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. tthomas2 says:

    hi see this on new analysis of sea level rises – no acceleration

  2. tchannon says:

    Good, the suggestions page change works. (is a bit involved to do)

    Tony, as I wrote before the issue of copyright stops a clone.

    Sea level has been an interest of mine, discovered it was nicely predictable maybe 5 years out, then the data started getting withheld, then rapid fire data fiddling started, lot of mistakes, finally they ceased publishing the version I was using. “natural” data tends to be predictable, messed with human statistics mangled is not.

    This isn’t all. The data seems to fit to a degree with satellite lower trop temperature and also with a little mentioned solar parameter (to do with asymmetry). All a matter of looking and wondering, proving nothing.

    More interesting was finding the widely ignored Geosat sea level data does fit, sea level was falling then hence taken as wrong. Much the same thing is in the Church & White sea level data… except they bent their data to try and meet the satellite data. Worse on their update they did the dismally common trick of switching the annual (with yet more violation of sampling theory)

    Your article on Quadrant is focused more on the dimwit Australian governance. We taught them well but sea level is little more than a minor issue in Europe. In the UK and eg. Netherlands at least some of this is swamped by reality, nature, the North Sea being prone to storm surges with actual loss of life and flooding.

    There have been very recent attempts at mischief, by the Scots trying to kid on about some coastal areas, including the dangers from tsunami. Whilst this a real problem peculiar to certain areas, not honestly up there. The south west of England is more at risk from undersea avalanches in the Atlantic. (because historically they have been larger)


    Cambridge uni, hot agw but cautious

  3. edmh says:

    There but for the grace of greens goes the UK and Europe

    Subject: Blackouts in California

    Carbon Agenda Sets Stage for Rolling Blackouts in California

    Kurt Nimmo
    August 10, 2012

    It is said that as California goes, so goes the nation. The Golden State is about to experience what the rest of the nation will experience after the globalists phase in their carbon-free agenda under the demonstrably bogus global climate change scam.

    “California’s electricity grid operator issued a rare statewide alert on Thursday warning residents to curb power usage in coming days as a heat wave threatens to strain its already taxed network,” Reuters reported on Monday.

    The alert instructs residents and businesses to “curb use” during the peak consumption hours of 11:00 AM to 6 PM. The “alert” will last through Sunday.

    California Independent System Operation (CAISO) is said to be bracing for a heat wave that is moving toward the state. It will struggle to compensate for the loss of 2,150-megawatts produced by the San Onofre nuclear plant. The plant will remain down through the rest of the summer due to a small radiation leak detected earlier this year.

    Reuters reports that an alert issued by CAISO “may serve as a reality check for state leaders and grid officials who are struggling to deal with increasing demands for more carbon-free electricity over the next few years.”

    California plans to drastically cut back on traditional sources of electric generation and rely “on renewable power sources, such as solar and wind, while shutting a number of ocean-side plants that supply power around the clock will challenge power grid operators to keep the lights on.”

    The federal government is moving ahead with plans to shut down traditional energy plants. In 2011, Obama Energy Secretary Steven Chu launched an effort to bankrupt the coal industry through EPA regulations. The Obama administration’s strict enforcement of draconian EPA regulations has led to new clean-burning coal-fired plants being mothballed and other existing ones being shut down, reported in February of 2011.

    During his presidential run, Obama said that “if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can. It’s just that it will bankrupt them because they are going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.. Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.”

    “The deliberate deindustrialization of America has nothing to do with protecting the environment. Whereas the competitiveness of America’s energy industry is being crippled by the EPA and the White House, China and Mexico are building dozens of new power plants every year which fall well short of the clean-burning technology standards adhered to in the United States,” Alex Jones and Paul Joseph Watson wrote on Monday.

    “This is about the implementation of the UN’s Agenda 21, which operates under the guise of ‘sustainable development’ yet is clearly part of a stealth agenda to centralize control over energy, bankrupting America in the process as part of the move towards a crony system of one world governance.

  4. tchannon says:

    IR, composite.

    Piers Corbyn advertising copy “RARE ARCTIC STORM heralds WeatherAction jet stream shift

    A world pressure pattern & Jet stream shift to a ‘Little Ice Age’ pattern is coming”

    I’m waiting an email from a research contact which might give an article about a surprising thing. I am not second guessing this one.

  5. Tenuc says:

    Tim, good video from Piers Corbyn about the jet stream shift is available here…

    Like many other weather/climate scientists he is predicting much colder NH winters for the next ~20 years. The timing of this change fits very well with the ~200 year de Vries solar quasi-cycle…

    1410-1500 cold – Low Solar Activity(LSA?) – (Sporer minimum)
    1510-1600 warm – High Solar Activity(HSA?)
    1610-1700 cold – (LSA) (Maunder minimum)
    1710-1800 warm – (HSA)
    1810-1900 cold – (LSA) (Dalton minimum)
    1910-2000 warm – (HSA)
    2010-2100 (cold???) – (LSA???)

    This one from Roy Spencer also tickles me… 🙂

    Along with his ‘health warning’… “The 4th order polynomial fit to the data (courtesy of Excel) is for entertainment purposes only, and should not be construed as having any predictive value whatsoever.”

  6. tchannon says:

    Can’t comment on invisible video. [edit: was there later as html5. Never seen Corbyn before. He seems pretty convinced of an xxx solar minimum. ]

    RS. fit? There’s probably a fair amount around from me. I’ve pointed out this seems to fit with solar asymmetry and sea level delayed 4 years from there. None of this surprises me but neither any more than guessing.

    Last time I looked at RSS/UAH it was UAH showing more warming. I only did this after discovering something radically mismatching with one of the above plots published by RS. Turns out the data had changed quite a lot without mention of a different software version. 😦

  7. Clive Best says:

    I am unhappy with the derivation of the dry adiabatic lapse rate given in all textbooks because it seems to me a somewhat circular argument. Are we really to believe that the lapse rate is caused by adiabatic convection? A rising adiabatic parcel of air in hydrostatic equilibrium produces the “correct formula” but it doesn’t really explain anything. I am sure that the lapse rate remains the same even with zero convection. It must be gravity alone that plays the crucial role in determining the lapse rate. I have therefore tried to derive the lapse rate just from the kinetic theory of gases. It means that gravity alone can explain the lapse rate see: post here for details

    [co-mod: I’ll leave that one for Tallbloke to handle, been a lot of talk on the Talkshop surrounding the subject, including getting heated.]

  8. Hi Rog,

    This looks interesting, but doesn’t seem to have had any attention. You might want to run an article on it.



  9. RKS says:

    Has anybody heard about any progress by Nikolov and Zeller regarding their part 2 reply to UTC questions?

    I’ve emailed them a couple of times but had no response whatsoever.

    [Reply] Progress is steady, but slow due to their work commitments. – TB

  10. RKS says:

    Might I suggest a practical experiment to prove, or disprove the effect of ‘back radiation’ on the surface temperature of the Earth.

    Perhaps a discussion thread might be useful to finesse the proposal.

    A tall air filled clear cylinder with a low power [black?] heat pad at the base will emulate the atmosphere via convection currents keeping the monitored heat pad [earth’s surface] at a steady temperature.

    A heat exchanger at the top of the cylinder [peltier perhaps?] could emulate conditions at TOA by a steady removal of heat..

    If the radiative physics brigade are right, the addition of a small amount of CO2 to the air within the cylinder should raise the steady state temperature of the heat pad by ‘back radiation’

    I think that any increase in temperature would be too small to measure, or it would have been proved beyond doubt long ago.

    Convection and cloud cover win hands down regarding global temperature variations, although the underlying long term global lower tropospheric temperature relies on atmospheric pressure coupled with insolation. As per the research of Nikolov and Zeller.

    We could also increase the CO2 concentration to 98%, as on Venus, and really prove how ridiculous the AGW nonsense really is.

    Steps to maintain the gas pressure constant [emulating the atmosphere] should be taken, perhaps by studious venting with increased temperature and pressure, or providing expansion space.

    The AGW brigade claim that the global temperature is 33K higher than it would be if there was no CO2 present.

    Let’s modify our experiment by firstly measuring the heater temperature with a 100% nitrogen ‘atmosphere’.

    Then add say 1000ppm of CO2 to the gas and see if the heater temperature shoots up as they say it should.

    Any competent climate scientist with the simplest of labs could, and should have conducted this simple test years ago.

  11. RKS says:

    RKS says:
    August 17, 2012 at 5:13 am>>>

    Further to the above proposal I suggest the walls of the cylinder be reflectively lined and well insulated to prevent IR from radiating away from the internal components.

  12. RKS says:

    RKS says:
    August 17, 2012 at 5:13 am>>>Please refer above for start of theme.

    From Wikipedia:-

    Greenhouse gases

    Main article: Greenhouse gas
    By their percentage contribution to the greenhouse effect on Earth the four major gases are:[18][19]
    water vapor, 36–70%
    carbon dioxide, 9–26%
    methane, 4–9%
    ozone, 3–7%
    The major non-gas contributor to the Earth’s greenhouse effect, clouds, also absorb and emit infrared radiation and thus have an effect on radiative properties of the atmosphere.

    So CO2 contributes between 9 – 26% of the 33K warming.

    A bit of a wide estimate, can’t these well funded climate scientists do better than that – how on earth do they calculate the effects of CO2 on climate change with crude data such as these?
    At least it gives us an idea of what temperature changes to look for in our experiment.

    [Note: Lunar Diviner data show that the figure of 33K is wrong and the actual Atmospheric Thermal Effect is, in reality, close to 133K. but let’s stick to the IPCC propaganda for our test purposes.]

  13. RKS says:

    RKS says:
    August 18, 2012 at 5:40 am>>>>

    Correction – The enhancement in temperature due to the presence of atmosphere has now been calculated at 90.3K from Lunar Diviner empirical data. [not 133K as I mistakenly said earlier]

    Still almost 3 times higher than the IPCC estimate!


  14. tallbloke says:

    Hi RKS, thanks for the proposal. We are soon going to be setting up an ’empirical’ section which will discuss proposals for experiments and work towards performing them. I’ll include your proposal when we get it going.

  15. RKS says:

    tallbloke says:
    August 18, 2012 at 12:50 pm>>>>

    Much appreciated.

    I’ll continue finessing the idea.

