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. oldbrew says:

    ‘Nobel Laureate – Temperature of the earth has not gone up – Video’

    “New measurements show that temperatures are going up because they now include ocean temperatures,” says Nobel Laureate Ivar Giaever. “But for a hundred years the ocean has not been included.”“The temperature of the earth has been constant almost 19 years,” says Giaever. “It hasn’t gone up.”
    – from Ice Age NOW website

  2. tchannon says: September 15, 2015 at 9:58 pm
    “Suggestions 14 is open for business
    tchannon says: September 15, 2015 at 1:36 am A discussion of no relevance!
    “Admin have closed comments for the time being.”

    Should have been done. After Konrad’s reply to the cementafriend critical post ” being incorrect is equation 73 in Catling D. C. 2015 Planetary Atmospheres.

    Tyler Robinson says: September 14, 2015 at 9:30 am

    “Friends at the Talkshop, Not to shock any of you, but I am, indeed, still paying attention and preparing responses! My current position funds me to study models of cloud formation in brown dwarf and exoplanet atmospheres, so reading/posting here must wait for spare moments during evenings and weekends. I’ll try to address most of the concerns you have all posted, although there has been a lot of activity in the last few days……”

    Have you ever seen more spiritualistic ‘holy roller’ clap trap ever? Here is more of the same:

    Here, on TB, Refering to:

    PV: “That’s a classic piece of work.”

    Indeed. Real folk discussing the difference in the “secular” (respectably measurable) and the “holy or spiritualistic” (fantasy) that has become the mainstay of neuvo science; where “any” claim with an accompanying symbolic equation that corresponds to previous measurement, is deemed correct, with absolutely no physical evidence, and no attempt to falsify such fantasy claim.
    These Claimants rearrange symbols in an equation willy-nilly without regard to the rules of algebra; and without regard to any physical significance of the symbols! We can add the names of Tyler Robinson and David Catling to the long list of academics with no habilitation in anything atmospheric, such as Joel Shore, Tim Folkerts, RGB@duke, Roy Spencer, and Judith Curry!
    All the best! -will-

  3. oldbrew says:

    Liberal senator Ian Macdonald says children ‘brainwashed’ on climate change

    Of course the climate changes, politician says, but idea that humanity is contributing to it is ‘farcical and fanciful’

  4. oldbrew says:

    ‘World powered 100 per cent by renewables doesn’t exist’

    ‘The notion that the world can reliably be powered completely by renewable energy does not stand up to scrutiny, according to a leading expert on climate change.’

    Sensible people know this already but in today’s world it’s a media story.

  5. oldbrew says:

    Paul Vaughan says: August 16, 2015 at 2:41 pm (Suggestions-13)
    ‘New from NASA JPL on the 5.9 year oscillation:
    Measured terrestrial gravitational constant G oscillates with half Jupiter’s period:’

    The linked paper quotes 5.899y +/- 0.062y for the oscillation.
    2/3rds of the lunar apsidal cycle = 5.8984 tropical years

    That’s well within the quoted margin of variability in the paper (+/- 0.062y), in fact close to an exact match.
    So in theory it appears that 3 lunar apsidal cycles = 2 oscillations.

  6. Ian Wilson says:

    Here is some evidence from NASA’s Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) spacecraft that the Earth’s tides can also influence the Moon.

  7. Ian Wilson says:


    My earlier work showed that: 5/4×DY = (1/10)×TJ


    DY = 346.620076 days = lunar draconic year (i.e. the time for one of the lunar nodes to return to the same position with respect to the Sun) and
    TJ = sidereal period of Jupiter’s orbit = 11.8624 sidereal years = 4332.82 days

    Hence: 1/2 TJ = 50/8 DY = 2166.3755 days = 5.9311 sidereal years

    The result you cite above claims that:

    1/2 TJ = 2/3 PA = 2155.0547 days = 5.9001 sidereal years

    If PA = period of precession of the lunar line-of-apse = 3232.582 days = 8.8501 sidereal years

    this corresponds to a TJ = 11.80 sidereal years = 4310.02 days

    This is a little too far off the generally accepted sidereal period for Jupiter that lies
    between 4332.5 and 4332.8 days .

  8. oldbrew says:

    Ian W: is this a question of ‘tropical versus sidereal’?

    I have a lower figure for the lunar precession based on chart 1 here:
    [Update: in this link it’s noted that Paul Vaughan used 3231.5 days for lunar precession]

    That is about one day less than your figure and equates to one less anomalistic month than the number of tropical months in the period.

    I think your figure is linked to one less anomalistic month than the number of sidereal months in the period.

    PS can we put your new ‘astroclimate’ blog post up here?

  9. oldbrew says:

    Lunar precession calculation using anomalistic (AM) and tropical (TM) months:

    4731 TM @ 27.321582 days = 129258.4 days
    4691 AM @ 27.55455 days = 129258.39 days

    4731 – 4691 = 40 lunar precessions
    129258.4d / 40 = 3231.46 days

    Using sidereal instead of tropical months will give a higher figure, nearer to 3233 days.

  10. oldbrew says:

    Proton arc over north America – unusual image.

    ‘For reasons not understood protons trapped in Earth’s ‘ring current’ sometimes rain down towards the surface during geomagnetic storms and they seem to excite a plasma wave – which produces the arc of light. In other words, you are looking at a plasma wave.’

    Plus ‘red sprites’ seen from the ISS (space station).

  11. Roger Clague says:

    oldbrew says:
    September 15, 2015 at 5:16 pm
    This paper studies how it might be possible to ’employ tropopause altitude as a metric for climate change’.

    I agree that tropopause height and temperature ( htrop and Ttrop) are important.
    The data, especially fig.5 is interesting. I don’t agree with the discussion and conclusions.

    What is the cause of the htrop ?
    The paper says:
    ” 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.”
    This is not correct. The spring minimum of Tsurface is March. The O3 maximum is April, same as Ttrop minimum. . The text never makes this claim. The text says

    “Moreover examination of ozone column density reveals a coincidence of the spring ozone maximum with the tropopause altitude minimum”

    The abstract does not represent what is in the paper.

    Later they say:
    “While troposphere temperature does indeed strongly influence the tropopause altitude, it is not, however the only governing factor as both the ozone concentration in the stratosphere and the solar UV flux vary strongly with season, particularly at high latitude.”

    This sentence illustrates their dilemma.
    The Ttrop lags by 1 month Tsurface in Spring and Autumn.
    O3 lags T surface by I month in Spring but by 3 months in Autumn

    They have found that T trop is caused by troposphere temperature
    But they have also found:
    1. Ttrop and O3 conc are both caused by the sun.
    2. O3 conc. does cause Ttrop
    That is they find that Ttrop is only caused by T surface and is there is no control by O3 in the stratosphere.
    They claim to confirm the consensus but in my opinion they disprove the theory that O3 causes the tropopause.

    I think if the paper is made a head post it will create debate.

  12. Ian Wilson says:


    Go for putting up latest astro-climate blog post. Thanks for clarifying the sidereal/tropical disparity. I see your point.

    [reply] OK, thanks.

  13. Paul Vaughan says:

    NoTricksZone pointed to this linking only to abstract & paywall, but here’s the whole freely-accessible article:

    Ogurtsov, Lindholm, Jalkanen, & Veretenenko (2015). Evidence for the Gleissberg solar cycle at the high-latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere. Advances in Space Research 55, 1285-1290.

  14. Paul Vaughan says:

    Obliquity and precession as pacemakers of Pleistocene deglaciations

    That arose from a 2015 thesis — see chapter beginning on p.86 here:

    Obliquity or precession paces deglaciations over the last 2 million years: a Bayesian approach

    Fabo Feng points back to some interesting literature based on thresholds & maxima (rather than means or medians). This is going to be a piece of work, but I’m inclined to look into it in a lot more detail, as the literature points to cycle length & deceleration …and this is consistent with recent observations at shorter timescales, so it clarifies that when it comes to ice, the rate & duration over a threshold is what matters, which is hardly surprising.

    Worth noting as an anecdote:
    This avenue turned up during a google image search for something like:
    2.9 year libration in longitude

    Consistently I find that image searches for climate & geophysical word combos point to lots of stimulating material that does not turn up in regular web searches.

    Here’s the image that alerted me to this trail, which included the 2015 citation of 2002 work:

  15. Paul Vaughan says:

    That’s a NASA page and here’s what happened with those insolation pulses:

    Noteworthy: Peter Huybers has also cited this work.

    This gives a refreshing alternative to conventional & distortion artist views of 100ka.

  16. Andrew says:

    The rabbit hole just got deeper

  17. oldbrew says:

    Andrew: comical🙂

    How often do these jokers – including ‘Travesty’ Trenberth – drive a car or board a plane, for example?

    Where’s the ‘overwhelming evidence’ for man-made climate change? Nowhere so far.

