of skeptics credibility.”

    What is that Paul that reduces credibility? This must be, this can be, this my be, I think this, beats the hell out of me, I think not, this is unlikely, this is not, this cannot be? It is inane arrogance that reduces credibility. Hey, tell me wad jew tink.!! Always increases credibility. ” Who is supposed to buy the next round?”, Is the convincer!!

  81. Paul Vaughan says:

    Will, the ocean cycles narrative is dead without wind.
    Insolation integral: Evaporation is proportional to wind speed cubed.
    Stirring: Meridional insolation gradients (the heat engine) drive poleward advection. Antarctic ice sheets are still a quarter-cycle ahead of those in Greenland. (Sidorenkov & Rial weren’t wrong.)
    You can engineer an ocean cycles religion by pushing waves of cynicism, but you don’t need a religion where simple awareness of wind will suffice.

  82. Ron Clutz says:

    Paul, just to clarify. The water wheel post is about the thermal energy storage in the oceans and it’s stabilizing effect on climate.

    [mod note] see Ron’s post here:

  83. Ron Clutz says:

    scute, thanks for the link. That is a comprehensive and exhaustive summation of reasons why skepticism about CO2-induced global warming is ethically responsible.

  84. Paul Vaughan says:

    Ron, I sincerely look forward to watching your heat content narrative evolve to duly credit wind. Your enthusiasm for climate discussion is refreshing. Some of the traditional climate blogs have soured so badly that I simply boycott commentary. There’s a need for a new kind of climate blog that’s positive about exploring the beauty of nature. The climate discussion has been killed by a handful of commentators at wuwt & ce. I was very disappointed observing the hosts of those 2 blogs simply allowing this to happen when banning or otherwise correcting only a handful of people would have prevented the wholesale deterioration of climate blogging that we presently observe. Here’s to the maintenance of hope that nature will once again regain the sober respect she deserves from man.

  85. Ron Clutz says:

    Paul, I do want to understand something of the complex ocean dynamics. Firstly, I had wanted to describe the role of oceans as a kind of flywheel stabilizing climate and temperatures. And I mentioned in passing that surface temperatures are noisy because of chaotic circulations. As you point out, there is more to it than that, and I agree. I would like to know of a model (conceptual) if such exists about the mechanisms operating at the interface between ocean and air.

    [reply] please comment on the post itself rather than here on Suggestions

  86. linneamogren says:

    Obama warned that the Everglades in Florida are in danger due to sea levels rise because of climate change. Just for the record, the sea levels in Florida have been rising since the end of the last ice age. It’s also important to understand that sea level changes ( that being rising levels ) are not uniform by any means. Often it’s regional not global. The three biggest and most imperative reasons for sea level rise is due to Thermal expansion, Physical forces (for example tectonic activity) and Ocean current variations. el Nino can cause sea level changes simply due to its massive ability to move water from one area to another.

  87. linneamogren says:


    The more things change the more they stay the same! Obama has not learned that yet, or if he did I’m sure the truth matters very little.

    Check this out!

  88. oldbrew says:

    Yes, galaxies can be moved and we’re still trying to understand the solar cycle ;-)

  89. oldbrew says:

    Warming found to be due to natural forces:
    ‘Decadal modulation of global surface temperature by internal climate variability’

    Last line of abstract:
    ‘Recent history suggests that the IPO could reverse course and lead to accelerated global warming in the coming decades.’

    This is known as Terminator theory: ‘I’ll be back’ – LOL.

  90. Sparks says:

    Here’s an Interesting link, Titan’s atmospheric relationship with solar cycles! but this could also have something to do with the timing of planetary orbital changes that occur as Jupiter passes Saturn.


    “We present Cassini Ion and Neutral Mass Spectrometer observations of Titan’s N2 and CH4 from Cassini flybys of Titan spanning the time period from 2004 to 2013 representing 9 years of in situ neutral density observations. This data reveal an upward trend in CH4 mixing ratios during the extended solar minimum encountered prior to 2011 followed by a downward trend in the mixing ratios of CH4 after the onset of solar maximum conditions in 2011. Through modeling studies using the time-dependent Titan Global Ionosphere-Thermosphere Model we show that this trend is due to enhanced photodestruction of CH4 in Titan’s thermosphere from the increased solar EUV/UV flux during solar maximum times. The enhanced photodestruction of the methane leads to an increase in production of large hydrocarbons as observed in the enhanced production of large hydrocarbon ions and a twofold increase in the downward flux of C2 and larger hydrocarbons during solar maximum. Methane in the thermosphere is resupplied through upward flux from the lower thermosphere and stratosphere resulting in a refilling of the thermospheric methane on timescales of three Earth years. From this calculation it is expected that Titan’s thermospheric methane will recover in the 2015 timeframe.”

