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:

    Should there be suggestions 13?

  2. oldbrew says:

    Is that a suggestion?

  3. tchannon says:

    I do the rollover when it seems right so if anyone really doesn’t want 13 best say now.

  4. Andrew M. says:

    You had two months chatter on Suggestions 11 so rolling over to Suggestions 13 after just 3 days seems a bit premature.
    [mod: I was not intending to do it now, simply so I know for next time –Tim]


    Here is a suggestion for discussion.
    Tsonis et al 2014,
    Is it a fair finding or a dodgy political hit piece?

    • Only used 100 years when 163 years was available.
    • Didn’t (my assumption from abstract wording) subtract the AMO cycle before attributing temperature to CRF (or CO2 for that matter).
    • All bullet lists must have three items to seem credible.

    That’s just first impressions anyhow.

  5. tchannon says:

    Andrews, that’s a terrible ‘paper’, drivel.

    There is clear evidence of politics not so much in the paper, statistically worthless, as in it’s lack of meaningful review and the reason for that is right there provided you know what is not stated.

    I could do a job on the thing, is the worth the effort?

    ” This also happened to coincide with a period of reduced volcanic activity (a global
    cooling phenomenon).” — Lockwood talking about much the same thing not that I trust him much anyway, has previous

    I thought volcanic activity was claimed to cause cooling.

  6. Andrew says:

    Obliquity control on SH climate during the last glaciation

  7. Michele says:


  8. oldbrew says:

    Nowhere to go: German wind farms in the North are regularly switched off because there’s often nowhere for the power to go to.

  9. Paul Vaughan says:

    Community Advisory:

    Over at wuwt there’s a discussion about effective sample size, Hurst exponents, etc.
    Don’t be fooled.
    That whole treatment of the topic is philosophically corrupted by ignorance of the spatial dimensions.
    I regard that sort of distortion artistry as criminal because it fools so many innocents.
    The lukewarmist movement is out of control in its lust to distort and corrupt thinking.

  10. Paul Vaughan says:

    These “Suggestions” threads are at times for weeks-on-end the most interesting threads going on at the Talkshop, so I’ve come to view them as indispensable.

    Has anyone noticed that wuwt & ce are pushing the boundaries further and becoming even more corrupt? I attribute this (partly) to where they are in the USA election cycle.

    I would say that internationally we’re well past the date when we should fire those blogs from the international circuit. They’re too corrupted by internal US concerns to be of any utility in the broader context of international climate exploration & discovery.

    At some point I would say we need to have a serious discussion about how they can be evicted from their corrupting roles at the “center” of the climate blog network.

    I can suggest starting by asking:

    What do they offer that keeps us going back (to monitor even if we deliberately boycott commentary) even though they’re corrupt?

    The only answers I have personally:

    • They’re a source of leads (e.g. they point out new journal articles that stimulate us to explore).
    • Bill Illis comments at wuwt.

    That’s not a very long list.

    So could a better blog attract Bill Illis commentary while near-exhaustively conveying stimulating leads? It certainly sounds doable by a bright person with adequate time & resources.

    That’s my contribution to starting an overdue discussion about what to do to displace hard-core US corruption of international climate blog circuit exploration & discovery.

  11. Andrew says:

    The interaction between solar tides and gravity waves

  12. Paul Vaughan says:

    new solar-terrestrial article behind paywall:
    “To maintain the same pressure, the weak vertical temperature gradients at solar minimum must be balanced by weak density gradients and the strong temperature gradients at solar maximum must be balanced by strong density gradients to obtain the same pressure profile. Changes in the vertical density gradients are species dependent: heavy species change more and light species change less than the average density change. Hence, vertical winds act on stronger O/N2 gradients at solar maximum than they do at solar minimum, and a stronger winter-to-summer difference of O/N2 occurs at solar maximum compared with solar minimum.”

    earlier version publicly available:

    We’ve discussed Qian’s work before — recall Figure 8 illustrating solar cycling thermospheric density:

  13. oldbrew says:

    Andrew refers to a new paper: ‘The interaction between solar tides and gravity waves’

    Which gravity waves? Here it says ‘the search for gravitational waves continues’…

    ‘Will Gravitational Waves Ever Be Found?’ [Feb.2015]

  14. oldbrew says:

    More woolly fortune telling from the UK Met Office.

    ‘Work by the Met Office has calculated the odds of particular weather scenarios striking in future years.’

  15. oldbrew says:

    The cosmic start of lightning:

    ‘Even though lightning is a common phenomenon, the exact mechanism triggering a lightning discharge remains elusive. Scientists at the Dutch national research institute for mathematics CWI, the University of Groningen and the University of Brussels now published a realistic model involving large ice particles and cosmic rays.’

  16. craigm350 says:

    Scorching summers such as the one in 2003 look set to become more common in England and Wales, a study suggests.

    And devastating rains such as in Britain’s worst winter in 2013-14 may be less likely in the decades ahead.

    Work by the Met Office has calculated the odds of particular weather scenarios striking in future years.

    The computer simulations-based study, in journal Nature Climate Change, finds that milder winters and drier summers will also become more likely.

    The work draws on a major analysis, known as UKCP09, released back in 2009 which offered projections of the future British climate divided into 30-year periods.
    Some key conclusions from the study include:

    – By 2100, the chances of a summer being hotter than the one in 2003 are 89% – that’s odds of roughly 9-out-of-10
    – There is still a 35-40% chance of getting a wetter-than-average summer until 2035 but that risk falls to 20% by 2100
    – The chances of a winter with the same kind of rainfall as in 2013-14 fall to just under 10% by the end of the century. – – And the odds of a very cold winter similar to 2009-10 fall to less than 1% over the same period

    Bish –

    The paper (emphasis added)-
    Our understanding of mankind’s influence on the climate is largely based on computer simulations1, 2. Model output is typically averaged over several decades3 so that the anthropogenic climate change signal stands out from the largely unpredictable ‘noise’ of climate variability. Similar averaging periods (30-year) are used for regional climate projections4, 5, 6 to inform adaptation. According to two such projections, UKCIP02 (ref. 4) and UKCP09 (ref. 6), the UK will experience ‘hotter drier summers and warmer wetter winters’7, 8 in the future. This message is about a typical rather than any individual future season, and these projections should not be compared directly to observed weather as this neglects the sizeable contribution from year-to-year climate variability. Therefore, despite the apparent contradiction with the messages, it is a fallacy to suggest the recent cold UK winters like 2009/2010 disprove human-made climate change9
    A fallacy then to suggest summers of 2003, 2006, 2007 & 2012 or winters of 2009-11, 2013/14 prove climate change? Did anyone tell Slingo?