  18. Brian White says:

    I cannot remember if I posted this here or not. The energy released in thunderclouds and lesser convection clouds causes an accelerating airstream up the middle of the cloud and out the top. Moist air in bottom, air accelerates and , dry air out the top. As such the entire cloud could be described as similar to a “doughnut airship with a big propeller in the hole in the middle of the doughnut”. The propeller is driving the air up. By implication, the propeller is also driving the doughnut down and also (if there was a fleet of doughnut airships) or a vast field of convection clouds, probably creating something of a suction action under the cloud field. I would argue that even though a convection cloud isn’t an exactly defined physical “thing”, some of the same subtle physical effects will be found if people look at the numbers. Brian

  19. oldbrew says:

    Brian – the Russian scientists referred to in the video are featured here:

    There’s a link there to an earlier Talkshop post about their rainforest paper.

  20. oldbrew says:

    ‘Guardian Wants Courts To Silence “scientifically qualified, knowledgeable” People’

    ‘The Guardian believes that your SUV caused 120 meters of sea level rise 8,000 years ago.’

    Another logic fail for the Guardian.

  21. Paul Vaughan says:

    “Brezinski (1994) introduced the concept Celestial Equatorial Angular Momentum [CEAM] […] Whereas the diurnal band is squeezed in a frequency band around 24 h in the TRF [Terrestrial Reference Frame], the corresponding periodicities of the CEAM stretch from 2 days to several years with respect to the non-rotating reference frame: any diurnal component of frequency σ = -Ω + σ′ with σ′ ≪ Ω is mapped to a long periodic celestial component of frequency σ′.”

    Bizouard, Zotov, & Sidorenkov (2014). Lunar influence on equatorial atmospheric angular momentum.

    some basic help with this momentously game-changing differential mind-wrap:

    I might add the frequency algebra if/when time permits.

  22. Brian White says:

    Hi, sorry, the thing I am attempting to show The “doughnut airship theory!” is probably entirely different to the biotic pump theory but I think it could be an alternative way to explain the “suck” that brings at least twice as much water vapor to the rainforest as there “should” be. Simply put, if an airship (shaped like a doughnut) had a rotor in the middle pushing it down, it has the same effect as a cloud where condensation (inside the cloud) is accelerating the air up! Do meteorologists consider that entire cloud systems are likely pushed lower by the air that they process? Clouds “suck” water up through them and force it out the top. If they were airships, doing the sucking, they would be forced closer to the ground.

  23. oldbrew says:

    Brian W says: ‘Clouds “suck” water up through them and force it out the top’

    Not if it rains.

  24. oldbrew says:

    Most polar bears fat and healthy this year – but Westerners focus on one old one that isn’t.

    It’s called confirmation bias.

    ‘Confirmation bias, also called myside bias, is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms one’s beliefs or hypotheses while giving disproportionately less attention to information that contradicts it. It is a type of cognitive bias and a systematic error of inductive reasoning. People display this bias when they gather or remember information selectively, or when they interpret it in a biased way. The effect is stronger for emotionally charged issues and for deeply entrenched beliefs.’

  25. Paul Vaughan says:

    At wuwt WE’s “NAO and then” article conveys obvious ignorance &/or deception:
    1. no conditioning on QBO (!) — in-page search doesn’t even find qbo! so like wtf?? …so some kind of misunderstanding (accidental? deliberate? does it really matter? (dark either way))
    2. inferential stats tests based on false assumptions — could have been verified via diagnostics, but like usual never bothers with diagnostics — same as LS …and AW still looking dull with their lazy-on-diagnostics wool over his eyes

    aside from that the study is on the wrong track wasting time with a hopeless approach

  26. Paul Vaughan says:

    principal tide frequency algebra for BZS14 now posted on Pukite thread
    terrestrial angular momentum in the non-rotating celestial reference frame

  27. Brian White says:

    O, sorry, I meant they suck air up and out the top. The water vapor condenses and if enough condenses it rains. So they act like big floating dehumidifiers for the air. Running on the power of condensation.

  28. Brian White says: September 19, 2015 at 3:56 am

    “O, sorry, I meant they suck air up and out the top. The water vapor condenses and if enough condenses it rains. So they act like big floating dehumidifiers for the air. Running on the power of condensation.”

    You betcha! And those that can suck, do suck, really bad, rearranging whole communities!

  29. Brian White says:

    Just to clarify, Will. My version is based on 2 phase fluid flow. It may not be the same as the Makarieva theory. (I think it is quite different). I think the air up through droplets down in clouds is enough to efficiently convert the energy released in condensation into vertical motion instead of random heat. And this is a lot more accessible to the average person. It is pretty clear not that even high end meteorologists don’t have the necessary math to discuss makerieva’s theory.

  30. Paul Vaughan says: September 19, 2015 at 12:26 am

    “principal tide frequency algebra for BZS14 now posted on Pukite thread
    terrestrial angular momentum in the non-rotating celestial reference frame”

    Thank you! Have such analysis with the non-rotating celestial reference frame (inertial) been done for other massive atmospheric effects such as hurricanes? Perhaps much has been lost using a surface based reference! Would not Coriolis based atmospheric motions also exhibit a Lunar effect?

  31. Brian White says:
    September 19, 2015 at 7:16 am

    “Just to clarify, Will. My version is based on 2 phase fluid flow. It may not be the same as the Makarieva theory. (I think it is quite different).”

    You both are emphasizing the tremendous power generated by WV condensation, 2400 W/(gm-sec). How many grams of WV in a hurricane? Most of this also goes ‘up’ from the eye of the hurricane.on’t
    “I think the air up through droplets down in clouds is enough to efficiently convert the energy released in condensation into vertical motion instead of random heat. And this is a lot more accessible to the average person.”

    I agree! With some effort the Anastasia-Makarieva writings are more understandable to those with some technical ability; as she removes much meteorological fantasy, allowing comprehension of the amount of available power in large moving atmospheric mass! Multiple translations into serf-talk are required. Questions will abound, but clarity will ensue!

    “It is pretty clear not that even high end meteorologists don’t have the necessary math to discuss Makerieva’s theory.” wj

    I believe this is called “incompetence”🙂

  32. tchannon says:

    Not a normal meteorological matter.
    These are heat engines, necessarily with a hot end and cold end. a very small difference so the thermal efficiency is very low and the flow of heat very high. Probably bumps on the area of several engineering fields.
    An oddity is the low mass of water vapour. wants to go up so I assume these might be partly gravity working.

    I expect a lot of information exists in the studies of tropical storms, specialist.

    What really is the mystery?

  33. Paul Vaughan says:

    earthquakes & chandler wobble excitation — see Zotov’s figure 4b:

  34. tchannon says: September 19, 2015 at 8:34 am

    “Not a normal meteorological matter.”

    What ever is considered ‘normal’ of meteorology?

    “These are heat engines, necessarily with a hot end and cold end. a very small difference so the thermal efficiency is very low and the flow of heat very high. Probably bumps on the area of several engineering fields.”

    Just what is your engine powering? There is no need for efficiency. This is an atmosphere trying to discard entropy to space with maximum efficacy! “Several engineering fields are truly needed to distinguish some confirming measurable from meteorological fantasy!

    “An oddity is the low mass of water vapour. wants to go up so I assume these might be partly gravity working.”

    Where and how is such work performed on an isentropic atmosphere?

    “I expect a lot of information exists in the studies of tropical storms, specialist. What really is the mystery?”

    The mystery is: “why are incompetents given any respect for 40 years of incompetence”? 🙂

  35. Paul Vaughan says:

    SST & sea level cycle bidecadally with the quality of Chandler frequency resonance:

    (spelled out for Wilson, Pukite, & whoever else on the Pukite thread)

  36. Paul Vaughan says: September 19, 2015 at 9:09 am

    “earthquakes & chandler wobble excitation — see Zotov’s figure 4b:”

    Very nice Paul,
    I am still trying to get it! From here, it looks like a resonant system being “pumped” by certain components of “noise”, then being damped by some other element, like loosely coupled mass whose centre of mass moves to dissipate destructive pumping? Is this anywhere close? Seems like you need the answer before you can pose the problem. That “ill-posed inverse problem”, is way to pleasant a name. I can offer many more colourful adjectives, and a half, for such!
    All the best! -will-

  37. oldbrew says:

    RICO! ‘You have signed the death warrant for science’

    ‘What you have done with your letter is the worst kind of irresponsible advocacy, which is to attempt to silence scientists that disagree with you by invoking RICO.’

  38. oldbrew says:

    Research Article: The heliospheric Hale cycle over the last 300 years and its implications for a “lost” late 18th century solar cycle

    Mathew J. Owens*, Ken G. McCracken, Mike Lockwood and Luke Barnard
    [Published online 09 September 2015]

  39. tchannon says:

    oldbrew’s item above.
    This is an attempt to untangle the confused solar data 1790 to 1810 where there might be an unrecorded (missing) sunspot cycle. This problem is old.
    To the authors credit they publish a null result after they failed to reach a safe conclusion.

