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. o2bnaz2 says:

    Was looking at the NOAA site on sea level trends and saw this sentence…”After a recent review of the primary bench mark history at Seldovia,(9455500), small adjustments were made to older mean sea level values. A new relative sea level trend of -10.47 mm/yr has been calculated for 1964-2013. The previous trend from uncorrected data for 1964-2006 was -9.45 mm/yr….”

    NOAA has increased the rate for sea level rise by 10% with a single small adjustment

  2. oldmanK says:

    FRom above “”small adjustments were made to older mean sea level values””.

    This may only be the smaller art part of the issue. The larger issue may probably be subsidence, crustal sinking.

  3. oldmanK says:

    Please read ‘part’ for ‘art’ . The Lenovo middle keys don’t register as the whole keyboard sinks under the finger.

  4. oldbrew says:

    Fake peer review problems in Chinese science.

    ‘China issues rules banning dishonesty in science publishing’

    ‘In March, BioMed retracted 43 papers following an investigation that raised suspicions of fake peer reviews. Chinese state media said 41 of the papers came from Chinese scientists.

    Berlin-based publisher Springer announced in August that it had retracted 64 articles—nearly all by Chinese authors—because of false peer reviews.’

  5. oldbrew says:

    Q. What are the criteria for the new Met Office sport of ‘name that storm’?
    A. Whatever the MetO decides in each case, BEFORE the thing arrives.

    Once a storm, always a storm – even when it isn’t.

  6. Paul Vaughan says:

    z-axis theory gets yet another boost….

    How do the following long-run-average ~11.07 year cycles alias semi-annual & annual equator-pole & interhemispheric terrestrial heat engine cycles?

    1. J+N (LOWEST frequency jovian AXIAL component of HELIOcentric (not to be confused with barycentric) solar system dynamics)
    2. JEV (Jupiter Earth Venus cycle)
    3. schwabe solar cycle

    long-run harmonic nearest annual:
    (11.06715863) / 11 = 1.00610533

    the consequent aliasing:
    (1.00610533)*(1) / (1.00610533 – 1) = 164.79132 years

    long-run harmonic nearest semi-annual:
    (11.06715863) / 22 = 0.503052665

    the consequent aliasing:
    (0.503052665)*(0.5) / (0.503052665 – 0.5) = 82.39566 years

    The solar cycle’s asymmetric, so what about shape factors?

    (11.06715863) / 2 = 5.533579313
    (5.533579313) / 2 = 2.766789656

    (5.533579313) / 6 = 0.922263219
    (2.766789656) / 6 = 0.461131609

    (1)*(0.922263219) / (1 – 0.922263219) = 11.86392342 years
    (0.5)*(0.461131609) / (0.5 – 0.461131609) = 5.931961711

    Then how would these long-run solar signals alias into climate records?

    (5.931634587) / 6 = 0.988605765
    (1)*(0.988605765) / (1 – 0.988605765) = 86.76367718 years (Gleissberg)
    [mod – see the comment linked below for a correction to this equation:]

    (82.39566) / 82 = 1.004825122
    (1.004825122)*(1) / (1.004825122 – 1) = 208.2486478 years (de Vries)

    (82.39566)*(5.931961711) / ( (82.39566 + 5.931961711) / 2 ) = 11.06715863 (~lowest frequency jovian axial component of heliocentric solar system dynamics)
    (164.79132)*(11.86392342) / (164.79132 – 11.86392342) = 12.78431233 (~highest frequency jovian component of barycentric solar system dynamics)

    With symmetry & polarity:
    (82.39566)*(5.931961711) / (82.39566 – 5.931961711) = 6.392156163 (~polar motion group wave)
    (6.392156163)*(1) / (6.392156163 – 1) = 1.18545457 (~Chandler wobble)

    With asymmetry:
    (12.78431233)*(2) / (12.78431233 – 2) = 2.370909139 (~QBO)

    Also noteworthy is the 1500 year envelope of the Neptune-period oscillation of the 11.07 year cycle:

    (164.79132) / 15 = 10.986088
    (11.06715863)*(10.986088) / (11.06715863 – 10.986088) = 1499.738988 ~= 1500 years (~D-O)

    As a relative rookie I isolated that envelope from NASA JPL Horizons output back around early 2010, but at the time I didn’t recognize it as I was not as cognizant at the time of the extreme sensitivity of aliasing to biases in the J2000 orbital periods cited by NASA JPL for 1800AD-2050AD & 3000BC-3000AD versus Seidelmann (1992).

    Emerging key insight:

    Due to aliasing sensitivity, nonlinearities, asymmetries, etc. periods don’t register in records according to naive notions. In this case 2.37, 1.185, 6.4, 87, 208, & 1500 are recorded but the 11.07 input only registers where supported by a concert of laws of (a) large numbers & (b) conservation of angular momentum.


    My assessment is that the community is not sufficiently aware of the Neptune-period oscillation of the JEV wave to facilitate evolving discussion.

    Even if just one or two community luminaries were sufficiently aware, that would be enough, so I’m suggesting that it’s technically feasible to overcome this hurdle. It only remains to be seen whether it’s socially & politically feasible. Elaboration: My sense based on years of climate discussion observations is that people have affiliations that cause them have to appear to disregard [and in some bold cases even stoically refute via reprehensible abuse of authority-trust] 1+1=2.

  7. Paul Vaughan says:

    Academic clarification:
    I’m outlining the statistical asymptotics of nonlinear seasonal polar aliasing of tropical variance modes.

    These signals register clearly in ERSSTv3b2 multivariate modes 2 & 3 (south Greenland & Drake Passage), but they have been seriously corrupted in ERSSTv4. (Political excitement is overriding quality control at NOAA. (Haste makes waste.))

    In 2011 I gave a 2 part algebraic proof of why solar cycle length (SCL) differintegral asymmetry is independent of tropical modes despite wild aliasing sensitivity to variation around 11.07 years (& by analogy 27 days). (Those parties who have failed to acknowledge the proofs are advised to redouble integrity efforts.)

    Trivial geometric fact:
    SCL differintegral geometry applies to all bodies in the solar system, including the sun itself.
    This geometry holds true no matter the physical apparatus. It describes the configuration of physical apparatus despite physical differences between bodies that share the common geometry.

    ERSST EOF 1234 review:

    • The sunspot integral sets the (global) backbone.

    • The SCL differintegral sets the fractional multidecadal aberrations around the backbone.

    Polar seasonal aliasing of tropical modes (ENSO variance) sets orthogonal regional phase aberrations (notably south Greenland & Drake Passage).

    Aliasing was the trivial missing (heliocentric-barycentric) link.

  8. Ed says:

    Many thanks for your efforts. Good summary presentation. Of course, we are all interested in the future. I know you are not big on predictions, but please can you extend your timelines 10 years ahead and plot your estimated values.
    Much appreciated, thanks in advance.

  9. Paul Vaughan says:

    Here’s the final nail in the coffin of the massive multidecadal climate error made by NASA JPL:

    Recall that although surface bidecadal oscillation (BDO) is barycentric J-S, core BDO is heliocenric JEV/2 (1/22.14):

    Here’s the derivation they’ve missed (or kept classified):

    2*(11.06715863) = 22.13431725

    Hale harmonic nearest semi-annual equator-pole heat engine:
    (22.13431725) / 44 = 0.503052665

    consequent aliasing
    (0.503052665)*(0.5) / (0.503052665 – 0.5) = 82.39566 years (as observed)

    No matter how you slice it, that’s a wrap.

    Lesson (on confounding): Aliased heliocentric frequency mimics barycentric.

    The example also nicely highlights the (simplifying) diagnostic utility of morphological classification:
    • core vs. surface
    • heliocentric vs. barycentric
    • east-west vs. north south
    • z-axis vs. xy-plane
    • equator-pole vs. interhemispheric
    • etc.

    We’ll learn something about integrity at NASA JPL by watching how long it takes them to retract that one (rather extremely) egregious study. It’s no contest: NASA JPL are leagues above their american “competitors” at climate research …but they had that one truly epic (and almost certainly politically intoxicated) blunder that needs to be retracted. We’re going to learn if anything is holding them back from admitting their serious multidecadal error.

    Does everyone remember that study? It’s right up there in the list of classic “accidents” alongside Thomson (1995) and Muller & Macdonald (1997). These errors whether by design or accident became the flawed foundations under the pillars.

  10. Paul Vaughan says:

    Ed (December 4, 2015 at 11:52 pm) wrote:
    Many thanks for your efforts. Good summary presentation. Of course, we are all interested in the future. I know you are not big on predictions, but please can you extend your timelines 10 years ahead and plot your estimated values.
    Much appreciated, thanks in advance.”

    I’ve shown measurements of SCL.
    I’ve not shown how to predict it, nor am I doing so at this time.

    However, there’s one prediction I have made:
    Overturning is inevitable with abrupt SCD.

    This prediction is not limited to wind-driven ocean circulation.

    To be clear:
    It extends to geopolitical structure (as I’ve emphasized on 2 occasions in earlier Tallbloke’s Talkshop Suggestions threads.)

    This is of paramount importance to North Atlantic (and therefore global) security.
    There’s a reason for all the deception you see.

    I’m here to raise luminary awareness of the (rather serious) miscalculation.

    At this time I’m not prepared to precisely state the outcome I foresee if there’s not a western change of course, but I am prepared to suggest the following: The west will be well-advised to show an order of magnitude more respect to Russia & China on Middle East strategy.

    For now I’m comfortable being on the record saying just that much and not more.


  11. Paul Vaughan says:

    NASA JPL is usually the sensible US agency on climate and Jean Dickey along with co-author Keppenne authored an all-time climate classic in 1997.


    Jean Dickey (NASA JPL) 2011:
    “[…] the ultimate solution to addressing climate change remains in our hands”

    That’s one big strategic miscalculation NASA JPL needs to correct. The tip they need again:

    Tropical Mode Orthogonality to Solar Cycle Length Differintegral

    Review of 2011 SCL fundamental-beats algebraic proof:

    Changing nonstationary beats with natural internal oscillations are generalizable.
    P'(s,t) =
    ( { |A(t)-B(s,t)| * [ A(t)*B'(s,t) + B(s,t)*A'(t) ] }
    – { [ A(t)*B(s,t) ] * [ ( A(t)-B(s,t) ) * ( A'(t)-B'(s,t) ) / |A(t)-B(s,t)| ] } )
    / ( A(t)-B(s,t) )^2

    A(t) ≠ B(s,t)
    A = solar cycle length nearest-harmonic
    B = a given internal cycle period
    P = beat period
    s = space
    t = time
    ‘ indicates rate of change
    ^ indicates exponentiation

    It’s important to recognize that the effect of changing solar cycle frequency is generalizable even with incomplete knowledge of Earth’s internal cycles.

    […] the beat period of any 2 adjacent harmonics is the fundamental.
    { [ x / n ] * [ x / (n+1) ] } / { [ x / n ] – [ x / (n+1) ] }
    = { [ x^2 ] / [ n(n+1) ] } / { [ x(n+1) – xn ] / [ n(n+1) ] }
    = x

    where x represents the fundamental period & n indicates harmonics.

    NOAA has systematically vandalized the IPO orthogonality with the changes from ERSSTv3b2 to ERSSTv4.

    This is serious business and we’re dealing with difficult characters. Their motivation is potent as they know global security’s at stake. But there’s a problem: They miscalculated.

  12. Paul Vaughan says:

    I wonder: What could historians tell us about frequency modulatin (that’s a suggestive typo) of early 1800s circulation (care for a meridional sea breeze marine military historians? – or maybe a zonal sea breeze…)?… more illustrations forthcoming in the days & weeks ahead, including something no serious climate junkie in India, China, Africa, &/or South America will want to miss about stratospheric volcanic aerosols & MEI (multivariate ENSO index)…. serious business on early 1800s western climate deception forthcoming…. (so you might want to hold off for now on any important decisions)

  13. Will Janoschka says:

    Paul Vaughan says: December 5, 2015 at 5:11 am

    “I wonder: What could historians tell us about frequency modulatin (that’s a suggestive typo) of early 1800s circulation”

    Paul, all observable solar system planetary motions must have a negative complex conjugate in the frequency domain. Way, way, different considerations of angular momentum!
    All the best! -will-

  14. Paul Vaughan says:

    Solar-terrestrial-climate wind volatility weave is clear by simple complex means:

  15. Will Janoschka says:

    Paul Vaughan says: December 5, 2015 at 8:33 am

    “Solar-terrestrial-climate wind volatility weave is clear by simple complex means:”

    So you claim!

  16. Paul Vaughan says:


  17. Paul Vaughan says:

    Of course it’s not all aliasing.
    11.07 does show up directly in some variables.
    Rate of change of ozone & thermospheric density are 2 other variable coherent with this summary:

  18. Ed says:

    Thanks for your reply, which I repeat;

    “However, there’s one prediction I have made:
    Overturning is inevitable with abrupt SCD.
    This prediction is not limited to wind-driven ocean circulation.
    To be clear:
    It extends to geopolitical structure (as I’ve emphasized on 2 occasions in earlier Tallbloke’s Talkshop Suggestions threads.)
    This is of paramount importance to North Atlantic (and therefore global) security.”

    Please excuse if I am a little thick here but I cannot understand the “overturning with abrupt SCD”.
    Does it mean the Solar Cycle Deceleration will show a sudden discontinuity in the near future?
    Your SCD graph further back in time shows a discontinuity in about 1810. Is that likely to happen again?

    Once again, I apologize for not keeping up with you.

  19. Paul Vaughan says:

    Will Janoschka (December 5, 2015 at 9:11 am) wrote:
    “So you claim!”


    And enough’s enough.

    The weave is a simple, clear observation. There’s no sensible reason to doubt it’s existence.
    If someone doesn’t see it, it’s probably because they’re not using methods for detecting cyclic volatility.

    Over the years I’ve grown tired of dealing with nonsensical pushback on a simple observation from people who go looking for cyclic volatility with methods that cannot (and weren’t designed to) detect it.

    A bright Stat 101 student can devise a crude method for detecting cyclic volatility, but in about 7 years following the climate discussion I haven’t yet observed another commentator who knows how to measure the simple feature. This indicates an unflattering talent pool deficit, underscored by the lack of difficulty of the task.

    All the pushback saying 1+1≠2 is extremely rude. It’s based deception &/or ignorance (methodological &/or conceptual ignorance). I flatly reject the ignorance &/or deception and take extreme offense to the downright inhumane rudeness with which it’s pushed.

  20. Paul Vaughan says:

    Ed (December 5, 2015 at 2:25 pm) wrote:
    Thanks for your reply […]
    Please excuse if I am a little thick here but I cannot understand the “overturning with abrupt SCD”.
    Does it mean the Solar Cycle Deceleration will show a sudden discontinuity in the near future?
    Your SCD graph further back in time shows a discontinuity in about 1810. Is that likely to happen again?”

    Ed, I’m not volunteering predictions of what the curve will do in the future, but I do note the rather obvious correspondence of SCD corners with major geopolitical shifts (WWII, WWI, & more sharply the early 1800s).

