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. Paul Vaughan says:

    “If systematic differences in phase lags were observed between SA and LOD and were accompanied by constant phase lags between CRI and LOD, this would suggest that LOD variations may be causally linked to cosmic rays. Otherwise, if phase lags between SA and LOD are similar for even and odd solar cycles, this may be more compatible with a mechanism linked to irradiance changes. Furthermore, the study of the sign and stability of the phase lag would also be extremely helpful in evaluating the possible role of solar forcing in the apparent 11-year cycle observed in the LOD record. Indeed, a systematic negative phase lag (i.e. LOD changes predating SA variations) would rule out any causal relationship between the two parameters.”

    This signals welcome evolution of thought, BUT they copied tuning errors from the 2010 article rather than correcting them.

    The authors haven’t yet developed sufficient maturity at measuring cyclic volatility.

    The consequence is that their phase estimates are (very) sloppy …and thus their interpretations and conclusions are off.

    They need to redo the analysis with substantially more care.

    In particular I suggest devotion to developing deeper intuition & understanding of how to tune the volatility rake, rather than just trying arbitrary settings (poking around in the dark) as they & the 2010 authors did.

    I wrote to one of these authors a few years ago suggesting this direction, so it’s mildly encouraging to see some perceptual growth from where they were a decade earlier …which was looking for the decadal signal in the wrong statistics — i.e. in the mean rather than the volatility.

    It’s absolutely remarkable (& quite concerning) observing how many years it’s taking for the community to wake up to the simple redistribution of zonal winds. Dickey & Keppenne first illustrated the landmark insight in 1997.

    I refined methods for measuring this 2 (?), 3 (?), or 4 (?) years ago (can’t remember exactly when), but I never did present them in public. Will I ever have the free time it would take to update the analysis and communicate the refined methods in detail? Quite possibly not, but I have deeper awareness on this file than anyone else (by quite a wide margin) and I have sufficient availability to volunteer strategic commentary.

    Cross-Section of semi-annual zonal wind redistribution:

  2. oldbrew says:

    ‘There are many ongoing signs that the planet is heating up, even “on fire.” ‘ – Kevin Trenberth

    He obviously hasn’t visited Scotland recently, or read about it.

    ‘Scotland’s poor summer: What is to blame?’

  3. Paul Vaughan says:

    Looking at OB’s link to Trenberth’s prose:

    As I’ve pointed out many times before:
    They don’t understand why PC1 doesn’t match CO2 before 1920, so they just chop that off:

    Everyone can do some clip art to see that Trenberth’s argument is based on a (NOAA) record biased precisely by the very IPO that he so eloquently writes about:

    He’s a fairly bright, very likeable character, but disappointingly he’s not being entirely honest with you. For example, he doesn’t even mention the role of the bidecadal oscillation (BDO) in “The Pause”:

  4. Paul Vaughan says:

    JPL is a very specific branch of NASA. We’ve heard a lot of climate BS from other branches of NASA, but JPL is the one agency in the USA that I regard as having a clue about climate fundamentals. Unfortunately, at times their freedom of expression appears notably suppressed, so they apparently need outside help with communications…

    New from NASA JPL on the 5.9 year oscillation:

    Measured terrestrial gravitational constant G oscillates with half Jupiter’s period:
    Андерсон, Шуберт, Тримл, & Фельдман (2015). Измерения гравитационной постоянной Ньютона и длительность дня.

    [mod] alternative link:

    Interest is strong and things are moving fast.

    For an update, see the appendix here:

    Quoting from the reference that stimulated the addendum:

    “The situation is disturbing — clearly either some strange influence is affecting most G measurements or, probably more likely, measurements of G since 1980 have unrecognized large systematic errors. The need for new measurements is clear.”

    All of these authors have overlooked something simple & important. Reminder:

    Terrestrial heat engine cyclic volatility:
    A. annual interhemispheric frequency = J-N
    B. semi-annual equator-pole frequency = J+N

    In the weeks & months ahead (it’s next-to-impossible due to paid work & other responsibilities) I aim to clarify. I’m refining methods capable of measuring solar cycle phase with high precision. This will facilitate resolution of the puzzle introduced in 1997 by Dickey & Keppenne (NASA JPL).

  5. Sparks says:

    Thought you’d like to see these numbers I’ve been working on, I haven’t done too much research on the inner solar system as I was under the impression any ‘effect’ would be too small, but after working out a way how to calculate mean anomalies through orbital subtraction I began plotting, I’m very surprised with the result..

    This is what I have so far..

    In the graph above each point is an orbital subtraction calculation of the mean anomalies of four planets Jupiter, Mars, Earth and Venus, taken on the 1st of January every two years from 1900-2012..

    The shape of the orbital subtraction points resemble the shape of the ssn record.

  6. tchannon says:

    Yes Paul the ~6 year is a candidate as real. I’ve never been confident it is more than an artefact / noise.

    The is the 3 year high, 3 year low seen so often. It isn’t exactly 6y, slightly less so given how data is preprocessed messes things up. The origin, no idea.

  7. tchannon says:

    The tantalising almost of solar things Sparks. This is probably why we are so sure there is something waiting to be figured out.

    It would be crazy if the elephant, Jupiter, a major factor in forces happens to be close periodically to solar behaviour but was just whimsical.

    My current best guess is timing a chaotic oscillator, modal shift.
    I don’t recall the detail from some what-if I did ages ago where to my surprise the signature of a type of chaotic oscillator appeared. This proves nothing, was a hint.

    Also rather plainly there is modulation signatures, never exact.

  8. Bob Weber says:

    Sparks that’s fascinating! Can you run it back to 1600?

  9. oldbrew says:

    tchannon says: ‘The is the 3 year high, 3 year low seen so often. It isn’t exactly 6y, slightly less so given how data is preprocessed messes things up. The origin, no idea.’

    A candidate: ‘One last major variation is the rotation of the long axis of the ellipse within the wobbling orbital plane. This takes 8.85 years to travel around the earth, or 6 years relative to the wobbling plane.’

    So that’s ~3 years node-to-node. TC says: ‘3 year high, 3 year low’.

    Chart – RLA = the quasi 6 year period [‘It isn’t exactly 6y, slightly less’]
    Here it’s 5.99696 years (= tropical years).

    See: Two long-term models of lunar cycles

    NB just to be clear: the figures below ‘329 RLA’ on the chart show how the number 329 is derived.

  10. oldbrew says:

    Sparks says: ‘The shape of the orbital subtraction points resemble the shape of the ssn record.’

    Which sunspot record?

  11. Sparks says:

    Bob Weber, I’m working on it now, I’d like to see that as well.

  12. Sparks says:

    Oldbrew as far as I can tell all of the ssn records!

    [reply] there are two versions of the records now – see link above

  13. Paul Vaughan says:

    OB, all of the lunar stuff is there in the high frequencies. That has long been known. (That’s uncontroversial mainstream knowledge.) The 5.9 year thing is something else. But Tim & OB the news here isn’t about LOD. We already knew about that. The news is about oscillations in the measured gravitational constant. That’s a new piece of the puzzle and I suspect that (in concert with what we already know) it may be enough to solve it… (more commentary to be strung out over the days & weeks as time for deeper exploration & evolving insight permits)…

  14. Paul Vaughan says:

    intersecting cyclic volatility…

    Terrestrial heat engine cyclic volatility:
    A. annual interhemispheric frequency = barycentric J-N
    B. semi-annual equator-pole frequency = heliocentric J+N

    (164.79132)*(11.862615) / (164.79132 – 11.862615) = 12.78279303 = J-N
    (164.79132)*(11.862615) / (164.79132 + 11.862615) = 11.06602004 = J+N
    (164.79132)*(11.862615) / ( (164.79132 + 11.862615) / 2 ) = 22.13204008

    (12.78279303)*(11.06602004) / (12.78279303 – 11.06602004) = 82.39566
    (12.78279303)*(11.06602004) / (12.78279303 + 11.06602004) = 5.9313075
    (12.78279303)*(11.06602004) / ( (12.78279303 + 11.06602004) / 2 ) = 11.862615

    1. JEV ~= J+N
    2. The long JEV cycle has a period of N.


    Potential for further exploration…
    The probability of ENSO-ISM coherence may be on this framework …and this would be little surprise given that the Findlater Jet is an interhemispheric kingpin:

    “Figure 5. Phase difference of ENSO and Monsoon (black). Grey shading marks intervals of jointly well defined phases. 1886–1908 and 1964–1980 (I): plateaus indicate phase coherence. 1908–1921, 1935–1943 and 1981–1991 (II): Monsoon oscillates with twice the phase velocity of ENSO. During these intervals, both systems exhibit distinct oscillations (NINO3 time series, upper graph). 1921–1935 and 1943–1963: phases are badly defined, both processes exhibit irregular oscillations of low variance (upper graph). Lower graph shows volcanic radiative forcing index (VRF).” — Maraun & Kurths (2005)

  15. A C Osborn says:

    Roger, Tim & OB, you will be surprised to see this thread on WUWT.
    It is a pretty good write up of the Electic Universe and it’s affects on Earth.
    Well worth a read.