    The usage of 10BE or 14C data is in my view unlikely to produce a useful result, neither are good enough, at least given the crude techniques used for data collection, batch processes. There will be very little interest or pressure to do better. This would include producing better machinery. The spatial and magnetic problems add to the unknown. For 14C I think I identified a severe problem relating to Henry’s law, CO2 according the the bomb spike data is subject to a natural single pole low pass filter @110 years. This will cause attenuation of faster data and introduce a time shift, group delay is not flat. Given the at best 1 year sample rate and low amplitude resolution of data, recovering a fast signal is probably not feasible. Probably there is signal dispersion for both radionuclides.

    I seem to recall finding several papers which talk about a unipolar sun around that time.

    Strong evidence of a unique event in the solar record comes from the hallmark of phase aberration then in a constructed magnetic record. This answer nothing, merely confirms something up with machinery.

  40. Paul Vaughan says:

    I haven’t seen anything that would even lead me to suspect a missing cycle ~1800.
    As for 10Be they’re not being realistic (at all) about the dominant role of circulation in deposition. 10Be may indicate something about the sun’s effect on circulation, but I haven’t seen anything that would lead me to regard 10Be as a proxy for TSI.

  41. oldbrew says:

    Have we looked at this one before?
    ‘The role of solar forcing upon climate change’ – B. van Geel et al 1999

    ‘We review the coincidence of variations in cosmogenic isotopes (14C and 10Be) with climate changes during the Holocene and the upper part of the last Glacial, and present two possible mechanisms (involving the role of solar UV variations and solar wind/cosmic rays) that may explain how small variations in solar activity are amplified to cause significant climate changes.’

  42. tchannon says:

    Not that particular paper. A subject heading into incessant and irresolvable arguments is a waste of effort so I think care is needed on selecting details which might shed light.

    There are mechanisms linking solar something with various side effects as proxies. Feeling through boxing gloves may be difficult.

  43. oldbrew says:

    Taking climate craziness to somewhere near its logical conclusion: home-made wind turbines and more.

    “For the 21st time, we don’t expect much,” says Dominic Wind, core organiser of POC21, a grassroots alternative to COP21 taking place near Paris. “Over the last 20 years, carbon dioxide emissions have doubled. Our trust in this institution is gone.”

    Time to wise up – no temperature rise, what’s the problem?:/

  44. oldbrew says:

    Can acoustic waves from one earthquake trigger distant earthquakes somewhere else?

    ‘A team of researchers with Second University of Naples has developed a model that may help explain how it is that some earthquakes set off other earthquakes up to a thousand miles away.’

  45. Brian White says:

    “Not a normal meteorological matter.
    These are heat engines, necessarily with a hot end and cold end. a very small difference so the thermal efficiency is very low and the flow of heat very high. Probably bumps on the area of several engineering fields.
    An oddity is the low mass of water vapour. wants to go up so I assume these might be partly gravity working.

    I expect a lot of information exists in the studies of tropical storms, specialist.

    What really is the mystery?” How about this? There is a hot end and a cold end at the bottom of the cloud, And at the top of the cloud there is a hot end and a cold end. All the rest inside is a 2 phase flow convection engine. The inefficiency of the “heat engine” is compensated for by the great efficiency of the condensation engine. Heat is being transferred from droplets to air. Droplets going down and evaporating, as they absorb heat from rising air below, and re-emit that energy ever so slightly lower. How is it re-emitting energy below? by turning into water vapor, so even though you don’t see much change, heat has dropped down in the system. and droplets condensing higher up as water vapor releases the heat imparting more energy to the upward moving air particles. It is efficient conversion of energy into momentum up and down. And if it rains, it is efficient drying of the rising air. And if it doesn’t rain, in daytime, you can look at the cloud as being a solar powered convection engine. Solar powered? Yes, if the solar heating of the cloud the droplets cause them to condense a meter higher in the air and they are falling at a cm per second. (yet staying in the same place in the rising air mass, they are processing air (to dry it) at 60 cm per minute. Even in this case, if they are not causing the rising air mass, they are processing the air and removing the water vapor. And that takes energy.

  46. oldbrew says:

    Exploitation of Ignorance About Climate, Reflects How Current Education Is Really Indoctrination
    by DR. TIM BALL

    Climate dummies are in the majority. ‘A study by Yale University evaluated public knowledge about climate change….over half the responders failed completely while 75 percent were below average.’

  47. oldbrew says:

    Can’t find any dark matter after 20 years or more, can’t find gravitational waves in 11 years – not looking great for the theorists.

  48. Michele says:

    28 September Full moon, lunar perigee and eclipse = the first arctic impulse in Europe

  49. Paul Vaughan says:

    Some of the modelers are at least trying:

    Mechanisms rectifying the annual mean response of tropical Atlantic rainfall to precessional forcing. (2015)

    (published just a few days ago)

  50. Paul Vaughan says:

    The international skeptic community appears to be getting slightly more serious about pushing back the corrupt sun-climate narrative bought by naive followers of american climate blogs.

    We’ve reached a point now where maybe we can actually begin saying what we really think instead beating around some artificially-maintained politically-correct bush.

    Towards that (but still restraining since we’re not all the way there yet), here’s a question to provoke:

    Have the 6 devilishly dark agents of sun-climate ignorance &/or deception been PAID by the american democratic party to infiltrate and hijack those 2 blogs to steer skeptic views in an all-important mission towards lukewarmism??

    The goal here isn’t paranoia; rather it’s provocation.

    The 2+2=5 sun-climate narrative they push fails every single basic elementary diagnostic. (It’s based on false assumptions.) …and they boldly deny 2 key sun-climate geometric proofs based on the laws of large numbers and conservation of angular momentum.

    Did inspiration from this devilish group’s militant thought-policing campaign at the american blogs critically embolden NOAA’s hubristic inclination to distort patterns of natural variability from ERSSTv3b2 (good) to ERSSTv4 (IPO corrupted)??

    We’re irresponsible & negligent if we shy away from provoking with such overdue questions about what will likely eventually be historically noted as sun-climate-gate.

  51. Paul Vaughan says:

    AW perching WE on a pedestal presumably to make him look smart just has the effect of making the overwhelming majority of the wuwt audience look stupid and hopelessly gullible.

    WE worshipers are sufficiently brain-dead & unaware that they can be conned into obsequious belief that WE is the genius “discoverer” of just about anything that has already been widely known for decades & longer.

    WE has just “discovered” what TB has been saying for as long as I can remember.

    And there’s a funny catch. WE tries to obfuscate presumably because it’s undesirable having gullible followers seeing a cycle as a cycle …but lgl came along and destroyed that underhanded objective with a slam-dunk differintegral schooling that will be understood by all with half-a-brain or more (…so maybe the top 2 or 3% over there?):

    “Warmer ocean ==> more clouds ==> less insolation =>
    => Cooler ocean ==> less clouds ==> more insolation =>
    => Warmer ocean ==> ….”

    …just like TB has always said.

    ENSO’s the shiny bouncy thing that attracts eyes & attention …but those curves are attached to a formidable frame:

    New insolation graphs volunteered to help correct fatally serious misconceptions about equatorial insolation:

  52. Carla says:

    Hi Tallbloke and all our “Solar CYCLIST” friends on the WordPress..

    The following article, on Interstellar Magnetic Fields, uses existing data and then models for ISMF strengths of 1uG to 4uG, showing the different heliospheric changes for each.

    Quote from the article that I would like to bring your attention:

    “”Finally, we note that within the spatial dimensions and resolution
    of our steady-state simulations the heliospheric current
    sheet is flat and “flips” to either the northern hemisphere
    for the 2μG, 3μG, and 4μG cases, or the southern hemisphere
    in the 1μG case.””

    Maybe we should ask Dr. S. where all the magnetic flux to form sunspots has gone? lol South?

    On page 33 of Dr. S., pdf “Asymmetric Solar Polar Field Reversals” and accompanying graph depicting the hemispheric asymmetries in sunspot activity.

    “””…‘Prediction’ from this: South will lead in cycle 25 or 26 and beyond. We shall see…”””

    Interestingly though, the periodicity of the Local Interstellar Magnetic Field is what we may be seeing in the Gleissburg cycle. As the suns orbit moves ? AU during the course of a solar cycle the Local interstellar field is moving towards it over the same…

    Could the Interstellar Magnetic Field (ISMF) along with its associated wind speed, density, GCR (ev to Tev +) and angle be responsible for raising and lowering of the helio current sheet over solar cycle?