    Some will say that records are distorted at those times because of the events and Canadians for example will be quick to ask, “In what decade was USA ever not involved in a war?”

    But is the whole multivariate wartime climate signal bias?
    So far I haven’t heard anyone sensible going that far.

    This particular type of natural shift in wind patterns has serious downstream consequences following from ice nonlinearities. (See Rial 2012.)

    Military, health, & economic strategists recognizing the differintegral geometry won’t initially be able to model downstream (domino) effects originating at interfaces with persistent circulatory shifts (e.g. agriculture, aviation). They’ll have to do contingency planning, aiming to maintain advantage by harmonizing with shifting natural opportunity. The bottom line for contingency planning: In a really abrupt shift, flexibility could give a brutally decisive advantage to an underdog competitor.

    Eventually the hospitality of North Atlantic climate expires. The question: then what? Die? Invade somewhere else? Radially emigrate? Deferring answers may be today’s best option and someday abrupt change might force more sudden need to explore answers sooner. If/when abrupt change arrives we may find ourselves too buried in daily survival operations to think medium-term, never mind long term.

    The observation-based prediction I’ve volunteered:
    The sun drives overturning.

    I now choose to confidently volunteer one more prediction:
    Modelers (government or otherwise) will get absolutely nowhere exploring this before they incorporate the solar cycle, equator-pole gradients, & land-ocean geometry into the Milankovitch framework.


  21. Ed says:

    Thanks, your explanation is very clear – I get it now.
    I have an open mind to all possibilities and black swan events – climate or otherwise.
    The trader and risk manager in me wonders how to benefit from a possible “really abrupt shift” and “eventually the hospitality of the North Atlantic climate expires”.
    Thanks for your insights and keep up the good work.

  22. Paul,

    I have put a short temporary post at my blog site to try and further your arguments so that others might understand what you are doing:

  23. Paul Vaughan says:

    Ed (December 6, 2015 at 2:10 am) wrote:
    “The trader and risk manager in me wonders how to benefit from a possible “really abrupt shift” and “eventually the hospitality of the North Atlantic climate expires”.
    Thanks for your insights and keep up the good work.”

    Ed, as time & resources permit I aim to keep sharing notes. I’m currently stuck operating under harshly oppressive conditions. I’ll reach no more than 2 or 3% of my potential. Hence my devotion to the Pareto Principle. In some ways we’re thinking exactly alike. I’ll keep you posted as & when possible.

    Best Regards

  24. Paul Vaughan says:

    Ian, I’ve specified the variable probably hundreds of times. Sometimes its remarkable what a staple feature of climate discussions misunderstandings are.

    There are 2 versions of the weave plot in circulation. One’s based on backward differences and the other on second order central differences (as explained countless times). You can tell them apart by the 1/4 cycle phase shift within the year.

    The variable is semi-annual LOD.
    How many times have I stated that? It surely must be hundreds of times (including day 1 intro).

    As I’ve pointed out many times over the years, the high frequency lunar components have to be exactly suppressed and the volatility rake has to be tuned to semiannual grain & Schwabe extent. Even a crude volatility rake will easily do the job, but more elegant ones do it nicer.

    As I’ve also pointed out countless times, Dickey & Keppenne illustrated a cross-section of the weave in 1997. So far as I’m aware credit for the discovery goes to them. See Figure 3a of the classic paper. As indicated many times, they draw NO attention to the discovery in the text of the article, which in my opinion makes it all the more classic as visuals are superior.

    If you look carefully at the EOF3 map in the appendix of ERSST EOF1234 you should be able to have an immediate deep revelation about 0.5 year aliasing of 11.07 years. Brace yourself for one of those rare moments in life if it hasn’t hit you yet.

    1. The weave graph is telling you exactly why ENSO spatially biases north or south on cycles of Neptune harmonics. Humboldt current loops back in, but gulf stream doesn’t.
    2. The weave’s the root of the de Vries cycle. (hierarchical aliasing)
    3. IPO can be modeled with a generalized extension of the aliasing to harmonics (since year shape isn’t perfectly sinusoidal).

    It’s probably not what people expected: “Neptune harmonics?? That can’t be right.” I suggest: Slow down. Be sensible. Restrain judgmental impulses based on severe misunderstandings.

  25. Paul Vaughan says:

    Be aware: NOAA has done an extreme hatchet job on EOFs from ERSST v3b2 to v4.

    By choosing to mirror their EOF2-based “bias” (their misinterpretation) about the mid-point of the multivariate time series they inflicted maximal vandalism on sun-climate exploratory diagnostics.

    It could be interpreted as genius, as maximal multivariate leverage is hinged on a single point positioned exactly at the perfectly-camouflaging inhomogeneity step.

    They executed precisely targeted high impact vandalism.

    Whether by design or accident they’re an unwelcome bull in a China shop and I suggest they have a lesson to learn in diplomacy.

    I keep wavering between whether I think it was a clumsy accident or a maliciously targeted hit intended to draw maximal blood. Either way NOAA can’t escape the optics:

    If they sent their top mercenary scout into multivariate space looking to target the ellipsoid at its point of maximum vulnerability, they’d identify exactly the point that was chosen if they knew what they were doing. It’s a little chilling.

    Lamar Smith is too embattled and he doesn’t understand the IPO graph so he can’t get the job done. The help of much stronger good forces is needed.

    With humility I respectfully request that China demand (perhaps secretly) that USA retract v4 and go back to v3b2.

    The climate thought-policing coming out of USA is inhumane.

  26. Paul Vaughan says:

    The busy-season work-week is calling me back so Ian I apologize for running out leaving a bunch of loose ends on the table but for now it’s inevitable. We need to discuss direct JEV core orbital effects and the diagnostics that can distinguish them from the sun’s rocking surface fingers. It will have to be another day, but I look forward to overcoming countless misunderstandings. May they fall like a string of dominoes in quick succession! Best Regards

  27. oldbrew says:

    BBC blamed for allowing sceptical opinions to be heard on a radio broadcast.

    Only BBC-approved opinions can be heard these days.

    They call it impartiality – what a joke. Anyone with a working brain calls it censorship.

  28. oldbrew says:

    ‘Climate Hustle: The film that changes the climate of debate on global warming’

    ‘Noted climatologist Dr. Judith Curry of the Georgia Institute of Technology, who is featured in the film, adds “Climate Hustle is a refreshing and entertaining antidote to the sillier and alarming claims about climate change and its impacts that people regularly hear from politicians and the media.” ‘

    Climate Hustle – fact sheet.

    Click to access FactSheetCH.pdf

    ‘Gala Paris red carpet premiere for new “Climate Hustle” skeptical documentary
    Cinéma du Panthéon, December 7, 7:30 PM’

  29. oldbrew says:

    Malham Cove as never seen in living memory – until now.

    ‘Published on 6 Dec 2015
    Unprecedentd amounts of rain created this unique phenomenom this morning. Talking to 2 neighbours who are both around 80 and have both lived in Malhamdale all their lives, they have never seen this happen before, and some suggestions are that it could be nearly 200 years since it was last recorded.’

  30. Thanks Paul for explaining what you were doing with this plot. Remember, I am a slow plodder. I guessed that the variable had to be related to the LOD. Thanks for the literature references.

  31. Paul Vaughan says:

    alert: typo above (December 4, 2015 at 8:01 pm)

    (5.931634587) / 6 = 0.988605765
    (1)*(0.988605765) / (1 – 0.988605765) = 86.76367718 years

    should read:

    (5.931961711) / 6 = 0.988660285
    (1)*(0.988660285) / (1 – 0.988660285) = 87.18563901 years

    The comment (“z-axis theory gets yet another boost….”) refers back to:

    …which refers back to aliasing landmark 1:

    1 / 11.07 = J+N = JEV aliases 0.5 = semi-annual to 1 / 82.4 = 2N
    and 2N aliases 1 = annual to 208 = de Vries

    The hierarchical aliasing is a matter for the attention of sensible top luminaries.

    Remember that the long JEV cycle has period N & 1500 year envelope (clear in NASA JPL Horizons output).

    The weave, earth orientation parameters (EOP) more generally, & ERSST EOF3 point directly to de Vries. (I have more EOF3 exploratory insight that I’ll convey if/when time permits.)

    It’s important that NOAA stop vandalizing ERSST EOFs, but:

    Does it really help having political activists who don’t understand NOAA’s IPO distortion going off on a witch hunt for e-mails when there’s something much bigger — and beautiful rather than ugly — attracting our attention here?

    The solution to an age-old mystery (the root of the de Vries cycle) is in plain view and instead political partisans are focused on a witch hunt for e-mail dirt rather than stopping to smell the flowers and take in the spectacular view?

    Maybe this is a case where we need to consider raising our game to a higher plane way above left & right.

    I’m repeating here the trivial extension to Saturn.

    Earth year aliasing of Saturn orbit:
    (29.447498) / 29 = 1.015430966
    (1.015430966)*(1) / (1.015430966 – 1) = 65.8047589 years ~= 66 years

    Earth year aliasing of Saturn’s nodal cycle:
    (29.447498) / 2 = 14.723749
    (14.723749) / 15 = 0.981583267
    (1)*(0.981583267) / (1 – 0.981583267) = 53.29844598 years ~= 53 years

    (image credit: Tallbloke’s Talkshop co-host Tim Channon)

    I hope drilling programs for extra-terrestrial exploratory analogs are being planned.

    Ian Wilson:
    Do you understand?
    I’ll be attentive to your need for help with any misunderstandings because this is of high importance.

  32. oldmanK says:

    Paul V says above “Eventually the hospitality of North Atlantic climate expires. The question: then what? Die? Invade somewhere else? Radially emigrate?” PV I cannot even pretend to understand your music sheet, but now the tune is familiar.

    History is replete with such examples, on a large scale. But all, as far as I have found, predate the 2345 bce mark. You will find many examples from that date extending to 2300. 3195 is another. Remember the 2012 hype (proto Maya long count)? You count from a date not to a date. Assumed to start from 3114bce but more likely the 3195, making it a global event (see for that Dresden codex). Etc.

    However the great ‘migrations’ and ‘terminations’ stop after 2345. And the hard evidence shows it has been relatively quiet.

  33. oldbrew says:

    Every half of 21 Jupiter-Saturn conjunctions there’s an alignment with Earth.

    10.5 J-S = 208.583~years, the same period as the de Vries cycle average.

  34. oldbrew says:

    Data or Dogma?

    ‘U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), chairman of the Subcommittee on Space, Science, and Competitiveness, will convene a hearing titled “Data or Dogma? Promoting Open Inquiry in the Debate over the Magnitude of Human Impact on Earth’s Climate” on Tuesday, December 8 at 3 p.m. The hearing will focus on the ongoing debate over climate science, the impact of federal funding on the objectivity of climate research, and the ways in which political pressure can suppress opposing viewpoints in the field of climate science.’

  35. oldbrew says:

    Satellite observations show global plant growth is not keeping up with CO2 emissions

    “Current Earth system models assume that global plant growth will provide the tremendous benefit of offsetting a significant portion of humanity’s CO2 emissions, thus buying us much needed time to curb emissions,” says Smith. “Unfortunately, our observation-based estimates of global vegetation growth indicate that plant growth may not buy us as much time as expected, [so] action to curb emissions is all the more urgent.”

    These things don’t necessarily happen overnight.

    ‘Green Sahara: African Humid Periods Paced by Earth’s Orbital Changes’

    ‘This event is commonly called the “African Humid Period (AHP)”. The AHP was a direct result of African monsoonal climate responses to periodic variations in the Earth’s orbit around the Sun that recur roughly every 20,000 years. Impressively, the AHP is just the most recent of hundreds of earlier humid events spanning as far back as the Miocene (9 million years ago) and likely much earlier.’

  36. oldmanK says:

    Re “African Humid period”, according to some sources that ended 5000 years ago. No coincidence to the 3195bce date.

    That site says ” In this record, shown in Figure 2c, the African Humid Period can be readily identified as the period of low salinity (low d18Oseawater) between 11,500–5,000 years ago (Weldeab et al., 2005).” The change was far more abrupt than that.

    Then ” The large-scale exodus was coincident with the rise of sedentary life and pharaonic culture along the Nile River (a perennial water source) and the spread of pastoralism throughout the continent (Kuper and Kröpelin, 2006).” By 5000 years ago the cultivation of the cereals had already been established for more than 2000 years. 5000 years ago saw an influx of migrants from outside Egypt (Flinders Petrie) that started the Pharaonic dynasties, the result of severe climate change. Herodotus says Egypt was not that much effected.

    Sometimes history has more precise markers.

  37. oldmanK says:

    Sahara additional:

    Date: around 2345, cuneiform texts from Mesopotamia record a big drop in grain production. It is thought the result of a change in climate (everything is now blamed on climate change but on the other hand it is obvious that in this case it would be something like that).

    The point being made here is that changes have occurred too frequently and have nothing to do with secular orbital forcing.

    If interested see this

    Sahara changes are blamed on an ‘Earth wobble’ ,but due to frequency of event, it is not precession.

  38. Paul Vaughan says:

    I’m exploring reconstructions of IPO based on the aliasing I’ve been outlining: already r^2 = 98% without even getting really serious.

  39. oldbrew says:

    ‘periodic variations in the Earth’s orbit around the Sun that recur roughly every 20,000 years’

    This is supposed to be due (mainly) to Jupiter’s influence altering Earth’s ‘natural’ precession period of around 25,770 years. And/or it’s half the obliquity period?

  40. oldbrew says:

    What effect does dust have on global temperatures? Nobody knows.

  41. oldmanK says:

    oldbrew, there are experiences that may answer your question

    There is also the more recent Krakatoa event.

  42. oldbrew says:

    Antarctic seismology survey maps ‘reveal hot rock beneath the Bentley Subglacial Trench, a deep basin at the other end of the transect.’

    ‘The Bentley Subglacial Trench is part of the West Antarctic Rift System and hot rock beneath the region indicates that this part of the rift system was active quite recently.’

    ‘Although the hot zone’s shape is ill-defined, it is clear there is higher heat flow into the base of the ice sheet in this area.’ [bold added]

    Jo Nova website picked up on this.

  43. Paul Vaughan says:

    @ OB (December 7, 2015 at 7:01 pm) and anyone else interested

    There’s a risk of miscommunication here probably if I don’t at least quickly spell out a few more details of the broader aliasing framework (that maybe possibly (…ok probably!)) isn’t obvious to everyone…

    (29.447498)*(11.862615) / (29.447498 – 11.862615) = 19.86503587

    (19.86503587) / 20 = 0.993251793

    (19.86503587) / 2 = 9.932517933
    (9.932517933) / 10 = 0.993251793

    (1)*(0.993251793) / (1 – 0.993251793) = 147.1875173

    (147.1875173)*(86.34578011) / (147.1875173 – 86.34578011) = 208.886557 years

    where 86.34578011 (Jupiter aliasing of Earth year) is outlined here: (aliasing landmark 1)

    So that explains why ON EARTH we don’t see…

    (29.447498) / 5 = 5.8894996
    (11.862615) / 2 = 5.9313075
    (5.9313075)*(5.8894996) / (5.9313075 – 5.8894996) = 835.5462281 years

    …but rather

    (835.5462281) / 4 = 208.886557 years

    So there you go:
    Now you know why the division by 4.