  16. oldbrew says:

    ACO: see the WUWT preface – ‘Note, I don’t necessarily agree with the conclusion this publication, as it smacks of barycentrism, which I don’t give any credence to, but it does discuss some other concepts, and I thought it might make for an interesting and entertaining discussion – Anthony ‘

    I don’t know what the problem is with ‘barycentrism’ or even if it has an accepted definition, but presumably AW is referring to something to do with planetary motion.

    Don’t have time to look at the post right now, maybe tonight.

  17. Paul Vaughan says:

    That post at wuwt is a prank. Add water to the wine kind of thing. Make it all look like crazy zombie resurrection for re-kill. They’re conditioning the duller audience members to have insufficient patience to know the difference between careful serious detective work on central limits in turbulent media and wild free dreamy unrestrained celebration of imagined possibilities. The goal is to make it appear all one-and-the-same because of the political utility of an intolerant (binary) knee-jerk rejection. What they’re concerned about is duller political supporters who would talk about the stuff without any deep firsthand understanding. They worry that politically that would make them look foolish. They’re really struggling with this and they remain nowhere near a sensible approach. They’re too frustrated about it to be sensible. The host is too tired & unenlightened to walk this particular tightrope …but there’s still a role for him to play pointing to simpler newsworthy developments.

  18. Paul Vaughan says:

    Measurements of Newton’s gravitational constant and the length of day
    2015 Anderson, J.D.; Schubert, G.; Trimble, V.; & Feldman, M.R.

    Note the Appendix: In addition to the 5.9 year term there’s also an annual term.

    Did you know? Anomalously enlightened alarmists were on the file within 3 days of publication.

  19. Paul Vaughan says:

    Does everyone see what’s going on here?
    What is meant by a constant?

    We have a supposed solar “constant” oscillating with period of 11.06602004 = J+N ~= JEV and a supposed gravitational “constant” oscillating with a period of J/2 = 5.9313075.

    …So let’s explore the math and see if it suggests anything….

    (11.06602004)*(5.9313075) / (11.06602004 – 5.9313075) = 12.78279303
    (11.06602004)*(5.9313075) / (11.06602004 + 5.9313075) = 3.861546322

    (5.9313075)*(3.861546322) / (5.9313075 – 3.861546322) = 11.06602004
    (5.9313075)*(3.861546322) / (5.9313075 + 3.861546322) = 2.338850255

    (12.78279303)*(5.9313075) / (12.78279303 – 5.9313075) = 11.06602004
    (12.78279303)*(5.9313075) / (12.78279303 + 5.9313075) = 4.051419733

    (5.9313075)*(4.051419733) / (5.9313075 – 4.051419733) = 12.78279303
    (5.9313075)*(4.051419733) / (5.9313075 + 4.051419733) = 2.40717949

    (4.051419733)*(3.861546322) / (4.051419733 – 3.861546322) = 82.39566
    (4.051419733)*(3.861546322) / (4.051419733 + 3.861546322) = 1.9771025
    (4.051419733)*(3.861546322) / ( (4.051419733 + 3.861546322) / 2 ) = 3.954205

    (2.338850255)*(1.9771025) / (2.338850255 – 1.9771025) = 12.78279303
    (2.40717949)*(1.9771025) / (2.40717949 – 1.9771025) = 11.06602004

    (2.40717949)*(2.338850255) / (2.40717949 – 2.338850255) = 82.39566
    (2.40717949)*(2.338850255) / (2.40717949 + 2.338850255) = 1.1862615 a = 433.2727482 d
    (2.40717949)*(2.338850255) / ( (2.40717949 + 2.338850255) / 2 ) = 2.372523 a = 28.470276 mo

  20. oldbrew says:

    Re WUWT post: If there’s a solar cycle why shouldn’t there be other cycles? ‘Denial’ – e.g. ‘I don’t give any credence’ – is not the answer.

    5.9 year looks like 5 Chandler Wobbles = ~0.5 Jupiter orbits.
    The gravitational constant paper doesn’t mention Jupiter or CW though.

  21. oldbrew says:

    ACO (9:57 am today): Sorry, I gave up when they started talking about the cardiovascular system of rabbits:/

    Update: I persisted after all and found this – ‘In this study they were able to show that there was a statistically significant relationship between the angular positions of Jupiter and Saturn and the sunspot cycles’ variations.

    As Paul Vaughan commented recently, it’s not necessary to have an explanation for an observation to be valid.
    If it’s ‘statistically significant’ it doesn’t make sense to arm-wave it away.

    Now compare this (from the WUWT post)…
    It seems the most apparent solution the root cause of all the related observed phenomena that the solar systems changes are electronic in nature and the solar system is a vast amplifier of the potential of the intergalactic field. This results is the very small signals of the planets being able to affect enormous changes in the solar fields’ activity and also the climate of the earth.’

    …with this…
    The Sun isn’t creating an E/M field in its core or body, by some nuclear means, as the mainstream believes. The Sun is recycling a greater charge field coming in from the galactic core and the surrounding galactic field. It is taking that field in at its poles and re-emitting it nearer the equator. From there, it travels out on the Solar plane to all the planets, where it is recycled by them in turn. A sort of circuit is then created, and the charge returns from the planets back to the Sun.
    Quote from – Miles Mathis: The Cause of the Solar Cycle

    Are they not essentially reaching the same conclusion?

  22. Andrew says:

    Looks like this may get some publicity, justified or not

  23. Brett Keane says:

    Watching for many months, CO2 rise year on year below 2ppm, previous year above 2ppm. Now, July above 2ppm. El Nino effect?

  24. oldbrew says:

    ‘Damaging electric currents in space affect Earth’s equatorial region, not just the poles’

    ‘An analysis of how these equatorial responses differed throughout the day revealed they were strongest around noon and weakest at night. This daily contrast corresponds to the well-known variations in the equatorial electrojet. It’s strong evidence that the equatorial electrojet is amplifying the geomagnetically induced current activity during interplanetary shock arrivals in a way that hasn’t really been recognized until now.’

  25. Paul Vaughan says:

    “Newton’s gravitational constant, G, is one of a handful of universal constants that comprise our understanding of fundamental physical processes [1] and plays an essential role in our understanding of gravitation […] Yet, experimental determination of Newton’s gravitational
    constant remains a challenging endeavor. As reviewed in [5], several measurements over the last thirty years appear to give inconsistent values for G, of course an issue for our understanding of this universal constant. Our purpose with this letter is to inform the reader of a one-to-one correlation between an apparent temporal periodicity in measurements of G, generally thought to result from inconsistency in measurements, with recently reported oscillatory variations in measurements of LOD [6].
    Perhaps instead, the effect is connected with changing torques on the Earth’s mantle due to changing motions in the core. Changes of circulation in the core must be accompanied by changes in density variations in the core causing variations in the gravitational acceleration g in the laboratory.”

    — Anderson, Schubert, Trimble, & Feldman (2015)

    I’m exploring the observational evidence further and the emerging picture suggests gravity variations somehow being tied to the location of gas giants on the z-axis of the ecliptic. I’m checking to see how terrestrial heat engines would alias this pattern and I’m finding numbers talkshoppers will recognize (from Steinhilber+ TSI recon):

    208 (annual aliasing of ecliptic N = beat of nearest N/2 harmonic with year)
    86 (annual aliasing of ecliptic J = beat of nearest J/2 harmonic with year)
    505 & 148 (from beats of preceding)

    So this raises some interesting questions about how we interpret the role of hydrology in 10Be, isostasy, & mantle flow. There looks to be the potential for fundamental reinterpretation — possibly a real shake-up with crushed traditional assumptions.

    There are too many things fitting like a glove here.
    This warrants some very careful thought about aliasing & aggregation.