    [reply] ‘a study suggests’ – just the one, hmmm…

  17. oldbrew says:

    craig: as I said above (July 6, 2015 at 8:40 pm) it’s just fortune telling. As long as the MetO keep getting their palms crossed with government silver they’ll keep churning out the propaganda.

    It’s about getting people to believe – whether true or not. Fancy computers are just a fig leaf of pseudo-respectability, proven by the fact their past predictions from so-called ‘climate models’ have invariably been well wide of the mark.

  18. oldbrew says:

    UK Budget: Chancellor announces ‘Climate Change Levy exemption for renewable electricity to be removed’ [from BBC News]

    What is it? ‘The Climate Change Levy (CCL) is a tax on UK business energy use’

    Guardian whinge-machine revs up – ‘blue crap’…LOL

    Sickener for Drax biomass power company:
    ‘Responding to the decision to remove the climate change levy exemption for renewable electricity from 1 August, Drax said that profits before interest, tax and other costs would fall by £30m this year and by £60m in 2016. Chief executive Dorothy Thompson said: “We are surprised and disappointed at this retrospective change to a support regime which has been in place since 2001 specifically to encourage green energy and support renewable investment decisions.”
    The company’s shares closed down 28% in response.’ [BBC News]

  19. Andrew says:

    Looks like that blog has broken an embargo.

  20. oldbrew says:

    Ah well, there’s always this for entertainment.

  21. oldbrew says:

    Or this…

    ‘NASA worker claims there was a secret manned mission to Mars in 1979’

  22. craigm350 says:

    OB – re: July 7, 2015 at 1:39 pm

    Yep. Say the lie often enough and it becomes truth. I said before Orwell was a warning not gospel!

    Wiki Hiatus –
    you know you’re in for some fun when you see Last edited 3 days ago by William M. at the top of the page. The talk page (as with anywhere stoat infects his views) is a joy too.

  23. oldbrew says:

    craig: if there’s no hiatus there’s certainly a lot of talk about one😉

    Oh look, they found it again…

  24. wayne says:

    Where the heck is Rog? Kind of hard to have a Tallbloke’s Talkshop without a Tallbloke around!😉

    Really, hope is all ok there. Burnout from running for office or busy ramping up for the next run?

    [reply] rumour has it he’s collaborating on a new book

  25. Thoughts on the SOLAR CYCLE caused by the charge interaction of Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune and Uranus.

  26. oldbrew says:

    More dodgy alarmist claims exposed…

    ‘Study finds surprisingly high geothermal heating beneath West Antarctic Ice Sheet’

    Might explain this:

    ‘Scientists warn of “runaway” West Antarctic ice melt’

  27. oldbrew says:

    Another trick of warmist spin doctors: announce a temperature rise, then revise it downwards later when no-one is looking (or so they hope).

    ‘Cold Realities Of The DWD German Weather Service’s Warmed Up Press Releases’

  28. Paul Vaughan says:

    Community Alert:

    A recent wuwt article on Taleb’s recent article confirmed what I’ve long suspected:

    The wuwt author doesn’t even distinguish philosophically between descriptive statistics (which are NOT based on assumptions) and statistical inference (which IS based on assumptions).

    The culturally accepted practice in academia is to base statistical inference on false assumptions.

  29. Paul Vaughan says:

    wayne (July 12, 2015 at 7:19 am) asked & suggested:
    “Where the heck is Rog? Kind of hard to have a Tallbloke’s Talkshop without a Tallbloke around!”

    I’d say OB’s doing a phine job cordially running this sunfully CO2less atmosphere.

  30. Paul Vaughan says:

    Layman’s guide to recognizing statistical inference:
    when you see stuff about “p-values” & “confidence intervals”

    (You’ve never seen any of that BS from me. I stick to stats that aren’t founded on assumptions.)

  31. Andrew says:

    The recent hiatus in global warming of the land surface: scale dependent breakpoint occurrences in space and time.

  32. craigm350 says:

    David Evans discussing the recent paper on the sun going to sleep over at Jo’s (warmists have been out like flies on a hot day using the ‘solar constant’ excuse to dismiss it). A mention for PRP also.

  33. OB,
    We could use more focus on “Atmospheric convection”! You presented both “global circulation cells”, and atmospheric convection (meteorologists POV) as the same thing! From my POV they are the same. Others however, reject any form of mechanical convection, “all must be a linear function of some temperature difference”! What now? Perhaps letting the whole thing die with dignity?🙂

  34. oldbrew says:

    @ Will J

    If the thread has come to a ‘stalemate’ we could close it for comments and try something else.

  35. oldbrew says:

    New Pause-Busting Temperature Dataset Implies Only 1.5 C Climate Sensitivity
    July 14th, 2015 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

  36. oldbrew says: July 15, 2015 at 9:28 am

    “@ Will J If the thread has come to a ‘stalemate’ we could close it for comments and try something else.”

    Just look now! No stalemate, just disagreement with what words mean in different religions! Perhaps a thread on how to attempt to agree upon meaning of words rather than merely gain converts to your religion! Suggested words for dis-ambiguity:
    1)”mass/weight” in any frame of reference with gravity.
    2)”vertical/horizontal” with 2D geometry gravity.
    3)”tangential/radial” with 3D geometry gravity.
    4)”tangential/radial” with 3D rotational geometry.
    5)” both 3,4″.
    9) “temperature/(pressure/molar density)”.

    [reply] we could end up going round in circles till the end of time – see no. 10 😉

  37. Ron Clutz says:

    June 26 was the last time 2015 NH ice extent was behind 2014. It’s greater now by 580k km2.

  38. oldbrew says:

    Lubos Motl heaps scorn on a paper claiming aircraft are flying slower due to CO2 emissions, or something.