    Chinese luminaries are well-informed about these relations. They’re on a higher plane of consciousness (wink wink) than suppressed westerners so far as I can tell. I’ll share further details in a follow-up note…


  44. Paul Vaughan says:

    Let’s look at this a different way so the anti-Neptune crowd can have their Jupiter-Saturn love affair that we well know at times blinds them to the broader picture…

    (11.862615)*(9.932517933) / (11.862615 – 9.932517933) = 61.04648218
    (29.447498)*(19.86503587) / (29.447498 – 19.86503587) = 61.04648218
    if you prefer

    (86.34578011)*(61.04648218) / (86.34578011 – 61.04648218) = 208.3498974 years


    86.34578011 (Jupiter aliasing of the terrestrial year) is outlined here: (aliasing landmark 1)

    Are you learning your lesson yet? (my bosses want to know…)

    Now recall that Saturn’s orbital period isn’t certain enough. There’s a mission underway to address that. Did you know? IF Seidelmann (1992) is out by a WHOPPING 0.003435982% (that’s a pretty big number !/sarc) …then guess what?? The Jupiter-Saturn 208 aliasing EQUALS the Neptune aliasing.

    Of course that’s just a coincidence (wink wink /double-sarc)

    Now, back to modelling IPO…

    Got it?

  45. Paul Vaughan says:

    IPO modeling update:
    Using lunisolar factors: r^2 = 95% max.
    …whereas via outlined jovian aliasing: over 98%.

    Why’s the jovian ENSO better explained than lunisolar enso? That’s the question raised.

    Either way (jovian or lunisolar take your pick…) 2040AD & 2070AD (…ouch!) skeptics are going to hate this tropical forecast…. (all the more reason to understand the orthogonality outlined above… IT’S THE SUN d*mn it!!!)

    The really fun part is going to be modeling VEI & SAOT using this… (…and interdecadal polar motion amplitude)


  46. tallbloke says:

    Thanks Paul. Got it. 🙂

  47. oldbrew says:

    Re PV’s calcs:
    (11.862615)*(9.932517933) / (11.862615 – 9.932517933) = 61.04648218
    (29.447498)*(19.86503587) / (29.447498 – 19.86503587) = 61.04648218
    The 61.04648~y is the average time it takes the Jupiter-Saturn conjunction to move through 360 degrees (retrograde), i.e. just over three conjunctions.

    To visualize that see Kepler’s trigon here:

    ‘As successive great conjunctions occur nearly 120° apart, their appearances form a triangular pattern. In a series every fourth conjunction returns after some 60 years in the vicinity of the first.’
    [‘after some 60 years’ = 61.04648~y]

  48. oldbrew says:

    Climate warmaholics need to explain why global sea ice is on the up in recent years.

    They claim sea ice will melt if temps increase, so by their own logic if sea ice is increasing temps must be cooling.

  49. Paul Vaughan says:

    JoNova today suggested: “USA is the best hope for defeating the religious climate meme.”

    obsequious pandering?
    USA’s the problem, not the solution.
    USA’s Hollywood central (in the climate propaganda war).
    North Korea — for sobering — contrast isn’t.
    Please wake up and get real about this Joanne.
    You don’t need to turn on your “allies”. Just please help us wake them up from their deathly sleepwalk. Your California friends need an integrity pill. Maybe you feel you need these friends for reasons other than their climate ignorance/deception and those are your priorities. If that’s the case I know you probably can’t help us with the needed corrections.

  50. oldmanK says:

    For someone looking at all the conflicting data from the outside, it is very baffling.

    Still re this ,,, as the site proudly said “”Not here to worship what is known, but to question it” – Jacob Bronowski.””” . Five years is a short time. Is this by any chance what used to be called a “dead cat’s bounce” ?

    Something is very wrong. What is today visible in Beijing is really -invisible perhaps- everywhere. It was not like that 50 years ago (yes I’m older than that).

  51. oldbrew says:

    oldmanK: in Antarctica the sea ice figures have been increasingly above the long-term average for decades, setting a record in 2014.

    Arctic sea ice recovery is a more recent thing, maybe 5-8 years.

  52. Paul Vaughan says:

    investment bet-hedging advisory:

    Impacts of an abrupt change in solar cycle length will have spatially imbalanced impacts on the transportation sector.

  53. Ed says:

    Yup, I can see the transportation sector will be warped.
    But I am thinking the energy sector will be more leveraged.
    Short green and renewable energy and long conventional energy (the exact opposite of current market trends).

  54. oldbrew says:

    Owen Paterson: ‘Why we have to scrap the Climate Change Act’

    ‘As the Paris summit ends, it’s more important than ever to separate energy and climate change policy’

    “Our dash for wind power so distorted the electricity market that it has actually prevented the construction of efficient and cheap combined-cycle gas turbines”

  55. oldbrew says:

    Baffled scientists again: another dead-end for dark matter hunters.

    ‘Failure to spot telltale glow from nearby dwarf galaxy sets back search for dark matter’‑rays-are-sign-dark-matter

  56. I’ve gone over the (painful) Draft decision of COP21.

    1. Everybody gets to do what he wants to do, without repercussions other than official notes in the media of progress vis-a-vis what he said.

    2. Nothing has to be done that “threatens” food production. Not “reduces”, but threatens. This should allow cutting down forests and the slash-and-burn style of agriculture, and exempt agricultural practices, including beef production, from carbon-taxes, fuel surcharges or the need to make them less CO2 heavy.

    3. Financing is neither fixed, nor firm, but voluntary and without a timeframe. Financing is still at the stage of ‘determining’ what others may need. There is no “SHALL” involved with collection or redistribution of funds.

    4. Developed countries have to produce data on what they are doing as to emissions reduction. Developing countries don’t have to do so, only if they want to.

    5. No tracking of emissions claims is permissible if the host country finds the questioning intrusive or offensive.

    6. The Convention is going to appoint two “Champions” for 2-year terms (overlapping 1 year) to run around the world and talk to others about doing their bit. My bet: Obama and Merckel, once they are out of office.

    7. The next global “stocktake” will take place in 2023. I couldn’t find a date for the next COP meeting of equivalence to this December 2015 Paris meeting.

    8. The Agreement will come into ‘force’ after 16 April 2016 OR when 55 Parties accounting for at least 55% of global emissions sign the agreement. China is at 28%, India at 6% and the Rest of the World small Parties at 30%. The ROC have no reason not to sign. All they need is China.

    9. Cheating has been big. Anti-“double accounting” rules, whereby British firms pay the Brazillians to plant trees of carbon-offset credits will no longer allow Brazil to claim those same trees in their emissions reduction claims, have had to be imposed because there was cheating everywhere and you couldn’t believe the numbers.

    10. Surprise! Surprise! After signing any Party can bow out in 3 years, effective 1 year later. Shorter than the Kyoto Agreement! By mid-2020 anyone can be out prior to the next big conflab.


    Do as you plan on doing or end up doing. No sweat. No money committed or flowing for the time being. We’re gonna get a couple of celebrities to talk it up and have grand photo-ops. Don’t worry about measuring performance success officially until 2023. If you or your electorates or other power groups get really annoyed, you can opt-out in three years, long before you are held to account for what you said today.

    Except for the half-billion dollars these jokers just spent (of our tax money), and the social licence they gave each other to raise taxes and redistribute economic activity within their countries, there is nothing in this to provide comfort for the alarmists. No sense of urgency, no sense that the world is about to die/fry. The “last chance to save the planet” is now 2023.

  57. Paul Vaughan says:

    This is probably going to look a little cryptic for now, but simplifying illustrations and links to methodological background will follow in the days & weeks ahead.

    In the meantime feel welcome to jump in over your head if you dare…

    The N/2 period cycle of JEV annual aliasing is an osculating feature of the Earth-Moon orbit of the sun (not the barycenter). It’s visible in NASA JPL Horizons output. Anyone can get J, E, & V output from the online software and verify the geometry firsthand. In January 2010 I outlined a quantitative index of JEV geometry:

    The index JEV is based on the maximum of 4 functions that geometrically summarize all possible combinations of weighted heliocentric reflections of J, E, & V. More specifically, JEV is the maximum radius from the set of possible mass- & average-distance- weighted (mr-3) heliocentric spatial averages of heliocentric (J,E,V) reflection states along sun-planet axes {(1,1,1), (1,-1,1), (1,1,-1), (1,-1,-1)}. It achieves highest values when alignments (regardless of whether conjunction or opposition) are strongest.

    It should be clear why there’s coherence with (θMEI-θQBO) & (θMEI-θISM) where MEI = multivariate ENSO index and ISM = Indian Summer Monsoon.

    Note which element is common: θMEI.

    It makes common sense that it cuts through in phase summaries when its amplitude is higher.

    Staple oldschool mainstream methods (e.g. standard fourier) can’t measure ENSO phase — hence long-delayed widespread recognition.

    Towards due correction…

    Strategic question:
    Is QBO part of ENSO or is it an intermittent distortion of ENSO signal??

    That should be enough to help silent luminaries foresee where this is going.

    Illustrations and links to background material will follow in the days & weeks ahead.

    Thank you China.

  58. Paul Vaughan says:

    Some of you may recall the J-S oscillations in JEV period (from NASA JPL Horizons output):

    Saturn jerks around Jupiter’s role in JEV.
    It does so quite substantially in frequency, so there’s aliasing as follows:

    (11.06602004)*(9.932517933) / (11.06602004 – 9.932517933) = 96.96800912

    Also notice on the above graph how JEV also gets bounced around by the longer 60 year J-S cycle. Did you realize how the preceding relate to Neptune?

    (96.96800912)*(61.04648218) / (96.96800912 – 61.04648218) = 164.79132
    (164.79132)*(61.04648218) / (164.79132 – 61.04648218) = 96.96800912
    (164.79132)*(96.96800912) / (164.79132 + 96.96800912) = 61.04648218

    If you look at how JEV Horizons output aliases semi-annual, you’ll find 96.96800912 rather than (164.79132) / 2 = 82.39566 because of the J-S aliasing.

    Keep this aliasing in mind when looking at multidecadal core oscillations and north-south contrasting polar aliasing of ENSO variance.

  59. Paul Vaughan says:

    Here’s how the centennial cycle (~97 years) of Jupiter-Saturn Jupiter-Earth-Venus aliasing (from NASA JPL Horizons osculating JEV phase) lines up with terrestrial core angular momentum (CAM), ERSST EOF2&3, Southern Ocean & Southeast Pacific sea surface temperature (SST), ENSO variance, & stratospheric aerosol optical thickness:

    The thick black trace you see is osculating JEV aliasing of semi-annual. To understand why it lands at 97 years (instead of 82 years) you have to be aware that JEV period bounces with period J-S.

    This is more exploratory and not yet so conclusive as other insights summarized above. It’s compelling to explore possibilities for this last remaining low-frequency (82, 87, &/or 97?) regional anomaly.

    Some may wonder why I devote so much care to exploring possibilities for a small-region cycle with only just over a single recorded wave: For reasons I haven’t conveyed more than peripherally &/or vaguely, I see this as prerequisite to cracking IPO & interdecadal polar motion amplitude. I see this extra-tropical variance aliasing as a key ENSO geometry clue.

  60. Paul Vaughan says:

    My last 3 comments here on Suggestions-16 stem from the bidecadal oscillation (BDO) commentary I volunteered here:

    It would have looked like thread-hijacking had I gone into all of this detail over there.

    There’s a confounded hierarchically-aliased lunisolar cycle based on the lunar draconic month and terrestrial heat engines (annual & semi-annual).

    QBO & the 9.1 year cycle are intermediaries in the hierarchy, so naive investigators not even considering hierarchical aliasing (stemming from cycling circulatory topology & physical nonlinearities) might completely overlook this.

    The centennial term and its first harmonic arise in IPO modeling. I knew of the 97 year JSEV cycle before (we’ve discussed it on Ian Wilson threads) but today deeper awareness of the confounding fell into place when I checked osculating JEV aliasing directly from NASA JPL Horizons output (see above).

    I’ll report the lunisolar confounding here to be thorough. It might be the clue someone else is looking for even it scrambles the overburdened focus of others reading here.

    harmonic of QBO nearest semi-annual equator-pole heat engine:
    (2.369718033) / 5 = 0.473943607

    (0.5)*(0.473943607) / (0.5 – 0.473943607) = 9.094574181

    harmonic of 9.094574181 nearest annual interhemispheric heat engine:
    (9.094574181) / 9 = 1.010508242

    (1.010508242)*(1) / (1.010508242 – 1) = 96.16339375

    This is based on 3 clear terrestrial circulatory topology cycles (QBO, semi-annual, & annual).

  61. Paul Vaughan says:

    None of these cycle lengths sit still like we assume with our most crude explorations.

    The key point I’m making today is that the frequency of the period-bouncing fundamentally alters the aliasing.

    In the example I’ve given 82 becomes 97. That’s not a trivial difference, but you’d never even see it if you thought the period sat still and didn’t bounce.

    It may very well be that with proper accounting for nonlinear physical &/or circulatory topology aliasing stemming from combinations of oscillations in cycle length (e.g. barycentric year, heliocentric year, draconic month, solar cycle, “27 day” solar rotation, etc., etc., etc.) lots of previously-evasive patterns will be nailed with startling precision.

    The draconic 96 year interhemispherically oscillating ENSO bias I suggested in my last comment (gulf stream leaks poleward but humboldt current loops back in) appears physically viable, but I remain inclined to suspect JEV (upstream governor of aggregate constraints on Earth-Moon) as the deeper origin of these small regional terrestrial asymmetries.

  62. Paul Vaughan said:

    “I’ll report the lunisolar confounding here to be thorough. It might be the clue someone else is looking for even it scrambles the overburdened focus of others reading here.

    harmonic of QBO nearest semi-annual equator-pole heat engine:
    (2.369718033) / 5 = 0.473943607

    (0.5)*(0.473943607) / (0.5 – 0.473943607) = 9.094574181”

    Ian Wilson’s response:

    The 2.37 year QBO oscillation is obtained from the Draconic month – annually aliased, so there is a problem with duplicate aliasing here.

    Here is an alternative way of obtaining value close to 9.1 years without annual or semi-annual aliasing.

    LAC is the time it takes for the lunar line-of-apse to realign with the stars (i.e. sidereal) and LNC is the time it takes the lunar line-of-nodes to realign with the stars (i.e. sidereal also).

    Mean Monthly Lunar Cycles (J2000)

    anomalistic month = 27.554550 days
    Draconic month = 27.212221 days
    Sidereal month = 27.32166 days


    LAC = (27.554550 x 27.32166) / (27.554550 – 27.32166) = 3232.582106 d. = 8.850517 tropical yrs

    LNC = (27.212221 x 27.32166) / (27.32166 – 27.212221) = 6793.584097 d. = 18.60022 tropical yrs

    in a sidereal frame of reference.