    Meanwhile I’m going to suggest that they run these G experiments daily in a lot of locations using a full variety of methods. I’ll leave it to them to figure out how to do that. I have my piece of the puzzle and they can have theirs.

    I think what it will all come down to is:
    A. false assumptions (e.g. uniformity).
    B. failure to realize & acknowledge methodological limitations (e.g. applying Fourier methods to aggregations from turbulently volatile media with naively unrealistic expectations).

    So every day it’s looking more and more like Dickey & Keppenne (NASA JPL 1997) struck gold with figures 3a & 3b. That’s where all of this line of insight originates. We’re just looking at the intersection of cyclic volatility more vigilantly cognizant of (a) aggregation criteria, (b) false traditional assumptions, & (c) methodological limitations.

  26. oldbrew says:

    PV: 86 is also about half the Uranus-Neptune synodic period of 171.4~ years. (86 x 2 = 172).

  27. oldbrew says:

    Dr Roy Spencer says in his latest post:

    ‘This is all very preliminary, and we await the CMIP5 archive coming back online again late this month so that we can analyze more models. But if this discrepancy between models and observations holds across most or all models, we might have some important insight into how the models might not be accounting for increasing precipitation efficiency during warming, and in turn why the hotspot hasn’t developed… and why global warming in general is weaker than programmed into the climate models.’

  28. Paul Vaughan says:

    Brace yourselves.
    Everything you thought you understood about solar proxies is being overturned…

    The observed cyclic volatility of terrestrial heat engines points in this simple direction:

    N = 164.79132

    ecliptic crossings:
    N/2 = 82.39566

    harmonic nearest terrestrial year:
    (82.39566) / 82 = 1.004825122

    so the same time of the terrestrial year physically aliases a cycle of length:
    (1.004825122)*(1) / (1.004825122 – 1) = 208.2486478

    J = 11.862615

    ecliptic crossings:
    J/2 = 5.9313075

    harmonic nearest terrestrial year:
    (5.9313075) / 6 = 0.98855125

    so the same time of the terrestrial year physically aliases a cycle of length:
    (1)*(0.98855125) / (1 – 0.98855125) = 86.34578011

    (208.2486478)*(86.34578011) / (208.2486478 – 86.34578011) = 147.5058978

    harmonic of 208.2486478 nearest 86.34578011:
    (208.2486478) / 2 = 104.1243239

    (104.1243239)*(86.34578011) / (104.1243239 – 86.34578011) = 505.7048583

    This means the “aliasing problem” in Abreu+ (2012) figure 5 (solar activity & planetary torque frequencies) isn’t pointing to solar activity but rather to mass redistribution on earth.

    Can you feel the gravity of that revelation??

    A lot of people just said “ouch!” if they understand deeply enough.
    Have a seat and start letting it sink in folks.

    Again: NASA JPL = the one US agency with a clue about climate fundamentals.
    Look what they started this time! The gravity experiments are revolutionary. Everything you understood about solar proxies just got overturned. There will be a lot of: “No, I refuse to believe this.”


    Ah, the inefficiency of watching people stubbornly resisting observation…
    (This is actually pretty funny.)

  29. Paul Vaughan says:

    * * * S N A P * * *

    (That was the sound of another mainstream convention breaking.)

  30. oldbrew says:

    PV says: ‘So let’s explore the math and see if it suggests anything’

    6 * 12.78279303y (J-N) = 13 * 5.89975y

    Anderson et al paper (see comment: August 17, 2015 at 7:04 pm) says:
    ‘Abstract – About a dozen measurements of Newton’s gravitational constant, G, since 1962 have yielded values that differ by far more than their reported random plus systematic errors. We find that these values for G are oscillatory in nature, with a period of P = 5.899 ± 0.062 yr

  31. tchannon says:

    After a careful look at various schemes, not in the LoD data. Shapes within longer period LoD data fit about as well, not convincing. Without a mechanism what should be included and included?

    For the inner planets the problem snaps back to maths which are beyond me, deducing the actual force vectors of a spinning, orbiting, tilting system. Quaternion maths is probably most suited.

  32. Paul Vaughan says:

    Climate is so fully & completely understood that everyone should expect a COHERENT narrative from the thought police??

    No thanks!!

    Climate exploration is about patiently piecing together a puzzle and not becoming discouraged by delays, obstacles, whatever. It’s a matter of gathering up incoherent FRAGMENTS and having the patience to piece them together over the years.

    It wouldn’t be much fun if the puzzle was pre-assembled.

    Here’s a piece for those striving to understanding that SCD is a generalized summary of ALL terrestrial beats with the solar cycle:

    “Since the phase velocity of the Rossby waves only depends on latitude, the resonance that supposes the adequacy of the frequency and the wavelength occurs at all frequencies. Otherwise, the lack of synchronization between the waves of different frequencies and forcing would inexorably lead to their destruction. This condition must be satisfied with high accuracy, which suggests that the western boundary current tends to flow more poleward when it slows down or, in contrast, deviates eastward closer to the equator when it accelerates.”

    Old news, but expressed in a different combination of words to which some may be more receptive.

  33. oldbrew says:

    PV: great link, a bit too long for a blog post but recommended reading.

  34. Paul Vaughan says:

    5.93 year signal in LOD (from Holme & de Viron):

    We’ve already been over this …including a warning about blindfolding methods based ignorantly &/or deceptively (dark either way) on false assumptions (e.g. falsely assumed spatial uniformity & symmetry at the root of temporal aggregation criteria):

    …and things have come into much clearer focus since then.

    It may have been frustrating for TB trying to get evasive managers focused on his LOD z-axis tip, but now everyone can see that time of year physically aliases Neptune to de Vries and Jupiter to Gleissberg …so this is long overdue vindication for TB and a reminder of the utility of un-thought-policed exploration in a context not looking to suppress the truth.

    Again: JPL is the one American agency with a clue about climate fundamentals.

  35. Paul Vaughan says:

    You don’t necessarily get uniformity & symmetry in turbulent media. Volatility is the norm …and Fourier can’t do volatility.

    The wuwt agents absolutely love Fourier because it’s a perfect climate blindfold.

    Have they even looked at Shaviv’s graph from years back? There’s NO evidence that they have. They’re comparing apples to oranges. They’re serving up the usual: flamboyantly verbose obfuscation art.

    If I was running a blog how much would you have to pay me to run that crap? I might run 5 such articles for 26 grand.

  36. Paul Vaughan says:

    Judging by the apparently untrusting flat response to the major annual aliasing revelation, I’m guessing we might need to look at some of the criticisms (some correct & some not) of Abreu+ (2012). The exercise might cause people to think a lot more carefully. Tomorrow maybe I’ll dig out some links. I bet people don’t even realize that TB has been vindicated.

  37. Paul Vaughan says:

    …meanwhile please have a look at Table III (includes 5.93 years) here:

  38. oldbrew says:

    PV says: ‘The wuwt agents absolutely love Fourier because it’s a perfect climate blindfold.’

    Still relying on Fourier analysis and 11-year periods here…

    ‘And finally, I hope that this puts an end to the claim that Fourier analysis can’t find solar signals because they have different periods from nine to thirteen years’

  39. Paul Vaughan says:

    Is there no limit to how far this character will twist a story?
    WE’s obfuscation is too crazy for words and going sideways instead of forward.
    NOWHERE in any of the recent flamboyantly excessively verbose artfully distorting articles have I seen ANY suggestion of awareness of Shaviv’s graph from years ago:

    So it’s an apples to oranges comparison and it’s like WTF is the character trying to do? Nothing good I’m sure at least. It’s pretty creepy when people are so clearly out to do distortion and even try to enforce belief as though intending to be an overbearingly corrupt thought police force. Zero respect for freedom and independent thinking. The attitude is just obey or be bludgeoned. It’s not clear why people would want to support that approach. The only sensible reason I can see to support that: adequate financial reward. As for whether he’ll keep avoiding the graph from years ago: we’ll see. If he does get around to addressing it it’s guaranteed we at least can predict how it will go: a flurry of flamboyantly distorting excessively verbose bluster that amounts upon distillation to what could more considerately & economically be organized into a few pithy lines.

  40. Paul Vaughan says:

    If someone sensible has a point to make about Shaviv’s graph from years ago, here’s what I would suggest to them: Try to make the point in 3 concise sentences and 1 or 2 images and don’t (this is strictly nonnegotiable) use methods based on false assumptions.