  16. Tenuc says:

    Came across this article published in Journal of Coastal Research, SI 50 (Proceedings of the 9th International Coastal Symposium)

    Rhodes Fairbridge and the idea that the solar system regulates the Earth’s climate

    Click to access ICS176.pdf

    “…There is considerable evidence that the sun is not homogenous; it is generally a fluid body, and whilst the solar nuclear fusion core is more like a solid than anything else, the viscosity, elasticity and density of the remainder of the sun varies from waterlike to diaphanous gas. The sun also has several distinct internal structures, which generally have the sun’s oblate spheriod shape (except the core, which is generally spherical). The structures and material of which the sun is made are in constant movement spatially and temporally…”

    “…Variations in the strength of the sunspot cycle are accompanied by variations in the sun’s emission of radiation, dispersal of matter, the strength of the sun’s electromagnetic field and the
    strength of the heliosphere together with now increasingly well documented changes to the earth’s climate arising directly from these variations. Variations in the amount of radiation emitted by the sun over the sunspot cycle are not uniform across the electromagnetic spectrum. An increase in solar activity of, say, one unit, means proportionately more short wavelength energy than long wavelength. Short wavelength radiation (UV and Xrays) ionises the upper atmosphere and heats the middle atmosphere. As a result, atmospheric temperature varies in a non-linear manner with the amount and type of solar radiation. The sun ejects enormous quantities of matter continuously in the form of the solar wind, or periodically as either a mix of high energy protons and electrons (Coronal Mass Ejections, (CMEs)), or as mostly high energy protons (Solar Proton Events (SPEs)). The earth’s atmosphere is more sensitive, and more reactive, to the CMEs and SPEs than to the sun’s short wavelength radiation, to which it is, in any case, highly reactive. The effect of the solar
    wind, CMEs and SPEs is to reduce the amount of ozone and as a result, warm the middle atmosphere. The overall effect on climate is more turbulence: stronger winds, more storms and greater precipitation…”

    Lots of gems in this document – even Leif gets a mention regarding his SC24 prediction… 🙂

  17. Tenuc says:

    Link found between cold European winters and solar activity
    “Now, armed with a unique proxy, an international team of researchers show that unusually cold winters in Central Europe are related to low solar activity — when sunspot numbers are minimal. The freezing of Germany’s largest river, the Rhine, is the key.”

    At long last a simple link between solar activity and weather/climate has been found. This is especially important as it occurs in the NH, and could be part of the ‘tipping point’ mechanism that drives climate into periods of glaciation.

  18. RKS says:

    How does one start a new discussion thread at Tallbloke?

    [Reply] Have patience. We’ll set up a section for empirical work and experimental design, then the floor is yours. It’s bank holiday weekend here and I’m getting ready to travel to a music making gathering. Call back in a week. – Cheers TB.

  19. tchannon says:

    There are moves afoot to try and create a better website within the severe limitations of what exists. (sensible reasons for this)

    Already you will notice I’ve added Category selection to the left hand bar. This is proof of concept showing that users can group articles for display. No need to tell me that we have not done post category well in the past. These can at considerable effort be edited. I’ll be doing some.

    Awake readers will have noticed Portal appeared a little while ago in the top menu, also proof of concept.

  20. RKS says:

    Hi Roger.

    Thought I’d show you this ad hom attack on you on the DM science comments page:-

    ” So being voted ‘top European blog’ (by whom?) is more important to you than the actual science? I guess it must be as Roger Tattersall (aka Tallbloke) has no relevant qualifications whatsoever. He is a web content editor for Leeds University and (you will love this) he is heavily involved in the university’s ‘Green Impact’ project. A key feature of which is the reduction of carbon emissions to address the problem of climate change. What an unprincipled hypocrite. Still. if he tells you what you want to hear and you think this is about some kind of popularity contest, then go for it. You’ll find no shortage of unqualified charlatans on the web who will tell you any old rubbish.
    – George, Durham, 23/8/2012 20:01″

    Any comments?

  21. tallbloke says:

    The danger of the environmental movement hitching it’s horse to the AGW bandwagon is that action on real environmental issues which have been sidelined by the co2 theory panic will be further set back when the theory falls.

    Take it from a qualified engineer who also holds a science history and philosophy degree, this will happen because the theory does not withstand scrutiny.

  22. John McDonough says:

    Saw this on ScienceDaily News today:

    And the reference from that link:


    Solar influence on winter severity in central Europe
    Key Points

    Freezing of the Rhine occurred from 1780-1963 regularly during sunspot minima
    Coldest winter continue to occur during sunspot minima even today
    This cooling is a regional phenomenon, but not a hemispheric signal

    Frank Sirocko

    Institute of Geosciences, Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Mainz, Germany

    Heiko Brunck

    Institute of Geosciences, Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Mainz, Germany

    Stephan Pfahl

    Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland

    The last two winters in central Europe were unusually cold in comparison to the years before. Meteorological data, mainly from the last 50 years, and modelling studies have suggested that both solar activity and El Niño strength may influence such central European winter coldness. To investigate the mechanisms behind this in a statistically robust way and to test which of the two factors was more important during the last 230 years back into the Little Ice Age, we use historical reports of freezing of the river Rhine. The historical data show that 10 of the 14 freeze years occurred close to sunspot minima and only one during a year of moderate El Niño. This solar influence is underpinned by corresponding atmospheric circulation anomalies in reanalysis data covering the period 1871 to 2008. Accordingly, weak solar activity is empirically related to extremely cold winter conditions in Europe also on such long time scales. This relationship still holds today, however the average winter temperatures have been rising during the last decades.

  23. RKS says:

    I still come across criticisms of N&Z regarding the effect of planetary rotation on their theory and would like to provide an answer. Can anyone refer me to a response from Ned Nikolov on this subject with regard to the temperature of the atmosphere. I have looked hard at their part 1 answers, and on the relevant Tallbloke threads,and see nothing other than a reference to rotation of an airless planet.

  24. tchannon says:

    I do not recall anything but as is probably obvious I consider day/night of immense importance. There is a coda, the degree of importance is related to atmospheric size because of heat transport capability,

    During my very early dialog with Ned (note I posted the original item) it was clear their least interest was day to day weather but that is what most people immediately jumped on. They were talking huge timescales which is why the article image used was the one showing huge timescales.
    All along there has been difficulty trying to keep people off the immediate.

    Lunar rotation pretty much models and makes clear the tricky nature of SB where the connection with the real world is critical. The thermal properties of the surface matter including changes in time, such as from rotation.

    It ought to be obvious I did look at what happens with an earth-like surface but there was little interest, the matter is extremely complex so I dropped the matter. I add, it looks feasible based on numeric exploration for the earth to have the equatorial temperature we have and polar temperature we have. With a denser atmosphere there seems to be a lower equatorial/polar temperature differential. The earth is far too complex for a simple method to do more than give rough ideas.

    It seems highly improbable I have done anything not long known etc yet that leaves me puzzled given what is out there.

    I conclude there are a mix of things causing the temperatures actually there: surface/atmosphere properties, gravity/density/lapse rate, rotation, distance.

  25. Zeke says:

    “Massive threat to North Devon & South Wales coasts

    UKIP stands opposed to monstrous and ineffective wind farms blighting our countryside nationwide. But the threat is not just on land.

    One of the world’s largest offshore windfarms – the ‘Atlantic Array’ – is proposed to be built between the North Devon and South Wales coasts. It would consist of between 188 and 278 turbines, up to 720 feet high.

    It would be less than 9 miles from the North Devon coast, 8 miles from Lundy Island and 14 miles from Gower. It would cover 92 square miles of the Bristol Channel.

    These coastlines are some of the most unspoilt natural landscapes and seascapes in the country. They are Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and include a UNESCO Biosphere Reserve, the UK’s first Marine Conservation Zone and huge swathes of National Trust protected land.

    Both North Devon and Gower are fragile economies, heavily dependent on landscape-based tourism. The Bristol Channel is a unique marine environment containing rare and protected species. We need hundreds of objectors to write to the developer before Friday.

    If you want to help, you must do so in the next few days. You can find out how to help the ‘Slay the Array’ campaign here. We require people to write and get across their objections by Friday. Please also pass on this email to those you think may also be interested.”

  26. […] Comments KevinUK on Surface Stations SurveyZeke on Suggestions-2Caz on WMO03796, Langdon Bay, Ke…tchannon on WMO03796, Langdon Bay, Ke…JCrew […]

  27. Doug Proctor says:

    Thursday 30 August 2012.

    This morning on CBC (Canada) news magazine, a story on the use of fake names, addresses to boost Twitter “follows” and Google “likes”. There is some company/site that checks out these for companies that use the info to determine how much the person who is being followed gets paid. It said that Lady Gaga, with the record of 29 million followers on Twitter has 79% fake followers, all robo-followers.

    It made me wonder: Mann has Twitter followers. It would his or the Peter Gergis sort of “trick” to increase his apparent following with fake followers.

    Hmmm. What about The Gore? or The Suzuki?

  28. Matthew W says:

    Just wanted to say congratulations on getting removed from the “Transcendent Rant and way out there theory” category at WUWT !!!

  29. tallbloke says:

    Thanks Matthew. We’ve removed WUWT from our ‘lukewarm cornflakes’ category as well.

  30. Roger Clague says:

    I suggest you move surface station posts to your surface station project page. They overwhelm and make the recent post section less useable..

  31. Doug Proctor says:

    Did you see this? More CO2 will lead to less clouds over land. So more CO2, more heat, BUT less humidity, less clouds … so drought, not rain. Over land. But over the seas, of course, more CO2 leads to more heat, more humidity and more rain. Which ends up somewhere on land but maybe just near the seas, so you can still get floods.

    Perfect. Skeptics can’t claim GCR (or something else) causes cloud variation that leads to global temperature swings, because they have models that show CO2 can cause more or less clouds depending on what you are talking about!

    Fabulous! Whatever you want on a planetary scale CO2 can do. A multi-variable-in-effect variable.

    a) Where’s Occam’s razor when you need a shave?
    b) Captain Kirk with the Kobeahshi Manoever (he cheated to win an unwinable battle) would be proud.

  32. wermet says:


    I have decided to try to replicate the Lewandowsky survey!

    I recently read the paper “NASA faked the moon landing—therefore (climate) science is a hoax: An anatomy of the motivated rejection of science” by Dr. Stephan Lewandowsky published in Psychological Science. Seeing as there is quite a developing controversy regarding the methods used to regenerate responses to this survey, I have decided to attempt to replicate this papers data with my own survey. I am inviting a number of well-known climate skeptic blog sites to advertise this survey for me.

    The survey is titled “Climate Skeptics Views Survey” and it is hosted on The data collection period is currently set to run until 5 October 2012 at 3:00PM ET (UTC 20:00).

    I will use the Oct 6th weekend to examine the initial data and plan to publish preliminary results the following week. Final results will be published sometime thereafter (it really depends on how much free time I have to finish the analysis and paper prep).