    Some things we have learned from the IBEX and Voyagers observations of the interaction region of the outer heliospheric boundary layers is:

    The IBEX ribbon of ENA’s are part of the “pile up” of Interstellar Magnetic Fields on the nose of the heliosphere.
    The magnetic “pressure” in the S. hemisphere (at this time) creates a varying inwards dent of up to 9+/- AU.

    On the tail side of the heliosphere the Interstellar Magnetic Field configuration there, applies enough magnetic tension to offset or dent the solar polar tail region.
    Being pushed topdown on the rear side and bottom up on the nose side. Interesting ..

    The tilt angle of the helio current sheet over solar cycle has a more abrupt raising, then falling falling slowly.


    2014 March 20

    J. Heerikhuisen1, E. J. Zirnstein1, H. O. Funsten2, N. V. Pogorelov1, and G. P. Zank1

  53. Carla says:

    “”Finally, we note that within the spatial dimensions and resolution
    of our steady-state simulations the heliospheric current
    sheet is flat and “flips” to either the northern hemisphere
    for the 2μG, 3μG, and 4μG cases, or the southern hemisphere
    in the 1μG case.””

    Oops this quote is from page 7 of:


    2014 March 20

    J. Heerikhuisen1, E. J. Zirnstein1, H. O. Funsten2, N. V. Pogorelov1, and G. P. Zank1

  54. oldbrew says:

    Climate spin doctors try to blame Californian drought on human industrial emissions, but…

    ‘Ancient pollen points to mega-droughts in California thousands of years ago’

    ‘Ancient pollen spores that were floating in the air when mammoths roamed Southern California are providing new insights into historic droughts in the region, including how a series of mega-droughts between about 27,500 and 25,500 years ago changed the ecological landscape. A new scientific paper tracks these changes and suggests that warm ocean conditions similar to what we see off Southern California today fueled that 2,000-year stretch of droughts.’

  55. linneamogren says:

    Water on Mars? Well looks like avalanches to me. In 2008 NASA thought they discovered water but guess what? Avalanches.

  56. linneamogren says:

    @old brew how could there be droughts before we burned fossil fuels? Wink

  57. oldbrew says:

    Possible sanity drought at climate HQ😉

  58. oldbrew says:

    Paper: Solar cycle: Solar activity levels in 2100 (SAO/NASA 2003)

    ‘We consider the likely levels of solar activity in 2100…’

    Interesting graphic on first page re Hallstatt cycle – ‘an oscillation’.
    Does NASA still admit to such things? They even talk of ‘an increase in solar activity’ in C20.

    They also refer to ‘a fundamental 420-year oscillatory mode of the Sun’s convective zone’.

    We’ve shown before that this equates to 21 Jupiter-Saturn conjunctions and 2 de Vries cycles (417.166y average).

  59. oldbrew says:

    Synchronized Northern Hemisphere climate change and solar magnetic cycles during the Maunder Minimum (2010 paper)

  60. linneamogren says:

    Hurricane about to hit US east coast. Here we go ladies and gentleman. Global warming will be held culpable for this one.

    I don’t remember much of Katrina, but reading on its stats and the ocean water temps its obvious the Atlantic had little effect at all since it was only a CAT 1 out there and only exploded once hitting the Gulf waters. It’s obvious to me AGW had zero to do with Katrina but more just bad timing. The Loop Current which brings warm Caribbean waters through the Gulf sometimes an eddy breaks off leaving massive energy in its wake. If a hurricane passes over that you can get a CAT 4 or 5 very quickly.

    Again, no AGW magic needed just oceanic currents.

  61. oldbrew says:

    Megadroughts in North America: placing IPCC
    projections of hydroclimatic change in a
    long-term palaeoclimate context – Edward Cook et al (2009)

    ‘There is no question now that profound megadroughts have
    occurred in North America during the last millennium,
    principally during MCA times and into the early part of the
    Little Ice Age. These droughts have occurred without any need
    for enhanced radiative forcing due to anthropogenic greenhouse
    gas forcing
    . There are additional model-based results
    suggesting that the MCA megadroughts were associated with
    enhanced warming during a time of increased solar irradiance[bold added]

    The NOAA’s drought data is based on research by the same Edward Cook.
    [see ‘PDSI links’ at foot of web page]

    ‘Dr. Edward R. Cook of the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory(LDEO) and colleagues used tree-ring data to extend records of past drought. The tree-ring reconstructions show a more complete range of drought variability than is provided by the 20th century instrumental record. The extended records are useful for placing the instrumental period droughts into a longer time frame, and for evaluating the rarity of the major 20th century droughts, the 1930s and 1950s, in a broader temporal context.’

  62. Roger Clague says:

    Contrails, does the water vapour come from the burnt fuel or the air?

    According to Nasa 99.9% is from the air 0.01% from the burnt fuel.

    “Nearly all of the contrail is created from the moisture in the atmosphere. “
    Justified by R.G.Knollenberg(1972) paid by Nasa
    “There are at least four orders of magnitude more ice present in the contrail core than the Sabreliner originally exhausted!”
    A later Nasa paper says
    Atlas, Wang and Duda ( 2006)
    “The average ice water per meter along the length of the contrail is 1.6 104 g m 1 , some three to four orders of magnitude greater than the water vapor released by typical jet aircraft, also similar to previously reported values.”
    Duda says elsewhere:
    “Like contrails, the cloud that forms on your breath during a cold day is a mixing cloud.”
    Contrails are like breath on a cold day. Water vapour is from the breath not the ambient air.
    Other government bodies the EPA and FAA agree with Nasa and puts it very clearly:
    “Jet engine exhaust provides only a small portion of the water that forms ice in persistent contrails. Persistent contrails are mainly composed of water naturally present along the aircraft flight path.”
    However all other sites I have found say all the water is from the burnt fuel.

    Schumann is a world expert. He has 135 references but does not include Knollenberg(1972)

    Is Nasa/EPA/FAA right about contrails?
    If not why not?

  63. oldbrew says:

    The Bishop says: ‘Given the share of fossil fuels in the UK’s electricity generation mix, it is quite likely that hybrids are generating more carbon dioxide emissions than conventional vehicles.’

    Guardian readers take note😉

  64. oldbrew says:

    ‘Arctic sea ice still too thick for regular shipping route through Northwest Passage’

    ‘Despite climate change, sea ice in the Northwest Passage (NWP) remains too thick and treacherous for it to be a regular commercial Arctic shipping route for many decades, according to new research out of York University.’

    ‘Alleged’ climate change that is😐

  65. oldbrew says:

    Michelle Stirling: Paris is about saving green investors, not the Earth

    ‘Does it not strike you as hypocritical that 50,000 people, intent on saving the planet, will be flying, driving, taking a fossil-fuelled boat, train or car to Paris in December to reduce emissions?’

  66. A C Osborn says:

    Roger, an interesting Resignation.

    [mod] that was 5 years ago

  67. oldbrew says:

    BBC admits faking dramatic volcano eruption scene on natural history show

    Footage of a ‘dirty thunderstorm’ in Chile on the BBC’s Patagonia programme was faked by splicing together two different volcano eruptions four years apart

  68. oldbrew says:

    ‘Why is the Arctic climate and ice cover so variable?’ – discussing a book by Alan Longhurst

    Longhurst: ‘Transport of warm water on this scale may be expected to be directly related to the pattern of low and high pressure cells in the atmosphere. A stubborn, positive state of the NAO characterised the final decades of the 20th century, and was associated with transport of Atlantic water into the Arctic Basin that significantly reduced ice coverage.

    Since 2002, this process has accelerated due to very thin spring ice and to the “memory of the system to the positive winter AO state that characterised the mid-­‐1980s and 1990s” as Stroeve et al. put it. As well, these authors note that the character of sea ice has also progressively changed after so long a period of positive NAO values, particularly in the progressive loss of multi­‐year ice. The single, strongly-‐negative NAO index during the winter of 2009/2010 was not sufficient to reverse the process.’ [bold added]

    JC comments: ‘The complete text of the chapter further clarifies how this view of Arctic sea ice differs from the prevailing view that atmospheric warming and ice-albedo feedback are conspiring to amplify the Arctic warming and melt the sea ice.’

    Also: ‘In my 2013 Climate Dialogue essay on The Decline of the Arctic Sea Ice, I stated that I figured that the human contribution was 50%, +/- 30%. After reading Longhurst’s chapter, I am inclining more towards a natural dominance for the recent sea ice decline.’

  69. Paul Vaughan says:

    OB I would say some of the more quotable quotes there are the ones on fresh surface water. Salty versus fresh surface makes the difference between no sea ice and extensive quickly thickening ice. I’ve seen the impact on sea kayaking first hand. Winter cold snap after flood runoff from warm spell heavy mountain rains into the coastal inlets means a freezing layer of fresh water over salt …and hence the unusual event of geographically limited coastal sea kayaking (restricted in the inlets but not elsewhere along the coast) due to ice where it isn’t usually. It’s night & day. I think sometimes those of us living in the north don’t stop to realize that it might not be intuitive to southerners that fresh water freezes at a higher temperature than salt water. What can come along to destroy the stratification? Wind, of course.