  41. Paul Vaughan says:

    FYI the method applied in the recent article is based on a false assumption.

  42. Paul Vaughan says:

    Poluianov & Usoskin (2014) point to aliasing but be aware that their annual sampling is NOT mathematically equivalent to annually averaged daily sampling. That’s why they FAILED to reproduce the 506 year spike:

    Here’s an entry point for those willing and able to take this journey towards understanding how de Vries & Gleissberg are annual terrestrial aliases of N & J ecliptic crossings:

    Scheduled: “oh dear God in heaven how on earth did we ever think these were solar proxies?!” moment.

    Left to be observed: Length & nature of stubborn cognitive delays.

    How on earth the (implicit in applied data analysis methods) idea that the year has no strong role in deposition came into widespread conventional acceptance is just a bizarre mystery. When false assumptions weasel their way into the base of blindly ignorant cultural acceptance, we get monstrous obstacles to stubbornly delayed correction.

  43. Ron Clutz says:

    Regarding Arctic sea ice extent, soon to be a hot topic in the media:

    The human race, as well as the biosphere, benefits from more open water in the Arctic, not less. It’s time to remove the warmist blinders on this issue.

  44. Andrew says:

    Bi-decadal solar influence on climate, mediated by near tropopause ozone

  45. Paul Vaughan says:

    Confirmation: I’ve verified what I wrote here & there about 86, 104, 148, 208, & 506 years. The framework is determined by cycles in the time of year when Jupiter & Neptune cross the ecliptic.

  46. Paul Vaughan says:

    Mathematically equivalent:

    11.862615 / 2 = 5.9313075
    6 – 5.9313075 = 0.0686925
    1 / 0.0686925 = 14.55763002
    14.55763002 * 5.9313075 = 86.34578011

    164.79132 / 2 = 82.39566
    82.39566 – 82 = 0.39566
    1 / 0.39566 = 2.527422534
    2.527422534 * 82.39566 = 208.2486478

    With the benefit of hindsight, Abreu+’s (2012) aliasing was a physically illuminating accident.

  47. oldbrew says:

    PV: I feel a Jupiter-Neptune ‘Why Phi?’ post coming on😉
    I’ve had the numbers for a while – it will only be a few lines, agrees with your calcs.

  48. Paul Vaughan says:

    Decadal Zonal Wind Redistribution by the semi-annual equator-pole Solar Heat Engine Volatility Cycle:

    a) cosmic ray flux
    b) neutron count rates
    c) Jupiter+Neptune (J+N) axial cycle
    d) Jupiter-Earth Venus (JEV) cycle

    multivariate attractor identified via laws of:
    A. large numbers
    B. conservation of angular momentum

  49. Paul Vaughan says:

    208 OB — that’s how we know for sure

  50. oldbrew says:

    Lubos Motls ponders what you can buy for $1.5 trillion these days…e.g 20 bailouts for Greece😐

    ‘Applied climate hysteria became a $1.5 trillion-a-year industry
    What we’re buying and what we could buy’

  51. oldbrew says:

    ‘SOLAR VARIABILITY: climatic change resulting from changes in the amount of solar energy reaching the upper atmosphere.’

    ‘Satellite observations indicate that during 11-yr cycle sunspot minimum, solar irradiance is lower (0.1%), interplanetary magnetic field weaker (Radick,1990; Wang et al., 1996; Willson, & Hudson 1988; Willson, et al. 1985)’

    ‘Solar irradiance (Earth temperature) lower during long-term (200, 80 yr) sunspot minima and magnetic field weaker so more 14C produced’

  52. oldbrew says:

    ‘Solar physicists have captured the first direct observational signatures of resonant absorption, thought to play an important role in solving the “coronal heating problem” which has defied explanation for over 70 years.’

    Read more at:

    Science Daily reports it as:
    ‘Mystery of coronal heating problem: Magnetically driven resonance helps heat sun’s atmosphere’

    ‘This new information can help explain how the solar corona reaches temperatures of 1,000,000 degrees Celsius; the so called “coronal heating problem.” ‘

    Related: ‘NASA Telescope Reveals ‘Magnetic Braids’ in Sun’s Atmosphere’ (2013)

  53. Paul Vaughan says:

    One of 3 staple tricks used by WE & LS at WUWT is to FALSELY ASSUME UNIFORMITY.

    We see WE doing it again in a recent post about being “wrong again again”. He certainly is that. Bill Illis is the only sensible commentator at wuwt and wuwt’s lucky he still graces the place despite it’s shameless distortion artistry. Bill Illis made a sensible comment pointing out the following:

    And what kind of moronic distortion artistry did we see in WE’s response?

    WE insisted that no, no, no the globe is uniform. For dumb readers who are gullible enough to eat up any bullsh*t, he clarified that sea is just sea and land is just land and there’s NO spatial variation, proving once again how rude AW is for constantly exposing observers to such “thinking” (& accompanying militant “thought” policing) that’s totally & completely divorced from reality.

    Bill Illis towers over these inferiors who have either ZERO spatial clue &/or intent to deliberately deceive.

    Honestly I think the average reader over there is stupid enough to believe the crap.

    They’re not even bright enough to spot the implicit false assumption of no land spatial heterogeneity & no ocean spatial heterogeneity (systematic or otherwise).

    Once again it’s another ridiculously wrong display over there …from the same character (WE) who illustriously presumed that maximum insolation at the equator occurs in June (!!) …and has never appeared to even realize that “idea” was wrong.

    Why Watts keeps putting such clownery on a pedestal?… i could only do it for money.

  54. Andrew says:

    Chandler wobble parameters from SLR & GRACE

    [note] select ‘click for preview’ to see the introduction:

  55. oldbrew says:

    Climate Crisis, Inc. : $1.5 trillion and Larry Bell book explain how profiteers of climate doom keep the money flowing – By Paul Driessen

  56. Paul Vaughan says:

    Does anyone know why Bob Tisdale has been reduced to writing sideways & backward (definitely not moving forward with understanding of reality) articles about climate model output?? Climate model output is garbage. Why so much interest in studying garbage? What could cause me to spend a LOT of time shining a bright spotlight on garbage?… only really good pay.

    In the good old days people used to explore real data. Now we have to be subjected to an uninteresting series devoted to pointless exploration of artificial landscapes?? Seems a pretty lukewarmist type of strategy to me — immerse gullible people in the world of climate model output so it takes on a life in their minds? — maybe even eclipses their focus on reality?

    The devotion to artificial landscapes is creepy. Nature is real, beautiful, and worthy of attention …even worthy of obsession. Climate models are more of a mannequin: cold, unwelcoming, inanimate (!). Exploring their curves as wuwt suggests?… An obvious “no thanks”. My suggestion for sensible people is don’t encourage that sort of behavior by watching.

  57. Paul Vaughan says:

    Multiday thermospheric density oscillations associated with variations in solar radiation and geomagnetic activity

  58. Paul Vaughan says:

    Is thermospheric global cooling caused by gravity waves?

    “The time scales of the long-term trend and its decadal fluctuations are characteristic of the ocean, not the atmosphere. We suggest that the following scenario may explain these behaviors: (a) the climate regime shift of 1976–1977 launched slow Rossby waves across the oceans which continue to propagate to this day, (b) winds over this increasingly corrugated ocean have launched increasing fluxes of gravity waves into the atmosphere, and (c) these increasing fluxes of gravity waves have propagated to the thermosphere to produce increasing amounts of cooling.”

    Remember: The narrative being promoted at wuwt demands a spatial uniformity assumption of gullible, all-too-willing audience members.

    Tip: Wind blows away the naive narrative. Spatial uniformity of wind, evaporation, & precipitation over the whole surface of the earth?? I mean come on (!) as if!!!! What’s up with these people (?) …no one knows. (I could only do a spatial uniformity assumption for really good pay. I mean what would be the value of writing off my integrity like that?… so it would have to be really, really good pay to make it worthwhile.)

    “winds over this increasingly corrugated ocean”

  59. Paul Vaughan says:

    Quotes from the paper I just linked to:

    “In light of this stark factor-of-20 disagreement between theory and observation, processes other than CO2 cooling have been sought to explain the observations.”

    “We believe that the magnitude of the thermospheric temperature decline has been so great that the CO2 theory of its cooling cannot be maintained.”

    Remember: Decadal zonal wind redistribution is precisely coherent with decadal thermospheric density variations.