    Your blog readers may access the survey at or by clicking on the following to take the Climate Skeptics Views Survey

    To protect myself from potential problems at work, I prefer to use my longtime pseudonym wermet. I have been using this pseudonym since I starting programming 30+ years ago. Please allow me to retain my privacy.

    I would also encourage you to forward the names of additional climate skeptic blogs that you believe that I should consider inviting to participate in this survey venture. Please do not forward my real name and contact info to other blogs directly.

    I await your response to this invitation!

    Thank you for your time and consideration in helping me advertise this survey,


  33. tony thomas says:

    Hi folks, Australia’s very influential CSIRO gets a little fisking here:

    The CSIRO sold us a PUP

    by Tony Thomas

    September 9, 2012

    The “Planet under Pressure” conference (PUP) in London in March, 2012, is now just a historical curiosity. It was meant to turbocharge the Rio + 20 eco-summit last June but that summit never quite took us to its poverty-ending, green global economy.

    However, the London warm-up is worth a second look, if only because

    More than 40 CSIRO people attended.[1] Assuming $6000 per head on fares, hotels etc, that’s a quarter-million dollars
    Another 40 Australian scientists and academics also went along – make that a half-million dollars total.[2] [3] Did any attend the conference session on “Reinforcing sustainable travel behaviour”?
    “Nut-jobs on the internet” claimed the London show pushed for Dr-Evil-style global climate government. I found coded remarks in the conference verbiage but then turned up a press interview by the conference’ co-chair, our CSIRO’s top climateer Mark Stafford-Smith. He called for a “sustainable development council within the United Nations that has the same level of authority as the Security Council.”[4] Not bad from a non-elected CSIRO politician. Pause to reflect that 55% of the 193 UN countries are dictatorships.[5]
    More than 1200 “scientific” papers were showcased, of which only three or four expressed even a tiny doubt about dangerous human-caused warming (AGW). Yet even the IPCC is only 90% sure. Those papers of interest included “solving the cloud problem in climate models” and “solar forcing of winter climate variability”. The other 1197-plus papers went into third-order issues such as “Solving the problem of how to solve problems: planning in a climate of change”.[6] One I particularly liked went:
    “To unite scientists and global publics in a climate change Quest, communicators need to attend rigorously to the narrative-dramatic dynamics of stakeholder sensemaking. The depth of fear and despair when fully engaged with the tragic Downfall plot should not be underestimated…We urgently need to develop the skills of reading and leading climate change plots. In so doing, we can build understanding of the social drama of data.”[7]

    read on

  34. Hello TB & Tim,
    paper on the prediction of solar cycle SC24

    Sunspot cycle 23 descent to an unusual minimum and forecasts for cycle 24 activity
    H.S. Ahluwalia & J. Jackiewicz
    University of new mexico

    Paper on the social speculation ?
    We need buy for final section

    “…… We speculate on the possible implications of this outcome on future earth climate change and the ensuing socio-economic Consequences …..”


  35. Craig M350 says:

    A few months back I think TB (could have been Tim) mentioned something about noting an amplitude shift in the signal from Arctic Sea ice. I’m not sure if this was ASI as a whole or certain Arctic seas I’m not even sure if it was the anomaly you looked at or average etc (never been able to locate the post since). Still from a once climate Neanderthal I seek to evolve

    This is a simple overlay (wonders of paint) of SSN* vs the Arctic Basin anomaly especially in light of this years low ice (excluding possible problems with that dataset?). You could drive a truck through the holes in the way I’ve done it however I’m looking to use it for illustrative purposes as I visualise the mechanisms even if the Maths beats me into submission. Stephen Wilde’s cogitations on here are especially useful to visualise when a plot is beyond me.

    At the time of your amplitude shift post I began looking at local data from some weather stations near me which I have now realised have major placement issues which would explain how many times 30C is exceeded (seen the areas on googlemaps and not impressed). Most only go back 3 or 4 years but I did see a change in the amplitude which I would describe as a pushing down of summer temps with a resulting bulge in spring/autumn and a sudden drop every winter (sparsity of data hides the memories of winter warmth in sc23).

    I noticed a similar shift in CET. When I plotted this by solar cycle (i.e. rather than looking on decadal) the drop in T was notable since solar min. It is a woefully small timescale but I use this to try and find anomalous weather patterns. Contrasting SC23 to now, Summer (-0.63C), Winter (-1.05C) and Autumn (-0.04C) are down (the last marginally – the late Nov freeze in 2010 throwing spanners at the warmth) and Spring warming (+0.12C) despite the wet and cold this year which pulled it down 0.06C.

    These investigations, by way of Venus driving a ford transit across the sun, threw up a look into 1882. It was also at a similar stage approaching solar max. Despite being wet for EWP it was nothing special at Kew that year. Where I am in the country it’s been nothing special for totals. The storms/bands pass NESW and we clip them if my garden is lucky. This dry tongue also showed in the EWP series for SE Eng (not checked for a few weeks on that but I know of a few ‘dry’ parts from the news and anecdotally). A look at CET for that year was surprising close to this year so far. 2012 (1882): DJF: 5.07 (5.07) MAM 9.1 (9.07) JJA 15.2 (14.4)

    Okay it is off for summer (coughs) but the idea was to be on the pitch even if the game wasn’t on. I do wonder about how the data has been recorded, even more so now thanks to Tim’s great efforts (plus Caz comments) on the stations project. Looking at many of the station images reminds me of scalding my bare feet on a hot day. I recall burning my feet much more in the past this could be the lack of hot days or I learnt something and wear shoes. This leads me to wonder does UHI (man made warming) have a seasonal basis that would show more bias in summer and how do these compare to SST? Can you compare to SST?

    I think what I’m getting at is it sounds like this is a dry(ish) tongue of air pressed on us S’easters sparing the deluge of drool dumped on everyone else in the country as well as much of Northern France, the low countries and Scandinavia (I haven’t looked into 1882 there but I will at some point). I’m sure there are other years/periods worthy of investigation – and I do sometimes – but I like the 80’s 😉

    * from the end of May 12 I switched to Geophysical Alert Message wwv.txt as I couldn’t quite remember where I booked marked the original data.

  36. Roger Andrews says:

    Tim C:

    Every time I click on the “About Tim” box I get an error message. Are you hiding something from us?

  37. tchannon says:

    Craig, ’twas I although I can’t find the item either.

    Got it via web search

    Consider looking at the analytic signal, hilbert transform for this stuff. Difficult to do on short data, not exactly trivial anyway. In this case I did it differently, seemed to work.

    The change makes no sense but I wouldn’t be surprised if there is no actual change, is meddling with the data by the publishers.

    Part of this from my point of view is continuing development of fingerprinting data to unravel covert station or data source changes/edits.

    Unfortunately I have a mountain of stuff stacked up which has to be got out of the way before I can do more.

    I have a number of posts to do on CET.

    Note: there is so much traffic at the moment and I am so busy I am likely to miss things aimed at me, sorry. Try again if this happens.

  38. tchannon says:

    RA, noticed a few days ago the menu item appeared, no idea why. It is a draft hence probably confuses the blog software by also being marked as visible. Don’t want to reveal much here so I’ve edited it and since it is in the menu flipped to published.
    Not much to say about me which is relevant, far more important is what I do.

  39. Tim Cullen says:

    @ roger tallbloke
    As my researches continue my ideas are [perhaps] becoming increasingly “off the wall” as I encounter more issues with “settled science”… Therefore, I have now started publishing directly via WordPress to avoid embarrassing the editor 🙂

    Generating the postings is neither a speedy nor a daily process… but there are now a few posting available which you are welcome to re-publish if they are of interest.

    Lunar Ephemeris

    Lunar Orbit

    Equatorial Forced Vortex

    Obviously, the Malaga Bay blog has a link to Tallbloke’s Talkshop.

    Many thanks for all your help and encouragement.

    @ adolfogiurfa
    Many thanks for the prompt you gave me a few months back… now you can read some more… but there are no guarantees that you will like it 🙂

    [Reply] Great to hear from you Tim. I’ll take a look and add a link on the blog roll. Lemme see, which section… 🙂 🙂

  40. Arfur Bryant says:


    Below is a post I have just left on Dr Curry’s site in reply to her “Skeptics make your best case.” thread.

    If you have time, I would appreciate your opinion on the post. I respect your judgement and I am probably going get a fair bit of stick of the usual diehards on Climateetc. I can cope with that but I’d still like a relatively balanced opinion if possible.

    Many thanks for your time and blog.


    [Dr Curry,

    Firstly, many thanks for hosting the Climate Etc blog. I am a regular reader, if infrequent poster – although I have had several interesting discussions!

    If I may, I’d like to beg your indulgence in reading this post from a layman. I do not know whether the points I make are strong enough to warrant an open discussion, but I would appreciate an opinion that I am at least making a valid point! I appreciate you are busy and entirely understand if this missive goes unanswered.


    Should science make sense?

    The best way to start dealing with a problem is to admit there is a problem.

    As a non-scientist, I believe science should make sense and, to that extent, I asked a question some time ago on this blog. The question is simple:

    “How much does CO2 contribute to the Greenhouse Effect?” The answer can be expressed as a percentage of the Greenhouse Effect (GE), or a direct temperature figure, since the overall figure of the GE is generally agreed to be approximately 33 deg C.

    So far, no one on this or any other blog I have visited has been able to provide me with an answer to this question. All they have are estimates based on models. If anyone has an answer based on real-world measurements, I would love to know. Given that ‘uncertainty’ seems to play an increasingly large part in the cAGW debate, I would prefer to witness minimal uncertainty about the core subject.

    Estimates of the contribution of CO2 vary from 9-26%. (Ref: Kiehl & Trenberth 96)
    (Ref: (Ref:
    A Lacis quotes 20% for CO2 and a further 5% for other GHGs so I’ll work with this for the purpose of this post. Let me therefore – and for the sake of this post – assume that Lacis’ figures are correct.

    The Greenhouse Effect is currently approximately 33 deg C. In 1850 the measured global temperature was 0.8 deg C cooler than today, so lets say appx 32 deg C for the sake of argument. 20% of 32 C is 6.4 C. Hence the contribution of CO2 was, according to Lacis, equal to appx 6.4 C back in 1850. Just to be clear about this important point, back in 1850 the 280 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere contributed – according to A Lacis – 6.4 deg C towards the GE. He asserts that, additionally, the other radiative GHGs exert a further 5% (1.6 C in 1850) contribution.