  70. oldbrew says:

    PV: there’s also this…

    ‘However, even the most modern satellites measuring ice thickness – such as the European Space Agency’s CryoSat2 spacecraft, which launched in 2010 – are unable to make the required measurements during the summer, as pools of melted water on the surface of the ice confuse its onboard instruments.’

    So summer forecasts for shipping are speculative because they don’t know the ice thickness.

  71. oldbrew says:

    DesmogUK swallows its own climate propaganda whole at the Tory party conference…

    ‘So, at a time when the realities of climate change are both frightening and overwhelming, Rudd’s speech embodies the government’s new approach: say very little and say the same thing over and over again.’

    Who exactly is feeling frightened and overwhelmed?

  72. Ian Wilson says:


    You might be interested in the latest post at my site:

    The rate of change in tidal stresses caused by lunar tides in the Earth’s atmosphere and the QBO


    a) the rate of change in the stresses caused by lunar tides in the Earth’s atmosphere and oceans, as a result of a change in the strength of the lunar tidal forces, should reach a maximum every 0.563714 tropical years (= 205.89223 days = 0.5 FMCs) and 10.14686 tropical years (= 9.0 FMC’s). [Note: the longer time period is the more precise alignment of the two and FMC = Full Moon Cycles]

    b) the rate of change in the stresses caused by lunar tides in the Earth’s atmosphere and oceans, as a result of a change in the direction of the lunar tidal forces, should reach a maximum every 1.89803 tropical years (= 2.0 Draconic year).

    Now if the period of the rate of change in stresses caused by the change in strength of the lunar tides (i.e. 10.14686 tropical years) amplitude modulates the period for the rate of changes in stresses caused by the change in direction of the lunar tides (i.e. 1.89803 tropical years), you would expect that the 1.89803 year tidal forcing term would split into two spectral peaks i.e. a positive and a negative side-lobe, such that:

    Positive side-lobe
    [10.1469 x 1.89803] / [10.1469 – 1.89803] = 2.334(7) tropical yrs = 28.0 months

    Negative side-lobe
    [10.1469 x 1.89803] / [10.1469 + 1.89803] = 1.598(9) tropical yrs

    Interestingly, the time period of the positive side-lobe is almost exactly the same as that of the Quasi-Biennial Oscillation (QBO). The QBO is a quasi-periodic oscillation in the equatorial stratospheric zonal winds that has an average period of oscillation of 28 months, although it can vary between 24 and 30 months (Giorgetta and Doege 2004). Of even more interest is the 1.589(9) tropical year negative side-lobe period, which just happens to be synodic period of Venus and the Earth = 583.92063 days = 1.5987 years, to within an error of ~ 1.8 hours).

  73. tchannon says:

    You have in effect predicted a signature and yes I have seen something in data.

    Any ideas on how this would manifest in good earth data? I can probably then look for it.

  74. Ron Clutz says:

    Here’s a straight-forward look into NOAA Arctic ice data.

    Let’s help them draw the right conclusions from their own data.

  75. tchannon says:

    AURORA UK likely now!

  76. oldbrew says:

    ‘NASA measuring the pulsating aurora’

    “The hemispheres are magnetically connected, meaning that any time there is pulsating aurora near the north pole, there is also pulsating aurora near the south pole,” said Robert Michell, a space physicist at NASA Goddard and one of the study’s authors. “Electrons are constantly pinging back and forth along this magnetic field line during an aurora event.”

  77. tchannon says:

    electron drift velocity?

    Pinging back and forth?
    I don’t know whether they are for those conditions except electrons rarely move fast.

    This paper might add some insight.
    Relative drift between black aurora and the ionospheric plasma

  78. Paul Vaughan says:

    Ian, I’m working on decoding annual & semi-annual physical QBO aliasing into interannual regional variations. No canned algorithm will crack the puzzle with only the data we have as its impractical if not impossible to program that level of human judgement into a can. The work I’m currently doing won’t finish the puzzle, but it will clarify for example which structures stem from northern winter nonlinear physical aliasing of QBO and that will further constrain other puzzle pieces. This work is for patient people only. In parallel I’ll continue monitoring your explorations. Be aware that some of the structure in the QBO record stems from impingement by more global atmospheric angular momentum (AAM) structures. Of that I’m now 100% certain. The point being: don’t worry about some of the odd-looking kinks aliased into recorded QBO as their origin isn’t mysterious from a more generalized perspective.

  79. oldbrew says:

    Lubos Motls sounds off about the Germans and the Muslim refugee crisis.

    ‘A German chancellor who believes that 500 million Europeans are obliged to behave according to his or her ideas is approximately as friendly as Adolf Hitler who had the same opinions about his importance.’


  80. oldbrew says:

    Now Bavaria is not playing ball on official German migrant policy.

    ‘Alarm in Austria over Seehofer’s Bavaria border plan’

    ‘Bavaria’s premier wants to send refugees back to Austria’

    ‘Seehofer said more than 225,000 refugees had arrived in Bavaria in less than five weeks. With about 10,000 refugees arriving in Germany every day, Bavaria has been the main entry point for those fleeing war or poverty in the Middle East and beyond, with most of them entering Germany through Austria.’

  81. Paul Vaughan says:

    Update (to this brief exploration note):

    I’ve isolated a bidecadal helix in the evolution of interannual correlation between QBO and global atmospheric angular momentum (AAM). Since QBO is a component of AAM what this means is that there’s a bidecadal cycle in the evolution of global wind geometry.

    A subset of the record shows a 6 year cycle while the structure of seasonal polarity anomalies is reversing. This is at the exploratory stage and the record is sufficiently short that this crystal mystery might be challenging …but on the other hand it might not be so challenging if other puzzle pieces fall into place around the crystal.

    Certainly this kind of work demands a lot of patience.

  82. oldbrew says:

    ‘Alternative’ climate theory reaches the British mainstream press – well, the Daily Express😐

    ‘World will start COOLING DOWN in 2017, claims one of planet’s top climate change experts’

    Dr Evans says historic global warming has been down to solar activity – a process called “albedo modulation” – the waxing and waning of reflected radiation from the Sun.

    Between 2017 and 2021 he estimates a cooling of about 0.3C before the mini ice age in the 2030s.

    His theory is unlikely to convince Julia Slingo, UK Met Office chief scientist, who believes increased CO2 levels is the big “smoking gun evidence” for man made climate change.

    (No mention that this is Jo Nova’s husband)

  83. oldbrew says:

    The universality of accretion physics

    ‘New paper shines light on little-understood process in astronomy’

    From the abstract (full text link):
    ‘Every object in the sample displays the same linear correlation between the brightness of the source and its amplitude of variability (rms-flux relation) and obeys the same quantitative scaling relation as stellar-mass black holes and active galactic nuclei. We also show that the most important parameter in this scaling relation is the physical size of the accreting object. This establishes the universality of accretion physics from proto-stars still in the star-forming process to the supermassive black holes at the centers of galaxies.’

    Universality as in ‘works the same way everywhere’.

  84. Paul Vaughan says:

    Update (to this) & conclusion:

    It’s J-S (not Hale), same as above and the intermittent “6 year” component is J/2. The lesson is that it’s about the terrestrial year. Time-of-year physical aliasing matters tremendously more than the mainstream teaches it’s gullible students. The field attracts more political activists than exploratory geniuses, so real insights are drowned out. Politically the fight has been lost, so all there is left to do is figure out the patterns (…all that ever really mattered).

  85. Paul Vaughan says:

    Jo Nova’s running a series featuring husband David Evans’ ideas.

    What I’ve noticed:

    a lot of peripheral exposition but so far no money-graphs — i.e. no single graph or small collection of graphs that say it all

    …but maybe I’ve overlooked the key graphs due to the volume of exposition,
    which inevitably induces verbosity “skiing” (i.e. skimming & skipping).

    Key picture’s are worth well-more than 1000 words.
    If I’ve missed the money-graphs, could someone please post them here? …and if so: Thanks.

  86. J Martin says:

    This graph overlaying obliquity on Holocene temperatures I found mind blowing and pretty scary too. From a comment by a guy called Javier over on the big W.

  87. J Martin says:

    Also I thought this graph was interesting from David Archibald

  88. At this end of the year Governments are getting together in Paris to save the world from exceeding two degrees of dangerous warming by reducing global GHG emissions. 146 countries have made submissions on unconditional and conditional targets through to 2030. Nobody has collated the submissions – a normal part of any planning process. A Health Authority would do so as part of a budgeting process for instance. I have done part of the work.