    Sensible people work patiently putting the puzzle pieces together rather than submissively subscribe to a militantly thought-policed narrative based on false assumptions that fail careful diagnostics.

  60. Paul Vaughan says:

    electron density spatial pattern related to zonal wind:

    Magnetic declination and zonal wind effects on longitudinal differences of ionospheric electron density at midlatitudes

    “[…] clear seasonal and solar activity dependencies […]
    The observed zonal wind climatology is found to be perfectly consistent with the expectation based on the east-west electron density differences in terms of local time, seasonal, and solar cycle dependencies. The correlation between the zonal wind and the east-west differential ratio is extremely high with an overall correlation coefficient of 0.93.
    […] zones of enhanced density for given local times in the evening may be observed in the east coasts of both the US and China.”

    Reminder: Temperature gradients are steep over winter northern hemisphere east coasts (cold over land, warm over ocean) …and zonal wind is driven by those gradients.

  61. oldbrew says:

    10 billion+ barrels of shale oil confirmed in southern UK, no fracking required to get at it.

    ‘The company early this year said the reserves at Horse Hill are in shale beds that are fractured naturally, meaning extraction may be carried out using conventional techniques.’

  62. Sparks says:

    Here’s an update of the graph I posted above as suggested by Bob Weber

    I’ve posted a comment about it and link to the spread sheet on E.M.Smith’s site here

  63. Ron Clutz says:

    Shocking news from the Arctic: Water extent today in the Arctic nearly matches 2014 at annual ice minimum.

  64. Bob Weber says:

    Sparks I’m just about speechless…. there are some interesting aspects to your plot. It appears that when your index has declined over several cycles, and after it reached a minimum, the next one or two solar cycles were low, such as preceding the Maunder, Gleissberg,and Dalton minimums. However, using that pattern, it doesn’t now indicate that the next several cycles will be low, as other scientists have determined. Are they wrong, or is there maybe more to your index than a simple subtraction – just musing here – or a combination? Thank you for your effort.

  65. Sparks says:

    @Bob Weber, It seems that when the ellipse of these planetary orbits align at their apogee the solar cycles slow down and produce less sunspots, that’s a clear indication of an interaction between the rotation of the sun’s polar field and the planets, the low points between 1780-1790 are 0.1 – 0.5 of a degree from being a large spike on solar cycle 10, it’s very interesting how the shapes of the orbits proceed and change with the shape of solar cycles, this is only one half of the pattern, the other half is the orbits of the outer planets (shown below) which I’ve been working on merging both to get the full picture of what’s going on, this is how I came up with the ‘orbital subtraction’ it is the only way it can be done. I’ve produced a forecast of the outer planets and it does decline to the lowest point at 2055 which is just a few degrees above the points at 1890.

    Someone on twitter suggested that I remove Mars from the above graph out of interest to see if it’s a better fit as an ‘EVJ’ plot, I’ll post the results here when it’s complete, if it’s okay with the Moderators.

    Btw It’s interesting how the last solar cycles on new sunspot numbers diverge so much.

  66. Paul Vaughan says:

    Time to roll up the sleeves and do some hard, heavy hitting…

    Now that I actually have a few spare minutes, I’ll fill in a bit of the picture of what I was driving at above.

    Important Reminder:

    Now here are a few more quotes from Dwyer+ (2012) to wet cleansed conceptual appetite:

    “Effective heat capacity of the surface is a function of both the material properties and dynamical behavior of the layer adjacent to the atmosphere. We refer to it as effective since it is neither the intensive heat capacity (per unit mass) of some material substance nor the extensive heat capacity of a fixed mass of that substance. Rather, it is the heat capacity of the layer of material through which heat is transported sufficiently rapidly that it is influenced by the atmosphere on time scales of interest. The ocean mixed layer has a relatively large heat capacity because turbulent mixing transports heat downward so that a thick layer of water is rapidly influenced by surface fluxes. […] Temperature has a much faster and stronger response to insolation over land than over ocean because only a very thin layer of the land responds on annual time scales since the primary soil heat transfer process is diffusion with a small diffusivity.”

    “Evidence is provided that the changes are mainly driven by sea ice loss: as sea ice melts […] the previously unexposed open ocean increases the effective heat capacity of the surface layer, slowing and damping the temperature response. From the tropics to the midlatitudes, changes in phase and amplitude are smaller and less spatially uniform than near the poles but are still prevalent in the models. These regions experience a small phase delay but an amplitude increase of the surface temperature cycle, a combination that is inconsistent with changes to the effective heat capacity of the system. The authors propose that changes in this region are controlled by changes in surface heat fluxes.”

    Remember that the Stine & Huybers (2012) paper identified NAM, NPI, & ENSO as factors in the observed phase response. Well here’s an observation-based tip (offered yet again):

    ENSO & other interannual variations collectively are just the (spatially far from uniform) phase error in terrestrial response to the solar cycle (yes I illustrated that years ago constraining aggregation criteria via laws of large numbers & conservation of angular momentum) …but I don’t think the lesson sunk in for anyone …yet ….soon to be corrected we can hope)…

    ….so the important lesson here is that you CAN’T IGNORE THE SPATIAL DIMENSIONS BY FALSELY ASSUMING UNIFORMITY …unless of course or perhaps if your aim is to divorce your narrative from reality for devilishly nefarious purposes… (now who would do something like that on purpose? …or by clumsy accident??…)

    Here’s Bill Illis’ comment and the misleading response to it which alerted me to the responsibility to help promptly guide due correction:

    This is taking forever. We’ll all be old &/or dead before people clue in, with all the unhelpfully-derailing distortion artistry fooling any bright (but busy) people well off-track in the neverending maze of distracting commentary.

    Earth’s fluid media aren’t sitting still and they aren’t spatially uniform. Why don’t more people BLUNTLY call others out for basing political narratives on ridiculously false assumptions? That’s what I’m wondering today… (often the learning is about human nature, not just climate …here to explore both…)

  67. oldbrew says:

    pv: re ‘the previously unexposed open ocean increases the effective heat capacity of the surface layer, slowing and damping the temperature response.’

    At high latitudes there is more reflection than absorption. Are they taking this sufficiently into account?

  68. Paul Vaughan says:

    ob, they’re not limiting their considerations to insolation in a static uniform (unreal) context. Quite the contrary (!), they are realistically acknowledging the role of wind & advection.

    …and if you give the matter some thought, you’ll realize the ocean isn’t being mixed very deeply when the wind is blowing over ice! Air-sea interactions in the North Atlantic are a function of solar cycle length:

    All the arguments one sees based on radiation in a static uniform context are inconsistent with observations because the real context is neither static nor uniform. The standard obfuscation tactic is to never state the (implicit) static uniform assumption. It’s a sleazy tactic that gains a lot of traction wherever naivety’s plentiful.

    Constraining aggregation with the laws of large numbers & conservation of angular momentum, ENSO’s the phase error.

  69. Scute says:

    Here’s The Independent’s take on 2015 being the hottest year. It’s so shrill, it’s nauseating:
    I sense Paris Panic. It doesn’t matter what comes of these exaggerated claims when they pack their bags and fly home- just so long as they are true for the duration of the conference. It’s akin to creative accounting to boost end-of-year profits before the accounting date.

  70. Paul Vaughan says:

    Folks, responsibility calls. It’s time to demand a high-office resignation at NOAA:

    If we have a shred of integrity, we can’t delay any longer.

  71. Paul Vaughan says:

    “A large, warm blob of water in the Pacific Ocean is thought to be one of the causes behind a toxic algae bloom […] from California to Alaska […] massive ribbon of brown algae […] commonly known as a red tide – first appeared in May and has been growing ever since, outlasting the typical lifespan of an algal bloom, which usually lasts a few weeks. The ribbon was an estimated 60 kilometres wide and as deep as 200 metres in early August […] “The extent of this bloom is unusual, and how long it’s lasted […]”

    Experts say they’re unsure at this point whether the blob and the algae are symptoms of global warming, or merely part of a cyclical process. Whatever the reason, this algal bloom has lasted much longer than most, and it will likely take cooling fall temperatures and a few ocean storms to break up the ribbon.”

    The stagnant high finally got dislodged after a record fire season.
    2 jet streams merged today and 117km/h winds threw trees everywhere.

    It’s not anthropogenic global warming.
    It’s just the IPO …which should be a clue to well-informed parties about why NOAA is so intensely interested (see the article).