    His conclusion: ‘People who write these papers are despicable corrupt pseudo-intellectuals, stinky garbage of the Academia. The purpose of all this pseudo-scientific activity is to suggest that the effects of CO2 on our lives through the climate matters even though it demonstrably and obviously doesn’t.’ [bold added]

  39. Ron Clutz says:

    If Paris COP doesn’t pan out, climatologists may need to branch out for other research issues.
    Here are some possible topics that would employ their skills:

    [reply] cheeky😉

  40. oldbrew says:

    ‘Researchers identify zebra-like stripes of plasma in a patch of space’

    Original research: ‘Observations of discrete harmonics emerging from equatorial noise’

    ‘The observations of waves made by the Cluster Spatio-Temporal Analysis of Field Fluctuations (STAFF) instrument on 6 July 2013, between 18:40 and 18:55 UT, not only present observational evidence for their generation, but also show the most remarkable example of their banded structure ever observed in space. Despite being commonly referred to as magnetosonic noise, the emissions observed by the Clusters 3 and 4 spacecraft separated by 60 km have a remarkably clear discrete structure between the 17th and 30th harmonics of the proton gyrofrequency (Fig. 2) in the frequency range in which equatorial noise is usually observed. This previously unobserved, well organized and periodic structure provides definitive evidence that these waves are generated by protons. The exact match between the harmonics and observed emissions lines shows that these observations are made right in the wave source region.’ [bold added]

  41. Paul Vaughan says:

    OB quoted research:
    “previously unobserved, well organized and periodic structure”


    When you read that, just think of how dogmatic, vicious, aggressive, arrogant, & “certain” some LUKEWARMIST AGENTS have been that “it’s stochastic”, “it’s random”, or “it’s chaos”.

    Think for example of the many downright ridiculous discussions that went down at ce, where people actually feel sensible pretending theories of TEMPORAL chaos describe the SPATIAL structure of climate (like get a f***king clue morons territory) …and they’re actually serious (…about deceiving at least). Even Tomas Milanovic couldn’t straighten them out …and the host kept running stories on temporal chaos, so it was clear that she’s just confused — hopelessly so, with no chance of ever overcoming it.

    Something similar can be said about people going on & on about temporal Hurst in complete ignorance of the spatial dimensions. (The fact that other people regard a time-only view as realistic (like wtf??!) raises d*mning suspicions.)

    Like I’ve said all along:
    It’s about aggregation criteria. Even when the sampling resolution isn’t detailed enough, you can vary the aggregation criteria (including according exogenous factors) to explore spatiotemporal aliasing & bias.

    There are plenty of times when it’s clear that systematic striping or banding is getting aliased into records and misinterpreted as “random” or “chaotic” because the aggregations could NOT possibly produce the multivarite stats they do produce from patterns that are not simple & systematic. (An example: the relationship of long-run bidecadal oscillation (BDO) & ENSO spatial pattern.)

    Someone with a lot of free time on their hands should be able to devise rafts of formal tests for these sorts of things …but fortunately those born with the right kind of (spatiotemporal aggregation) common sense don’t have to wait for that to know instinctively that certain types of aliased patterns canNOT possibly be from a random or chaotic background. (Quite possibly the relevant theorems are already known to some and destined for independent rediscovery by many others, as math is such an extensive world that independent wheel rediscovery is normal & routine.)

    The lukewarmist agents try to break people down (with harassment & thought policing) so they’ll be so weak that they accept that all oscillations are stochastic randomness &/or temporal chaos …but the descriptive stats doN’T allow for that! (for example earth orientation parameters could not possibly be what they are) ….and nevermind the misleading inferential stats, because they’re based on layers of DREAMY assumptions.

    (Descriptive stats differ fundamentally from inferential stats: they’re not based on assumptions. This philosophical difference is overlooked by almost all climate discussion agents and not correcting this allows artificially fatal communication obstacles …which is of course what the lukewarmists aim for.)

    In Summary:
    With detailed enough sampling it becomes possible to say exactly what something is, but even with sparse sampling it’s possible to vary the aggregation criteria to prove what something is NOT — i.e. it’s possible to prove that there’s hidden structure before it’s discovered in detail. Awareness of exogenous pattern sources might help expedite aliasing & bias exploration, but it isn’t technically needed to complete the proof.

    (Caution: Oldschool approaches to spectral analysis can’t do this job. They depend on greedy sampling because they leverage only a mere single special case from an infinitely wider spectrum of aggregation criteria. This was the source of fatal misunderstandings in past climate discussions. Why people only wanted to look at a single special case of aggregation criteria??… grounds for stern suspicion for sure!!… creepy _ as _ h*ll_!)

  42. Paul Vaughan says:

    From the article to which OB linked:
    “We’re resolving this almost half-century-old problem of the origin of this equatorial noise, definitively showing that it’s not noise, but actually very structured, periodic emissions produced by proton ring distributions.”

    Sometimes you just have to laugh.

  43. Paul Vaughan says:

    Lukewarmist Agent’s definition of chaotic noise:

    …creepy as h*ll.

    What is it going to take to break free of these people?

  44. oldbrew says:

    PV: ‘for example earth orientation parameters could not possibly be what they are’

    Which parameters – precession?

    Some possibly mixed messages from this paper but looks interesting anyway.

    ‘Sun’s activity controls Greenland temperatures’ [but not the way you may think]

  45. Paul Vaughan says:

    not orbital — orientation (not the same thing)

  46. Paul Vaughan says:

    EOP = LOD, polar motion, nutation in obliquity residuals, nutation in longitude residuals
    (see especially Dickey & Keppenne NASA JPL 1997)

    brand new LOD graph just posted — thanks OB for motivating the timing (hehe!…) of this introduction:

  47. Paul Vaughan says:

    5-alarm community-wide all-party across-the-aisle left-right black-white wake up call:
    The gun is smoking and that’s a deathblow to NOAA’s ERSSTv4.

  48. oldbrew says:

    This story just won’t go away.


  49. oldbrew says:

    Lubos Motl says: ‘It’s another totally mad paper from the global warming causes everything department. These individuals claim that global warming makes airplanes slower and increases their fuel consumption.’

  50. Paul Vaughan says:

    Modelers struggle with assumptions:

    [reply] woman looks like Dame Slingo – LOL

  51. Paul Vaughan says:

    Clear-cut no-fail mission assignment for people of integrity:
    Spread the word far and wide, tolerating no denial:

  52. oldbrew says:

    ‘Solar activity was really at exceptional lows during the cold Maunder Minimum’

    Usoskin, Lockwood, Soon et al (2015).
    The Maunder minimum (1645–1715) was indeed a Grand minimum: A reassessment of multiple datasets.