    The radiative forcing theory of cAGW is a ‘given’ by many posters. Some well-known contributors to the blogosphere – and who refer to themselves as scientists – consider anyone who doubts the veracity of the radiative theory of cAGW to be ‘stupid’. But the radiative properties of individual CO2 and other GHG molecules, of themselves, aren’t the problem. They are not even the debate; there is no doubt that thee molecules have radiative properties. It is the quantification of the theory based on those radiative properties into much-hyped alarm that is the subject of most heated debate. The term ‘catastrophic’ was not added to the AGW debate by sceptics, but by the IPCC itself (Ref: Over the years, it is the ‘catastrophic’ nature of AGW that has been pushed by the media, the politicians and the climate scientists who endorse it.

    Yet it is the ‘catastrophic’ label that is the least supported by observed evidence. That CO2 can absorb and re-emit radiation has been pretty well established, and this fact should (nb) imply a certain (nb) contribution to the GE by CO2 and the other radiative GHGs. However, ‘certain’ can mean any quantity from ‘negligible’ to ‘significant’. Those who fully support the cAGW theory state the quantity to be significant; those who are sceptical state it is negligible, or at least not proven. The ‘lukewarmers’ probably think it is somewhere in between but I don’t know of anyone who states it is zero, given the ability of CO2 to absorb and re-emit radiation. To attempt to quantify the exact contribution is therefore entirely understandable. However, honest science demands, in my opinion, that the prediction – initially made by Arrhenius and then reinforced by Callendar – is supported by observed data. (Ref:
    If the data effectively falsifies (or fails to support) the prediction, then the prediction – or hypothesis, or theory, or suggestion – is invalid.

    If we approach the subject from the point of view of logic, rather than science, we may end up with a clearer view.

    If the Radiative Transfer Theory of cAGW is correct, ‘consensus logic’ would dictate that AGW is not only going to increase but it will increase at an accelerative rate. This is certainly the idea being pushed onto Joe Public via the MSM and pro-AGW literature. (Ref:
    The IPCC reports, and subsequent political statements, frequently use the two adjectives ‘rapid’ and ‘accelerating’ when applied to the effects of AGW.
    The lack of warming since 1998, and the lack of acceleration overall, is an effective falsification of the theory as originally posited. When challenged on this, supporters of the radiative theory will usually attempt to explain the anomaly using various arguments such as ‘natural variation’ or ‘negative feedbacks’ or, the ‘warming is in the post (or something like the ill-advised oil tanker analogy)’.

    There is, however, no specific real-world evidence for either the observed warming being due to anthropogenic GHGs, or for any of the other arguments used to explain the lack of predicted warming. The IPCC indicates that the year 1850 marks the start of accurate temperature data recording. (Ref:
    The IPCC also states that anthropogenic effects commenced in the mid-eighteenth century (Ref: Since 1850, there has been an overall warming of appx 0.8 C in just over 160 years. I will use the HadCRUt data for the purpose of this post. Ref:
    In this period, there have been three distinct warming sub-periods: 1875-1878, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998. Each sub-period has been followed by a further sub-period of relative cooling. There is currently no way of knowing what portion of the warming has been contributed by either anthropogenic or natural factors. Some argue that the period 1975-1998 was ‘anthropogenic’ whilst the earlier sub-periods were ‘natural’. This argument appears to have no logical foundation. The sub-period 1910-1940 warming was appx 0.8 C and the sub-period 1975-1998 warming was appx 0.8 C. To attribute a different reason for these two (close) periods of similar warming may be valid, but there is presently no definitive evidence to suggest a difference. If, as some suggest, the CO2 ‘signature’ commenced in 1975, then the lack of subsequent warming since 1998 needs to be similarly explained. The fact remains that the overall warming since 1850 is 0.8 C, which is an overall dataset trend of appx 0.06 C per decade.

    So where is the evidence to support the initial theory by Arrhenius? For CO2 to exert a significant effect, there has to be a fundamental reason. In my view, the argument of molecular radiative forcing fails when it is faced with numbers, historic data and logic. In a well-mixed dry atmosphere each molecule of radiative GHGs will be surrounded by – very approximately – 2500 molecules of Nitrogen, Oxygen and Argon. This is because all the ‘dry’ GHGs together make up less than 0.04% of the dry atmosphere. The figure of 2500 assumes that all the molecules are of similar size but the numbers shouldn’t be too far off. At the relevant wavelengths, O2, N2 and Ar molecules are incapable of absorbing or emitting radiation. This means they cannot be heated by radiation. They can only be heated by conduction. With the low concentration of radiative GHGs, relatively few will be heated this way. The only other molecule in the atmosphere which is capable of absorbing ‘relevant’ radiation is H2O. If we average the amount of H2O in the atmosphere, we get appx 2.5% but this is an addition to the dry atmosphere. This means that of the 102.5% ‘real’ atmosphere, 99.96% is incapable of being warmed by radiation and only 2.54% is capable of being warmed by radiation. Also, only 0.04% is capable of emitting radiation. Why is this important? Because it shows that, for anthropogenic GHGs to be credited with having a significant (as opposed to negligible) warming effect, their natural counterparts must have had the ability to exert a significant effect prior to 1850. If not, they are a practical irrelevance in the real world, particularly compared to H2O. Hence the question at the top of this post. To develop the question: how can 280 ppmbv (0.028%) contribute 6.4 C to the GE, when a relatively large increase in GHGs (appx 40%) to 390 ppmbv can only be credited – by some – with only an unknown portion of 0.8 C?

    This is what doesn’t make sense to me. To attribute the anomaly in contribution to ‘the log effect’, or ‘negative feedbacks’ or ‘an oil tanker analogy’ effectively discredits the contribution prior to 1850. If the warming diminishes with increasing GHG addition, then what is the problem? If assumed anthropogenic forcings lead to assumed anthropogenic negative feedbacks, then what is the problem (in terms of warming)? If the oil tanker has taken a long time to commence its turn, then how come it is currently turning the opposite way with the rudder still applied in the initial direction?

    Dr Curry, I put it to you that any debates about natural periodic oscillations, uncertainty or political mitigation policies, whilst of academic interest, are minor compared to clarifying the initial basis upon which the debate is centred.

    On a personal note, I am saddened by the alacrity with which some scientists have allowed themselves to become subsumed in politics. I appreciate scientists are human but I have always considered that objectivity is a prerequisite of the discipline. You appear to demonstrate objectivity and balance. I would also like to say that at least your blog allows for a reasoned and considerate debate without dogma, and I hold you in high regard for that.

    If I have made some fundamental error in any of the above points, please let me know!

    Kind regards,

    Arfur Bryant]

    [Reply] Hi Arfur. Some good points there, and I agree the basis should be better laid out in the IPCC literature. If it was, it would be clear that they rely on a lot of uncertain assumptions, which is why they don’t. Why do you think H2O can’t emit radiation? You said: “2.54% is capable of being warmed by radiation. Also, only 0.04% is capable of emitting radiation.” I don’t follow this point. Good luck with getting Judith to take notice

  41. Arfur Bryant says:

    Tallbloke (Rog, if I may?),

    Thanks very much for taking the time to look. The H2O point is a very well spotted! Proof reading error on my part; it should have read “Also, only 0.04% is anthropogenically affected and capable of emitting radiation.” This is a reference to the fact that the IPCC do not include H2O in their assessment of ‘anthropogenic radiative forcing agents’. It raises a further supplement to my question “How much does CO2 contribute…” and that is “How much does H2O contribute…?” My main point being that if we don’t know how much of the effect CO2 contributes now (and back in 1850), how can we hope to know the ‘climate sensitivity’?

    Anyway, thanks for looking. I appreciate it.



    [Reply] You’re welcome. Take a look at this post to help answer your questions about relative effects of H2O and CO2

  42. Arfur Bryant says:


    Many thanks. Read it… Very informative. The post went in on climate Etc. A couple of favourable comments but no pro-cAGW comeback. Nothing from the host…

    Cheers for your help.


  43. J Martin says:

    From the New Scientist.

    WAITING for solar fireworks to reach a grand finale next year? Um, sorry, looks like you already missed them. Structures in the sun’s corona indicate that the peak in our star’s latest cycle of activity has been and gone, at least in its northern hemisphere.

    Based on the movements of this cycle’s prominences, Altrock says that an especially weak solar maximum took place in the sun’s northern hemisphere around July last year.

    According to Altrock, the southern prominences are still on the move, but slowly. If they continue at the current rate, he says, the south will not reach its maximum until February 2014.

  44. Entropic man says:

    I dont know whether to file this one under Ice Ages or Astronomy. An impact event as a possible trigger for ice ages.

  45. […] Comments Michele Casati on Suggestions-2Entropic man on Paul Hudson: What happened to …Llanbedr, with attem… on Met Office […]

  46. Gray says:

    Interesting Japanese paper on volcanic eruptions and cosmic rays:

  47. J Martin says:

    I posted the below at WUWT on a recent Arctic Ice extent / re-freeze thread. I wonder if other people have any views on the idea that the Mpemba effect might also come into play in Arctic Antarctic behaviour ? I would welcome a discussion on this subject.

    Mpemba effect ?

    The increased ice melt which is largely driven by warmer Arctic currents, then re-freezes at a faster rate. Are we seeing the Mpemba effect in action here ?

    Whilst we have figures for Arctic air temperature and graphs for sea ice extent and area, we seem to lack data for Arctic water temperatures to allow a fuller discussion of future Arctic behaviour.

    With warmer Arctic currents set against a background of solar cooling we may see wider oscillation between record low ice extent in summer and increasing (perhaps record) ice extent in winter.

    The Mpemba effect is where warmer water will freeze before the same amount of cooler water. An experiment easily carried out at home, and one for which it is claimed that no scientist has yet satisfactorily explained.

    From Wikipedia;

    The effect is named after Tanzanian Erasto Mpemba. He first encountered the phenomenon in 1963 in Form 3 of Magamba Secondary School, Tanganyika when freezing ice cream mix that was hot in cookery classes and noticing that they froze before cold mixes. After passing his O-level examinations, he became a student at Mkwawa Secondary (formerly High) School, Iringa, Tanzania. The headmaster invited Dr. Denis G. Osborne from the University College in Dar Es Salaam to give a lecture on physics. After the lecture, Erasto Mpemba asked him the question “If you take two similar containers with equal volumes of water, one at 35 °C (95 °F) and the other at 100 °C (212 °F), and put them into a freezer, the one that started at 100 °C (212 °F) freezes first. Why?” only to be ridiculed by his classmates and teacher. After initial consternation, Dr. Osborne experimented on the issue back at his workplace and confirmed Mpemba’s finding. They published the results together in 1969.[4]

  48. J Martin says:

    A question for the cognoscenti.