  72. Paul Vaughan says: August 30, 2015 at 12:49 am

    “Folks, responsibility calls. It’s time to demand a high-office resignation at NOAA:
    If we have a shred of integrity, we can’t delay any longer.”

    I commiserate with your intent. Your action would be correct if mistakes or limited to NOAA. These are deliberate demands at the highest level of government, not some bureaucracy. What now? Where to start? This crap goes back to mid 1960s!

  73. Paul Vaughan says:

    Will, nevermind “comisery”. Just do the subtraction (simply one column from another in a spreadsheet) and start laughing out loud at how ridiculous this is, whether formally acknowledged by “authorities” today or not.

    Once people appreciate the humor in this firsthand, it will take care of itself …perhaps quietly from inside NOAA, where the goofballs who made this thoroughly embarrassing mess may get sidelined in the chain of influence.

    Have you done the simple subtraction yet? If not, that’s the first step. There’s no substitute for direct firsthand clear awareness.

  74. Paul Vaughan says:

    ERSSTv4 “bias” “correction” (really a systematic distortion of natural IPO) 101


    Reproduce this:

    That’s figure 5 from here:

    The way you get that is simply ICOADS v2.5 SST minus HadNMAT2,
    both of which can be effortlessly obtained here:

    Then just flip at ~1940 (to expose NOAA’s strategic mirror trick) as I’ve illustrated here:

    To make the decadal IPO check easy for others,
    I illustrated with the annual average of the UK Met Office’s Table 1 here:

    – – – – –

    The whole assignment should take no more than 2 minutes.
    Everyone can do it because it’s so simple …and that’s what makes this such a richly informative test.

    Anyone not immediately convinced by their own firsthand look into this is suspect.
    It’s a clean, simple test with no ambiguity whatsoever.

    NOAA has (accidentally or deliberately?) supplied a clean failsafe 100% unambiguous test of online climate discussion commentator integrity …& kindergarten-level computational competence!

    Every climate discussion enthusiast should have this assignment completed in 2 minutes.
    The next task will be to document related attempts at obfuscation, which will expose allegiances, some of which may provide new information on community structure. In this particular case I expect we’ll gain new info on previously hidden or obscure ties.

    The most damning thing of all will be silence, because this case is so clear cut & simple that silence will informatively expose a deliberate blind eye. Silence on this file clarifies loyalty to NOAA’s IPO distortion …and then we can start probing and speculating as to why.

    v4 IPO distortion is being used to obfuscate sun-climate relations that were clear in v3b2.

    Something to keep vigilantly in mind: IPO is a primary determinant of precipitation cycles (& intense water politics) in California …so keep a vigilant eye on any silence &/or distortion from California (& Oregon) climate discussion agents …who are already suspect on other grounds, including militant sun-climate thought policing. Assignment#1 above IN NO WAY WHATSOEVER depends on solar data, so this is a high utility ambiguity-free special test of the integrity of these people. We’re already learning something just from the delayed response to the historic NOAA slip that can be conclusively verified in a 2 minute sitting by all fair, competent judges.

    The v4 slip-up is providing a bounty of useful info about online climate discussion community structure, including conflicting allegiances which are being exposed clearly.

    The way I think this whole thing will shake down:
    2 categories:
    1. bold American distortion agents
    2. timid people elsewhere totally confused about what to do with or about the American distortion agency — wanting to correct it, but scared to stand against a valued powerful leading ally

    We’ll find out who’s ethical and who’s so spinelessly submissive that they agree that 2+2=5.
    Useful info either way.

    The only outcome that can verify integrity:
    prompt retraction of v4

    All other outcomes just help map the distribution, linkages, & nature of distortion agency.

  75. Andrew says:


  76. …and so far all signals are that I’m on the bull’s eye with this suspicion. How many days before we conclude we’ve witnessed an informatively turned blind eye? Not many more.

    Indeed Paul,
    Definitive evidence of widespread intentional crimes against humanity!

    Earthlings are bad enough for husbandry, cultivating, other critters, so you can eat them. No other top predator ever does that. The current crop of idiots wish to eat each other. This must STOP!

  77. Paul Vaughan says:

    Will, in order to be a part of the solution rather than part of the problem in this simple clear-cut case I can suggest down to earth focus on what’s within easy local control:

    Have you done the simple calculations (subtract one column of numbers from another)?
    [link to cookbook recipe]

  78. oldbrew says:

    NASA turns to iodine propellant.

    IN IODINE WE THRUST – ‘Iodine electric thrusters enable resilient, responsive spacecraft’

    ‘Electric Hall thruster propulsion with Iodine propellant is a storable, low-cost, rapid-response solution delivering high-thrust, high-efficiency performance on-orbit. Iodine propellant is stored in a dense form at ambient pressure and temperature eliminating the need, cost, and safety concerns with pressurized toxic propellants.’

    ‘Individual atoms of propellant exit the thruster at thousands of miles per hour, pushing the satellite in the opposite direction, exactly as taught by Newton’s 3rd Law of Motion.’

  79. tchannon says:

    Is that a tautology?

  80. Paul Vaughan says: August 31, 2015 at 4:28 pm

    “Will, in order to be a part of the solution rather than part of the problem in this simple clear-cut case I can suggest down to earth focus on what’s within easy local control:
    Have you done the simple calculations (subtract one column of numbers from another)?
    [link to cookbook recipe]”

    I have you done the simple calculations! Your conclusion is without error!!!. Intentional FRAUD! How is this some “what’s within easy local control:”? Am I to go beat my neighbour severely about the head and shoulders because I are also pissed? Such is likely to result in myself being quite klit!! What is your point?

  81. Paul Vaughan says:

    Will Janoschka (September 1, 2015 at 2:00 am) wrote:
    “I have you done the simple calculations! Your conclusion is without error!!!”

    Good work Will.
    Now it’s up to others to do the same.

  82. oldbrew says:

    tc: yes. ‘A thruster is a propulsive device’ – Wikipedia

  83. oldbrew says:

    You need publicity stunts to try and get the public to take climate fantasies seriously these days.

    ‘Barack Obama to get survival tips from Bear Grylls, combat climate change in Alaska’

    ‘Obama goes on climate tour in Alaska, gets called massive hypocrite’

    For a laugh: ‘6 glorious things we’ll probably see on Obama’s ‘Running Wild’ episode’


  84. Scute says:

    Just when we thought we’d debunked the rumour about an asteroid impacting the Earth this month, a real impact risk comes to light. But it’s in 2081! It’s at 1 on the Torino scale, which is fairly unusual and it may go to 0 because it’s early days as far as observation arc is concerned. But it seems it will come close. It seems comparable to Apophis in size. Link is to a very reliable Italian astronomy blog. Should auto translate.

  85. J Martin says:

    An energy supplier is bringing DCHP central heating boilers to the UK market. Worth paying for ?

    I haven’t enquired about the boiler, but I have switched my gas and electricity to them as that will reduce my bills by a remarkable 20%. About the amount wholesale energy prices have fallen, whereas the big 6 have only reduced prices by about 5%

  86. tallbloke says:

    JM: Intriguing. I wonder just what the turbine tech is.

  87. tallbloke says:

    Hi Michele,
    I found your comment in the spam bin after I asked you to repost – Sorry.

  88. Michele says:

    No problem Rog, many link….

  89. tallbloke says:

    JM: Look at the last figure at the bottom of
    They’ve phase shifted the sine wave. Why?

  90. Paul Vaughan says:

    J Martin (September 6, 2015 at 9:25 pm) asked (about de Vries 208 +):
    “Is figure 4 a valid statistical technique ? Anyone know ? Does it have any predictive quality ?”

    As an exploratory exercise lot’s of approaches throw informative light from different angles …but I wouldn’t be willing to trust the assumptions upon which predictions are based.

    Btw I’m serious about the comment I made here …which was more more vaguely introduced earlier when I had insufficient time to elaborate with derivations.

    I know that’s not going to go down well because people will instinctively be really hardwired to resist something so fundamental (“I absolutely refuse to believe I could have been so extraordinarily wrong” sort of instinct).

    …but that’s where the observations point so I suggest not being afraid to look.

  91. Scute says:

    Richard Betts slams Emma Thompson on Twitter and in a blog post at his HELIX website. Picked up by David Rose of the Daily Mail here:

    He called her a scaremonger on Twitter. She responded by questioning his sanity.