  53. Paul Vaughan says:

    War & turning points in SCD…
    “Countries in Latin America by date of independence”

  54. Paul Vaughan says:

    They’re getting it wrong over at wuwt saying volcanic aerosols & climate are NOT coupled.
    Reality: They ARE coupled. They’re coupled ON THE ENSO SPATIAL MODE …so yes that IS zero sum, BUT ENSO’s a part of climate …right Bob Tisdale?? …but there’s a physicist (rgb) over at wuwt falsely asserting that ENSO’s not a part of climate. Tip from lgl:

    I always find it comical how the shiny thing (ENSO) fools everyone about what’s going on longer-term. Does rgb not know how ENSO affects the hydrologic cycle (including over continents — i.e. think SPATIAL modes, NOT JUST temporal!!)? There’s “physics” for you… (…i.e. just ignore Sidorenkov on water …and the host over there will still (somehow) think you’re an awesome physicist).

    It’s a terrible place for discussion over there. lgl: c’mon over to the talkshop and be free of the ridiculously false assumptions & thought-cops.

  55. Andrew says:

    New Scafetta paper: The Arctic & Antarctic sea ice area index records versus measured and modelled temperature data.

  56. oldbrew says:

    Identity theft: Lubos Motl names and shames John Cook of Skeptical Science.

  57. Paul Vaughan says:

    Sometimes awareness just sort of fades into focus slowly over the course of several years, starting from some kind of vague awareness & confident instinct and eventually arriving at fully conscious total crystal clarity.

    I’ve developed new methods for exploring phase synchronization. Here’s some background prep to wet the appetite:

    Alternating mutual influence of El‐Nino/Southern Oscillation and Indian monsoon

    See Figure 3.

  58. Paul Vaughan says:

    Andrew M. (June 29, 2015 at 4:02 pm) asked:
    “Here is a suggestion for discussion.
    Tsonis et al 2014,
    Is it a fair finding or a dodgy political hit piece?

    The latter (“dodgy political hit piece”).
    It uses beautiful methods, but it’s based on false assumptions.
    The authors are making it clear they’ve sold out.
    Very offensive, given the observed cyclic decadal volatility of the semi-annual equator-pole heat engine (…i.e. they’re advocating violation of laws of large numbers & conservation of angular momentum in their false assumptions).

  59. Ed says:

    Paul, I have read the “Alternating mutual influence of El‐Nino/Southern Oscillation and Indian monsoon” paper above, but find it difficult to apply the conclusions in a practical prediction.
    What is your prediction for the Indian Monsoon over the next few years, based on the current El Nino/Southern Oscillation?

  60. Paul Vaughan says:

    Ed, a clarification: I’m developing and refining a new exploratory method. The goal is not prediction.

  61. oldbrew says:

    Abstract: ‘Nonlinear characteristics of hydroclimate variability in the mid-latitude Asia over the past seven centuries’

    ‘The anti-phase relationship of the hydroclimatic variations between western and eastern modes at the interdecadal variations occurs during the periods with the enhanced El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO) variance. Similarly, the multidecadal hydroclimate variations are anti-phase when the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) is in its warm phases. The inverse relationship between western and eastern modes is stable for the centennial scale.’

  62. Paul Vaughan says:

    paywalls OB…
    …but here’s their last paper:

    Covarying hydroclimate patterns between Monsoonal Asia & North America over the past 600 years

    …so they’re rediscovering what Fletcher told us about the size & equilibration rate of the warm pool:

    Mods: I sent 3 links yesterday that vanished — (could have been a problem with the word “download” in one of the links?) The links were on synchronization exploration methodology.

  63. Andrew says:

    Per Strandberg’s latest ENSO model results

  64. craigm350 says:

    Wadham’s latest claims…

    Cambridge Professor Peter Wadhams suspects the deaths of the three scientists were more than just an ‘extraordinary’ coincidence

    A Cambridge Professor has made the astonishing claim that three scientists investigating the melting of Arctic ice may have been assassinated within the space of a few months.

    Professor Peter Wadhams said he feared being labelled a “looney” over his suspicion that the deaths of the scientists were more than just an ‘extraordinary’ coincidence.

    But he insisted the trio could have been murdered and hinted that the oil industry or else sinister government forces might be implicated.

  65. oldbrew says:

    I’m afraid some people already thought Wadhams was a bit of a ‘looney’ before his current outburst, with his over-the-top forecasts of dire Arctic melting that hasn’t happened.

  66. Paul Vaughan says:

    A more sensible agency might try something an order of magnitude more subtle & civilized like character-assassination, but given how defiantly stubborn dark American agencies are about acknowledging nature, we have ample reason to pause and wonder how extreme they may eventually go with escalating tactics if the public does not submit to sun-climate 2+2=5. I suggest we request help from Chinese superiors who may know how to nip this in the bud before it has any chance to escalate into something more ugly & nasty. The goal should be peaceful natural insight plus harmony with nature.

  67. Paul Vaughan says:

    I’ve alerted NOAA of the ethical need to retract ERSSTv4:

    I now humbly request the support of my deeply appreciated Chinese superiors.

    [reply] give us a break😉

  68. oldbrew says:

    Mad Daily Mirror journalist writes barmy headline about Piers Corbyn:

    ‘Jeremy Corbyn’s brother is climate change denying ‘mad professor’ weatherman’

  69. craigm350 says:

    OB – The Express took a similar approach yesterday –

    If I was to be kind I’d sum it up rather as Trenberth did Hansen’s latest End Times prophesy – provocative and intriguing but rife with speculation and ‘what if’ scenarios” – however when you see ‘Bob Ward, a climate change expert’…😯

    The comments there and at the Daily Mirror are quite a hoot.😀

  70. oldbrew says:

    More climate change claptrap from another barmy journalist, this time at the Irish Times.

    ‘Climate talks: Is the planet to be saved or doomed?’

    You have to wonder at this kindergarten level of reporting.