    I have been wondering of late if I might have acquired a basic misunderstanding of co2 as a greenhouse gas.

    In particular that logarithmic 2 degrees thing.

    My current (mis?) understanding is that as the proportion of co2 in a gas or atmosphere is increased to 100% the effect of co2 causes a maximum rise in temperature of 2 degrees centigrade.

    On a thread on WUWT I stated, perhaps incorrectly (?), that, of the surface temperature of Venus, 460 degrees is due to pressure and the remaining 2 degrees is due to co2.

    Or is it 2degreesC per doubling, but then if that is measured from zero wouldn’t that give infinity at the end ?

    A bit like the chess board and grain of rice conundrum where you put one grain of rice on the first square, two on the second square, four on the third square and so on. By the time you get to the end of the chess board you need a significant (?) proportion (all?) of the Worlds supply of rice.

    This feels a bit like being able to cook a passable roast dinner but being unsure of how to boil an egg.

    And, anyone know how to get a degrees sign on a laptop to save me from having to type the word “degrees” everytime.? ALt Gr 4 gets me a Euro sign, perhaps I can assign a degrees sign to one of the other numbers.

  49. Gray says:

    Six Italian scientists and an ex-government official have been sentenced to six years in prison over the 2009 deadly earthquake in L’Aquila.

    A regional court found them guilty of multiple manslaughter.

    Prosecutors said the defendants gave a falsely reassuring statement before the quake, while the defence maintained there was no way to predict major quakes.

    The 6.3 magnitude quake devastated the city and killed 309 people.

  50. Entropic man says:

    This report on the most recent Antarctic ozone hole sounds encouraging.

  51. Entropic man says:

    If this attitude spreads into the climate change debate, things might become interesting. Could one sue climate scientists for encouraing resource spending on climate change which did not happen; or sceptics for discouraging spending on such preparations after they proved necessary? The sea defence argument in North Carolina comes to mind as as example which might resolve either way over coming decades.

  52. Entropic man says:

    Here’s something for the North Atlantic Oscillation and Arctic Oscillation followers to mull over, especially since it was written around October 24th, just before Superstorm Sandy developed.

  53. Jostemikk says:

    From Joanne Nova

    Blockbuster: Earths Energy Balance measured – models are wrong

    “Moreover, the latest satellite observations of global precipitation indicate that more precipitation is generated than previously thought. This additional precipitation is sustained by more energy leaving the surface by evaporation — that is, in the form of latent heat flux — and thereby offsets much of the increase in longwave flux to the surface.”

  54. tchannon says:

    How curious Sparks.
    I can think of a variety of repeats which fit that time pattern. Very little data as such which makes things awkward.

  55. tallbloke says:

    Hurricane Hazel hit New Jersey in 1954 so we get 1821 – 1893 – 1954 – 2012 with gaps of 72, 61, and 58 years. All fairly near the peaks of the AMO cycles, but beyond that, can’t say much really.

  56. Ian W says:

    Watching the Rog vs Leif spat on WUWT with some interest (it’s often me that gets bounce back 😉 )

    It occurred to me that you may both be looking at different parts of the same elephant. If one takes the gravity and magnetic view of the Solar system and see them as probable forcings on the Sun; the Sun could be affected by these forcings in a way that creates or forces an apparent ‘Solar Dynamo’. The forcings for this solar dynamo could come from the movements of the planets and their magnetic/gravitational effects. If these planetary forcings act counter to each other at some stages of the dynamo activity then it falters. Given the right set of planetary forcing occurrences the dynamo might even stop and it would take a few cycles of standard planetary forcings for the dynamo to restart. A drop into a minimum and recovery.
    Leif could be looking at the dynamo in great detail and describing how it works – while you have identified the forcings that influence the dynamo behaviour. It may even be the same for Vuk’s ideas.
    I realize that persuading Leif that anything to do with the planetary movements affects the Sun is not going to be easy – but I thought I would point out that you are not necessarily looking at competing hypotheses you may be describing a subset of the same hypothesis.

    Just a thought


    [Reply] Thanks Ian. I have tried to put that very point to Leif, but he’ll not agree. I’m slaving over a hot calculator here looking for the breakthrough…

  57. Doug Proctor says:


    Umbral Intensity, Umbral Magnetic Field: when the value drops to 1500, no sunspots.

    Both intensity and field values bottom out/top out. The mathematical trend line veers away from the ultimate high and low values as “clipping” occurs.

    Strikes me Lief’s trend analysis is flawed once clipping starts. Actual trends move closer to bottom/top. Important if looking for evidence that we are going towards a Maunder Low period.

    Say what?

  58. Doug Cotton says:

    All should read this fantastic new paper …

    Click to access WBR9_Walker.pdf

    [Reply] Thanks Doug, very interesting and informative.

  59. Entropic man says:

    Found this one on Climate Dialogue.

  60. Vote the best indicator of solar magnetic force ?

    SSN vs Ap index

  61. tthomas2 says:
    Land of the Long White Hockey Stick?

    by Tony Thomas

    November 16, 2012

    The climate science world is bracing (how we journo hacks love that word “bracing”!) for the next move by Te Papa Tongarewa on Mann’s famous hockey-stick graph. Te Papa in Wellington is, of course, New Zealand’s top science museum.

    A year ago I scampered in to look at its giant squid pickled in aspic and found an even more monstrous construction – Michael Mann’s Hockey Stick graph as the clincher for Te Papa’s global warming display.

    The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) used the Hockey Stick as its iconic graph in 2001, since it showed unprecedented warming in the 20th century, compared with the past 1000 years. Mann and the IPCC thus rubbed out the annoying Medieval Warming Period and other major (non-CO2) climate fluctuations such as the Little Ice Age around the 18th century.

    The McIntyre & McKitrick maths/stats wizzes exposed the graph as a dud in 2003. In 2007, the next IPCC report took a very low posture on the hockey stick, basically concluding, “Don’t know”.[1]

    Getting back to my first trip to Te Papa, I filled in the complaint form at reception (no response); wrote a letter to the Dominion Post newspaper (unpublished); and finally, got my email complaint via a friend to Dr Hamish Campbell, a Te Papa geologist and curator. He wrote back, amazingly, “You [my intermediary] are perfectly correct: Mann’s “hockey stick” has indeed been substantively discredited.”

    Hamish said that when the exhibit was set up in 2005, he had his doubts but

    “let it go with the proviso that the graph was properly referenced… and it is. Things have changed and we at Te Papa have not made any effort to respond to those changes. Now is the time to do so. You are the first person that I know of who has raised any concerns about this component of ‘Wild Water’ [the climate display].

    We shall revisit this exhibit in the next few weeks and see what we can do.”

    Well, a full year has elapsed and I thought it time to check what has happened. The answer: nothing.

    Here’s my follow-up email to Tina Norris, Te Papa’s media person:

    1. Is the Mann Hockey Stick Graph still on display ?

    2. If the “Hockey Stick” is still on display, has Te Papa made any inquiries as to whether subsequent peer-reviewed literature has validated it or seriously refuted it?

    This took Te Papa nearly a month to answer, for which Tina apologized. She wrote on November 12:

    “The staff responsible for producing this exhibition, did so using the best available knowledge at the time. They were aware of the debate surrounding the use of this graph and therefore referenced it appropriately. At Te Papa, we believe it is our role to stimulate debate such as this.

    Te Papa is currently planning a refreshment of it’s long-term exhibitions and the use of the Mann Hockey Stick Graph will be addressed as part of that process.

    We appreciate you raising this issue with us as it will provide valuable insight on the future content for this exhibition.”

    I would carp a little about whether Te Papa has really stimulated “debate” by putting the Hockey Stick on display, minus any reference to scientific criticisms of it.

    However, as I wrote the first time, Te Papa is an excellent role model for science museums and organisations, since it displays a scientific open-mindedness on climate controversies, and doesn’t abuse questioners and critics as deniers and nut-jobs. Te Papa stands in contrast, say, to the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History in Washington DC, which not only put childish and unscientific climate material on display, but declined to respond to my press questions about it.[2] The dogmatic President of the Australian Academy of Science, Suzanne Cory, might also learn something from Te Papa’s approach.[3]

    Te Papa, the eyes of the climate science world are now upon you! May you examine and adjudicate on the Hockey Stick with scientific rigor, not forgetting to read Andrew Montford’s magisterial analysis, The Hockey Stick Illusion: Climategate and the Corruption of Science. Keep in mind that Mann, a self-proclaimed “Nobel Prize recipient”, has launched a defamation lawsuit over slights to his reputation. Science is exciting, isn’t it!

    Tony Thomas is an incorrigible visitor of science museums


    “Greater uncertainty associated with proxy-based temperature estimates for individual years means that it is more difficult to gauge the significance, or precedence, of the extreme warm years observed in the recent instrumental record, such as 1998 and 2005, in the context of the last millennium.”




    Reference : [7] Tallbloke’s Talkshop, ‘Konrad: Empirical test of ocean cooling and back radiation theory,’, (accessed online: November 19, 2012)

  63. tony thomas says:

    Hi Tallbloke, you’ve kindly run some pieces by me from Down Under lately. This one of mine today is by any standards a corker, click and your jaw will drop:
    cheers tony

  64. steve richards says:


    give a 404 error

    [ Had a look. Don’t know where that came from because the Suggestions pages are Pages and are not dated in the URL. Try this on Google (explicitly, not another search engine)

    And explicit search yields ‘No results found for “”‘

    I’d fix it if…


  65. Bill McIntyre says:

    The flat belts that used to be used between tractors and stationary farm machinery like thrashing machines would stay centred even if the pulleys were a bit out of line, however this would be a waste of horse power and wear out the belt. The “flat” pulleys had a very sight “crown” on their face which kept the belts on the pulleys.

    Transferring this observation to the solar system’s 24000 year precession cycle, I imagine the sun to be the pulley and the planets to be the belts. Then I would expect to see the planets “dragging” a bit as we go round the cycle (first on one side and then on the other). This would divide the cycle into two parts of 12000 years each.

    I looked at the Greenland ice core data and found obvious downward spikes centred at exactly 12000 year periods. (not any wiggle room)

    I looked at MIT’S binary orbit project which gave me the correct 24000 year period – – but we passed the aphelion of that orbit 1500 years ago. This indicates (to me) that the12000 year half periods are related to an angle between the precession and a “straight line” orbit of the galaxy.