    For every tonne of emissions reductions in 32 leading developed countries there will be at least three tonnes of emissions increases in 7 major developing countries. The net effect of these targets being achieved from these countries (which combined make up both 60% of global emissions and 60% of global population) will be to make global emissions 20% higher in 2030 than 2010.

    If you assume that the IPCC is correct in its predictions, any agreement based on these submissions will not save the the world from dangerous global warming. Climate mitigation on those terms will be almost a complete waste of time, even if the policy is effective. Which is pretty close to the policy position maintained if you believe that policy is useless at reducing emissions and/or there is little or no human caused warming.

  89. tchannon says:

    I know Kevin, stupidity is common.
    Consensus is also usually wrong. New one I heard was about Lord Howe where apparently some huge N of economists said his policy was disaster, would not work. It did.

    Go mad in crowds.

  90. oldbrew says:

    BBC non-impartiality on climate issues rages on.

    ‘The BBC is undermining its reputation for impartiality by apologising for “giving a voice” to two MPs and by putting a ‘health warning’ on the BBC website casting doubt on their credibility – even though the accuracy of what they said is not disputed: says Peter Lilley MP in a letter to the Director General. ‘

  91. oldbrew says:

    Climate skeptics are “assholes,” says French politician

    Whereas French politicians are…??

  92. oldbrew says:

    Computer model solves the riddle of why lava sometimes forms into hexagons

    ‘Then as the lava cooled even more and more shrinkage occurred, the cracks made their way down into the lava below which was still solidifying—that forced the cracks to grow larger, forcing the angle between them to change to approximately 120 degrees, which occurred because it was the point at which the largest amount of energy was released—and it is also, of course, the same angle degree found in hexagonal structures.’

    Then there’s Saturn’s north polar hexagon…

  93. oldbrew says:

    ‘How scientists fool themselves – and how they can stop’

    “Science is an ongoing race between our inventing ways to fool ourselves, and our inventing ways to avoid fooling ourselves.” – Saul Perlmutter

  94. oldbrew says:

    UK PM Cameron meets German Chancellor…

  95. Paul Vaughan says:

    I’ve just exposed a major, fundamental conceptual flaw in GG’s thinking about 101-level heat engine geometry at Jo Nova’s discussion of David Evan’s latest piece on thermal inertia.

    GG actually wrote this:
    “There is not a similar gyre in the atmosphere that could be suggested to be driving the oceanic flow.”

    Unbelievable eh?
    How does one even prepare to combat that level of ignorance?

    …and he also wrote this:
    “[…] the phase plot is quite surprising at first.”


    It’s exactly what’s expected from equator-pole heat engine pumping up the ocean western boundaries.

    Lukewarmists go on & on & on about radiation …ignoring circulation …as if Earth is uniform and no heat moves up the western boundary to nonlinearly erode the ice margin.

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

  96. Paul Vaughan says:

    I’ve added GG to the list of dark agents of ignorance &/or deception.

  97. ralfellis says:

    >>Ralph your theory does not explain abrupt climate changes such
    >>as the YD. If it did forest fires would have been given as evidence
    >>and be one of the theories put forth.

    Did I say that forest fires ended the YD? Where was that? You are making it all up again, Salvatore.

    It is likely that the YD cooling was an impact response, although I have not researched that aspect a great deal. However, the exit from the YD was caused by dust. Not soot, apparently, but dust. This is an account of the ice-core analysis:

    ‘You did not need to be a trained ice core observer to see this,’ recalled Alley. ‘Ken Taylor is sitting there with the ECM and he’s running along and his green line is going wee, wee, wee, wee – Boing! Weep! Woop! And then it stays down.’ Dust in the windy ice age atmosphere lowered the acidity of the core to a completely new state.‘We’re just standing there and he just draws a picture of it,”‘Alley said.”….
    “In the GISP2 science trench, the tray holding the section of core rolled down the assembly line and then it was Alley’s turn at the ice. “It slides across in front of me and I’m trying to identify years: ‘That’s a year, that’s a year and that’s a year, and – woops, that one’s only half as thick.’ And it’s sitting there just looking at you. And there’s a huge change in the appearance of the ice, it goes from being clear to being not clear, having a lot of dust.”

    Climate Crash: Abrupt Climate Change and What it Means for our Future, John D Cox.


    >>Then you do not explain why a dusty environment if that was the cause
    >>of an Ice age to end does not happen every 21,700 years or so.

    I think we have been through this. The Co2 has to get low enough for for a plant die-back, to expose barren desert lands, to allow a dust era. And the dust storms only happen every 88 k to 108 k years. The dust-storm match with the eccentricity maximum is interesting, but the storms are also coincident with the CO2 minimum, which is why the plant-life died.

    In addition I do not ‘use eccentricity’. And why involve Lunar and and-ocean arrangements, if they are not necessary? And how can land-ocean arrangements, that take millions of years to significantly alter, be responsible for temperature changes that take: 10 years (for D-O events), one year (for YD warming), or 5000 years (for Interglacials)?


  98. oldbrew says:

    ‘New study questions long-held theories of climate variability in the North Atlantic’

    Abstract: ‘The Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) is a major mode of climate variability with important societal impacts. Most previous explanations identify the driver of the AMO as the ocean circulation, specifically the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC). Here we show that the main features of the observed AMO are reproduced in models where the ocean heat transport is prescribed and thus cannot be the driver. Allowing the ocean circulation to interact with the atmosphere does not significantly alter the characteristics of the AMO in the current generation of climate models. These results suggest that the AMO is the response to stochastic forcing from the mid-latitude atmospheric circulation, with thermal coupling playing a role in the tropics. In this view, the AMOC and other ocean circulation changes would be largely a response to, not a cause of, the AMO.’

  99. Paul Vaughan says:

    Yes I noticed that one (on wind-driven AMO) OB.

    They’re beginning to recognize what has been pointed out by Rial, Lozier, Wunsch, & others.

    It isn’t just the amount of insolation. It’s also the wind — and therefore evaporation, rainfall, runoff, mixing, advection, & coupled THC location, etc. — that results from it’s spatiotemporal pattern that paces & shapes regional aberrations from the global integral.

    “Rial (2012) drew my attention to a fundamental correction that’s underway in oceanography […]”

    Insolation is not only the source of energy but also the governor of flow geometry. That’s the lesson slowly being learned.

    The flawed narrative being pushed by lukewarm blogs is due for the same fundamental correction. You can’t make adequate sense of what radiation is doing to surface temperatures if you ignore the fundamentals of flow geometry.

    If more people would carefully read Rial (2012) it would almost certainly help speed up the learning.

  100. oldbrew says:

    PV: so the message is… ‘get Rial’🙂

  101. Brian White says:

    In very arid Australia, native plant populations have cloud cover from late morning on. Farmland right beside it doesn’t. The scientists who went there from the USA to study that effect, invoke the heat absorbed and released by the darker vegetation, versus the light farmland, yet from late morning on, there are clouds covering those dark areas. How can it really be heat for the rest of the day? (When the area is half covered by clouds! Might the plant communities be making and releasing aerosols to quickly generate cloud cover as “sun screen” to prevent further desiccation? An evolutionary adaptation to PREVENT overheating and further water loss and total desiccation by 4 pm daily? (also available as a podcast)

  102. tchannon says:

    Lots of possible reasons Brian.

    HC released by plants + sunshine forms particulates, perhaps that could help cloud seeding. Papers ought to be around (bet they are semi-submerged)

    What is the origin of the water vapour?

  103. oldbrew says:

    Review of ‘A Disgrace to the Profession: The World’s Scientists—In Their Own Words—On Michael Mann, His Hockey Stick, and Their Damage to Science’, compiled and edited by Mark Steyn

    ‘Steyn leads off A Disgrace to the Profession with prominent Princeton University physics professor William Happer likening Mann’s work to the government’s rewriting of history in the novel 1984. Happer recalls studying science as a boy, learning about the Medieval Warm Period—when Greenland was green, hence it’s name—which was followed by the horrendous Little Ice Age. Both not-so-mysteriously absent from Mann’s hockey stick reconstruction.’

  104. tchannon says:

    Canada turns left with new political rabble in government. Guess what is on the agenda?

  105. tchannon says:

    I wrote the above after reading

    Trudeau has said he will repair Canada’s cool relations with the Obama administration, withdraw Canada from the combat mission against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) group in favour of humanitarian aid and training, and tackle climate change

    Entitled “Canada’s opposition wins historic elections”

  106. Brian White says:

    Re the rabbit proof fence. Yes, I think it is likely to be the hydrocarbons in sunlight. I’m surprise their thinking was so linear. They said simply the dark colour was making heat rise quicker. I guess in that case it could be a “coastal front” type situation but I don’t know how big the clouds extent is. Apparently it is a very noticeable thing. Hopefully not a transition effect or front but an actual biologically induced climate difference. The rabbit proof fences are considerably far inland in western Australia near Perth, so presumably the damp air is coming mostly from Perth direction. (I don’t know how to actually link a reply) Thanks

  107. oldbrew says:

    German engineering up to more VW-like tricks?