  71. oldbrew says:

    craigm350: Bob Ward is an expert and Piers Corbyn is a mad professor? No bias there then:/

    NB the Express photo caption of Piers Corbyn says: ‘UK man more successful than UK govt experts‘ above the words ‘Piers is a long range weather forecaster’.

    What is Bob Ward successful at? Hard to see what ‘a climate change expert’ would be doing at the London School of Economics😐

  72. oldbrew says:

    Climategate revisited – link to pdf with commentary on the e-mails.

  73. Andrew says:

    UV variation in solar cycles

  74. oldbrew says:

    ‘New research claims to have found evidence of long term oscillations in solar activity which span around 9,500 years and affect the climate. Solar activity levels are declining as a result of this cyclical pattern which will have a cooling impact on the Earth’s climate this century’

    Prediction: ‘In particular, the research confirms a “Grand Minimum” for the period from 2050 to 2200 as forecast in 2013 by Friedhelm Steinhilber of the Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology. This minimum will be characterised by a sustained deficit in solar warming of 0.5Wm-2, according to Sanchez-Sesma.’

  75. oldbrew says: July 29, 2015 at 2:28 pm

    “4 hours to the Moon – achievable with ‘impossible’ rocket drive that works.”

    This is the kind of over-hype that make folk reject all science. Independent of whether it works.
    Requres 120,000 MPH at the half way point, and a continuous 17 G acceleration/deceleration for all of the four hours. This is not news this is deliberate Sophistry in order to sell product!

  76. Paul Vaughan says:

    From OB’s link:

    “However scientists still have no idea how it actually works.”

    The “show me the mechanism” thought-police arrogantly believe the extent of their theoretical imagination culturally trumps direct observation. It’s creepy & also funny as h*ll when they demand that others submissively define the permissibility of existence according to the shallow limits of theoretical imagination.

    “Nasa suggested that it could have something to do with the technology manipulating subatomic particles which constantly pop in and out of existence in empty space.”

  77. oldbrew says:

    Paper: ‘Major cooling intersecting peak Eemian Interglacial warmth in northern Europe’

    Abstract [bold added]:
    ‘The degree of climate instability on the continent during the warmer-than-present Eemian Interglacial (around ca. 123 kyr ago) remains unsolved.’

  78. tchannon says:

    Ouch! Odd how due diligence turns up when something is strategic, otherwise ignored.

    “We have serious reservations about this approach and are concerned whether the investigation and engineering rigor applied will be sufficient to prevent future military launch mishaps,” the lawmakers wrote in a letter to Air Force Secretary Deborah James and NASA Administrator Charles Bolden.

  79. Paul Vaughan says:

    [reply] give us a break

    I’m sure that’s what the Americans want, but they clearly don’t deserve one in this case.
    The so-called “bias” is the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation (IPO). It’s clear-cut & simple.
    It’s a baseball bat to American glass …and the Americans pretend the glass isn’t broken. You can only take them seriously on intimidation factors. The community’s dead-cat-bounce reaction on this clarifies (unflattering) submission to American intimidation. It’s looks like some sober reflection (and a reality check) is due. The fact that every skeptic in the blogosphere isn’t screaming in piercing unison at NOAA about this raises some serious questions. Sometimes the deepest insights arising out of climate exploration are cultural …and this failure (e.g. Bob Tisdale hasn’t even reported “v4 ‘bias’ = IPO” yet) signals something quite usefully informative. Observing how long correction takes will inform further. NOAA made a severely embarrassing blunder. What interest would skeptics have in helping them hide it?? The lack of calling-them-out harshly is informative in a manner I admit I did not expect.

  80. Paul Vaughan says:

    On Jan. 2, 2015 I wrote:
    “Historically, the release of ERSSTv4 may well mark the end of worthwhile climate discussion.”

    …and it’s looking more accurate every day that v4 isn’t retracted for having “bias” “corrections” matching a natural phenomena. They’re ripping nature OUT of the data …and quite informatively we hear NOT A PEEP out of the “central” climate blogs about this. Informative indeed….

  81. Paul Vaughan says:

    After 7.5 years exploring climate & climate discussion I draw 2 conclusions:
    1. The sun controls terrestrial climate.
    2. Whether through direct or subtly indirect influence, the so-called “central” climate blogs are effectively puppets of a militant US (economic warfare?) strategy.

    Egregious US failure to promptly retract ERSSTv4 completely reoriented the way I look at deception in the climate discussion.

    The US is guaranteed to lose this particular campaign.

    One way to encourage reorientation while earning trust:
    Make generous contributions to European, Canadian, Australian, & New Zealand blogs that dare state sun-climate truth while simultaneously excluding obsessive American interference.

  82. oldbrew says:

    PV: Paul Homewood and Tony Heller have consistently attacked the data adjustments, and Bob Tisdale did so here:

  83. wayne says:

    Will Janoschka says: July 29, 2015 at 3:16 pm

    “Requres 120,000 MPH at the half way point, and a continuous 17 G acceleration/deceleration for all of the four hours.”

    [on this new EM Drive]

    Will, maybe getting a bit rusty there! I saw where you wrote 17 G… and I thought — no way, you’d be going some 4 million feet per second after two hours! What I came up with is 0.9 G for two hours then turn ship backwards and 0.9 G for two hours to slow down. But hmm, what a long shot that this effect is real when in a vacuum, probably interacting with air ions. Reminds me of Popular Science, but who knows?

    (details: 280,000 mile trip, 140,000 half way, 1 G = 32 ft/s² = 78545 mi/hr² so using s = v0 t + 1/2 a t² —> a = 2s/t² = 140,000 mi x 2 / (2 hr)² = 70,000 mi/hr² / 78545 mi/hr² = 0.89 G.)

  84. craigm350 says:

    Surprisingly no media or official fanfare about this..

    Low of 1°C recorded in southern England and min CET looks to have been set.

    Not sure where this was set or when (have enquired via MetO blog) as Bruce had the English low at 2°C in Exeter and a 0.9°C in Ferrybridge mid-Wales. July was quite contrasting

    There was this too
    The Netherlands had the coldest start to July 31st in history this morning. The minimum temperature at De Bilt measured 5.1 degrees at 5:50 this morning, beating 1961’s record of 5.9 degrees, according to Weeronline. Inland it was even colder. Deelen on the Veluwe was the coldest at 4.0 degrees.