  92. tallbloke says:

    Alarmists of varying degrees of alarm having hissy fits with each other. Amusing.

  93. Paul Vaughan says:

    “A set of 13 measurements of G exhibit a 5.9-year periodic oscillation (solid curve) that closely matches the 5.9-year oscillation in LOD measurements (dashed curve). The two outliers are a 2014 quantum measurement and a 1996 measurement known to suffer from drift. The green dot is an estimate of the mean value of G after the 5.9-year periodicity is removed. Credit: J. D. Anderson, et al.”

    “One of the 13 measurements of G used in this analysis is the first-ever quantum measurement, called LENS-14, performed in 2014. The G value obtained by the quantum measurement is the larger of two outliers in the data, with the other outlier being a 1996 experiment that is known to have problems. Further quantum measurements of G are needed to understand why the quantum measurement deviates from the classical measurements.”

  94. tchannon says:

    Open access with registration

    Solar extreme ultraviolet variability of the quiet Sun
    F. Shakeri , L. Teriaca , and S. K. Solanki

    Received 27 June 2014 / Accepted 12 July 2015
    The last solar minimum has been unusually quiet compared to the previous minima (since space-based radiometric measurements are available). The Sun’s magnetic flux was substantially lower during this minimum. Some studies also show that the total solar irradiance during the minimum after cycle 23 may have dropped below the values known from the two minima prior to that. For chromospheric and coronal radiation, the situation is less clear-cut. The Sun’s 10.7cm flux shows a decrease of ∼4% during the solar
    minimum in 2008 compared to the previous minimum, but Ca ii K does not. Here we consider additional wavelengths in the extreme ultraviolet (EUV), specifically transitions of He i at 584.3Å and O v at 629.7Å, of which the CDS spectrometer aboard SOHO has been taking regular scans along thesolar central meridian since 1996. Weanalysed thisunique dataset to verifyif and how theradiance distribution undergoes measurable variations between cycle minima. To achieve this aim we determined the radiance distribution of quiet areas around the Sun centre. Concentrating on the last two solar minima, we found out that there is very little variation in the radiance distribution of the chromospheric spectral line He i between these minima. The same analysis shows a modest, although significant, 4% variation in the radiance distribution of the TR spectral line O v . These results are comparable to those obtained by
    earlier studies employing other spectral features, and they confirm that chromospheric indices display a small variation, whereas in the transition region a more significant reduction of the brighter features is visible.

  95. Paul Vaughan says: September 8, 2015 at 6:46 am in

    “Will, there appears to be some misunderstanding.
    Have a look over here — and if you have time, connect a series of dots:
    I’ll watch for any commentary anyone has over there”

    You asked about the cyclic variation of G or g on the atmosphere and convection.
    As far as I can tell there is “nothing” on your kind of time frame and your kind of cyclic variances.
    Gravity affects the lapse rate and that may change by a few percent over your 5.9 year cycle.
    no one would notice! An effect on atmospheric activity due to influx of high energy anything may be a different story. Atmospheric operation is a very stable and overall well damped control system. You push it one way it corrects. Dump gobs of particulates (smog) it cools, folk bitch. Clean up the smog it warms, folk bitch. Cut back on power generation (efficiency) it cools, folk bitch, others say it is still warming! Build Wind farms, parts get dry, other parts get wet, folk bitch. Hell I say, let the next earth top predator (virus) worry ’bout it! What was your question?

  96. Sparks says:

    Orbital Difference/Change between Earth-Jupiter-Venus-Mars-Uranus-Neptune.

    If you look at this graph, it shows changes in the above planetary orbits, notice the almost straight up and down wide swings during the maunder minimum and two very distinctive almost sawtooth cycles, this is not a coincidence or a random chance, the planets seem to have balanced each other out during 1630 and 1730 and has had an effect on the suns polar field, slowing down it’s reversal and producing very few sunspots…

  97. Andrew says:

    The latitude structure of recent changes in the boreal Brewer-Dobson circulation

  98. Paul Vaughan says:

    Very well Will let’s dumb this right down to whatever moronic level is needed to cut through the devilish sophistry:

    …starting with:

    Do you deeply understand firsthand how I have EXACTLY derived the panel b (lower panel) spikes of Abreu+ (2012) FROM THEORY?

    Other Talkshop readers may recall that there was a LOT of interest in that paper when it first came out.

    Did readers know?
    NASA JPL suspects a G/LOD connection with flyby anomalies.

    Abreu+ (2012) did something wrong …but this is one of those cases where an accident leads to new insight.

    This is about the asymtotic statistics of aggregated turbulence and the FALSE conventional modeling assumptions it PROVES via laws of large numbers & conservation of angular momentum. When it comes to the clarity afforded by earth rotation the mainstream can run but cannot hide.

  99. J Martin says:

    LOD changes are measurements of the change in time for the Earth to complete one revolution. Gravity in Australia is lower than gravity in the UK and so Australians live longer than the English. Are we actually measuring changes in the spin of planet Earth or are we measuring changes in time itself ?

  100. Paul Vaughan says: September 8, 2015 at 7:06 pm

    “Very well Will let’s dumb this right down to whatever moronic level is needed to cut through the devilish sophistry: …starting with: Do you deeply understand firsthand how I have EXACTLY derived the panel b (lower panel) spikes of Abreu+ (2012) FROM THEORY?”

    No! I do not have that kind of insight. I commented that I could find no error in your analysis.

    “Other Talkshop readers may recall that there was a LOT of interest in that paper when it first came out. Did readers know? NASA JPL suspects a G/LOD connection with flyby anomalies.
    Abreu+ (2012) did something wrong …but this is one of those cases where an accident leads to new insight. This is about the asymtotic statistics of aggregated turbulence and the FALSE conventional modeling assumptions it PROVES via laws of large numbers & conservation of angular momentum. When it comes to the clarity afforded by earth rotation the mainstream can run but cannot hide.”

    OK. I have been tied up in the errors of understanding atmosphere, any atmosphere, especially a troposphere, Gt 20 kPa. If your findings in your studies, indicate some more than trivial change in how this atmosphere should function, perhaps a shift in angular momentum of the atmosphere, please describe just what I should be able to find in the atmosphere. This atmosphere adapts on a day to day basis.
    All the best! -will-

  101. Paul Vaughan says:

    Will Janoschka wrote: “This atmosphere adapts on a day to day basis.”

    that doesn’t change the integral
    a proof’s a proof

  102. Paul Vaughan says:

    ok so let’s try this another way:

    “Abreu et al calculate the torque on a daily basis, but perform the spectral analysis on annually averaged data. This will cause aliasing of the sub-annual torque frequencies […]”

    …and that’s exactly the point.

    That’s the fortuitous accident that now accounts for resolution of the longstanding de Vries puzzle.

    The year = a big deal.
    *Such* a big deal it turns out that it affects the hydrological cycle
    (who in their right minds would have thought??)

    So we live on an asymmetric planet and so the annual interhemispheric heat engine via water’s fascinating nonlinearities physically aliases annual solar system anomalies into 10Be deposition.

    The hard part of this pill to swallow (for some) is that it means 10Be isn’t a proxy for solar activity.
    For interpreting observations sensibly I will no doubt be accused of blasphemy. At the very least this is going to be interesting. I expect that the first reaction will be that people who don’t know any better will just assume I’m wrong and/or just trying to be provocative to get across some other linked point.

    I suggest initially nevermind all of that and just focus first on understanding why the calculations I’ve outlined are a derivation of Abreu’s panel b. People need to at least get that far in order to prove they’re willing to acknowledge a mathematical proof. That would establish the prerequisite level of basic trust needed to support evolution of discussion to include interpretations.

  103. Paul Vaughan says:

    J Martin raising the stakes with some laudable philosophical provocation:
    “LOD changes are measurements of the change in time for the Earth to complete one revolution. Gravity in Australia is lower than gravity in the UK and so Australians live longer than the English. Are we actually measuring changes in the spin of planet Earth or are we measuring changes in time itself ?”

    perhaps the most intriguing of all unsolved puzzles in math & physics?
    the stats of turbulence

    “One of the topological features of the sheaf of differentiable functions on a differentiable manifold is that it admits partitions of unity.”

  104. Paul Vaughan says: September 9, 2015 at 5:22 am
    (Will Janoschka wrote: “This atmosphere adapts on a day to day basis.”)