    The “switches” dividing the 24000 year period in halves are the ones that can switch the earth into or out of an interglacial period when conditions such as sea levels will allow such switches to be made. Our current position is at the 12000 year switch.

    Lots of blanks to fill in by any one who has brains as well as eyes.



  66. Bill McIntyre says:

    oops!! forgot to put in refs

    this explains the change to the length of the precession cycle ( from ~ 26000 year to ~24000 years)

    this one gives long term position changes and climates.

  67. AndyG55 says:

    Flat Earth models of the energy balance use the solar input as P/4.

    What if this was wrong ??

  68. I think that someone is impersonating you on-line.
    See page 2 of the oldest comments here:-

    [Reply] Thanks Stephen. I know, it’s annoying. I use the handle ‘rogtallbloke’ on the telegraph.

  69. A bit on climatology.
    Split !

  70. wayne says:

    Rog, know how to contact Josh over there?

    My family was wonder how I got my name finally in big print and I was explaining how this whole CO2 fiasco began back in 1859 by Tyndall, then in 1904 Arrhenius made the conjecture of co2 beaming extra thermal radiation from high above and catastrophically heating the Earth and it just keeps going on and on and on like an Eveready Bunny… zap, lightening bolt…

    One super duper cartoon would be a gigantic Eveready Bunny on a high plateau with a deep gorge just ahead. From his tail is a rope dragging the entire Earth behind. Scribed in the dirt beginning far behind it are lines marking its track – 1859 Tyndall – 1904 Arrhenius – … – 1982 Hansen … – and on the back of this gigantic bunny with IPCC, Climate Experts and Government scribed in it’s fur are a hundred little scientific skeptics with ropes and levers frantically trying to get the battery out …

    now wouldn’t that just be an absolute classic !?!? 🙄 😆

    [Reply] Epic. I’ll email Josh 🙂

  71. wayne says:

    If this is spaced correct I’ll comment again on to create a good table:
    (if not shame on WordPress!)

     DOF       γ    (γ-1)  (γ-1)/γ 2(γ-1)/3γ Planet
    ------ ------- ------- ------- --------- ---------
     2.333  1.8573  0.8573  0.4616    0.3077 Jupiter (corrected)
     2.5    1.8000  0.8000  0.4444    0.2963 No sense?
     3      1.6667  0.6667  0.4000    0.2667 Jupiter
     5      1.4000  0.4000  0.2857    0.1905 
     5.008  1.3994  0.3994  0.2854    0.1903 Earth
     5.77   1.3466  0.3466  0.2574    0.1716 Venus
     6      1.3333  0.3333  0.2500    0.1667 
     7      1.2857  0.2857  0.2222    0.1481 
     8      1.2500  0.2500  0.2000    0.1333 
     9      1.2222  0.2222  0.1818    0.1212 
  72. tchannon says:

    Try tables but this is very difficult to get right without edit rights.

    Hack? Keep the number of digits constant in all columns, ie. leading and trailing zero.

  73. Zeke says:

    I can’t find the paper posted here, which was about the IR back radiation from the perfect blue sky measured in the desert…

  74. tchannon says:

    zeke, try this and variations specifically on google jelbring australia

  75. Entropic man says:


    Hope you’re right about gas supplies.

  76. oldbrew says:

    Early results from NASA’s Van Allen probes:

    “The sun has been a driver of these systems more than we had any right to expect,”

  77. Jostemikk says:

    Lilleøren et al (2012), The relative age of mountain permafrost — estimation of Holocene permafrost limits in Norway.

    “In this paper temperature and spatial distribution of Holocene permafrost in Norway were modeled. This was addressed using a 1D heat flow model and an equilibrium permafrost model revealing an altitudinal age pattern. The oldest permafrost in Norway survived the Holocene Thermal Maximum. Permafrost underlay the largest area, was coldest and probably reached the greatest depths during the ‘Little Ice Age.”

    Two interesting graphs showing holocene temperatures in Norway.

  78. tchannon says:

    Good stuff there.
    J Martin, not sure we are ready for another thread on nuclear reactors.
    Jostemikk, hmm… not something I can do justice to quickly, looks like it needs some thought.
    Do you have any particular ideas on how this can be linked in to other things to make a post which is more than pointing at a paper?

  79. oldbrew says:

    Watch out, here comes The Green Ninja ‘a climate action superhero’.
    Featuring ‘ the Kill-A-Watt energy meter’ and ‘the Smart Energy contest’.

    Taking greenwash to a whole new level. Yuk.

  80. Ian W says:

    Roger Andrews says:
    December 16, 2012 at 8:17 pm
    Anyone know what’s going on here?

    Yes – its supercooled pure water. see

    Other items on supercooling can be found on the Internet..

    This effect is also seen in the atmosphere when aircraft fly into a layer of 100% humid supercooled water vapour and their contrails (and sometimes shockwaves) spread into bands of cirrus as they seed the freezing of the supercooled vapour.

  81. Roger Andrews says:

    Ian W: Problem solved. Thanks.

  82. oldbrew says:

    Another broadside from Dr Roy Spencer.

    ‘Unless they start behaving a little more like objective scientists, I predict that global warming researchers are living on borrowed time’

  83. tchannon says:

    What he writes is fine, the degeneration of the comments to agenda driven is not.

  84. Eric Barnes says:

    [co-mod: put on hold for Rog, he knows about fog, is amused, other one, don’t know but look pretty stupid. Giving them links is up to Rog. –Tim]
    Hi Tallbloke, Recently I was on my wifes Barnes and Noble Nook and wanted to look at your site. Less keystrokes were involved by doing a search, so I entered “tallbloke” and the hints added “roger tattersall”. Several interesting pages were at the top like …

    It seems tactics are sinking to new lows. Sorry if this is a duplicate.
    Be well.

  85. adolfogiurfa says:

    What is it happening in the pacific?: It seems that the warmer anomalies, called “El Niño” that used to happen along the geographic equator now point to Chile, see those H 1.13, H 1.04, H 1.02, H 1.22, going from Australia to Chile.

  86. tchannon says:

    Anyone able to interpret what is going on?

  87. u.k.(us) says:

    Apropos to nothing, the Fenbeagle has left a cat print.
    Canines don’t have retractable claws.

    I’ll shut-up now.

  88. Scute says:

    This, from the BBC science and environment section:

    It looks a bit fishy. West Antarctic Peninsula warming is well known; but they are doubling it by filling in data gaps with models and presenting as fact. There’s also lots of unexplained blue on that little map with no legend.

    Oh, and the link to Geoscience doesn’t show the paper so I can’t verify for myself.

    Hope it’s of interest


  89. Scute says:

    Is the empirical section still going to be rolled out (as mentioned to RKS, above, in August)? I might have an easy little table-top solar convection experiment to play around with. More fun than faithful proxy but could spur ideas.

  90. tchannon says:

    Don’t know what Rog has in mind.

  91. Max™‮‮ says:

    Hmmm, not sure how much it’s been covered here, I would expect this to be the sort of site to have touched upon this, but if nothing else it seemed worth sharing as it is an awesome dataset presentation:

    Watching the world breathe.

  92. Possible Major Midwinter Stratwarming on siberia
    variation 50-60°C at 10 hPa in 10 days

  93. Joe's World {Progressive Evolution} says:


    Interesting how our fresh water is suppose to be coming from glaciers and yet at the 48 degree latitude is where water changes directions…
    There are very few glaciers that are at that latitude to give us fresh water.

    Click to access world-calculations.pdf

    Click to access world-calculations-2.pdf

    Also the atmospheric pressure we measure is NOT of the actual atmosphere but of the water. It is “adjusted” to the difference in sea level. This is why we really do NOT understand the moon to exert pressure on our atmosphere yet the tides state differently.

    Some knucklehead mathematician SHOULD have caught the mistake of averaging and orb or round object that in motion but did not. On orb is a type of layering of different circles of different circumferences of distance. With motion, the energies are completely different as well.
    Planetary tilting is only used in a reference and really is NOT incorporated as oscillation theories are in place and night and day are the time frame used rather than the actual physical solar energy angles of heat distribution in motion of rotation.

    So much bull crap in science and so very little evidence which are still being passed down to our kids….

  94. AndyG55 says:

    Average TSI:

    Atmosphere energy balances generally use the average incoming TSI as 342w/m^2.

    ie 1366 divided by 4

    I would like people to consider the calculations on the linked .jpg

    This calculates the average TSI received at the top of atmosphere, taking into account the angle of incidence.

    Note the actual difference between the calculated value and the 342 value commonly used.

  95. Doug Proctor says:

    Fake skeptic draws fake picture of Global Temperature
    Posted on December 20, 2012 | 68 Comments

    Tamino has taken David Whitehouse to task for his interpretation of the AR5 draft. In particular, he doesn’t like the conclusion that observations follow the minimum scenario of the IPCC, although that is obvious from the Fig. 1.4 graph. What he says is that this may be visually true but not actually true as he says that the IPCC scenarios are incorrectly started at 1990 as that was a warmer-than-average year. There is always a problem with start and endpoints, and I’m prepared to discuss what date we should start with, it does seem a grasping-at-straws move like you lawyer starting your defense by saying the police are wrong that you stole that wallet “today”.

    So I commented, and though I consider myself to be nobody, apparently I am enough of a somebody to not gain an audience with the Master. Not that this is noteworthy, but I copy what I suggested because I think Tamino has made an elementary error in the CAGW narrative: he has created a falsifiable scenario for “his” interpretation of CAGW.

    This is what I say he has done:

    A) this is saying that the IPCC, for all their brilliance, failed to get the simplest of things right, the start-point for the comparison. Would Hansen or Schmidt agree?

    B) this analysis that the startpoint should be a lower temperature at 1990, could well be correct (you’d need to work out a prior history to know where to put the “average” for 1990, which is not discussed by either party). But, if so, then this means that 2012 is now in the “low” portion of natural variability.

    By 2015 THE HIGHER PORTIONS WILL HAVE TO HAVE COME INTO PLAY, so that the 2015 average is around 0.5C. Before 2015, some high must have occurred at about 0.6C (for the average to be at 0.5C).

    C) if the skeptics are correct, then the current 2012 temps are about the average value of natural variability. The 2015 average would be about 0.25C, with a high of perhaps 0.35C.

    D) having considered points A through C, this blog analysis has set up a falsifiable argument: within 24 months there will be a minimum 0.25C difference between model and observation depending on warmist or skeptic “science”.

    Watts or Tamino? Someone will go down.

    Two years is a very short period of time.

  96. Jostemikk says:

    Late christmas gift from Okular;-)

    Warming by the Sun or by the Atmosphere …?