  85. Paul Vaughan says:

    oldbrew (August 1, 2015 at 9:11 am) suggested:
    “Paul Homewood and Tony Heller have consistently attacked the data adjustments, and Bob Tisdale did so here […]”

    I haven’t seen anything substantial from any of them. They’ve completely avoided addressing the most egregious changes (most notably v4 “bias” matching IPO) …which leaves me more than suspicious about why they’re giving NOAA a pass when they could issue a deathblow. NOAA has made a very specific epic blunder of historical significance …and not a word about it from these sources …so effectively they’re running cover for NOAA by deflecting attention from a fatal flaw to myriad lesser flaws.

    If this community failure isn’t corrected, we have a serious problem. If the integrity of the climate discussion community is that low, we’re stuck facing the reality that there’s insufficient community integrity to make climate discussion a worthwhile activity. (Probably that’s exactly the outcome some antagonists desire.)

  86. Paul Vaughan says:

    Probably I should provocatively dare to be more precise in my accusation. What I’ve concluded:

    The climate skeptic community is attempting to (retroactively) shelter ERSSTv4 from a deathblow.
    The raises the intriguing question: Why?

    It suggests that the climate skeptic community depends somehow on NOAA not losing too much face.

    One possibility is that the deathblow to a key NOAA product (which has already occurred but not yet been widely acknowledged) undermines American climate power.

    I suggest that this tells us something quite important about the structure of the “central” climate skeptic community, including what it’s connected to.

  87. Paul Vaughan says:

    This comment is deliberately designed to test Bob Tisdale’s allegiance priorities:

    Since it’s such a simple, clear-cut case (subtract one column of numbers from another), we’ll learn right away whether he’s more allied to NOAA or nature.

    I’m looking forward to observing the outcome either way.

    It’s a win-win scenario. One way we put due pressure on NOAA to promptly retract corrupted ERSSTv4. Alternately we clarify the depth of corruption at the “central” climate discussion node…

    Good times & satisfyingly well-earned celebration are guaranteed either way.

  88. Richard111 says:

    Windows 10 upgrade! Seriously bad news if true!

  89. Paul Vaughan says:

    volcanic aerosols & northern hemisphere temperature for past 2500 years:

  90. oldbrew says:

    US energy policy in hot pursuit of climate hobgoblins, LOL.

    ‘Obama to unveil ‘biggest step ever’ in climate fight’

  91. Eilert says:

    Richard111 says:

    August 2, 2015 at 6:53 am

    Windows 10 upgrade! Seriously bad news if true!

    This is a misunderstanding what this feature does. By enabling this feature (off by default) you can allow some off your friends to use your WiFi as an Internet connection without giving them your password. THEY ONLY HAVE ACCESS TO THE INTERNET AND NOTHING ELSE. You are also in full control whom you allow.

  92. Richard111 says:

    Thanks Eilert. I use a WiFi hotspot at home which is limited to 5 users. Worried me as any extra users would limit MY use. Haven’t found out yet how to ban unwelcome users. I have changed admin password but that does not stop anyone using the unit password if they know it.

  93. Paul Vaughan says:

    Remarkable — every once in awhile the sun pokes through the clouds:

    “Consider: You have a lump of ice the size of Greenland and you apply a certain excess watts per meter to it. The ice will start to melt, but the temperature of the remaining ice’ and indeed the meltwater, will not change They will hang around 0°C. At the melting point of ice, the relationship between energy input and temperature rise, is completely non linear.

    Likewise at the boiling point.

    The author has also identified a localised feedback system that works within a certain temperature range in the tropics. The albedo of tropical clouds which are full on negative feedback as well – until the clouds vanish, or its totally overcast.

    At this point the cease to be feedback. They cease to govern. 100% cloud cover has the same albedo no matter how thick it is.
    Secondly, what they don’t appreciate is that negative feedback delayed in time creates instability as much as positive feedback does. Taking the author’s cruise control, if it’s slow to respond, and then over reacts, the speed will oscillate about a mean : at times it will accelerate madly, then slow dramatically as the negative feedback tries to keep things to a mean, but fails to do it fast enough. The multi decadal ocean swings noted in the earth’s climate are just this sort of effect.

    Add in some non linearity and you have a chaotic system with possibly multiple attractors. And that is precisely how the geologic climate appears to have behaved.”

    — Leo Smith (August 2, 2015 at 6:09 am)

    usurbrain (August 2, 2015 at 8:39 am) replied: “@Leo Smith SPOT ON.”

    Recognizing mathematical equivalence:
    Visual translation word count = 0

    Recall that you don’t need a conspiracy where a carrot will suffice.

    This across-the-aisle cue signals ripening receptivity to illustration at the next level.

  94. Paul Vaughan says:

    regarding volcanic aerosols graph above:
    download data (excel file): link
    Suggestion: Compare with IVI2.

  95. oldbrew says:

    ‘Research suggests western US deserts were relatively wet up until 8,200 years ago’

    What happened at that time?

    ‘Paleoclimatic records have revealed that around 8200 years ago temperatures in the North Atlantic region abruptly decreased during a period of about 300-400 years’

  96. oldbrew says:

    PV: Your views are linked here at Paul Homewood’s blog in a post called ‘NOAA Tampering Exposed’.

  97. oldbrew says:

    A look at the myths about ‘extreme weather’.

    Alarmists fail to grasp that IF the temperature difference between poles and equator reduces, standard theory says that should also REDUCE the amount of extreme weather.

  98. oldbrew says:

    ‘Marine plankton brighten clouds over Southern Ocean’

    ‘Results of the study show that averaged over a year, the increased brightness reflects about 4 watts of solar energy per square meter.’

    ‘The authors say it is likely that similar processes could occur in the Northern Hemisphere, but they would be harder to measure and may have a smaller effect since aerosol particles from other sources are so plentiful.’

    Plus there’s more land and less ocean in the NH than in the SH.

  99. Paul Vaughan says:

    Andrew: Those authors have a clue. I can’t get interested in modeling. It’s just too dry & boring. But it’s refreshing to learn that there exist modelers whose thinking is not divorced from reality. I want to encourage that so I’m going to try to force myself to look at that modeling paper more carefully when I can find a minute.

  100. oldbrew says:

    ‘Differing signs of cloud trends and differing contributions from meteorological parameters suggest that observed changes in subtropical stratocumulus since the 1980s may be due to natural variability rather than a systematic response to climate change.’