    “heh that doesn’t change the integral a proof’s a proof”

    Wadaminnit, dammit, wadaminnit, What integral? What proof? Of what?

    Baby steps, please, I could find no error does not mean that I have understanding of your work. Just means I could find no place where you put PI on top rather in the bottom, for example! You write of hydrological cycle. The atmosphere adapts to those changes. Can the stable process be overwhelmed somehow?, certainly! much is unknown. Give me a clue please?

    Paul Vaughan says: September 9, 2015 at 5:53 am

    “Abreu et al calculate the torque on a daily basis, but perform the spectral analysis on annually averaged data. This will cause aliasing of the sub-annual torque frequencies […]”

    “EXACTLY!! …and that’s exactly the point.”

    In that paper is the statement:
    @”Because torque diminishes with the cube of distance this second argument of McCracken et al contradicts the first as Neptune and Uranus are so remote from the Sun they apply very little torque compared with Jupiter and Venus.”@

    That is true for planetary rotational angular momentum. It is the completely inverse, complex conjugate for planetary orbital angular momentum, torque. Huge big lever!! Pluto may be relevant.

    That’s the fortuitous accident that now accounts for resolution of the longstanding de Vries puzzle.

    “The year = a big deal. *Such* a big deal it turns out that it affects the hydrological cycle
    (who in their right minds would have thought??)”

    Some of us are quite pleased to be far, far away from the 97% right minds!🙂 Canyou state the change in hydrological cycle that you envision please.

    “I suggest initially nevermind all of that and just focus first on understanding why the calculations I’ve outlined are a derivation of Abreu’s panel b. People need to at least get that far in order to prove they’re willing to acknowledge a mathematical proof.”

    OK! it would be nice to understand what ‘it is’ that you are trying for, or have, a mathematical proof.
    I am sure “IT” is etched in the inside of your eyelids. Pray tell, What is “IT”?
    All the best! -will-

  105. Paul Vaughan says: September 9, 2015 at 6:40 am

    “One of the topological features of the sheaf of differentiable functions on a differentiable manifold is that it admits partitions of unity.”

    Seems a lot like continuum mechanics in fluid dynamics. No idea of applicability to a universe!😉

  106. Roger,
    Good fix fie the Singer thing!
    Please fix the spelling for the Anastasia Makarieva thread but not in the title!
    Dr. Makarieva’s prenom ist Anastassia! Sorry for including all Europe!

  107. Paul Vaughan says:

    Will, go through the calculations for panel b and tell me when you understand them. Otherwise I’m terminating this exchange.

  108. Andrew says:

    Murdoch buys National Geographic

  109. Paul Vaughan says: September 9, 2015 at 7:17 pm

    “Will, go through the calculations for panel b and tell me when you understand them. Otherwise I’m terminating this exchange.”

    I have written several times that I do not understand them. Please terminate away unless you are willing to explain (in detail) “the calculations” and what they may mean, to someone besides yourself.
    A ll the best! -will-

  110. Paul Vaughan says:

    Hopelessly poorly-informed commentary at wuwt & ce today about this:

    Sea-level fluctuations show ocean circulation controls Atlantic multidecadal variability

    Watts & Curry are so far beyond write-offs now that I must suggest that the international climate skeptic community should feel deeply ashamed for not being a whole lot more assertively harsh in sternly correcting them. The correction is now ridiculously overdue.

    Declaring the online climate discussion community permanently & fatally corrupt beyond any possibility of correction appears to be the front-running alternative and I can’t see any need to delay much longer in making that now long overdue call.

  111. Paul Vaughan says:

    Update — hurricanes & solar activity:
    graph of multidecadal Atlantic ACE (Accumulated Cyclone Energy) & sunspot streak deceleration:

    That’s using annual sunspot numbers, classifying (binary yes or no) whether sunspot number is over 40, and then measuring the streak deceleration. Dead simple.

  112. Paul Vaughan says:

    What I find comical is that so-called “hurricane experts” think they’re hurricane experts.

  113. Paul Vaughan says:

    In case it’s not obvious, the streaks over and under 40 sunspots alternate with the solar cycle, so streak-cycle length is primarily determined by solar cycle length …and the rate of change of cycle length is deceleration.

    This is really, really simple stuff.

  114. Paul Vaughan says: September 13, 2015 at 8:09 am

    “What I find comical is that so-called “hurricane experts” think they’re hurricane experts.”

    With no intent to harass you, and so much un-understanding of ‘your’ good concepts, I find the careful expression of this ‘is’ from the Anastassia Makarieva: ‘Empirical evidence for the condensational energy theory of hurricanes!’, quite similar to earthling (“much to be pondered”) by sitting in/on own stool. i.e. earthlings suffocating in own farts, except for the ‘all’ of what actually ‘is’!
    If any can understand this, please quickly place name on ballot! then quickly explain all your political BS!, before being critically pierced by many, many serf, carefully honed pitchfork s/i! -will-

  115. Paul Vaughan says: September 14, 2015 at 6:46 am

    ‘In case it’s not obvious, the streaks over and under 40 sunspots alternate with the solar cycle, so streak-cycle length is primarily determined by solar cycle length …and the rate of change of cycle length is deceleration.This is really, really simple stuff.’

    Only for GODS! Paul! Tis some deceleration of Godliness?
    All the rest of us , ’tis stumble upon tines of rake, get slapped in face by handle of said rake. Then scream AW SHIT, then stumble more. Absolutely nothing at all is “primarily determined” by solar cycle length … Most all is determined by AW shits per interval! This is what “determines solar cycle length. Capice!! -will-

  116. oldbrew says:

    Pierre Gosselin: ‘Climate Ambulance Chasers Without Borders! Every Location Now Designated The Climate “Ground Zero”

    Another meaningless alarmist buzz phrase gets exposed.

  117. tchannon says:

    Don’t let the zero grind you down. Illegitimi non carbonitti

  118. Andrew says:

    Two contributors to glacial CO2 decline

  119. oldbrew says:

    This paper studies how it might be possible to ’employ tropopause altitude as a metric for climate change’.

    Abstract. We present a seasonal climatology of tropopause
    altitude for 78◦ N 16◦ E derived from observations 2007–
    2010 by the SOUSY VHF radar on Svalbard. The spring
    minimum occurs one month later than that of surface air temperature
    and instead coincides with the maximum in ozone
    column density. This confirms similar studies based on radiosonde
    measurements in the Arctic and demonstrates downward
    control by the stratosphere
    . If one is to exploit the potential
    of tropopause height as a metric for climate change
    at high latitude and elsewhere, it is imperative to observe and
    understand the processes which establish the tropopause – an
    understanding to which this study contributes. [bold added]

  120. oldbrew says:

    Andrew: ‘Earth’s pull is massaging our moon’

    This process was described by Miles Mathis a few years ago in one of his papers.
    If I find it I’ll add a link – and here it is:
    ‘The Physics behind the Golden Ratio’

    Quote: ‘The first question is simply one of data, and it appears that the Moon is gaining density very slowly. It is doing this by getting smaller, just as you would expect from something that is getting squashed. If a body gets smaller and keeps the same mass, it gains density. My theory was bolstered just last year, when headlines all over the world announced that according to NASA, the Moon is getting smaller.’ [see MM paper for NASA link]

    Or just read the Talkshop post:

  121. […] will also help us understand why the important Z-axis discovery recently made by Paul Vaughan is Geo-effective, as evidenced by the appearance of the relevant periods in paleo-proxy records. As […]

  122. Gail Combs says:

    Paul Vaughan, on your comments about “…journey towards understanding how de Vries & Gleissberg are annual terrestrial aliases of N & J ecliptic crossings…”

    There is Joan Feynman & Hubby’s work on Nile river records and Chinese aurora records where they found the de Vries & Gleissberg cycles. Is solar variability reflected in the Nile River?

    Of course there is nothing there that says you aren’t seeing two things that are connected to a third, the N & J ecliptic crossings.

    BTW I like the way people here think outside the box. The treatment of first, Tony Heller, then Tallbloke and Scafetta, followed by Shaviv’ and David Evans, made me realize that a certain well known website has people like Z. H. each protecting a different piece of the Alarmist Story while proclaiming they are skeptics. F.E. has been busy over at Jo Nova’s on the same thread for over two weeks trying to make sure he has the last word and therefore ‘wins’ He does the exact same thing at a certain well known website. He never shows for general conversations just targets one aspect as does L.S.

    I think that is a major sign of a paid disinfo agent.

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