    And finally, the harmonic mean of 8.850517 and 9.30011 (= 18.60022/2) tropical years is:

    2 * 9.30011 * 8.850517 / (9.30011 + 8.850517) = 9.0697453 tropical years.

  63. Paul Vaughan says:

    Ian, I was hoping you would take note and comment. Were you aware of this JEV J-S aliasing (that’s easily verified from NASA JPL Horizons output)?

    Ian suggests: “The 2.37 year QBO oscillation is obtained from the Draconic month – annually aliased, so there is a problem with duplicate aliasing here.”

    It’s not “duplicate”. It’s hierarchical. 0.5 years, 1 year, & 2.37 years are strong circulatory cycles.

    One “problem” with the well-known alternative 9.07 year harmonic mean is that it’s not tied to the heat engines. Another problem:

    (9.306684483)*(8.847542139) / ( (9.306684483 + 8.847542139) / 2 ) = 9.071307179
    (9.071307179) / 9 = 1.00792302
    (1.00792302)*(1) / (1.00792302 – 1) = 127.2145014

    That’s not a match with the observations.

    In 2010 I detailed one candidate based on LNC & LAC:

    (9.306684483)*(8.847542139) / (9.306684483 – 8.847542139) = 179.3371583
    (179.3371583) / 2 = 89.66857915

    The period length is certainly plausible in light of the observations. We discussed this at length 5 years ago (before we knew the pattern shows up in ERSST EOFs). But it doesn’t have the appeal of being tied to the big circulatory engines that are the giant movers.

    I’m content to keep 89.66857915 on the table, but 127.2145014 is way too far off.

    If you have alternative candidate 80-100 year cycles in mind, please do feel welcome to share them. If they’re tied to heat engine aliasing, I’m probably inclined to quickly embrace them, but if they’re only based on lunisolar cycles (with no heat engine aliasing), they’re unexciting (in the sense of physical nonlinearities & circulatory topology) as indicated by their zero-sum in LOD (a result I established in 2011).

    The zero-sum is hardly surprising if you consider how profoundly different the wind field would be on Earth if the sun supplied only gravitational force and no equator-pole insolation gradients.

    That’s probably the way to go about exploring the role of lunisolar cycles in terrestrial circulation:
    Ask what the wind fields on Earth would do if you could turn the sun’s light off.

    (my guess: not much)

  64. Michele says:

    Possible jump SF next weeks (planetary alignment in progress).

  65. Paul Vaughan says:

    Coupling of water vapor (and other species) to circulation Rog…

    “Water vapor variations due to annual, semiannual and QBO periods appear to be the largest source of variability in stratsopheric water vapor.”

    Click to access Rosenlof-2.pdf

    Conventional mainstream readers: You don’t even have to accept a role for the lunar draconic month in QBO to get 96 years. The mainstream should be able to accept the 96 year cycle without even having to think about lunisolar cycles. It’s a no-brainer really.

    Here’s the question I asked in 2010:

    “To what extent are some of the above graphs conveying more info about the stratosphere, other layers of Earth, the hydrologic cycle, and circulation more generally than about volcanoes specifically?”

    VEI (volcanic explosivity index) clusters are there with every ENSO kink, but only on the 96 year cycle do we see the right stratospheric circulatory enhancement combination.

    harmonic of QBO nearest SAO (semi-annual oscillation):
    (2.369718033) / 5 = 0.473943607

    (0.5)*(0.473943607) / (0.5 – 0.473943607) = 9.094574181

    harmonic of 9.094574181 nearest annual (interhemispheric asymmetry term):
    (9.094574181) / 9 = 1.010508242

    (1.010508242)*(1) / (1.010508242 – 1) = 96.16339375

    It’s a match with what’s observed both temporally & spatially and it’s parsimoniously based only on the 3 well-accepted big stationary cycles. It isn’t sensible to dismiss this.

  66. oldbrew says:

    Judith Curry: The world’s leaders are touting victory as a result of the COP21 deliberations in Paris. But, victory over what, exactly?

    Some newspapers called the Paris deal ‘historic’. James Hansen called it ‘bullshit’.

    ‘People don’t really care much about climate change’

  67. Paul Vaughan says:

    diagnostic extension back further in time:

    Intense ENSO clustering from historical records matches 96 or 97 year hierarchical orbital aliasing:

  68. Some people might be interested in this publication that is still in the discussion phase:

    Click to access cpd-11-4895-2015-print.pdf

    An astronomical correspondence to the 1470year cycle of abrupt climate change
    A. M. Kelsey1, F. W. Menk2, and P. T. Moss1

    Abstract: The existence of a ∼1470year cycle of abrupt climate change is well-established, manifesting in Bond ice-rafting debris (IRD) events, Dansgaard–Oeschger atmospheric temperature cycle, and cyclical climatic conditions precursory to increased El Niño/Southern Oscillation (ENSO) variability and intensity. This cycle is central to5 questions on Holocene climate stability and hence anthropogenic impacts on climate (deMenocal et al., 2000). To date no causal mechanism has been identified, although solar forcing has been previously suggested. Here we show that interacting combination of astronomical variables related to Earth’s orbit may be causally related to this cycle and several associated key isotopic spectral signals. The ∼1470year climate10 cycle may thus be regarded as a high frequency extension of the Milankovitch precessional cycle, incorporating orbital, solar and lunar forcing through interaction with the tropical and anomalistic years and Earth’s rotation.

  69. Those who are interested in the paper cited above may want to go to:

    to follow the online discussion on this paper – including the referees’ comments.

  70. Paul Vaughan says:

    Vukcevic used directional differencing:

    Above I’ve used central differencing to measure proximity of nearest-neighbor intense el ninos. You’ll notice that at the peaks the dots are closer together than in the troughs.

    There are 2 blue curves. One is based on the data linked by vukcevic and the other on a variant of the same dataset:

    If you focus only on event strengths including the character “S” and confidence ratings over 2, you’ll pretty much end up with the dataset vukcevic linked.

    I’ve started looking into some of the literature on the subject. This opens up a wide avenue of discussion.

    I suspect the mainstream will rather go for the semi-annual-QBO-annual rationale, whereas Jupiter-Earth-Venus ties 11 to 1500 with 97 (Jupiter-Saturn) & 165 (Neptune) in between. Given the circular reasoning built into DVI (dust veil index) it could be a piece of work sorting this out at the next level.

    As some of you by now realize, I’m due to update ERSST EOF 1234 since I’ve now cracked the biggest missing piece of that puzzle.

    There’s now enough info out in the open to write a landmark paper on The JEV Hierarchy.

    Sometimes insight falls “out of the sky”. Joanne Nova thinks China deserves no credit. Is she ever wrong about that!

    The Climate Renaissance is getting underway and you can do your initial shopping here.

  71. Paul Vaughan says:

    Written in 1965, apparently to enlighten 2015 “why phi?” exploration 40 50 years later…

    Fibonacci Summation Economics Part II
    Albert J. Faulconbridge

    Elliot’s observations have alerted us to the possible existence of untouched fields of Fibonacci summation principles relating to economic prediction. Dependence upon coincidence and seemingly unrelated facts invites error. An attempt to induce orderliness into the investigation will be made. When reasoning has gone as far as possible at the moment a working model consistent with the products of the fledgling reasoning will be constructed which model, if it works, provides some evidence that the reasoning might not be sufficiently erroneous to discard. To induce this orderliness parallel topics will be developed to a degree such that they can later be fused to purpose. These topics are:
    1. What cycles have been observed?
    2. What relationships, if any, do these cycles have to the Fibonacci sequences?
    3. What other apparent co-incidences exist that might be related to the problem?

    Click to access faulconbridge.pdf

  72. Paul Vaughan says:

    typo in last comment: 2015 – 1965 = 50 years later [not 40]

    new open access article:

    Reconciling past changes in Earth’s rotation with 20th century global sea-level rise:
    resolving Munk’s enigma

  73. Paul Vaughan says:

    “Above I’ve used central differencing to measure proximity of nearest-neighbor intense el ninos.”


    Each strong el nino has 2 neighboring strong el ninos. Just measure how many years away each is and average the 2 time-distances. That tells you how far (on average) strong el ninos are from each other.

    We see that the structure of ENSO variance cycles systematically (cyclic volatility).
    We see this aliased asymmetrically into extratropical SSTs.

    It’s a beautiful sight.
    Nature’s beautiful.

    Let’s get NOAA to stop (integrity & responsibility) defacing natural beauty. ERSST v4 seriously and systematically vandalized this natural beauty which is well-represented in v3b2.

    When time permits I’ll give NASA Horizons specs for those aiming to derive JEV heat engine aliasing (via J-S) firsthand.

  74. oldbrew says:

    PV: here’s another one…

    Is space-time shaped like a SPIRAL? Universe has a ‘golden ratio’ that keeps everything in order, researchers claim

    South African researchers say the universe is governed by a ‘golden ratio’

    They say space-time itself is defined by this mathematical constant
    The ratio – 1.618 – is found across nature in plants, hurricanes and more
    But the researchers say it is also ever-present in the universe
    This means it might make up space-time itself
    Some have suggested our universe may have been the only one in the multiverse theory to have this ratio that allowed it to form

    Must have missed this ‘cosmic constant’ one last year:

    ‘Golden Ratio offers unity of science’

    Both stories are about Boeyens and Thackeray. Boeyens has papers re golden ratio, Titius-Bode law etc.

  75. Bob Weber says:

    Good call Michele! SF has gone up, and the USAF 45day average is up too. On the 12th the 45d was @103, and they bumped it up yesterday to 113, now @112sfu/day today, which is a fairly large increase: Let’s see if they’re right in the middle of January, where they’re calling for SF of 130 max. TSI was down to the warming threshold as of a week ago (TSI data lags 7 days):

    I determined last year that the long-term SF warming/cooling threshold is very close to 120 sfu/day, statistically equivalent to a SORCE TSI level of ~1361.24, so we’ve been getting loads of extra heat from the sun lately. Will update this in one month.

  76. Paul Vaughan says:

    Regarding latest ce post
    I have to say…

    f***ing clueless:
    “Has the intrinsic component of multidecadal climate variability been isolated?”

  77. oldmanK says:

    PV thanks for the link re Munk’s enigma. Very important.

    But the matter does not start from the last glaciation, but from Dodwell’s date and for the reason he gave. That was the trigger. Augmented by D Rubincam’s “climate friction” hypothesis.

  78. Paul Vaughan says:

    oldmanK, any mention of climate friction gets my full attention.
    Please link us to your Rubincam picks.


    I’m now fine-tuning JEV semi-annual aliasing exploration. In the days & weeks ahead there will be substantial revisions to some of the notes I’ve left above. Also, it will become clear that notes above appearing to be on a different theme (e.g. 208) tie in.

    noteworthy new insight:

    I ran some phase diagnostics. The critical months of the year for JEV semi-annual aliasing are May & November. That’s a key diagnosis. Remember that we’re talking about ENSO variance. Ever heard of the “spring barrier” in ENSO forecasting? Maybe it’s due for cracking…

  79. oldmanK says:

    Re the Rubincam paper, please note that the hypothesis provides a PROCESS by which obliquity can change (and it made sense of what I was seeing in other studies). And the change is a cyclic alternate increase-decrease. Dodwell happened to identify one such increase, which is corroborated by i) dendrochronology ii) increase in polar temp anomaly while it decreased at equator, iii) a unique modified megalithic structure to accommodate such an increase. The megalithic structures over a period of two thousand years of changes seem to exhibit 1 1\2 cycles.

  80. oldbrew says:

    Andrew: ‘The reader will learn about the assumptions, the data, the models, and the unknowns behind each mechanism by which solar variability may impact climate variability. None of these mechanisms can adequately explain global warming observed since the 1950s.’

    Oh dear. They seem to be missing some mechanisms 😉

  81. tallbloke says:

    Looks a bit pricey. 🙂

  82. tallbloke says:

    oldmanK: I think obliquity is probably driven by the Jovian planets, and so a ‘cycles within cycles’ evolution would be expected if that’s so. Now we have to model it.

  83. oldmanK says:

    From tallbloke : “I think obliquity is probably driven by the Jovian planets”

    Someone ancient may agree with you. Vide extract below.
    “Al-Maqrizi (1364-1442 AD), the best Egyptian historian, mentioned in his book that was first published in 1436AD (Al-Maqrizi 1849), in the pyramids’ chapter, a story from older Arab historians that had been translated from old Coptic sources.

    The most important part of the original golden text says: “the master Egyptian
    priests (were 130) said: based on observing the motions of the celestial bodies, we identified the time intervals of Earth’s cataclysmic and extinction cycles”

    But I have a feeling(!) its intrinsic to earth behaviour. From the Holocene temperature anomalies, 2345bce was well corroborated. 4375 corroborated from tree rings, and another at 62xx by the sinking of Doggerland. But note, 2345 was the last; the temps drop from +0.7 to -0.5.

    (ps how can one post graph?)

    [just include the link – mod]

  84. oldbrew says:

    A Physics view of Climate Change

    A short, total rebuttal to climate alarmism

  85. tallbloke,

    The Earth’s 41,000 obliquity (tilt of the Earth’s axis) cycle is a combination of a general precession of the equinox caused by a 25,776 year precession of the of the Earth’s tilt with respect to the stars and a ~ 71,000 year wobble of the Earth’s orbit caused by the gravitational forces of the planets acting upon the orbit, such that:

    ( 71,000 x 25,776) / (71,000 – 25,776) = 40,467 years ~ 41,000 years

    N.B. The general precession of the equinox is a combination of a precession of the equator (luni-solar precession) and a precession of the ecliptic, giving a rate for the general precession of the equinox of

    – 50.28796195 arc seconds per year in longitude


    – 0.46836769 arc seconds per year in obliquity

    from the current obliquity (tilt of the Earth’s axis) of 84381.406 arc seconds = 23.4393 degrees.

    The rate for the general precession in obliquity is above average as the bobbing up an down of the Earth’s tilt moves from roughly 22.1 to 24.5 degrees and back again (i.e. ~ 4.8 degrees) roughly once every 41,000 years, producing a mean rate of change in obliquity of 0.4215 arc seconds per year.

  86. oldmanK says:

    astroclimateconnection’s post above describes the secular changes to obliquity and the source of those changes.

    There is also evidence of transient changes (of relatively very short duration). My posts refer to such changes. The question is what triggers them, when, and how.

  87. Paul Vaughan says:

    I just looked at this recent wuwt article:
    “Lessons Learned from My Failed Greenland Prediction and NOAA’s Shifting Goalposts”

    From this I draw the final conclusion that Jim Steele is fatally poorly informed about the role of the sun in terrestrial climate.

    In his other posts he pointed to Rial-like stuff and I liked that and I thought it was peripherally helpful for education of a very ignorant audience, but observation-disrespecting sun-climate commentary in the recent article is fatal trust-burner.

    Bill Illis remains the sensible commentator at wuwt. He isn’t perfect. I did once see him make an undeserved obsequious comment that made me cringe, but aside from that he has been excellent. If someone approached me and said, “Paul, please try to be positive: What’s good about wuwt?” The answer I would give: “Bill Illis commentary”. Will Bill Illis commentary remain trustworthy in the future? I don’t assume it will, but I hope so.

    exploration update:

    I have new insights on (sensitive) osculating JEV heat engine aliasing.
    (Is the JEV ENSO governor confounded with something lunisolar? I haven’t checked yet.)