    ‘Dyson accuses Siemens and Bosch of fabricating vacuum cleaner power ratings’

    “Dyson has issued proceedings against Siemens in Germany and Belgium and Bosch in the Netherlands and France.”

  108. J Martin says:

    Perhaps the sudden end of glaciations is down to a reduction in plant based aerosols ? On the Albedo post Ralf Ellis proposed that the reduction in co2 led to a massive die off of plant life which led to large fires and soot blanketing the ice.

    But if a severe drop in co2 during a glaciation causes a large drop in plant life and forests in particular then that would lead to less aerosols and thus less clouds, so more solar energy, enough to kick off the interstitial with the background Milankovitch conditions suitable.

  109. Paul Vaughan says:

    Here’s an example of why it’s still worthwhile monitoring wuwt despite its agenda:

    conservation of momentum
    conservation of mass

    …but it’s comical to see a commentator named “Mike” being so goofy as to dismiss as “nonsense” the notion that wind affects evaporation. That’s the propaganda part of wuwt I advise ignoring.

    Ice extent & export from the western nordic seas is necessarily a function of arctic freshwater input and as I’ve proven via the laws of large numbers & conservation of angular momentum that is a function of equator-pole insolation gradient (heat engine) frequency shifts with the solar cycle.

    Why are dark agents so determined to suggest to a naive audience that the wind does not affect evaporation?

    It makes no sense unless the assumption is that the average reader has a brain as clear as mud, because everyone should know from direct first-hand observation that at a constant temperature wet clothes dry faster in the wind. In the same room hang 2 wet T-shirts and put a powerful fan in front of one and compare how long it takes the 2 to dry. Is the assumption that the audience is too stupid to be that aware? If so, that tells us something about the attitude of the message-masters…

  110. oldbrew says:

    WWW beats certain WUWT commenters…

    ‘How Wind and Other Variables Affect Evaporation’

  111. tallbloke says:

    Yup. Paul V will be interested for sure.

  112. Paul Vaughan says:

    The failure to promptly retract v4 is damningly reprehensible.
    It’s almost incomprehensibly creepy.

    …so it’s time to go sea-kayaking and hiking to cleanse the mind of injustice……

  113. tallbloke says:

    Enjoy, and go prepared for wintry weather.

  114. Paul Vaughan says:

    Yet again:
    Arrogant climate scientists based incorrect modeling on false assumptions …

    ” “We have identified an important process that current global climate models don’t adequately capture.” […] the strength of the overturning circulation in the North Pacific is inherently linked to global climate changes, but not in the way scientists had previously thought. […] the thinking went […] But that’s not what the sediment cores revealed. […] What the climate models were missing […] was […]”

    “Previous studies based on global climate models indicated that the overturning circulation in the North Pacific and North Atlantic responded in opposite ways to major shifts in global climate. During glacial periods, sea level falls as water gets locked up in the ice sheets, and in extreme cases the Bering Strait connecting the Bering Sea to the Arctic Ocean closes and becomes a land bridge. This shuts off the flow of relatively fresh North Pacific water into the saltier North Atlantic, leading to increased salinity in the North Atlantic and stronger overturning circulation there.

    At the same time, the thinking went, a fresher North Pacific would have weaker circulation. This oceanic “seesaw” would result in a cooling effect in one ocean and a warming effect in the other. But that’s not what the sediment cores revealed. “We found that the overturning circulation actually strengthens in both oceans when the Bering Strait is closed,” Knudson said.

    What the climate models were missing, she said, was the strong brine production from sea ice formation in the Bering Sea. The global climate models do a good job of simulating the process of sea ice formation over large areas in the open ocean. But the critical coastal process, which actually generates more of the deep water, occurs on smaller scales and is only captured in high-resolution regional climate models, Knudson said.”

  115. oldbrew says:

    Any Paris climate deal will be waste paper if US Republicans get into power.

    ‘Congress, Ready to Drive a Stake Through the Climate Vampire’s Heart’

    ‘Without Senate ratification, any climate agreement coming out of Paris, just like Obama’s executive orders and climate regulations, can be undone by his successors. Republicans have already made it clear that the Senate will not ratify any agreement Obama makes requiring either steep, economy-killing, greenhouse-gas emission reductions or climate payoffs to developing countries.’

  116. oldbrew says:

    ‘This Child Doesn’t Need a Solar Panel’ – Bjorn Lomborg

    Spending billions of dollars on climate-related aid in countries that need help with tuberculosis, malaria and malnutrition.

  117. oldbrew says:

    New solar system theory.

    Using a new process in planetary formation modeling, where planets grow from tiny bodies called ‘pebbles,’ scientists can explain why Mars is so much smaller than Earth. This same process also explains the rapid formation of the gas giants Jupiter and Saturn, as reported earlier this year.’

  118. oldbrew says:

    In a year when El Nino and supposed ‘record warm’ numbers are in the headlines, nothing much has happened with seasonal Arctic ice numbers.

    El Nino and/or other factors have dented the recovery of 2013-14 but still well above 2011 and 2012.

    Volume of Arctic autumn sea ice: First two weeks of October (average)

    2010: 5,900 cubic km; 2011: 4,500 cu km; 2012: 4,600 cu km;
    2013: 7,800 cu km; 2014: 6,800 cu km; 2015: 6,200 cu km

  119. Ian Wilson says:


    You might find this of some interest. It is the first of two posts concerning this topic at my site.

  120. Paul Vaughan says:

    From the trail linked by Ian I see that Pukite has taken Corbyn’s model from years ago (which I personally verified firsthand using NASA JPL Horizons online ephemerides years ago) and quite comically attempted to rebrand it a Pukite original:

    Pukite has verified Corbyn’s model. Even if it’s years late, it’s good to see his awareness growing, but it says something terrible about his character that he’s trying to steal credit. He says he submitted a paper for publication. Anyone want to bet on whether he duly acknowledges Piers Corbyn in the paper?

    He may be intelligent, but you can’t trust this guy to be honest folks.
    When dishonesty & intelligence combine you get a difficult character.

  121. Paul Vaughan says:

    Found this link from contextearth site:

    Long-term non-linear predictability of ENSO events over the 20th century

    This graph from Pukite is also noteworthy:

    …and this page is worth a look:

    He hasn’t yet grasped the algebraic proof I gave years ago proving how none of this matters to the solar cycle length differintegral governing multidecedal spatiotemporal waves.

    Tip: arctic dipole, transpolar drift (it’s an order of magnitude simpler (& more elegant) than you think)

    He’s musing about multidecadal LOD on the wrong axis and in the wrong basin…

  122. Paul Vaughan says:

    1. ENSO does not drive the multidecadal wave. The multidecadal wave is governed by the solar cycle length differintegral. This has been proven via geometric axioms and the laws of large numbers & conservation of angular momentum.
    2. The bidecadal wave at the surface corresonds with J-S. That in the core corresponds with JEV & Hale. The high frequency component of the surface wave is near-commensurate with annual-Chandler aliasing from the osculating Earth-Moon year-length with respect to the solar system barycenter, wheras core-frequency commensurabilities are with respect to the sun.
    3. All of this is simpler conceptualized in terms of equator-pole & interhemispheric heat engines outlined by Sidorenkov.
    Maybe it would help people if they saw these relations classified in a multiway table (e.g. w.r.t. sun or SSB; equator-pole or interhemispheric; meridional or zonal; etc.). I get the impression that in addition to obstinately ignoring the proven role of solar frequency shift people aren’t being sufficiently careful with axial awareness (e.g. Pukite musing east-west in the Pacific where the action is meridional over the physically asymmetric arctic — the observational record screams this out loud — why is it not obvious????). This canNOT (no apologies for duly putting it in bold caps) be understood without awareness of frequency shift. Failure to acknowledge a valid proof is a serious problem.

  123. tallbloke says:

    Pukite posts as Web Hub Telescope on CE and elsewhere. He’s ignorant of basic quantities such as heat capacity and inertial mass, though clever enough with numbers. I posted about his theft of ideas without giving credit a while ago.

  124. Paul Vaughan says:

    I looked through my records.
    Piers Corbyn detailed the rebranded “Pukite’s model” of 2015 on the the following date:
    Nov 29, 2009

  125. Ian Wilson says:


    Thank you for outlining your basic model in relatively clear terms. There is much truth in what you have said. Though it is not the whole truth.

    I have direct evidence that the Lunar tidal cycles are triggering El Nino events. I suggest that you wait for a pre-print of my paper before you make any more comments.