    H/T The Hockey Shtick

  101. Brian White says:

    Love to see something on clouds as areas of 2 phase fluid flow that suck air in at the bottom, process it and expel it drier at the top. The cloud is seen as an area of droplets falling through a column of rising air. Perhaps the droplets falling through the rising air are actually pumping the rising air up. I think people are seeing effect where they are actually watching the cause of the rising column. The falling droplets are sucking moist air in, drying it and expelling the dry warm air at the top. Brian.

  102. Brian White says: August 6, 2015 at 1:54 am

    Love to see something on clouds as areas of 2 phase fluid flow that suck air in at the bottom, process it and expel it drier at the top. The cloud is seen as an area of droplets falling through a column of rising air. Perhaps the droplets falling through the rising air are actually pumping the rising air up. I think people are seeing effect where they are actually watching the cause of the rising column. The falling droplets are sucking moist air in, drying it and expelling the dry warm air at the top. Brian.

    Very good conjecture of what “may be” in the self-buoyant Earth atmosphere. Do you have a method (proof) that “can” falsify your conjecture? If not you only have vast spectacular nonsense of your fantasy!

  103. Brian White says:

    I don’t have a proof yet. I did a cloud in the bottle experiment. When I squeeze the bottle, the cloud disappears. I think this means that a cloud cannot be easily “pushed” higher into the sky (by the air below it. (Because it would disappear) with the extra pressure from the push. But I think everybody accepts that the droplets are falling and the air is rising up between them. When a droplet gets to the bottom of the cloud as it falls, it warms due to compression and it evaporates, absorbs heat and rises as almost saturated water vapor laden warm light air. As it rises, it is accelerating a little, too because there is heat exchange from the falling droplets. Also, there is a difference in droplet size from top of cloud to bottom and this changes the relative speeds enormously. At the very top of the cloud there is condensation (because the water cannot exist as water vapor there anymore and heat released to the (now dry) air that is exiting the cloud. So that is my theory, the cloud exists as a self levitating pump that is sucking moist cool air in at the bottom and expelling dry warm air at the top. It is working like an air conditioner or vaguely like gel chromatography. (The one where you drip your material through the column of gel beads and it separates out the materials based on which ones can get lost and slowed down as they pass through the gel and those that go quicker because they cannot get into the gel. Maybe if you had 2 substances (one that dissolves in water and one that does not) and drop them through the cloud, you could test this. With lots of water vapor in the air, and lots of condensation nuclei, the cloud sends air skyward as part of the big Hadley circulations, but if there is not so much, it exits the cloud cool and somewhat dry and falls back down in a very local cycle, the open and closed cell cloud systems that just lift heat higher. Somewhat like a simmering kettle as opposed to a boiling kettle.

  104. oldbrew says:

    Hudson Bay Sea Ice Highest Since 1992

    ‘We are seeing one of the extremes in Hudson Bay sea ice variability this year, not only in extent but in distribution of ice. Ice coverage on Hudson Bay this year at 28 July was twice what it was in 2009, the last “late” ice breakup year for which detailed ice maps are available (409 vs. 204 thousand km2), according to NSIDC MASIE ice maps. Canadian Ice Service data show 2015 coverage for the week of 30 July was the highest since 1992.’

    Global warming ‘hiding’ again??

  105. Paul Vaughan says:

    “It is surprising how much brighter Earth is than the moon.”
    “Our planet is a truly brilliant object in dark space compared to the lunar surface.”

  106. Paul Vaughan says:

    I know some will say “it’s clouds” …but it’s asymmetry & circulation:

  107. oldbrew says:

    “It is surprising how much brighter Earth is than the moon.”

    Depends which side of the Moon you’re talking about.

    PS Dr Roy Spencer: ‘I always wanted to be bleeped on national TV.’🙂

    ‘A Real Climate Scientist Demolishes Bill Nye’s Global Warming Alarmism’

    “I’ve actually been doing climate science for the last 25 years and these guys haven’t,” Dr. Roy Spencer, a former NASA scientist who’s now a researcher at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, told Stossel.

  108. Paul Vaughan says:

    Here’s something for alarmists to sensibly get alarmed about:
    They’re suggesting USA will be destroyed by nature, with the once-mighty nation 2/3 uninhabitable and unable to produce food. It sure puts the CO2 fantasies into deluded perspective and encourages due sobriety. What does it take to cure mass delusion? This article could be pointing the way. I wouldn’t judge a person to be sensible if they didn’t take the key points in that article seriously. These are real threats and we should be appealing to intelligent people to help us prepare for the real threats we’re guaranteed to face in the future. We should stop squandering our energy on trivial quibbles that integrate to luxurious nothings. The last harsh changes in solar cycle deceleration occurred during the first 2 decades of the nineteenth century (~1800-1820). Do we know what will happen the next time there’s a harsh change in SCD? The petty arguments should stop so we can put our focus on figuring it out. We’ve squandered too much energy arguing with one another when we could have been problem-solving real problems.

  109. Paul Vaughan says:

    Something I find truly fascinating is the military opportunities that would be created by such a cataclysmic eruption. Strategists must be watering at the mouth contemplating the potential for redefinition of world control. It all depends on the where & when of the next big eruption. Do we have our contingency plans ready? To me, such discussions would be a better use of intelligent minds than the increasingly degenerate discussions we see at websites like wuwt & ce.

  110. Paul Vaughan says:

    some follow-up on the open access Wind & Sea-Ice Driven AMOC article to which Andrew linked above (August 4, 2015 at 4:43 pm):

    1. Those authors have a strong clue and we’ve already been on this topic at the Talkshop:


    3. PID = Proportional, Integral, Derivative from control theory: well, that’s (just in other words) what I’ve been saying all along. Maybe folks never checked firsthand to realize SCD can be re-expressed (via mathematical equivalence) in proportional form? Remember that SCD is just the rate of change of SCL. A nice way to express SCD is as the logarithm of proportionate change per time step. There are at least 6 other simple ways to express it …and they’re all mathematically equivalent.