    For now I have this:

    Anyone who thinks 1 / (JEV – J) = 166 years:
    Are you saying NASA JPL Horizons geometry is wrong?

  88. oldbrew says:

    Ireland chases renewable energy fantasy ‘by end of century’.

    Stating the obvious:
    1) solar doesn’t work at night (or in ‘bad’ weather) and there’s a lot of night in winter.
    2) wind blows when it wants to, not when governments order it to.

  89. tallbloke says:

    OldmanK: We’ll work on those time periods you mentioned and asee if any mjor cycles of the Jovians show up. To post a graph, you need to host it somewhere. There are plenty of free hosting sites for pictures. Try to find one where you can get a link direct to the image and then just paste the link here with your comment. WordPress will attempt to display the image, or just show the link if it can’t.

  90. oldbrew says:

    ‘Cruz Climate Hearing Puts Data over Dogma’ – report by the Heartland Institute

  91. tallbloke says:

    Blog it please Stuart

  92. J Martin says:

    Ireland pledges to go 100% renewable. Brings new meaning to Irish moonshine.

  93. Paul,

    If the minimum between solar cycles 24 and 25 occurs in 2021 ± 2 yr, it will indicate a re-synchronization of the solar minima with a VEJ cycle length of 11.07 ± 0.05 yr over a 410 yr
    period. Taking a mean orbital period for Jupiter of 11.8622 sidereal years (4332.75 days), this gives
    a beat period:

    11.07 x 11.862 / (11.862 – 11.07) = 165.80 ~ 166 years.

    Of course, the above calculations use mean periods and should always be checked with a good ephemeris program such as JPL Horizon.

    If you use Paul’s own figures of T(Jupiter) = 11.86327 (unspecified) years and VEJ = 11.06715863 (unspecified) years you get:

    (11.86327 x 11.06715863) / (11.86327 – 11.06715863) = 164.917 (unspecified) years.

    So Paul, are you claiming that JPL Horizon gives a JEV – J of 164.79 (sidereal) years = the orbital period of Neptune.

    As far as, I can tell the JPL Horizon program claims that mean orbital period of Jupiter (Heliocentric) is 4332.820 days which is 11.862408 sidereal years with the uncertainty being in the forth decimal place.

    “Sidereal orbit period = 11.862615 yrs Sidereal orbit period = 4332.820 d”

    Using a period of 11.86327 (unspecified) years and 4332.820 days would correspond to adopting a year 365.2298 days. This seems a little short.

    Using a period of 11.862615 (unspecified) years and 4332.820 days, as the JPL Horizon program does, it would correspond to adopting a year 365.249989 days, which is close to the length of the tropical year.

    A bit of clarity needed here.

  94. Paul Vaughan says:

    We’ve a lot to discuss. This is big. Time’s an issue. I’ll get to it when possible. I may need to wait until there’s some major relaxation of the harsh constraints under which I operate, as I surely won’t be able to do a good job at this how I’m currently stuck operating. Let me say this for once: It makes me more than a little irritated (understatement) with the undeserving people sucking all the public money to accomplish f**k all. Injustice.

  95. oldbrew says:

    ‘Current climate models misrepresent El Nino’

    ‘An analysis of fossil corals and mollusk shells from the Pacific Ocean reveals there is no link between the strength of seasonal differences and El Niño, a complex but irregular climate pattern with large impacts on weather, agriculture, fisheries, tourism, and air quality worldwide.

    The finding contradicts the top nine climate models in use today, which associate exceptionally hot summers and cold winters with weak El Niños, and vice versa.’

  96. oldbrew says:

    E.ON and Samsung to collaborate on storage

    ‘Traditional power groups are therefore exploring how to make money by helping customers use less and store more energy, in a bid to tap new revenue streams following the demise of conventional fossil-fuel based power generation.’ [bold added]

    That must be news to China and India at least as they open new coal-fired power stations almost weekly.

  97. Paul Vaughan says:

    The long JEV = Jupiter-Earth-Venus cycle has ~Neptune period:

    That’s why if you average over the JEV component of Earth-Moon heliocentric angular momentum variance, you see 165 years. Does everyone remember the bottom panel? I first shared that in 2010. At the time I only partially appreciated the significance. Now I know that we’re looking at a constraint on ENSO variance. More to follow as/when time permits.

  98. Paul Vaughan says:

    For those exploring osculating JEV period firsthand, NASA JPL Horizons specs:

    Ephemeris Type : ELEMENTS
    Output type : GEOMETRIC osculating elements

    Target Body : Jupiter Barycenter [5]
    Target body name: Jupiter Barycenter (5) {source: DE406+DE405}

    Target Body : Earth-Moon Barycenter [EMB] [3]
    Target body name: Earth-Moon Barycenter (3) {source: DE406+DE405}

    Dynamical point:
    The common point about which the Earth and Moon revolve (center of mass). This is approximately 4671 km from the center of the Earth, or about 3/4 of the way to the surface. See 399 for Earth center, or 301 for Moon center ephemeris.

    Target Body : Venus [299]
    Target body name: Venus (299) {source: DE406+DE405}

    Target Body : Neptune Barycenter [8]
    Target body name: Neptune Barycenter (8) {source: DE431mx}

    Center : Sun (body center) [500@10]
    Center body name: Sun (10) {source: DE406+DE405 for J, E, & V; DE431mx for N}
    Center-site name: BODY CENTER

    Reference frame : ICRF/J2000.0
    Coordinate systm: Ecliptic and Mean Equinox of Reference Epoch
    Coordinate system description:
    Ecliptic and Mean Equinox of Reference Epoch
    Reference epoch: J2000.0
    xy-plane: plane of the Earth’s orbit at the reference epoch
    x-axis : out along ascending node of instantaneous plane of the Earth’s orbit and the Earth’s mean equator at the reference epoch
    z-axis : perpendicular to the xy-plane in the directional (+ or -) sense of Earth’s north pole at the reference epoch.

    Questions for keen students:
    a) On what dates does JEV-J = N?
    b) On what dates does JEV-J = N with high-frequency JEV-J variation suppressed?
    c) Does JEV-J = N in long-run central limit?

  99. Paul Vaughan says:

    This should be really obvious …but on the off-chance that it isn’t for some (e.g. mainstream academics publishing on this stuff, posing as experts):

    These periods underpinning 208 & 1500 don’t just sit still.
    Rather they move and sensitively alias.

    So, the people who say naive things like, “well if it’s astronomical, it will have a fixed period…”

    They’re wrong. It won’t. Did they even bother to check?? Or did they just assume?? The latter is all we’ve seen (in public at least ….maybe the smart, sensible calculations are classified…)

    Next up:
    unfounded mainstream academic climate facades meet bulldozer

  100. oldbrew says:

    PV says: That’s why if you average over the JEV component of Earth-Moon heliocentric angular momentum variance, you see 165 years.’

    Also 164 Neptune-Earth conjunctions = 165.00126 years (as an average).

  101. oldmanK says:

    Here is an attempt to correlate chronologically temp anomaly swings with megalithic events, etc.

    Note the downturn in temps following the 2345bce event.

    Traces were taken from wiki “Holocene temp variations” but aligned at Y Dryas upshoot. 2345 polar align perfectly rising while equatorial drops. Which is what happens in an obliquity change. Correlation to time axis at some variance.

  102. Michele says:

    Geomagnetic poles north emisphere Vs T. anomaly 1 -13 Dec. 2015

  103. Paul Vaughan says:

    I’ve broadened 96 year orbital aliasing exploration to 10000BC-10000AD via NASA JPL Horizons.


    • demystifies ERSSTv3b2 EOF2&3:

    • demystifies Southern Ocean SST, CAM (core angular momentum), SAOT (volcanic aerosol) towering clustering, & ENSO volatility clustering:

    • underscores NOAA’s abrupt ERSSTv4 vandalism at 60°S:

  104. Paul Vaughan says:

    The average for 20000 years of NASA Horizons output suggests:

    (11.86198165)*(11.05782853) / (11.86198165 – 11.05782853) = 163.1129142 tropical years = 163.1066 sidereal years

    Note that JPL’s suggesting 1/(JEV-J) is slightly less than 1/N — not greater than 1/N — as has commonly been suggested by some commentators.

    The important lesson either way is to beware confounding.
    Lots of stuff is confounded and awareness of confounding is superior to ignorance.

    harmonic nearest semi-annual:
    (11.05782853) / 22 = 0.502628569 tropical years

    (0.502628569)*(0.5) / (0.502628569 – 0.5) = 95.60876821 tropical years = 96.31978 sidereal years

    _ _ _ _ _ _ _

    Lunisolar 96:
    lunar draconic month = 27.212221 days

    nearest annual harmonic:
    (365.242189) / 13 = 28.095553 days

    (28.095553)*(27.212221) / (28.095553 – 27.212221) = 865.5210016 days

    (865.5210016) / 365.242189 = 2.369718033 tropical years = QBO

    harmonic nearest semi-annual equator-pole heat engine:
    (2.369718033) / 5 = 0.473943607 tropical years

    (0.5)*(0.473943607) / (0.5 – 0.473943607) = 9.094574181 tropical years

    harmonic nearest annual interhemispheric heat engine:
    (9.094574181) / 9 = 1.010508242
    (1.010508242)*(1) / (1.010508242 – 1) = 96.16339375 tropical years

    Cycling tropical volatility is coherent with a stationary mode of 96 year interhemispheric asymmetry.

    There’s no significant difference in the length of the two (JEV & lunisolar) 96 year cycles.

    Solar cycle length evolution further aberrates the North Atlantic and everything downstream in the Northern Hemisphere.

    This is another big step towards understanding regional spatial aberrations from backbone sunspot integral structure.

    The North Atlantic has 2 distinct sources of multi-decadal-centennial aberrations (SCL & 96).

    96 is easier to see in the relatively SCL-insensitive Southern Ocean.

  105. Paul Vaughan says:

    Vukcevic suggested 107 years.

    For exploratory exercise compare with:

    lunar draconic month & long-run average solar equatorial rotation:
    (27.212221)*(27.03) / (27.212221 – 27.03) = 4036.561832 days
    (4036.561832) / 365.242189 = 11.05174034 tropical years

    harmonic nearest semi-annual equator-pole heat engine:
    (11.05174034) / 22 = 0.502351833 tropical years

    (0.502351833)*(0.5) / (0.502351833 – 0.5) = 106.8000461 tropical years ~= 107 tropical years

    _ _ _

    An alternative to consider:

    For further exploratory exercise consider the possibility that the precision of the long-run average solar equatorial rotation rate does not allow us to see that it’s actually a whopping (!!) 8.64 seconds = 0.144 minutes = 0.0024 hours = 0.0001 days longer than 27.03 — i.e. imagine it’s actually 27.03 + 0.0001 = 27.0301 days such that:

    (27.212221)*(27.0301) / (27.212221 – 27.0301) = 4038.793192 days

    (4038.793192) / 365.242189 = 11.05784959 tropical years

    (11.05784959) / 22 = 0.502629527 tropical years

    (0.502629527)*(0.5) / (0.502629527 – 0.5) = 95.57413184 tropical years ~= 96 tropical years

  106. tchannon says:

    I suggest either deal with the solar conundrum or the solar earth linkage, not both.

  107. Paul Vaughan says:

    I should have clarified:
    The extension is based on DE431mx.

    Background for any newcomers:
    The aim was to solve the remaining puzzle outlined in ERSST EOF1234″.

    It’s the same pattern in several of Jason Box’s classic Greenland time series graphs, which were highlighted during the Mann AMOC thread, way back whenever that was.

    All of the major patterns in ERSST EOF 1234 are now accounted for.

    It should be obvious, but in case it isn’t I’ll clarify:

    This particular pattern is orbital, not magnetic, as the waves are stationary. If it was magnetic aliasing it would be a function of solar cycle length, but it isn’t.

    Keep in mind that JEV is confounded with Hale in long-run central limit, but Hale cycle length changes would sensitively alias a pattern very different (read that in bold flashing neon) from the stationary JEV aliasing observed. This isn’t to say Hale plays no role elsewhere. It’s just to say we have sufficient empirical diagnostics to decisively rule it out in this particular context.

    With crystal clarity JEV is a big deal to whatever’s going on with CAM (core angular momentum). The writing’s all over the wall, even written in hierarchical layers to make it inevitable even to the most doubting obsessively-compulsively-evasive skeptic. Lots of notes are exploratory, but some are conclusive. In the conclusive category: JEV’s rocking the core.

    Why NASA JPL isn’t explaining how, I can’t tell you. Is it classified? Or have they just been slow to clue in? Something else? Doesn’t matter: Their explanation is due now. With all the talent they have there, it shouldn’t be difficult to throw together a narrative. This is just an extension of Milankovitch. Did they really think JEV’s influence would only be at the longer timescales? If they suggested so I wouldn’t believe them.

  108. Paul Vaughan says:

    I’ve been trusting that everyone remembers this from way back when we discussed JEV, SEV, UEV, NEV, & 9-11, but it’s probably best to post a refresher:

    11.06964992 = JEV
    9.007246722 = SEV
    5.018891421 = UEV
    4.492694707 = NEV

    (22.13929985)*(18.01449344) / (22.13929985 – 18.01449344) = 96.69017963
    (22.13929985)*(18.01449344) / (22.13929985 + 18.01449344) = 9.932517933 = 2/(J-S)
    (22.13929985)*(18.01449344) / ( (22.13929985 + 18.01449344) / 2 ) = 19.86503587 = 1/(J-S)

    (11.06964992)*(9.007246722) / (11.06964992 – 9.007246722) = 48.34508981
    (11.06964992)*(9.007246722) / ( (11.06964992 + 9.007246722) / 2 ) = 9.932517933 = 2/(J-S)

    (11.06964992)*(9.932517933) / (11.06964992 – 9.932517933) = 96.69017963
    (9.932517933)*(9.007246722) / (9.932517933 – 9.007246722) = 96.69017963

    (5.018891421)*(4.492694707) / (5.018891421 + 4.492694707) = 2.370619014
    (11.06964992)*(4.492694707) / ( (11.06964992 + 4.492694707) / 2 ) = 6.391396515

    (11.862615)*(11.06964992) / (11.862615 – 11.06964992) = 165.5999728
    (11.862615)*(9.932517933) / (11.862615 – 9.932517933) = 61.04648218

    (165.5999728)*(61.04648218) / (165.5999728 – 61.04648218) = 96.69017963

    That’s for Seidelmann (1992) periods. DE431mx puts 1/(JEV-J) below 1/N instead of above. I can suggest that it’s always wise to check the sensitivity of results to model assumptions.

    Whether directly or via lunisolar intermediary, this framework somehow matches tropical modes.

    The solar cycle length fractional differintegral is orthogonal, as proven above. If observers are staring at the proof blankly and it’s significance isn’t registering, we have a sobering problem because it can’t be put any more simply. It’s pretty creepy watching people disregard a proof.