  91. oldbrew says:

    ‘WSJ Op-Ed: The Climate-Change Religion: Obama raises alarms about global warming based on beliefs, not science’

    ‘…those who raise valid questions about the very real uncertainties surrounding the understanding of climate change have their motives attacked, reputations savaged and livelihoods threatened. This happens even though challenging prevailing beliefs through open debate and critical thinking is fundamental to the scientific process.’

  92. Ron Clutz says:

    Follow up post on water wheel energy transport by David A (not Appel) explaining it with a great metaphor here:

  93. oldbrew says:


    ‘The environmental doomsayers don’t just extrapolate blindly from current trends. They extrapolate only from the trends that fit their apocalyptic vision while ignoring trends that don’t fit’ …aka cherry-picking

  94. J Martin says:

    Rog, Chieifo has found that Britain’s membership of the EU may not be legal.

    A fair way down the page.

  95. oldbrew says:

    ‘Mechanisms for low-frequency variability of summer Arctic sea ice extent’ [abstract only]

    ‘The key players for summer Arctic sea ice extent variability at multi-decadal/centennial time scales and their contributions to the observed summer Arctic sea ice decline are not well understood. Here a multiple regression model is developed for the first time, to the author’s knowledge, to provide a framework to quantify the contributions of three key predictors (Atlantic/Pacific heat transport into the Arctic, and Arctic Dipole) to the internal low-frequency variability of Summer Arctic sea ice extent, using a 3,600-y-long control climate model simulation. The results suggest that changes in these key predictors could have contributed substantially to the observed summer Arctic sea ice decline. ‘

  96. Ron Clutz says:

    An International Temperature Data Review Project has been announced, along with a call for analyses of surface temperature records to be submitted. The project is described here:

    Here’s an overview of my submission to the Temperature Data Review Project.

    I did a study of 2013 records from the CRN top rated US surface stations. It was published Aug. 20, 2014 at No Tricks Zone. Most remarkable about these records is the extensive local climate diversity that appears when station sites are relatively free of urban heat sources. 35% (8 of 23) of the stations reported cooling over the century. Indeed, if we remove the 8 warmest records, the average rate flips from +0.16°C to -0.14°C. In order to respect the intrinsic quality of temperatures, I calculated monthly slopes for each station, and averaged them for station trends.

    Recently I updated that study with 2014 data and compared adjusted to unadjusted records. The analysis shows the effect of GHCN adjustments on each of the 23 stations in the sample. The average station was warmed by +0.58 C/Century, from +.18 to +.76, comparing adjusted to unadjusted records. 19 station records were warmed, 6 of them by more than +1 C/century. 4 stations were cooled, most of the total cooling coming at one station, Tallahassee. So for this set of stations, the chance of adjustments producing warming is 19/23 or 83%.

  97. oldbrew says:

    The book: ‘Abrupt Climate Change: Inevitable Surprises (2002)’ is available to read online.

  98. oldbrew says:

    ‘Humans should go and live in space within the next 1,000 years, or it will die out, Stephen Hawking has warned.’

    ‘Hawking issued the warning during one of two talks at the Sydney Opera House. He addressed the sold-out crowds at the venue by using holographic technology, which he used to talk from his Cambridge office.’

    Meanwhile, Miles Mathis reckons SH has been deceased for many years already (this is not a joke):

    First published April 17, 2015
    Mathis: ‘I will use simple photo analysis and facial analysis to quickly show you the current Stephen Hawking is not the same person as the original Stephen Hawking.’

    ‘This should not surprise you too much, especially if you know something about ALS. ALS is Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis, also known as Lou Gehrig’s Disease. We are told Hawking has had ALS for over 52 years, which is a record by many decades. Jason Becker is the only person I have heard of who has lived more than 20 years with the disease, so there is about a three-decade difference between the longest survivor and the second longest survivor. ‘

    He shows 2 photos side by side:
    ‘…the first picture is Hawking from the 1970’s. The second is Hawking from the 1990’s. Amazing that he aged 20 years with a debilitating disease and got younger looking at the same time, isn’t it?’