    Real-world climatic significance of ’the enhanced greenhouse effect’ – a straightforward test toward potential falsification.,1148.msg21543.html#msg21543

  97. Doug Proctor says:

    Seen this? Comet coming end 2013 brighter than full moon?

    End of the World! Sell your stuff (to me, for a buck) and dedicate your last moments to praying to Jesus and George Bush to save the world, or at least the part of the world worth saving, i.e. the part that has WalMarts in it.

  98. Joe's World {Progressive Evolution} says:


    Is the banking system in the US corrupt?

    You can buy a chunk of land yet the mineral wrights and timber wrights have been sold off…

    The banks are allowed to hold 10% gold and yet use it as 100% holdings and invent money off of this.
    Is it a wonder that the banks were in trouble with the housing crisis?
    And yet they were bailed out and still allowed to foreclose and put peoples lives at risk.

    Is this a good system?

    [Reply] Fractional reserve banking = huge can of worms.

  99. Chuckles says:

    Noticed this this morning. Not sure I buy the spaceweather article conclusions, but some interesting correlations I think?

  100. Lord Beaverbrook says:

    Met past decadal forecasts rewritten using the latest CCM, huge difference from previous hindcasts !

  101. Doug Proctor says:

    Joe’s World: re corruption of US banking system.


    Severance of surface rights and mineral (which includes oil and gas but not coal, gravel or “valuable stone” most places) is a standard. It encourages the development of the farming,urban or industrial businesses of a Nation by small people while keeping the mineral resources in a non-fragmented situation for the big people with the big bucks necessary to develop them.

    One of the difficulties in the US is that much of the oil and gas mineral rights are, in fact, owned by the surface rights owners and fragmented. Efficient development of the minerals is handicapped when you have to negotiate with all the various owners of piece after piece of the rights. In the western, oil and gas areas of the continental US, actually, I think just under 85% is privately owned,15% State owned. A few percent is Federally owned and under the environmentalist government, not available. Alaska, I believe is different, with most being State owned. Offshore is a federal jurisdiction, as are national wildlife refuges.

    In Canada the majority of mineral rights are separate from surface rights and owned by the Provincial (State equivalent) government. From a user point-of-view, it is better when the State owns the mineral rights as it stops Mr. Rich Guy or Lord All-for-Me from saying that his lands are sacred but we should develop everyone else’s. The NIMBY principle: Not In My BackYard. People like David Suzuki, Robert Kennedy and their friends like to say “no” while they drive their hummers built and fueled with the minerals derived from the subsurface of others, and it is easiest to do this when you own the mineral rights as well as the surface rights.

    Environmentalists and preservationists can still stop or delay things, though, by showing how mineral right development will result in long-term damage, i.e. change, of the current surface. Even though the current surface is not the original surface, was changed to accommodate their usage (cattle ranchers are the worst: kill off all the game, push-bush for grassy fields and destroy native grasslands by overgrazing, and then say that oil and gas development will destroy the pristine nature that they, as “stewards of the land” work so hard to maintain The British aristocracy, who cut down forests for their own purposes generations ago, are similar in decrying the despoiling of their personal view which they claim is the original).


    Actually, banks “hold” between 1/6th and 1/11th of the loans they have out as a matter of course the world over. The ratio is set by federal agencies. Again, this feature encourages development. As long as the daisy chain of collateral and loans remains intact, it works well.

    And the money generation is immense: you take in 1 dollar, pay 3 pennies/year interest, and loan out between 6 and 11 dollars, charging 5 pennies/year per dollar loaned. So you pay 3 pennies per year and earn 30 to 55 pennies per year.

    The downside is that you have guaranteed to pay other people, the ones who did the work that the borrower wished to do, a total of 6 to 11 dollars after you have covered your own costs. Which means that you only have to have a few people default and you are truly done. But until then, lots of things happen.

    The fact that between 6 and 11 X the actual money supply is in circulation doesn’t seem to be a problem, though intuitively you’d think it would be. But as long as everyone is convinced that you’ll get your money back over time, and that you won’t be asked to pay your loan back earlier than expected, it all seems to work. Except that eventually the bad debtors build up, the bad loans mount up. It’s inevitable. Someone is always left holding the bag, the last ones who thought there was still a market for their product when there wasn’t (think Blackberry RIM phones).

    I don’t see this as corrupt. A running-along-the-cliff-edge, yes (of which I am guilty), and which eventually leads to someone falling over (for which I have scars), but you sure cover a lot of ground in the meantime. The corruption I see is when those who gain do not share the pain.

    In a lot of countries these days, the banks share the profit but not the risk. In the US, they did this two ways.

    First, in many States you were allowed to pay your mortgage interest ONLY, which was tax deductible. Essentially renting. You did not pay the principal, which meant that you could use the rest of the “mortgage” money to buy new cars, go on vacations, etc. You bet that at retirement the value of the house had, through market value appreciation, increased more than the initial principal of the loan.

    That was bad in that it only made sense to keep paying “rent” when the value of your house was greater than the amount of your mortgage. If you pay down the principal, even if the value of your house goes down, it may still be worthwhile to pay the mortgage. But in the States, if you didn’t pay down the principal, a market correction in the house price put you in a position of holding (not paying) a mortgage greater than the value of your house. Why would you do it?

    Indeed. That is why so many houses defaulted: voluntary defaults, not forced by losing your job. Which, of course, also happened, and when you missed your monthly charge, the bank could insist you pay the whole amount. Which you couldn’t do, and couldn’t even renegotiate because the principal was still the same. Voluntary defaults created foreclosures when the “owner” just stopped paying. It would take several months before he could be evicted, free months. And this worked because in many of the States you can walk away from a mortgage and the banks have your house, the collateral, and no call on you

    But of course people do keep paying. They have children, live in a community. They stick it out even though it doesn’t make sense and at the end of the road they have no value in their house and are financially screwed at retirement unless they die early, which becomes part of the spousal retirement plan.

    This part I’d say was unethical and immoral, as it sets people up to create debt beyond their future ability to manage it. But not corrupt.

    Now comes the second way, the corrupt part.

    Until the late ’80s, in not just US areas, the banks couldn’t come after you for defaulting on a mortgage in Canada either. But during the downturn of the ’80s, both nations banks ended up with so many houses that various governments changed the rules such that your mortgage DOES follows you. You have to pay one way or another, so you might as well do it while living in that house. There is the hope, reasonable enough, that the value will recover or at least you’ll live long enough to pay it off it. And where you have been paying the principal, your remainder payments may not be too, too bad. But it doesn’t matter. They’ll get their money.

    But it is not just the banks that want you to pay. Going back to the iniitial point about asset-lending ratios, the loans the bank gives you is considered an asset even if it cripples you. This loan allows the bank to lend other people money AND maintain the asset-loan ratios they currently have. If you default, your dollar disappears AND they cannot lend out the other money AND they may have to call other loans in. This is where the government comes in. The government doesn’t want a domino effect to stop a loan that stops a house from being built or forces someone wavering on insolvency into bankruptcy. Which would then have its own repercussions. So nobody wants you to give then the house: they want the ongoing fee and “asset” to remain intact.

    This is the part I see as corrupt: the inequality of the relationship. The bank lends the money on the basis of the value the asset for which the money is to be spent, but is free to repudiate the value of the asset at any time during the tenure of the loan repayment. An equivalent position would be for the owner of the asset to say that he bought a “house-worth” of loan that was equivalent to $200,000, but is now equivalent to $100,000, and so that is all he is going to pay.

    All civil society is rooted in a difficult concept of “fair play”. Business, military, sexual relationships – all work only when those on either side of the power position have a belief that benefit and risk are reasonably shared. Otherwise the relationship is one of bondage, servitude or slavery.

    Now you could say that the banks are corrupt. I’d say so, but not by themselves. Because, the banks are instruments of government policy. The governments of our nations see the national interest best served in this particular case, if a strong, right-now housing industry AND an incentive to keep people working and contributing to the GDP both exist.

    If it weren’t for over consumption and over development of debt, most of us would be able to retire in our early ’40s, even with children. The math is McKibben-simple on this. The more you spend, the less you save, but of course the less you save, the more money there is floating around to pay other people’s living costs. If you want to kill a local economy, try filling it with retirees sitting in their homes tending their gardens and feeding their old cats.

    I’ll give a specific, current example:

    The Canadian government gives Transfer Payments to less-well-off provinces that it collects from more-well-off provinces. This is a common national tactic. The idea is two fold: have all Canadians live a similar quality serviced life, and stop poor people from abandoning one segment to crowd out another. The funny thing is, the Canadian government does this even though it has a deficit budget, i.e. it spends more than it receives, necessitating borrowing the money for Transfer payments.

    So now, for example, the people of the Province of Ontario ges $5 billion a year from the Feds, but, of course, the Feds need to pay this borrowed money back, which they get from Ontario taxpayers … including interest payments. So a gift of $5 billion actually costs the taxpayers $10 billion. But how does this happen if the people already don’t have enough money to pay for existing services?

    Two places: immigrants and …. everyone working longer.

    Immigrants? Not so good. Service economy more than primary, exportable industries. So …

    I worked it out that the gift of 2011 from the Feds to the taxpayers of Ontario represents the earnings of about 2 more years of tax-paying work by every current taxpayer. So the government gives out a “gift” and in the process makes the receivers work for another two years to pay it back.

    Which is what they want to do anyway, as retiring at 65 already costs too much if you live to be 85.

    This Transfer payment is just one example of providing services to someone that you make pay it back later without explaining the obligation you are creating for them. If you’d asked them, they might have refused the “gift”. I’d call it corrupt, for again it comes from a position of inequality. This is like the Mafia Don who does you a “favour”: only he understands what you are going to have to do.

    The corruption is not, in my opinion, in the offering of bad deals. It is in the offering of deals that are inherently unequal, in which encouragement to accept risk does not entail the sharing of risk. The banks are up to their eyeballs but only because the governments want them up to their eyeballs – actually they want US up to our eyeballs.


    Cristiano FIDANI
    Central Italy Electromagnetic Network, 63900, Fermo, Italy

    Abstract. Raffaele Bendandi was well known during the first half of the twentieth century for his warnings on the onset of earthquakes which were made in newspapers worldwide. Today however, his name is less known and his forecasting method remains mysterious. Recently, a false claim that Bendandi had predicted a strong earthquake for Rome, Italy, on May 10, 2011, renewed interest in his warnings. Here, the warning characters are summarised, and it was seen that they had confirmation by newspapers and catalogues. Being so, through a comparison with past seismic events, using historical data, we would be able to express an opinion on these warnings.