  109. oldbrew says:

    PBS America TV channel showed this NOVA effort in the UK tonight:

    Fifteen thousand years ago, North America was like the Serengeti on steroids, with mega-creatures roaming a continent teeming with incredible wildlife. But then, in a blip of geologic time, between 15 and 35 magnificent large types of animals went extinct. In this television exclusive, NOVA joins forces with prominent scientists to test a startling hypothesis that may finally explain these sudden and widespread extinctions—that a comet broke apart in the atmosphere and devastated North America 12,900 years ago.
    (includes transcript of TV prog – made in 2009)

  110. oldbrew says:

    Some light reading for the holiday period 😉

    ‘Is spacetime fractal and quantum coherent in the golden mean?’

    ‘A fractal is a mathematical set that typically displays self-similar patterns, and has dimensions that are fractions rather than integers. Geometric examples are branching trees, blood vessels, frond leaves etc.’

  111. Paul Vaughan says:

    The harmonic mean of JEV, SEV, UEV, & NEV:
    6.418592739 sidereal years = 6.418841826 tropical years

    (6.418841826)*(1) / (6.418841826 – 1) = 1.184541279 tropical years
    365.242189*(1.184541279) = 432.6444496 days

    2*(1.184541279) = 2.369082558 tropical years

    For comparison, QBO from draconic aliasing of tropical year:
    2.369718033 tropical years

    Ian: I propose that we explore this further. I think it will give better perspective on 96, ecliptic evolution, & lunisolar confounding. I have a series of other notes to convey as time permits — for example relating to nearly precise 6 & 9 year lunisolar-JSUNEV confounding. This also provides occasion & opportunity to derive generalized frequency algebra.

  112. aequitas45 says:

    Paul V:
    Fascinating work. Your last two posts provide the frequencies to pass a curve through the earth’s 31 daily trailing average LOD from 1962 to 2015 with a R^2 =0.935. I would post graphical evidence of this if I knew how. However, if you have the daily LOD data, the exercise is trivial with these frequencies:
    2 times your harmonic mean of JEV, SEV, UEV, & NEV.
    2 times JEV.
    your beat frequency of 61.04648218.
    and the frequencies of 1 and 0.5.
    The day is 1/365.2421897

  113. Paul Vaughan says:


    I’ve figured out the answer to the longstanding question of why Mercury isn’t “needed” and JEV alone matches Schwabe. It’s because of that 4th harmonic of JSUN built into JSUNEV and so Mercury integrates out in aggregate at 4N (where N = Neptune).

    Special properties are evident in the comparative structure of the JSUNEV frequency algebra.

    This is going to be another piece of work to outline even crudely, so I’m putting it down to go hiking and kayaking for now.

    For now I’m just saying multiply this by 4 (gives 164.6576725) to become curious:
    (22.10928058)*(14.3837912) / (22.10928058 – 14.3837912) = 41.16441812 years
    That’s the beat of JEV & JEVMe. I wrote a crude exploratory paper including that a few years ago but I never released it publicly.

    Thanks very much for the note.
    Lots more to discuss over the decades as time permits….

  114. Paul Vaughan says:

    Also the beat of the long JSUNEV cycle (that’s coherent with ENSO variance as illustrated above) with U-N gives a 1500 year cycle, Geoff Sharp might be interested to hear.

  115. oldbrew says:

    MERRA-2 Motivation and Objectives

    Produce an ongoing, intermediate reanalysis for the satellite era
    using a recent version of GEOS-5 to
    (1) address known limitations of MERRA (c. 2008),
    (2) provide a stepping stone to a future coupled Earth system reanalysis.

    Key Updates
    * Updates to the model, analysis, observations
    • Cubed-sphere dynamics
    • Updated physics: convection, re-evap of rain, sublimation of snow
    • Improved glacier model and cryosphere albedos
    • More observations: through MetOp-B/SNPP, GPSRO, Aura OMI/MLS
    • New moisture control variable
    • Bias correction for aircraft temperature observations

    * Aerosol assimilation, radiatively coupled to AGCM (direct effects)
    * Constraints on dry mass and globally integrated water for
    improved hydrology
    * Corrected precipitation for land surface forcing and aerosol
    deposition over ocean

    Note: their graphic ‘Global Mean Precipitation’ shows a slight downward trend in the last few years compared to the ‘warm years’ of the mid-1980s to early 2000s.

    MERRA-2 QBO (single slide):

    Notes say: ‘MERRA-2 provides realistic QBO interannual variability in the lower stratosphere, including meridional circulation variability out to 60o latitude that can affect long term climate and transport studies’

  116. Paul Vaughan says:

    There’s a post at wuwt on volcanoes & ozone. One major caution: The discussion is ignoring both the north-south spatial asymmetry and SCL orthogonality I’ve outlined (see above). I’ll be commenting further on this later (to help people correctly align their thinking with observed geometry), but right now paid work interferes…

  117. oldmanK says:

    from CO2 science from link in thread

    “Mayewski et al. identify six RCCs during the Holocene: 9000-8000, 6000-5000, 4200-3800, 3500-2500, 1200-1000 and 600-150 cal yr BP, the last two of which intervals are, in fact, the “globally distributed” Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age, respectively.”

    Perhaps the graph in my post above is more precise on dates. As indicated by evidence they were most likely obliquity changes, except after 2345 bce.

  118. Paul Vaughan says:

    Pukite’s overlooking upstream JSUNEV ENSO governance. Extending what I’ve outlined above gives 3 of his model terms in 1 shot:

    2*(6.418841826) = 12.83768365

    (12.83768365)*(2.369082558) / (12.83768365 – 2.369082558) = 2.905214569
    (12.83768365)*(2.369082558) / (12.83768365 + 2.369082558) = 2
    (12.83768365)*(2.369082558) / ( (12.83768365 + 2.369082558) / 2 ) = 4

  119. Paul Vaughan says:

    True or False?
    a) Earth’s orbit is independent of the orbits of Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, & Venus?
    b) Luna’s orbit is independent of the orbits of Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, & Venus?

    (22.13929985)*(11.06964992) / (22.13929985 + 11.06964992) = 7.379766615
    (22.13929985)*(11.06964992) / ( (22.13929985 + 11.06964992) / 2 ) = 14.75953323

    (11.06964992)*(7.379766615) / (11.06964992 + 7.379766615) = 4.427859969
    (11.06964992)*(7.379766615) / ( (11.06964992 + 7.379766615) / 2 ) = 8.855719938

    (8.855719938)*(7.379766615) / (8.855719938 – 7.379766615) = 44.27859969

    The harmonic mean of the following…
    (11.06964992)*(5.018891421) / (11.06964992 – 5.018891421) = 9.181885382
    (11.06964992)*(4.492694707) / (11.06964992 – 4.492694707) = 7.561638477
    (9.007246722)*(4.492694707) / (9.007246722 – 4.492694707) = 8.96363793
    (9.007246722)*(5.018891421) / (9.007246722 – 5.018891421) = 11.33459531
    …is 9.071449157.

    (9.181885382)*(8.96363793) / (9.181885382 + 8.96363793) = 4.535724579
    (9.181885382)*(8.96363793) / ( (9.181885382 + 8.96363793) / 2 ) = 9.071449157

    (11.33459531)*(7.561638477) / (11.33459531 + 7.561638477) = 4.535724579
    (11.33459531)*(7.561638477) / ( (11.33459531 + 7.561638477) / 2 ) = 9.071449157

    (8.855719938)*(4.535724579) / (8.855719938 – 4.535724579) = 9.297951327
    (8.855719938)*(4.535724579) / (8.855719938 + 4.535724579) = 2.99946033
    (8.855719938)*(4.535724579) / ( (8.855719938 + 4.535724579) / 2 ) = 5.998920659

    (8.855719938)*(5.998920659) / (8.855719938 – 5.998920659) = 18.59590265
    (8.855719938)*(5.998920659) / (8.855719938 + 5.998920659) = 3.576307413
    (8.855719938)*(5.998920659) / ( (8.855719938 + 5.998920659) / 2 ) = 7.152614827

    The thing I don’t get is why people think (a) is false but yet somehow (b) is true even though Luna is littler than Earth.


  120. Michele says:

    GFS 12Z : 2016 …. start with Cold in central europe

  121. Paul Vaughan says:

    This may start getting a little difficult to understand.

    JSUNEV symmetry has logical implications for generalized means (e.g. arithmetic, geometric, harmonic). Note that although all factors are equal (6, 10, & 4), J has opposite signs (+ vs. -) to S, U, & N:


    Note also that the factor for all 4 jovians is 4. This is a generalized jovian 4th harmonic.

    There’s an implication of the combination of the common factor 4 and the sign symmetry of J with S, U, & N.

    It means that the 4th harmonic of pairwise beats of J, S, U, & N (best represented in a matrix) show up on opposite sides of the beat coin (+ or -) for pairs of JEV, SEV, UEV, & NEV. (It’s an easy proof for anyone handy with frequency algebra.)

    The significance of this fact may not immediately register for everyone, but intuition may be immediately feasible nonetheless and there may be opportunity moving forward to layer on supplements to assist with individual pursuit of clarity. For example, a series of calculations organized in matrix format will be sure to cause people to say, “oh, I see that clearly” …even if generalized algebraic proofs remain forever mysterious.

    Above I noted that the harmonic mean of 4 elements of the +JSUNEV matrix is 9.07 years. These elements form a contiguous block in the lower left corner of the matrix. The remaining 2 elements occupy the corners of the lower triangle adjacent to the diagonal. Those elements are (hierarchically) as follow:

    (44.27859969)*(36.02898689) / (44.27859969 – 36.02898689) = 193.3803593
    (22.13929985)*(18.01449344) / (22.13929985 – 18.01449344) = 96.69017963
    (11.06964992)*(9.007246722) / (11.06964992 – 9.007246722) = 48.34508981
    (11.06964992)*(9.007246722) / (11.06964992 + 9.007246722) = 4.966258966
    (11.06964992)*(9.007246722) / ( (11.06964992 + 9.007246722) / 2 ) = 9.932517933
    (22.13929985)*(18.01449344) / (22.13929985 + 18.01449344) = 9.932517933
    (22.13929985)*(18.01449344) / ( (22.13929985 + 18.01449344) / 2 ) = 19.86503587
    (44.27859969)*(36.02898689) / (44.27859969 + 36.02898689) = 19.86503587
    (44.27859969)*(36.02898689) / ( (44.27859969 + 36.02898689) / 2 ) = 39.73007173

    (20.07556568)*(17.97077883) / (20.07556568 – 17.97077883) = 171.4062162
    (10.03778284)*(8.985389415) / (10.03778284 – 8.985389415) = 85.7031081
    (5.018891421)*(4.492694707) / (5.018891421 – 4.492694707) = 42.85155405
    (5.018891421)*(4.492694707) / (5.018891421 + 4.492694707) = 2.370619014
    (5.018891421)*(4.492694707) / ( (5.018891421 + 4.492694707) / 2 ) = 4.741238027
    (10.03778284)*(8.985389415) / (10.03778284 + 8.985389415) = 4.741238027
    (10.03778284)*(8.985389415) / ( (10.03778284 + 8.985389415) / 2 ) = 9.482476054
    (20.07556568)*(17.97077883) / (20.07556568 + 17.97077883) = 9.482476054
    (20.07556568)*(17.97077883) / ( (20.07556568 + 17.97077883) / 2 ) = 18.96495211

    Combining these 2 elements joined by the hypotenuse of the matrix’s lower triangle gives:

    (9.932517933)*(9.482476054) / (9.932517933 – 9.482476054) = 209.2802201

    (193.3803593)*(171.4062162) / (193.3803593 – 171.4062162) = 1508.436329

    (48.34508981)*(42.85155405) / ( (48.34508981 + 42.85155405) / 2 ) = 45.43286116
    (96.69017963)*(85.7031081) / (96.69017963 + 85.7031081) = 45.43286116
    (96.69017963)*(85.7031081) / ( (96.69017963 + 85.7031081) / 2 ) = 90.86572231
    (193.3803593)*(171.4062162) / (193.3803593 + 171.4062162) = 90.86572231
    (193.3803593)*(171.4062162) / ( (193.3803593 + 171.4062162) / 2 ) = 181.7314446

    For comparison with the preceding and the preceding comment:

    (9.306684483)*(8.847542139) / (9.306684483 – 8.847542139) = 179.3371583
    (9.306684483)*(8.847542139) / (9.306684483 + 8.847542139) = 4.535653589
    (9.306684483)*(8.847542139) / ( (9.306684483 + 8.847542139) / 2 ) = 9.071307179
    (18.61336897)*(8.847542139) / (18.61336897 + 8.847542139) = 5.996981151
    (18.61336897)*(8.847542139) / ( (18.61336897 + 8.847542139) / 2 ) = 11.9939623

    Does everyone remember Cuk’s video on Jovian evection resonance and Milankovitch cycles? The jovians bounce Earth & Venus around inside an envelope. Maybe the bridge from Milankovitch to ENSO goes through D-O & de Vries.

  122. Paul Vaughan says:

    Pukite’s ENSO models can be rewritten in terms of JSUNEV and this raises awareness that the lunar orbit has no independence from the solar system.

  123. Paul Vaughan says:

    Time for a little review…

    The beat of Jupiter & Saturn
    (29.447498)*(11.862615) / (29.447498 – 11.862615) = 19.86503587

    harmonic nearest Jupiter
    (19.86503587) / 2 = 9.932517933

    (11.862615)*(9.932517933) / (11.862615 – 9.932517933) = 61.04648218

    That’s the famous “60 year” Jupiter-Saturn cycle.

    Beat of Jupiter with Jupiter-Earth-Venus cycle:
    (11.862615)*(11.06964992) / (11.862615 – 11.06964992) = 165.5999728

    Recall that DE431mx puts this period below Neptune = 164.79132, so let’s do the calculations more than one way to keep a watch on assumption sensitivity:

    beat with “60 year” J-S:
    (165.5999728)*(61.04648218) / (165.5999728 – 61.04648218) = 96.69017963
    (164.79132)*(61.04648218) / (164.79132 – 61.04648218) = 96.96800912

    Now, how do these “60 year” and 165 year cycles tie to de Vries?
    Let’s review that…

    Jupiter’s nodal cycle and the “60 year” cycle define an envelope.
    (11.862615) / 2 = 5.9313075
    nearest harmonic of “60 year”:
    (61.04648218) / 10 = 6.104648218
    (6.104648218)*(5.9313075) / (6.104648218 – 5.9313075) = 208.886557

    Here’s where it gets interesting: considering why terrestrial-year & terrestrial-year-harmonic orbital aliasing hits near this. Let’s consider examples using 165 year cycles defined above.

    Neptune nodal cycle:
    (164.79132) / 2 = 82.39566

    harmonic nearest year:
    (82.39566) / 82 = 1.004825122

    (1.004825122)*(1) / (1.004825122 – 1) = 208.2486478

    Long JEV cycle:

    harmonic nearest semi-annual:
    (165.5999728) / 332 = 0.498795099

    (0.5)*(0.498795099) / (0.5 – 0.498795099) = 206.9858877

    This is where someone missing some cross-disciplinary ingredients could get permanently stuck for a whole lifetime. Why are they so close to the 208.886557 defined by Seidelmann’s (1992) Jupiter & Saturn averages?