    You are to be lauded for constantly trying to build a wholistic model for the external influences upon the Earth’s climate. That is not what I am doing with my paper on the effects of the lunar tidal cycle upon El Nino events. What I am doing is looking at a narrow and specific subset of the overall picture. Unfortunately, this is how most science is done.

    I would appreciate a modicum of support when I show that the tidal massaging of the Earth naturally produces a differential tidal force on the Earth that peak at 2.33 years (the QBO cycle) and 1.987 years (the Venus Earth Synodic Cycle). In other words, I am trying to show that there is a direct link between the lunar tidal cycles [which have a direct verifiable impact upon the Earth’s climate] and the VE Synodic period – which is directly linked to the J-S Synodic period and hence the overall level of solar activity.

    I know it is frustrating, Paul, when people do not understand your work. However, this will come with time.

  126. Ian Wilson says:

    That should be 1.5987 years!

  127. Paul Vaughan says:

    Figure 3:

    Atmospheric forcing of Fram Strait sea ice export: a closer look (2009)

  128. Paul Vaughan says:

    I’ve been skiing (skimming & skipping) through the long series of long posts by Evans & Nova watching for a money paragraph or a money graph. It’s possible it was buried somewhere and I missed it. If anyone caught it, please point it out. Thanks.

    Specifically what I’m eager to see is how they incorporate flow geometry into their conceptual framework, but so far I get the impression they’re making a lot of false spatial assumptions.

    What follows is not intended as an insult.
    It’s more of an invitation to improved mutual understanding, perhaps…

    It’s not at all clear to me how anyone thinks climate can be modeled sensibly by ignoring geography & flow. When I see people going on about radiation but ignoring geography & flow geometry, it’s not clear to me why they think they’re modeling climate, but I know with certainty they’ve already been proven wrong by the geometry of observations.

    The perspective I’m left with is: They’re not trying to model climate, so what are they trying to do?? How can people think they’re modeling climate if they’re ignoring the geometry of heat engines?? The conventional mindset about modeling radiation without due consideration of heat engine geometry makes NO sense to me — whatsoever — and it never has. It’s too divorced from reality. It’s an exercise in modeling something that doesn’t even exist.

    For sure the reason why that bad mindset is totally & completely alien to me is the following: I have not inherited via cultural channels the same false assumptions about spatial organization & flow. I don’t even know exactly what the false assumptions are because no one bothers to state the false assumptions explicitly, possibly because they’re made unconsciously.

    I find all of this more than a little creepy. It makes me curious about how the false assumptions became so culturally pervasive.

    I’m putting this out there unrefined to provoke more reflection about where all of these false-but-pervasive assumptions about geometry & spatial flow originated. They’re insane assumptions and there’s little chance they’ll be corrected if people don’t even stop to realize they’re doing it. At this point it’s just total widespread ignorance.

    The false spatial assumptions are so deeply ingrained that people (skeptics, alarmists, lukewarmists alike) have absolute zero awareness that they’re even doing it. What to do about ignorance so stubbornly widespread & deep?? It’s a serious, challenging, ongoing problem and solution may take time, patience, & genius revelation.

    I’ve similarly been skiing wuwt posts & comments on NOAA’s ERSSTv4, but so far I’ve not seen anyone point out NOAA’s most serious error:

    I’m beginning to wonder if we’re observing a feigned opposition. NONE of the important errors in v4 have been pointed out at wuwt — not even the biggest one. Is it a deliberate strategy of only presenting weak arguments against v4 to make it look like “skeptics” are stupid &/or have nothing? Obama must LOVE wuwt for making the opposition look so weak.

  129. Ron Clutz says:

    A lot of people on Facebook are worried about Greenland Ice Sheet. Here is the antidote:

  130. tchannon says:

    Model climate Paul?

    K —————————————————————–

  131. Paul Vaughan says:

    The risk of misunderstanding is very high and I apologize if raising the issue has had the undesirable side-effect of upsetting anyone more than it should, but this is so important that we lose fatally if we shy away from it.

    Climate cannot be modeled with radiation alone in ignorance of nonlinear ice.
    My judgement on this is final and sealed with a sledge hammer.

    Clarification & Request:
    I’ve invited commentary because I believe a talented communicator (e.g. TB) may be able to help me understand how the culture of trying to fundamentally incorrectly model climate with radiation alone — while ignoring the observed flow geometry governing nonlinear ice — became and remains dominant.

    I’m striving to understand how the overwhelming majority of people became trapped in this fundamentally flawed mindset and it’s too much of a stretch so I’m asking for help.

    I can suggest we’re here to explore nature, including human nature.


  132. Paul Vaughan says:

    Let me try to raise the bars of integrity & clarity by provoking as follows:

    If you were empowered to radically modify the geography of Earth — but not radiation physics — could you change terrestrial climate?

    The answer is a bold capitalized underscored yes.

    …so I ask: Where is the geography in the radiation-alone models?????

    It’s an honest, crucial question …and responses may be informative.


  133. tallbloke says:

    Niklas Morner agrees with you Paul. The raising of the Himalaya for example, had a profound effect on regional climate in Asia and worldwide.

  134. Paul Vaughan says:

    We have the perfect occasion to review Bill Illis’ geography-climate classic:

    Can a radiation-alone model account for the geography-change impacts on circulation??

    bold capitalized underscored no

  135. aequitas45 says:

    Paul V
    Your logic is unassailable. But a scientist needs to get published. Their time is limited and they are human. Model builders appear to assume that the surface of the earth is a flat circular disc facing the sun. The surface does not move or spin. It’s subject only to radiation. Why? It’s simple to model and it produces a paper. The other choice is to look for narrow correlations to publish of the type Ian Wilson wrote of above. Very valuable work yet not the grand synthesis that you contemplate.

    To build a model of a spinning sphere of gas, liquid and solid with an uneven surface subject to variable radiation seems like an insurmountable task. (similar to weather forecasting) If it could be achieved even crudely, would anyone understand it. Your own work in this field is an indication of how difficult it is to get recognition for even the simplest spacial time correlations.
    Getting acceptance of a few fundamental ideas will be a long journey. Getting scientists to use techniques such as finite element analysis to dynamically model the surface of the earth over time will take even longer.
    Your are making a valuable contribution. Ideas change slowly please continue the struggle.

  136. Paul Vaughan says:

    I noticed wuwt pointing here a few days ago:

    “Meehl bashes Karl”

    “Whether Meehl is any more correct than Karl is anyone’s guess though.”

    No guessing required there.
    Meehl at least acknowledges:

    “Often there are issues with observed data that need adjusting – in this case such claims of “no hiatus” are artifacts of questionable interpretation of decadal timescale variability and externally forced response – not problems with the data. Thus, the hiatus is symptomatic of the much broader and very compelling problem of decadal timescale variability of the climate system.”

    But Meehl gets this part wrong:

    “Recent research has shown that decadal variability in the Pacific associated with the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation (IPO) plays a major role in driving naturally-occurring global decadal timescale climate fluctuations that are superimposed on the long term warming trend from increasing greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions throughout the 20th and early 21st centuries.”

    This is a serious misconception. Ignorantly mixing modes is blurring perception fatally.

    They need a careful, patient circulatory-morphology taxonomist to help them at least begin with axial sorting & classification and probably the work can be done orders of magnitude more efficiently by higher agencies like NASA JPL where awareness of implications of observed EOP (earth orientation parameter) structure should at least have a hope of being feasible.

    I don’t think US climate scientists can solve this puzzle. They’re insufficiently cognizant of geometry.
    I would advise the US government to move the natural variations funding to NASA JPL.

    I should clarify that I also don’t think Russian climate scientists can solve this puzzle. If they were capable they would have succeeded by a decade ago. I hope the Russian & Chinese presidents realize this.

    Tip: Fram Strait ice export is topologically trans-polar.

    You can’t sensibly ignore the geometry folks:
    meridional ≠ zonal (…sealed with the decisive slam of a sledge-hammer gavel)

    This stuff coming out of this US “clivar” program is clumsy propaganda proven wrong by the geometry of observations.

  137. Paul Vaughan says:

    Provoking with binary classification:

    1. Is ENSO east-west or north-south?
    2. Is AMOC east-west or north-south?
    3. Is AD (arctic dipole) east-west or north-south?

    1. Is ENSO interhemispheric or equator-pole?
    2. Is AMOC interhemispheric or equator-pole?
    3. Is AD (arctic dipole) interhemispheric or equator-pole?

    1. Is ENSO barycentric or heliocentric?
    2. Is AMOC barycentric or heliocentric?
    3. Is AD (arctic dipole) barycentric or heliocentric?

    1. Is ENSO linear or nonlinear?
    2. Is AMOC linear or nonlinear?
    3. Is AD (arctic dipole) linear or nonlinear?

    1. Is ENSO symmetric or asymmetric?
    2. Is AMOC symmetric or asymmetric?
    3. Is AD (arctic dipole) symmetric or asymmetric?


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