    So while I prefer to summarize with 2 pictures, some might prefer the spilling of a lot of words to say the same thing …and in that case they may better understand as nicely explained by Andrew’s illuminating authors. They’re based in China, so we know they’re under infinitely less pressure to be unrealistic about the role of wind in climate. Western funding carrots promote focus on CO2. (How’s that last sentence for stating the obvious? Do I get the “stating the obvious award”?! I don’t have to ask. Of course I do.) I do hope the Russians will correlate their regional power with Chinese superiors on this file ….and how’s that for instigating! ….but I advise focus on wind and the article to which Andrew linked instead of getting sidetracked by upset with my admiration for Chinese realists. SCD = SCL’….(PID…but spatiotemporal, not just temporal)

  111. Paul Vaughan says:

    The important error to recognize in the wuwt PID article is ignorance of Joe Fletcher on the SIZE of the warm pool. That’s the sunspot integral. When David Evans starts doing his modeling regionally, that’s when he’ll realize the geography makes things fall into place… The 2 governing heat engines (semi-annual equator-pole & annual interhemispheric) combine to give 4 (2 semi-annual times 2 opposite annual equals 4) spatial modes of temporal variability. In aggregate this fits ERSSTv3b2 like a glove, which explains why they tried this mirror trick, which in multivariate space works politically convenient magic on the rotated factors. I still don’t know if they stumbled upon this brilliant mirror trick by lucky accident (many discoveries do happen that way) or by deceptive genius, but either way with the benefit of hindsight it’s the simplest way to destroy the covariance structure at a single breakpoint. I’m now leaning towards concluding that they discovered it by accident and that they still don’t understand it. I suspect they’re currently working on understanding it and I anticipate the easily predictable way they will frame an article on the subject probably next year. It will be fun ripping that article to absolute shreds. Last week I came very close to blurting out the interpretation they’ll predictably run with, but a “coincidence” (some might prefer to characterize it as an act of God) interfered and prevented such stumbling. Now I’m glad I didn’t broadcast it because that would have ruined the easy opportunity for unbiased testing of authorities.

  112. oldbrew says:

    Delingpole’s Sunday climate rant.


  113. oldbrew says:

    Iceagenow theorises: ‘El Niño activity correlates with ice ages’

    Historical records “depict increased El Niño activity during the period of the Little Ice Age (nominally 1400-1900) and decreased El Niño activity during the Medieval Warm Period (nominally 950-1250),”

    First commenter refers to this: El Niño Activity and Sea-Ice Extent in a South Pole Ice Core
    What was learned…

  114. oldbrew says:

    UK Government To Kick-Start Fracking

    ‘Local councils throughout Britain are to be told to stop dragging their feet over applications for fracking licences in an attempt to kick-start the shale gas revolution. The government will this week unveil measures to strengthen the power of ministers if they feel that a town hall is deliberately delaying a proposal.’

  115. oldbrew says:

    Another science theory – the ‘Cosmological Principle’ – crumbles in the face of new observations.

    ‘Most current models indicate that the structure of the cosmos is uniform on the largest scales. This ‘Cosmological Principle’ is backed up by observations of the early universe and its microwave background signature, seen by the WMAP and Planck satellites. Other recent results and this new discovery challenge the principle, which sets a theoretical limit of 1.2 billion light years for the largest structures. The newly discovered ring is almost five times as large.’

    Read more at:

  116. oldbrew says:

    Paul Vaughan says: ‘The last harsh changes in solar cycle deceleration occurred during the first 2 decades of the nineteenth century (~1800-1820).’

    That was the run-up to the simultaneous Jupiter-Saturn and Uranus-Neptune conjunctions of September 1821.

  117. Roger Clague says:

    I have posted a history of weighing air at “The atmosphere, why the dispute over what causes what is?”
    Please consider as a head post.

  118. Paul Vaughan says:

    More thought war from the department of commerce…

    “This El Nino is so strong a NOAA blog unofficially named it the “Bruce Lee” of El Ninos after the late movie action hero.”

    “[…] shaping up to be up there with the record-setters […] will rival ones in 1997-1998, 1982-83 and 1972-73 […] currently more powerful than 1997-98 […] the king. But that one started weaker and finished stronger”

    “Economic studies favour the hero theme, showing that El Ninos tend to benefit the United States […] U.S. economy benefited by nearly $22 billion from that 1997-98 El Nino”

    Plenty of incentive to suppress awareness of sun-climate relations (measured in $ trillions).

    Don’t be naive folks.

  119. Paul Vaughan says:

    Note the escalating level of desperation at wuwt. Tag-teaming in the same thread. They’re circling the wagons. They’ve lost control of the narrative. US department of commerce: newsflash: China owns your *ss. Ha ha ha!!!! (not) sorry about your luck!!!!

  120. oldbrew says:

    What happened after the last major El Nino in 1997-8? Eighteen years of hiatus, pause, nothing, zero trend – whatever the correct word/phrase may be.

    With the Sun well on its way to a quiet phase, and after the oceans expel large amounts of surplus energy in the new El Nino, can CO2 alone be the impetus for any further new warming in the following years? Could be an interesting test😉

  121. Paul Vaughan says:

    Good for a hearty laugh:

    “OMG… Greenland’s ice sheets are melting fast […] Oceans Melting Greenland (OMG) […] OMG, an acronym that […] “barely squeezed past the censors”.”

    Despite the comical acronym, there’s some good content and this is from the wing of NASA that actually has a clue (JPL):

    “The problem facing oceanographers and climatologists is the nature of Greenland’s intricately carved coast, which features long fjords that push, like fingers, deep into the island’s interior. […] scientists who studied three particularly important fjords found that existing maps underestimate their depths by several hundred metres. In addition they found that glaciers flowing into these fjords were also doing so to a far greater depth than had previously been estimated and could reach the warm, salty layer of water that flows up from the Atlantic. […] “With OMG, we are going to reveal the depth of those fjords,”[…]”

  122. oldbrew says:

    PV: looks like the coastline paradox.

    ‘Coastlines have a fractal structure’

    The conclusion is pre-determined of course:
    “Nasa has an extensive fleet of aircraft that we can use and this project has been created to exploit these vehicles and give us an improved picture of how ice loss will be affecting the Arctic over the next 100 years,” says Willis. “By then, of course, we expect considerable changes will be affecting the planet’s polar regions.”

    how‘ not ‘if’:/

  123. tchannon says:

    Page expiring, Suggestions 13 is open for business

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