    Here we’re gaining enough exploratory experience to have the intuition that with stuff like this and Fibonacci-Phi we’re dealing with what mathematicians call inequalities or bounds.

    Someone aware of the relevant theorems would sprint past us laughing to the finish line. There are people who excel at deriving theorems independently from first principles.

    An efficient division of labor demands teamwork with players in their optimal roles. The key clue is no doubt that the envelopes are defined by nearest harmonics.

    I’m not going to bother going for the algebraic proof today. I’ll leave that exercise for someone else (or maybe I’ll get stubborn about it myself some other day). I can already see enough to realize the existence of generalized aggregation theorems of cycling variance bounds. That’s sufficient for exploration.


    (165.5999728)*(61.04648218) / (165.5999728 – 61.04648218) = 96.69017963
    2*(96.69017963) = 193.3803593
    (165.5999728)*(61.04648218) / (165.5999728 + 61.04648218) = 44.60381165
    (165.5999728)*(61.04648218) / ( (165.5999728 + 61.04648218) / 2 ) = 89.20762329
    2*(89.20762329) = 178.4152466

    (164.79132)*(61.04648218) / (164.79132 – 61.04648218) = 96.96800912
    2*(96.96800912) = 193.9360182
    (164.79132)*(61.04648218) / (164.79132 + 61.04648218) = 44.54493571
    (164.79132)*(61.04648218) / ( (164.79132 + 61.04648218) / 2 ) = 89.08987143
    2*(89.08987143) = 178.1797429

    (29.447498)*(11.862615) / (29.447498 – 11.862615) = 19.86503587
    (19.86503587) / 2 = 9.932517933
    (11.862615)*(9.932517933) / (11.862615 – 9.932517933) = 61.04648218
    (11.862615) / 2 = 5.9313075
    (61.04648218) / 10 = 6.104648218
    (6.104648218)*(5.9313075) / (6.104648218 – 5.9313075) = 208.886557

    (164.79132)*(84.016846) / (164.79132 – 84.016846) = 171.4062162
    (193.3803593)*(171.4062162) / (193.3803593 – 171.4062162) = 1508.436329
    (193.9360182)*(171.4062162) / (193.9360182 – 171.4062162) = 1475.460771

    (208.886557)*(171.4062162) / (208.886557 – 171.4062162) = 955.2862536
    (208.886557)*(61.04648218) / (208.886557 – 61.04648218) = 86.25394362

    credit for key clues volunteered years ago:
    • Bob Tisdale’s classic Southern Ocean graphs
    • Vukcevic’s outline of centennial strong el nino spacing

  124. Paul Vaughan says:

    classic Bob Tisdale Southern Ocean graphs

  125. oldbrew says:

    PV: 19.86503587y x 126 = 211 J = 85 S = 61.04648218 x 41 [41 = 126 – 85]

    41 x 360 degrees (= 14760) is the sum of retrograde movement of J-S in the period (2503 years):
    126 x 117.14703 degrees (per J-S) = 14760.525

    126 J-S / 12 = 208.583~y (de Vries) = almost 8 x 360 degrees prograde
    126 J-S / 14 = 178.785~y (Jose) = 9 J-S

  126. oldbrew says:

    “Climate researchers employ tool from 1800s: Whaling logs” – December 16, 2015 report

    ‘Maritime historians, climate scientists and ordinary citizens are coming together on a project to study the logbooks of 19th-century whaling ships to better understand modern-day climate change and Arctic weather patterns.’

    ‘Already, the logbooks of more than 20 whalers are online. The project is expected to take about a year’

    ‘The project, called Old Weather: Whaling, is led by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.’ Aha…

  127. oldbrew says:

    Lubos Motls puts the boot into a bunch of MIT physicists pretending to know things about climate.

    ‘The unbearably low standards in “basics of science” at MIT’

  128. oldbrew says:

    UK: Ministers were accused yesterday of trying to use climate change as an ‘excuse’ for the failure to protect dozens of communities from the floods.

    ‘David Cameron admitted that flood defences had not been sufficient, but suggested that the greater frequency of ‘extreme weather events’ was to blame.’

    ‘Last night Labour MP Simon Danczuk, whose Rochdale constituency has been badly affected by the floods, accused ministers of trying to ‘hide behind’ the issue of climate change – when the real problem was spending cuts.’

  129. RichardLH says:

    Tallbloke: It has been suggested that this might be suitable for you to take a look at.

    It is a ‘match, between LOD/UT1 against Global Temperature.

    With a brilliant, phase leading of UT1 before temperature when aligned!

    Let me know if this is of interest.

  130. oldmanK says:

    What RichardLH is looking at in that link is precisely the theory of ‘climate friction’ of D Rubincam.

    Quote “Think ‘old fashioned regulated steam engine’. Always chugging up and down on idle around a ‘middle’ speed set overall.” The ‘up and down’ bit points to instability, and in the case of the earth it is quite erratic. The feedback loops are several, with both positive and negative signals of different phases. An ice age condition is one state, holocene max another, and since 2200bce a third trend of relatively mild swings.

    Several factors influence the behavior of a e.g. turbo governor. The earth has many more such factors than a simple turbo-gen.

  131. tallbloke says:

    RichardLH and OldmanK: See my Paris presentation from 20:37 here

  132. Fast says:

    Recommend you look at Vukcevic’s graphic and explanation to his graphic in the commentary to Bob Tisdale post on wuwt. I think it is what P Vaughan has been posting but deadly understandable.

    Vukcevic’s comment from wuwt.

    “If the ~100 year long initial section of the N. A. SST data is moved forward by about 65 years, it can be clearly seen that two sections are nearly identical (R^2 >0.7, statistically significant) with a single uplift of about 0.2C.
    Anyone is welcome to any conclusion, but it is crystal clear to me that 0.2 C one off (single) uplift in temperature is absolutely nothing to do with the increase in the CO2 concentration””

  133. oldbrew says:

    ‘Welcome to a new geologic era – the Idiocene’

    ‘A new era, the Idiocene, is a time when common sense exited the planet. It is characterized by a fear of global warming. Individuals, organizations, and governments are under the thrall of this bogeyman.’

  134. oldbrew says:

    10 feet of snow in parts of New Mexico and Texas – pics.

  135. oldbrew says:

    Norwegians have new ideas on flood water management.

    ‘What if it was possible to monitor, predict, alert and manage the large, local precipitation volumes? The capacity of the supply network and treatment plants could then be utilised better than today. The water volumes could be diverted to the locations with capacity and where surface water would cause the least damage.’

    ‘Taking charge of flood water’

  136. oldbrew says:

    New Paper By Renowned Sea Level Expert Nils-Axel Mörner, Calls AGW A “New Religion” Built On “False Premises.”

    “The New Religion of Global Warming and its Misconception in Science”.

  137. oldmanK says:

    Some observations on the paper by Mayewski et al mentioned earlier (somewhat in a hurry). A link to the paper is here:

    Click to access Mayewski_HolocenVar_QR04.pdf

    1, The abstract rounds it all nicely. The Holocene paleoclimate records reveal six disturbances which compare to my graph posted further up. In fact it is further correlating evidence; important because it also indicates global and simultaneous events.
    9000-8000, too early-no correlating data available.
    6000-5000,–this is the aftermath of the ~6200 event evident from the ice cores(in my graph) and which likely submerged the north sea ‘doggerland’.
    4200-3800—the aftermath of the 4375 event evident in tree rings + ice cores, an increase in obliquity seen also in megalithic calendar evolution.
    3500-2500— possibly two events, again both identified in tree rings precisely and starting at 3195, ending in 2345. Piora oscillation and changes in meg calendars after 3195 likely ~3100, obliquity changes at 2345.
    The last two events are more recent and known better from history. The lower anomalistic temps seems to have precluded these being greater disastrous events.

    2 Those events are well supported by historical evidence.

    3 They are limited to the Holocene Max. This indicates that planetary movement were not the cause or main culprit, though possibly a trigger. Same planetary behavour applies before Holocene, before YD event, and after.

    4 It is the period that allowed major human development, but also brought periodic annihilations.

    5 The paper assumes a latitudinal solar insolation at near constant obliquity. It would likely tell a different tone of story if a changing obliquity in near abrupt instances were considered. (constant obliquity is an old assumption not fact; a mathematical dogma, like the aliens of the corn circles, difficult to eradicate once established).

  138. Paul Vaughan says:

    “A senior political campaign manager once explained the rules of negative campaigning to me. You don’t distribute negative leaflets to your supporters, you distribute negative leaflets in areas which vote for the opposition, to make them feel disengaged with the political process, and stop them from wanting to vote.”

    That’s the tactic they used on anyone challenging their sun-climate deception.

    I keep seeing articles recently about people wanting to shake loose the climate discussion gridlock. That’s easy. Just get rid of wuwt. Eclipse it with something inspiring. The way to get to lefties is with art and inspiration. Duh. They aren’t A-to-B logic type of people. They are enthralled with imagination. You have to give them a dream.

  139. tallbloke says:

    Paul: What could be more inspiring than the vision of a holistic, interconnected cosmos, with Earth (and humans) a truly integrated part of it. This is what I’ve been driving at for years.

  140. ralfellis says:

    Modulation of Ice Ages via Precession and Dust-Albedo Feedbacks
    A new paper proving that CO2 is a minor player in the drama that is the Earth’s climate.

    (The article I produced has turned into a science paper).


    We present here a simple and novel proposal for the modulation and rhythm of ice ages and interglacials during the late Pleistocene. While the standard Milankovitch-precession theory fails to explain the long intervals between interglacials, these can be accounted for by a novel forcing and feedback system involving CO2, dust and albedo. During the glacial period, the high albedo of the northern ice sheets drives down global temperatures and CO2 concentrations, despite subsequent precessional forcing maxima. Over the following millennia CO2 is sequestered in the oceans and atmospheric concentrations eventually reach a critical minima of about 200 ppm, which causes a die-back of temperate and boreal forests and grasslands, especially at high altitude. The ensuing soil erosion generates dust storms, resulting in increased dust deposition and lower albedo on the northern ice sheets. As northern hemisphere insolation increases during the next Milankovitch cycle, the dust-laden ice-sheets absorb considerably more insolation and undergo rapid melting, which forces the climate into an interglacial period. The proposed mechanism is simple, robust, and comprehensive in its scope, and its key elements are well supported by empirical evidence.

    Ralph Ellis

  141. ralfellis says:

    Sorry, the link did not work for a while, but it is up and running now:

    Modulation of Ice Ages via Precession and Dust-Albedo Feedbacks

  142. oldbrew says:

    Excellent, thanks Ralph.

    I’ve mentioned it in the de Rop post.

  143. tallbloke says:

    Thanks Ralf, we’ll do an update post.

  144. oldbrew says:

    Here’s NTZ’s rollcall of climate fortune tellers with egg on their faces due to non-arrival of the Arctic sea ice ‘death spiral’.

    The same people usually have no comment on Antarctic sea ice robust good health.

  145. Andrew says:

    One for Ren. Cool strat/trop temperature & vortices graphic

    p.s. Some over excited UK meteorologists tonight. 1947 has been mentioned

  146. Roger et al,

    I’ve been off the circuit for a while. The craziness of both sides got to me. Inconvenient facts seem to disturb the (principally American) skeptic side as well as the (universal) warmist side. The COP21 non-agreement agreement got me started again. And now that the Orestes, Harrabin et al are eating their own children, the situation is getting more interesting (in the curse way).

    There’s one question I have been asking that perhaps you or others could answer. I don’t know why it is one that Watts, Tisdale, Mosher and everyone else doesn’t respond to, but it strikes me that my question is very pertinent to ruining the IPCC narrative. And it is why the models that are far above the observational trend – NOAA2105 or UAH – have not been deleted from the IPCC forecasts. The scenarios start in 1988, and head to 2100, but the 102-odd are already high above the currrent position. Now those temps represent energy within the system, so to get from here to where “here” is supposed to be, represents a lot of energy. Where is it to come from, and what set of parameters – the science and the situation being well understood, we are told – rocket us up to the extreme scenarios? And if “natural variability” is supposed to be the reason, then the error bars on the upper scenarios must be bizarre. And if we accept both today as it is, and the endpoint at 2100, how do we get from here to there when no scenario has a track like that.

    If I created a budget for a Company that said today was twice as profitable as the CFO just said it was, and the Directors and Accounting Firm agreed, I would be thought unhinged. And if I said that the previous President’s expectations for the end of the current 5-year plan could be met, even though we were into Year 3 and were nowhere near on track, I would be expected to show how it was to come about or produce a newer, “realistic” budget. But the IPCC scenarios – no different from my budget analogy – stand just as they did, start when they did, and seem to ignore all observations. And yet neither skeptic nor warmist complain.

    What am I missing?

  147. Fast says:

    Tallbloke this blog may wish to keep track of the work of the group called “CAWES”
    see paper entitled: “Advancing the understanding of the Sun–Earth interaction—the Climate and Weather of the Sun–Earth System (CAWSES) II program”

    From their conclusion “The results of various studies show significant penetration
    of atmospheric waves into the ionosphere in
    all frequency ranges, i.e., acoustic waves, gravity waves,
    tides, and planetary waves. We need to study the relative
    importance between (1) direct penetration of atmospheric
    waves into the thermosphere and then into the
    ionosphere and (2) electromagnetic coupling from the
    E- to F-region. Considering the low solar activity during
    solar cycle 24, its impact needs to be further investigated
    by examining, for example, the enhanced wave effects
    due to the cooler thermosphere, reduced wave dissipation,
    and less solar induced disturbances. This research
    over the next few years will allow us to determine the
    relative importance of waves (compared to the Sun)
    during high solar activity.”

  148. tallbloke says:

    Thanks, I’ve downloaded the paper.

  149. oldbrew says:

    How Scotland’s energy policy is going wrong…

    Euan Mearns: The Destruction of Scottish Power

  150. Scute says:

    Whaler wrecks from 1871 found due to melting sea ice. NOAA thank climate change…except it was ice-free 145 years ago when they sailed in and got stuck.

  151. oldbrew says:

    ‘Kepler marks 1,000th exoplanet discovery, uncovers more small worlds in habitable zones’

    ‘The search continues for Earth-size habitable zone worlds around sun-like stars.’

  152. Paul Vaughan says:

    My aim was to demystify Pukite’s 14.3, 14.6, & 15.1 years ( ). He refers to the same quantity with 3 different values, so I decided to show how a whole framework of coherence pins to the middle of his musings.

    I should have provided the contextual link above (December 24, 2015 at 4:12 pm) where I outlined lunisolar-JSUNEV coherence.

    Apologies. I accept my share of the responsibility for a consequent misunderstanding with Ian Wilson on another thread:

  153. USteiner says:

    Cooling by CO2 and atmosphere as a black body radiator

    There is a new paper (Dec 2015) out by Schmithüsen et al. „How increasing CO2 leads to an increased negative greenhouse effect in Antarctica“ ( ) showing that CO2 results in cooling in the antartic.