  99. Andrew says:

    Links between atmospheric CO2, the land carbon reservoir & climate over the past millennium

  100. manicbeancounter says:

    Could I put out an appeal for help. Over at my blog I have challenged a certain blogger, (who remains anonymous, whilst everyone knows who he is) to come up with some bold predictions made by climatologists that have actually come true. Now I can think of loads of examples of such predictions that have been shown to be false, but in nearly a decade of following climate blogs, cannot think of any that have been proved to be true. I am sure ATTP has risen to the challenge and is busily emailing round. But it seems a bit unsporting not to help out the underdog once in a while. All contributions gratefully received.

    This is to counter the predictive failures such as
    – The rate of melting of the polar ice caps has not accelerated.
    – The rate of sea level rise has not accelerated in the era of satellite measurements.
    – Arctic sea ice did not disappear in the summer of 2013.
    – Hurricanes did not get worse following Katrina. Instead there followed the quietest period on record.
    – Snow has not become a thing of the past in England, nor in Germany.

  101. Paul Vaughan says:

    Exactly as I’ve been advising, the rude “show me the mechanism” crowd thinks unphysically about the (a) annual cycle and (b) equator-pole heat transport:

    “We found that two key physical processes, which were often overlooked in previous process models, were actually essential for accurately describing whether sea ice loss is reversible,” said Eisenman, a professor of climate dynamics at Scripps Oceanography. “One relates to how heat moves from the tropics to the poles and the other is associated with the seasonal cycle. None of the relevant previous process modeling studies had included both of these factors, which led them to spuriously identify a tipping point that did not correspond to the real world.”

    “Our results show that the basis for a sea ice tipping point doesn’t hold up when these additional processes are considered,” said Wagner. “In other words, no tipping point is likely to devour what’s left of the Arctic summer sea ice.”

  102. Paul Vaughan says:

    ^That’s what happens when people conceptualize in anomalies rather than absolutes.^

  103. Paul Vaughan says: April 29, 2015 at 8:19 am

    “^That’s what happens when people conceptualize in anomalies rather than absolutes.^”

    Indeed, Show me the actual measurement numbers, never what you and your buddies “think the numbers may mean”.

  104. oldbrew says:

    Firefighters tackling large forest fire within 20km of Chernobyl former nuclear plant.

    ‘Interior Minister Arsen Avakov said about 400 hectares of forest was alight in the exclusion zone around the plant’

  105. Paul Vaughan says:

    Translated: One of Federov’s papers I’ve previously only seen in Russian:

    Periodic perturbations and small variations of the solar climate of the Earth

  106. scute1133 says:

    Fractal nature of sunspot activity. It may give some insight into the mechanisms that generate sunspots.

  107. oldbrew says:

    scute: looks interesting, saw it on Science Daily earlier.

    See also this recent Talkshop post: Why Phi? – ‘Fractals seen in throbs of pulsating golden stars’

    Do we have a pattern yet :-)

  108. oldbrew says:

    craigm: yes, good spot. Motls: ‘Can you imagine that the geomagnetic activity drives the climate?’

    He could well be on the right lines. It certainly isn’t ‘driven’ by a trivial amount of trace gas molecules.

    As Miles Mathis says: ‘Temperature is ultimately beyond our control. Unless we can move the Sun or Jupiter, we are out of luck.’

    Btw ~44 months is about how long a ‘typical’ solar cycle takes to peak i.e. about a third of the way through its cycle.

  109. tchannon says:

    Paul, Federov falls for Nyquist. Repeated with far better precision goes into roundoff. I wish this was not the case.

  110. craigm350 says:

    OB – ~from comments on Motls post

    One-third subharmonic resonance as a background for the 11-years solar cycle

    A. Bershadskii

    (Submitted on 26 Apr 2010 (this version), latest version 4 May 2010(v2))

    It is shown that, the wavelet regression detrended fluctuations of the monthly sunspot number for 1749-2009 years exhibit strong periodicity with a period approximately equal to 3.7 years. The wavelet regression method detrends the data from the approximately 11-years period. Therefore, it is suggested that the one-third subharmonic resonance can be considered as a background for the 11-years solar cycle. Relation of the driving period of the subharmonic resonance (3.7-years) to the active longitude flip-flop phenomenon, in which the dominant part of the sunspot activity changes the longitude every 3.7 years on average, has been briefly discussed.

    3.7 7.4 11.1 14.8 18.5 22.2 25.9 29.6 33.3* 37

    *Seen this posited as Brückner cycle when I saw it before

    Brückner interesting, had not come across before –

  111. tchannon says:

    Bruckner cycle IIRC is a strange one because it is only noticeable by omission, in no datasets. This has been remarked.