    IR spectra at TOA, which show more radiation at CO2 wavelengths (15µm) than expected from IR emission from earth, have been published before, measured as well a calculated. What strikes me here – again – is their eqn (1), where they do nothing short of saying that the atmosphere is a black body radiator, and all their other calculations follow resting on this assumption.

    As far as I know, O2, N2 and other gases don’t even radiate at IR wavelengths, let alone as a black body. And water vapour and CO2 radiate as emitters at discrete (albeit smeared) wavelengths, but clearly not as a black body.

    So, what kind of nonsense follows from this „atmosphere is a black body radiator“ assumption?

  154. oldbrew says:

    ‘IRS Complaint Filed Against RICO 20 Think Tank’

    More aggro for the RICO finger-pointers, who demanded the use of US federal racketeering laws to investigate opponents of man-made climate warming so-called science.

    Remember the RICO letter:
    ‘The letter—signed by 20 researchers, often called the “RICO 20” by many—was published on IGES’ website. IGES, a nonprofit educational institute that received $63 million dollars in federal grants, which accounts for 98 percent of its operating revenue since 2001, is supposed to undertake educational activities, not engage in advocacy or lobbying.’

  155. Oldbrew: re RICO

    The use of RICO against non-Democrat-supporting CAGW non-supporters is in the same vein as Obama using Executive Privilege to push policies that would not be supported (publicly?) by the US Congress and the Senate. Whether it is actually “democracy” as our parents and grandparents fought for during WWII et al, or whether it is the APPEARANCE of that democracy, I can’t say, but we are seeing an indifference to the INTENT of achieving justice through the application of laws and regulations. And I bet that Brits would say the same is happening in their countries. I know it is happening in Canada and Australia, too.

    Throughout the so-called democratic world we are seeing efforts to achieve ends without concern about the means being in opposition to fundamental visions of equality or justice supposedly the basis of the nation. The court process becomes the threat and the punishment, as Mark Steyn has found in two countries (Canada and the US). Your freedom of speech is determined by no one objecting, or no one saying they think someone else might object. You are monitored legally and illegally and nothing you say changes it, except you are now a target for computer seizure (right, Roger?).

    The tactics of state suppression used to be used overtly against real, outside parties of obvious problem and only covertly against large, inside parties – and at great embarassament if found out. Now Wikileaks et all explain in great detail how the illegal activities not only go on, they are approved at the top AND, when exposed, lead to no consequence. If Oliver North were in court today about supplying weapons through drug sales to the Sandanistas, he would be feted, not left swinging in the wind.

    There has been a sea change this new century. Or maybe not. Maybe we are just aware of it now. I can’t tell. I think it is worse now, but maybe all those ruined by the UnAmerican Activities committees and other anti-communist witchhunts in the West would disagree.

    We’ve always known you “can’t fight city hall”. And that disagreeing with the tax authorities was a dangerous thing to do. Maybe we just can hear about the bad things that happen to more people these days. It’s spooky what things go on that make no sense and yet go on without change or negative repercussions.

    Orwellian, even.

  156. wayne says:

    Tallbloke, read that you had some problem yesterday but whatever you altered on your site to ‘fix’ it has now left the pages coming up so incredibly slow and seems there is also some form of endless loop in play that keeps the CPUs pegged at 100%… time between keystrokes sometimes many seconds leaving your site pages nearly unusable. Thought you might want to know what it looks from this side.

    BTW, the RSS feed seems unaffected so that is what I am using for reading comments.

    Hint from a programmer…. simplify, simplify, simplify… never a pause longer than three seconds is the age-old industry standard ruler on performance. Few care what it looks like as long as it is readable and reacts fast as it should.

  157. tallbloke says:

    Hi Wayne,
    Sorry for the slow page load. I’ve switched the paging function back on, so things should be back to normal, as it seems wordpress have fixed whatever it was they broke.

  158. wayne says:

    Yes Rog, seems back to normal again. Thanks. Might even be quicker loading than before and that sure never hurts! 😉

  159. Andrew says:

    We narrowly missed an ice age, now we won’t see one for a long time.

  160. oldbrew says:

    USteiner says: January 12, 2016 at 2:02 pm

    One problem with the Antarctic ‘anti-greenhouse’ theory seems to be that it doesn’t work in Greenland where conditions are similar.

    Maybe they should ask themselves whether whatever is going on, if anything at all, is unrelated to the mystical alleged powers of supposed wonder-gas CO2 😉

  161. USteiner says:

    oldbrew says:
    January 13, 2016 at 8:20 pm
    … the mystical alleged powers of supposed wonder-gas CO2 😉

    I am not so focused on CO2, but rather on the claim that the atmosphere is a black body radiator, which is the first equation given in the publication, and on which everything else is based:

    see eqn (1) in

    Since when are gases BlackBodyRadiators? If this is the primary assumption, no wonder everything else goes astray.

  162. oldbrew says:

    Black bodies are an idealised version of reality, that’s true. But they do offer this.

    4 Satellite Measurements of GHE

    ‘Model calculations will be no better than the input data, which are potentially quite poor over remote regions like Antarctica. Observations are not subject to such error of specification. Therefore, in addition to our model studies, we included satellite observations to demonstrate the negative greenhouse effect for the specific conditions in Antarctica.’

    I don’t mean to imply I support their paper, as I haven’t read it all.

    NB they also say:
    ‘Antarctica is the only region on Earth where the surface is frequently colder than the stratosphere.’

    Which makes it seem unlikely that human emissions are going to make much of it melt away any time soon.

  163. oldbrew says:

    Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind. Wind power is destabilising the German electricity system.

    ‘German Renewable Energy Woes Mount: Costly Battle Against Blackouts …”More Expensive Than Ever Before”!’

  164. Michele says:

    Zonal magnetic flux transport over 3.5 solar cycles

    north slump ?

  165. tallbloke says:

    Do you have a bigger image Michele?

  166. USteiner says:

    oldbrew says:
    January 15, 2016 at 7:03 pm
    Black bodies are an idealised version of reality, that’s true. But they do offer this.

    I feel like being misunderstood 😕 Let’s put aside the conclusion that CO2 makes the antarctic cool the earth. In the Schmithüsen paper ( they claim to have made the calculation, and it shows that. However, what is new? This had been measured with – gosh – real data some 45 years (!) ago. See here the Nimbus data from 1971 in Fig. 12d ( )

    Further, look at Schmitthüsen’s Fig 2. You see the spike on the CO2 pimple at the South pole at a Spectral radiance of 2.5. And exactly at the same level for the US Standard atmosphere. This is at least consistent with an interpretation that CO2 radiates the same everywhere on earth, but becomes only visible, when the background black body radiation from the ground is low enough. And this requirement is fulfilled only at the very cold south pole. So, what is left as excitement?

    My “excitement” , however, is elsewhere. Right in eqn1 of Schmitthüsen they define the atmosphere as a black body radiator, by:

    “the emission of the atmosphere ε(index atm) x σ x T(index atm)4”

    Gases are no black body radiators. Never. And never were! Not even “greenhouse gases”. So when you do start with a nonsensical assumption, what value does the rest have?

    And since they do not give an explanation for that strange assumption, I think it is worth some discussion. In particular since I think this to be a standard assumption in climate modelling, though I have not seen that assumption expressed so explicitly.

  167. Michele says:

    @ rog

    Wilcox solar observatory

  168. Paul Vaughan says:

    “Hopefully, this post and the posts linked to it will help Congressman Smith’s staff better understand the numerous problems that exist with that dataset.”

    NO chance of that as — like usual — the important problems with ERSSTv4 are NEVER addressed at that blog.

    SO FAR AS I CAN SEE that blog is acting to deliberately deflect readers AWAY from the REAL issues with ERSSTv4 and I sure hope “Congressman Smith’s staff better understand the numerous problems that exist with that” blog’s suspicious behavior and grossly negligent blindness.

    Creepy as ****. I mean it’s just creepy as **** that they would write down “an overview” that 100% OMITS (!!) the important problems with ERSSTv4. Like what? Are they like trying to deliberately water down the public’s perception of what’s really wrong with ERSSTv4???? That’s EXACTLY what it ends up looking like (whether by design or accident).

    I find this just overwhelmingly creepy. It’s a serious failure to not call them on this. How could “Congressman Smith’s staff” possibly trust these people?? In the interests of civility I have to walk away from this for at least a minute because I’m getting too angry with the 100% reliably persistent ignorance & deception…

  169. tallbloke says:

    Then we need to do our own post that highlights the issues you have with it. Only you can lay it out though, by graphing the old version, the new, and clearly pointing to the differences and how they arise. I’ve tried to follow your links to previous comments before, and ended up none the wiser. So help us out, and we’ll shout it from the talkshop rooftop for you.

  170. Paul Vaughan says:

    It’s as simple as subtracting one column of numbers from another. I’ve pointed directly to the numbers and said subtract this from this and you’ll get this. What to do if people don’t understand when it’s that simple? Pray perhaps? It looks like nothing can be done because people aren’t able and willing to understand. That’s what convinces me that those american bloggers LIKE the vandalism. I very strongly suspect there’s something they find politically useful or convenient about it. I suspect they don’t want to make a case strong enough that noaa would actually do corrections. I suspect they’re hoping noaa will leave it f**d up so they can keep playing political football with it …but a vandalized record undermines sound nature exploration. The conflict here is because their priority is politics and mine is sound nature exploration.

  171. oldbrew says:

    ‘By Sunday morning, nearly one-quarter of the U.S. population (about 75 million people) could get 6 inches or more of snow.’

  172. Paul Vaughan says:

    Bill Illis remains the sensible commentator at wuwt and he has delivered another real gem (orders of magnitude better than any of the articles over there) in a string of 4 comments:

    “The AMOC starts under the sea ice throughout the entire Arctic Ocean basin. Somehow climate scientists have convinced themselves that the deep water formation of the AMOC is next to Greenland. There is no way to correct them because […]”

    He sets the record straight on the Labrador Current and in his classic, concise description of Arctic deep water formation (the best I’ve ever seen) he points to the largest waterfall on Earth (at the bottom of Denmark Strait) after clarifying that AMOC starts under the BLUE areas on the bathymetric map below.

    This really cleared me up on a lot of things. I’ve never seen it put more cleanly. It should be an article of its own …and it’s just the right length.

    Link to 1st of 4 Bill Illis comments:

  173. oldbrew says:

    The European Union is useless, corrupt and riddled with fraud, Sir Bernard Ingham has said.

    In a withering attack, Margaret Thatcher’s former press secretary asked: “Why should the UK throw another £12 billion a year down these mafia and assorted criminal drains?”

    Who knew? 😉

  174. Michele says:

    Major Midwinter Warming displacement ?

    [Mod note] Rescued from the spam folder

  175. oldbrew says:

    Murry Salby: Control of Atmospheric CO2

    ‘Clearly, the CO2 Thought Police don’t appreciate science.’ – Tim Cullen

  176. Michele says:

    I have a big problem with moderation..

    Rog and/or Tim check please…

    Major Midwinter Warming in progress …… displacement or split ?

  177. oldbrew says:

    NOAA temperature data row not going away.

    ‘Did the NOAA Cook the Books to Show Warming During Hiatus?’

  178. Paul Vaughan says:

    I’ve been watching the extremely long articles about NOAA’s ERSSTv4, Karl, etc. and STILL no one understands the effect of the lowess filter. Watching the never ending way-off-target fuss sure doesn’t help reduce suspicions…

    Why doesn’t that group of american climate agents just outright call NOAA on it? My guess is there’s some politically strategic reason to NOT do so …but that’s pretty weird unless they really are saving it as a nuclear option, so they can apply the politics of deterrence by threatening a deathblow when the timing is ripe for some other combination of purposes. Maybe that is the game…

    …or maybe they’re just clueless (this does seem the more likely option!!)

  179. Bob Weber says:

    I’m with TB on this one. Paul, write it up and quit your bitching. If you want to have an impact, now is the time. If you don’t do it, I’ll never respect you.

  180. A. Ames says:

    Over at /can-a-gaseous-atmosphere-really-radiate-as-black-body/
    tallbloke and Trick had an exchange on “convection”.

    I too believe that convection is part of the reason why the GCM’s are so far off in so many ways.
    shows there is a serious problem, and this is just vertical not lateral.

    The opening paragraph of is:
    The Arakawa-Schubert (Arakawa and Schubert, 1974; hereafter referred to as AS) type
    mass-flux based cumulus parameterization schemes are now used in many global forecast
    models and General Circulation Models (GCMs) has multiple parameters.
    AS seems to be what is mostly used (?).

    It is my understanding that the only mathematical method today that can handle atmospheric convection, condensation, heating, and cooling, and still satisfy the necessary conservation laws on existing computers is the lattice-boltzmann (LB) method.(?)

    I don’t think LB has evolved to the point where it could be used in general circulation models if only because of gridding complications. LB might be useable in weather models that can be run on regular grids.

  181. Paul Vaughan says:

    Bob, it literally cannot be made any more simple. 3+2=5 is on the table. People claim they don’t understand and appear to expect to be trusted to understand if only it would be said some other way (perhaps 2+3=5).

    Suspicion of corruption has to be on the table when a case is simple and absolutely clear cut.

    The other (even more unflattering) possibility is fatal incompetence. And if the primary American critics really are that clueless, then obviously noaa can and will do whatever noaa wants unchecked.

    Whether ignorance or deception: dark either way (both noaa and the lead American critics).

    Unconditional devotion to tribalism is the problem in this case, not the solution. Perhaps the best and most noble thing for you to do under the circumstances is to take independent firsthand responsibility for waking your friends up. You could do that without ever respecting me. Whether you respect me or not, I wish you efficiency and success if you (perhaps quietly) decide to take this cordial advice. My contributions on this file are done and my final verdict (on both noaa & the lead american critics): guilty.

  182. oldbrew says:

    The Biggest Core
    Submitted by Lucas Kavanagh on Sat, 01/09/2016 – 17:30

    Yesterday, by complete accident, we recovered the largest diameter core in ocean drilling history! Here’s how it happened…

  183. oldbrew says:

    Please note: we’ve moved to Suggestions 17 now.


  184. wayne says:

    Tallbloke, mods:

    My last comment at seems to have disappeared. Could you check the queue to see if it is truly lost before I just keep re-posting?

    Seems I saw for a flash that it was “#comment-114300”.

    [retrieved – mod]

  185. wayne says:

    Rog, mods, just curious… when pages get enough comments (think 250) to start a new page why does this always seem to get stuck on the previous page in further URLs? Is that a big hassle for you mods?

    The “Atmospheric convection – what does it mean?” page continually uses page 7 instead of page 8 in all subsequent URLs. Too hard to correct as pages advance or this just a web programmatic correction so it always advances in all URLs correctly?

  186. oldbrew says:

    wayne: all you do is click on ‘This is a link to the current (in use) Suggestions page’

    re: ‘Atmospheric convection’ – TB usually does this but he’s not around at the moment.

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s