  112. oldbrew says:

    craigm: Per Strandberg @ Motls is saying 5 of the ‘wavelets’ = 1 lunar nodal cycle and claiming he is about to produce ‘explosive evidence’ re ENSO.

    Should be interesting :-)

    Cycles themselves e.g. the solar cycle are evidence of self-similarity IMO.

  113. Paul Vaughan says:

    Tim: Days of the year are not equal due to the cycling spatial configuration of circulation. Model assumptions are untenable. It’s not even as simple as being nonlinear in time. It’s spatiotemporal and it can’t be realistically modeled with time-only. The utility of Federov’s work is not what appears on the surface, but what it hints more subtly. Federov gets it wrong but teaches one important conceptual lesson. Possibly this was a deliberate educational campaign (?), stressing that days of the year are not equal. We’ll see if people are willing to acknowledge indisputable circulatory truth. ((As if!!))

  114. Andrew says:

    Very interesting post from March on the PDO state and how ENSO may develop and why. With a look back at previous ENSO cycles.

  115. tchannon says:

    Paul, if you take the sun/earth distance every day for 250 years, will that do?

  116. oldbrew says:

    Comedy corner:

    Students love a ’cause’, make perfect useful idiots for man-made climate change promoters – shame the evidence for it is so hard to find ;-)

  117. Paul Vaughan says:

    Tim, even a record of infinite length with infinite resolution will not do if the spatial configuration of large-scale circulation is falsely assumed to be uniform and unchanging during the course of the year.

    Implicit methodological assumptions that are often made unconsciously without ever being stated seem to be the ones with the highest potential to fatally derail sensible climate discussion. One of the problems I see with the climate discussion is that influential political forces strongly crave a dumbing-down of messaging, whereas the kind of discussion needed to sensibly sort out aggregation criteria is at the advanced philosophical level.

    I’m not pretending to have a solution to the social & political obstacles barring more fruitful climate discourse, but with an order-of-magnitude more time & resources I could certainly help expedite more sensible conceptualization of climate aggregation criteria.

  118. Paul Vaughan says:

    Tim, hierarchical radiative extension of existing methods to 365 parallel time series revolving on a 1470 year helix would do the trick of accounting to first order for spatial asymmetries/inhomogeneities driving nonlinearities, all other things being equal (but they’re not of course, so that could signal avenues toward more thorough exploration of phase variance).

    Whatever’s going on annually with circulation, reflection/OLR, and global hydrology it’s nonlinear (e.g. evaporation is proportional to wind-speed cubed and wind-speed varies with time of year; precipitation (snow that becomes ice) changes ice sheet orography in a feedback coupled with lapse rate; etc., etc., etc. (an exhaustive list of non-linear coupling to the annual cycle would be long, so it’s time to step back and identify the overriding generality)), so subharmonics set the return period (1470 years) for the 365 series drifting around the zodiac.

    All days are not equal; only days around the same part of the zodiac are comparable, so a nested experimental design is needed.

    I’m not sure if I’ve elaborated sufficiently to ensure clear comprehension, but I hope so.

    I’ve shown the calculation to get 1470 years previously. If anyone needs a pointer to that calculation they’re welcome to ask.

  119. tchannon says:

    There is no such thing as a subharmonic. By definition the fundamental is perfect.
    Whatever you mean it isn’t that.

    There is nothing valid in a hacked sample set that is not in the whole data but there almost certainly is fiction, aliasing.

    If you get a result, repeat the exercise at much high precision.

    As usual this is pulse code modulation, an approximation of a real world entity where the process is perfectly reversible within tightly defined limits. Get too close the limits, things bite.

    If you decimate improperly the result is wrong. Picking out every so often can only be validly done if all the adjoining data is included, the usual nyquist and shannon considerations.

  120. Paul Vaughan says:

    Days of the year are not equal. It’s a false methodological assumption made implicitly (and probably unconsciously). See the many animations listed in p.11:
    An average day in July vs. January has completely different circulatory configuration.
    If that doesn’t do it, then we have a permanent fatal miscommunication and I’m content with that.

  121. tchannon says:

    That is not the same matter.

    The days are the same, a sample period. Adding level of indirection on day does matter, not the same thing as a day period.

    I am not talking about the indirect value whatever that is, simply about the invalid treatment of a day period. Simply taking a day period in isolation from a sequence where time is running cannot be validly done without full consideration of Nyquist.

    If you want to take a particular day period within a year that has to be done from maybe a 3 year section where all days are considered by the process. This is a fact of life. There is no workaround.

    The effect of the process is decimation.

  122. oldbrew says:

    ‘The new UAH data show no warming for 219 months, and for the RSS data, it’s 220 months’

    This is what many Western leaders like to call a crisis of the highest priority, believe it or not.


    How many recent years topped 1991 for example? Not a lot.

  123. oldbrew says:

    Published on 15 Apr 2015
    Black Swan Climate Theory

    In this five part video series, Engineering Physicist Michael W. Brakey discusses the corrupt data being provided by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association in order to promote the theory of Global Warming.

    H/T Notrickszone:

  124. oldbrew says:

    Spoof corner: ‘Nation Offsets Carbon Footprint By Planting Single 300,000-Foot-Tall Tree’

  125. Andrew says:

    Modulation of Antarctic vortex composition by the QBO

  126. Paul Vaughan says:

    Is there such a thing as physical aliasing?
    For example: There’s a big difference between swimming & skating.
    Some philosophical differences are profound, but may there somehow be harmony nonetheless.

  127. Paul Vaughan says:

    Sometimes accidents are informative.
    I accidentally plotted JEV over NGRIP 10Be and as a consequence discovered slip-cycles in JEV with periods 1455, 205, 165, & 87 years. Hmm….

  128. Paul Vaughan says:

    Jupiter-Earth-Venus = JEV = 11.069 years

    beat with:
    1. Neptune nearest harmonic (15th) = 1467 years
    2. Uranus nearest harmonic (8th) = 205 years
    3. Saturn nearest harmonic (3rd) = 87 years
    4. Jupiter nearest harmonic (1st) = 165 years

    These slip cycles suggest z-axis (gas giant orbit inclination — ascending/descending node…) augmentation of JEV…

    Geometrically this is about where JEV alignments occur relative to jovian orbit planes (…and the plane of the solar system more generally).

    OK… this looks like something that demands a reordering of exploratory priorities….

    2 many coincidences….

  129. oldbrew says:

    PV: re your sun-climate-101 file (link above) under ‘Summary (Lunisolar Oscillation) — note that 64y/54 = 1.1851851 years and 64y/27 = 2.37037 years.

    Your CW and QBO figures are 1.184858913y and 2.369717826y.
    Also 64 / (64 – 54) = 6.4 years (notional beat frequency of CW and one year) and your Polar Motion envelope figure is 6.409530885y.
    We have a Talkshop 64-year planetary model here.

    One Jupiter-Neptune conjunction is 12.782792y
    Eight Venus-Earth conjunctions = 12.78986y
    Your Asymmetric interhemispheric mass-coupled heat-flow vector is 12.81906177y.
    64 / 5 = 12.8y = 6.4y x 2

  130. Paul Vaughan says:

    Yes OB I figured that out (J-N) right away when I started working on CW in November 2007. You weren’t around in the day when we discussed solar barycentric radial acceleration (which has J-N as highest-frequency component). At NASA JPL they suspect the moon as proximate pacer and shy away from commenting on more distal solar system pacing. The 6.4 stuff is ancient human knowledge (but of course there are always newcomers to introduce). Axial wobbles are on the JN (12.8) frame and differential rotation is on the other side of the coin: J+N (11.07). J & N being the fastest & slowest jovians set the limits of the solar system timing framework. The most obvious longer JEV (11.07) cycle (a strong amplitude cycle) has a period of exactly N. I don’t think the community has really woken up to that yet. Probably pointing out connections to 1470, 205, & 87 might attract curiosity. I’ve been aware of the 165 year JEV cycle since 2009, but it was only recently that I explored the broader jovian generalization. I stopped working on JEV years ago due to insufficient time & resources, but for someone not so constrained it looks like 1 very intense day’s work might be enough to solve a long-running mystery.

  131. Paul Vaughan says:

    FYI for those who have not yet worked it out independently:

    SCD (solar cycle deceleration) measures changes in differential zonal rotation (meridionally between equatorial & higher latitudes).

    Mathematically this is equivalent to frequency anomaly from the JEV ~= J+N baseline. Although it’s convenient to measure the differential temporally, it’s important to be aware that it’s also spatial, as I’ve emphasized before. It’s actually a spatiotemporal differential. SCD paces meridionally-differential stretching of zonal circulation.

    A key missing ingredient in mainstream conceptualization was not mysterious physics (although there may be some of that too, but to be clear that’s not what’s being addressed here), but rather inattention to systematically differential flow (& flux) geometry evolution that topologically defines regional anomalies from global integral.

    Mainstream sun-climate research priorities are at best ignorant and at worst deceptive.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s