  103. oldbrew says:

    Dr. Claes Johnson: the faint young Sun problem can be resolved with the basic thermodynamics of the lapse rate.

  104. oldbrew says:

    Interesting results from new coral data study, re El Nino-Southern Oscillation.

    ‘The new coral data show that 20th century El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO) climate cycles are significantly stronger than ENSO variations captured in the fossil corals. But the data also reveal large natural variations in past ENSO strength, making it difficult to attribute the 20th century intensification of ENSO to rising carbon dioxide levels.’

  105. Doug Proctor says:

    I’m on the Big Island, Hawaii right now. There is a “drought” here: at the Volcano Winery just outside the Kilauea crater, they are only getting 110 inches of rain a year, instead of 180 inches of rain. Been going on for 7 years. The vineyards need irrigating and the grasslands are yellow and dry, in an extreme hazard for fire.

    But still 110 inches of rain. The term “drought” as used by McKibben, clearly has a use aspect, not just a technical term of quantity. If your vineyards need water, it is a drought. If your cactus farm is drowning, it’s a record flood. If you are doing nothing with it, it is dry, which it sometimes does, and the resultant fires put nutrients into the lava fields.

    Go figure.

    I was up at the Mauna Loa observatory yesterday, 6 miles from the summit, at just over 11,000′ above sea-level. During the last ice age, there were glaciers on Mauna Loa and Mauna Lea. From the summit to sea level, the temperature rose from 55*F to 81*F. Normal adiabatic temperature profile, I suppose, 2.4F/1000′. Higher than I thought from my university days, but physics these days is special, according to Al Gore and David Suzuki, so what relevance does my observation have to anything of current importance.

    But this rate did make me wonder about the snow on the summits of these volcanoes. If 26K difference is not weird, to get to freezing temperatures of 32F (0C) at 11,000′, you’d probably have to have 60F on the coast. Cold for sure, but understandable at time. However, as an average, this would be the temperature of a “temperate”, not tropical, climate. And Hawaii has not been in a temperature climate for geological ages.

    It does get cool at times, but that is the point, at times. Even back in the day of continental glaciers, the term would be “at times”.

    It strikes me that despite the global cooling during the ice age, there would be no reason for temperatures to be consistently below freezing at either summit. Then how do you account for glaciers in Hawaii?

    Glaciers develop because more snowfall happens during the cold times than melts during the warm times. This is the fundamental law of glacial development and must be kept in the forefront of any discussion of glacial expansion or shrinkage. It is separate, though related to ice advance: after 125m or so of ice has developed, ice changes from a rigid solid to a plastic solid. Ice flows, and a glacier now exists (until then it is not a glacier, but a “stagnant” block of ice, which is what most of our Rocky Mountain “glaciers” are these days).

    Glaciers masses develop because more snow falls than melts, and glaciers move because thick ice becomes plastic under pressure. Neither of these is temperature dependent in itself, except that the heat balance must allow a retention of subzero temperatures in a portion – only a portion – of an ice mass.

    Next part of the thought sequence:

    So I connect the “drought” with the loss of glaciers in Hawaii. We’re in the middle of the warm, pacific ocean, and I suggest that there is not a dearth of moisture potential. But there clearly is a dearth of actual moisture near the dew point relative to the recent past, i.e. when the winds rise up the volcano flanks, there is less rain or (at the top) snow. So however moist air arrives here, it comes with a lower relative humidity today than it did 10 years ago. And probably relative to what it did 50,000 years ago.

    Global warming is blamed for every drought. Out here, global warming should create higher moisture levels in the air at the water surface, a higher absolute and relative humidity. Going up the mountain should mean more rainfall, not less. And during the last ice age, the only way that glaciers could exist here is if there was more moisture in the air arriving than today.

    Which brings us back to regional effects, not necessarily global. Winds and ocean currents, principally winds. A significant heat redistribution issue, not necessarily a significant heat rise or fall issue. Winds that START OUT moist moving across the Pacific bring a lot of rainfall to Hawaii, not just winds that move across the Pacific and pick up moisture. If the winds are drier, the vineyards fail and glaciers disappear.

    That is not global warming, not at points of a degree. It might even be – horrors! – longer-term weather variations, i.e. climatic variability.

    Now here is another thought from the trip up Mauna Loa, CO2:

    Mauna Loa is the center of Global Warming because of its CO2 record. Perhaps we need to look closely at its precipitation, temperature, sunshine, oceanic pH as well as CO2 record to see if the “centre” has more to say about the reality of “global” changes than we have thought:

    The CO2 profile you see is very much massaged and “corrected”. Not only is the air there modified by seasonal variations in degassing of CO2 from the surrounding ocean, but longer term variations in CO2 degassing must occur: I have read of studies of the English Channel and the near-Antarctic waters that found significant changes over the years, but never did I wonder about the near-Mauna Loa waters. Have they changed over the long term? Has the Mauna Loa record been seeing long-term, not just seasonal, oceanic degassing changes? Beyond those, what of the Kilauea volcano out-gassings.

    The Kilauea volcano alternates between summit and flank eruptions. I haven’t the map in front of me, but eruptions happened In the 1950s, the early 70s, and early 80s, the last, which almost took out the coastal city of Hilo. Starting 2008 the summit has been active again, so much that only the upwind half of the crater rim drive is open to the public (a bit of the nervous-nelly precautionary principle here, I think). Sometimes the winds blow one way and sometimes the other: the CO2 measurements of Mauna Loa have to take this local outgassing and wind variation into account. Which must be difficult, because when you look at the lava you can see that there are significant chemical changes in the rock in terms of iron content, temperature and gas (bubble density and size). CO2 output must change along with the easily recognized sulphur content.

    This is not to say that the Mauna Loa CO2 profile is wrong, but that what we might naively think of as a simple picture of what is in the air from day-to-day, is clearly an “adjusted” representation. All the things that are considered to be not representing the “global” or planetary air have been removed. And since Mann and Hansen have taught us to be wary of adjustments which fit a narrative, perhaps we should check out the raw data for CO2. (Which I haven’t done, though I’m sure it is easily available.)

    CAGW has made us suspicious not just of industry and politicians, which we already discounted, but of the men in the white coats that H.G. Wells and Bernard Shaw thought should guide us into a golden age of the philosopher kings dedicated to reason. That’s a shame, but it’s a fact that we do not experience facts but interpretations. Even our own eyes deceive us, because what we think we see is what our brains TELL us we see.

    Now I want to see the raw data of Mauna Loa. And I want to see some other raw data, maybe from central Antarctica where at least I won’t have vegetation (including phytoplancton) screwing up the record. And even then I won’t be happy because I’m worried that oceanic outgassing is more significant than I have been told.

    Caveat emptor, I suppose. For everything.

    P.S. In a couple of hours I am getting on a helicopter out of Hilo for a volcano tour. Will see the Kilauea crater and the place where current fissures leak lava into the ocean, outside Kalapana. If I knew how you guys paste images/graphs onto your blog post, I’d put in photos of the Observatory. You aren’t allowed onto the observatory grounds, but you can look up at them. The Observatory is 6 miles/10 km from the summit, in large lava fields that erupted in 1984.

  106. Ninderthana says:

    Just in case no one else has put in this tip:

    El Nino weather pattern is not linked to climate change, researchers believe
    From: AFP January 04, 2013 10:00AM

  107. tchannon says:

    Paywalled paper with essentially no information, no data, riddled with hot words. I take that as political, do not want the underlying work examined.

    Sigh, on digging the missing links appear, My take, it is yet another very dodgy reconstruction. where the basic takehome is El Nino or whatever happens, always has.

    You are intended to notice but copyright stops any usage here.
    First author’s page is here with a link to publications including 2013

    Nature’s dreadful web site had hidden this link, I have registered login but the site is broken.

  108. Richard (duwayne) Smith says:

    Tallbloke, are you aware that the recent Met Office global warming forecast is down dramatically from their previous forecasts? See the old 2011 forecast versus the December 2012 forecast on the Cycle24 blog. Go to Reply # 833 on the “Re: Global warming temperature predictions” thread.

  109. tchannon says:

    RS, much amusement, well spotted. Rog is err… not around, I’ll see what I can do.

  110. RKS says:

    I’m having enormous problems over at Bishop Hill, some of who’s contributors would be much at home at SkS, to convince them of the Lunar Diviner results showing the lunar average temperature to be 197K.

    As Tallbloke has referred to emails he’s had confirming this temperature, could someone please provide a sound, authoratative source for it that cannot be waved aside by some of the close minded contributors at Bishop Hill. Until they get that indisputable info any discussion about N&Z is a complete waste of time.

  111. Doug Proctor says:

    The shallow subsurface readings of the Apollo missions should give the best estimate of average lunar temperatures as they skip the big shifts of sunshine, low angle sunshine and no sunshine induced temperature changes. I think it was Apollo 17, though it was a while back I did the work.

    It works very well on Earth, wherever you are.

  112. tchannon says:

    RKS, BH site is semi-broken at the moment (broken video script) so I can’t easily look around.

    Which thread?

    Probably a poor place to discuss that kind of thing.

    [edit: Found a reference. Looks like AlexM backed you up on Diviner. Disagreeing on the rest of what he wrote is probably not worth it. -Tim]

  113. RKS says:

    Interesting problem.

    Two planetary bodies each receiving identical insolation but one rotating twice as fast as the other.

    If radiation is proportional to T^4 what is the comparative mean temperature of each body.

    It would strongly depend on surface heat capacity, which is presumed to be zero for perfect black bodies for which the T^4 relationship theoretically holds.

  114. Doug Proctor says:

    The “comparative” mean temperature would be the same, as the proportion of time in sunlight vs darkness, i.e. absorbing vs radiating energy, would be the same.

    The “absolute” mean temperature would depend on albedo, thermal capacity and thermal conductivity of the surface material. A material which absorbed easily and conducted easily but held great amounts of energy would pass through the nighttime with less energy loss than another that reflected much, absorbed with difficulty and conducted the energy to depth, slowly.

    Or so it seems to me.

  115. tchannon says:

    See lunar model.

    The earth has a many km thick surface where few can stop themselves jumping inside and declaring.
    There is more, presumptions about the shape of the body; about the alignment of the body (try needle like pointing at the sun); about the dynamic characteristic of the body; about the prowess of measurements.

    And much can be known at all?

  116. Sparks says:

    I have a suggestion for discussion, media and Solar Maximum.

    We will see a rise in catastrophic reporting about this solar cycle as this is a maximum year. The BBC has an article on this Cycle from 2007 – 2008 that this would be the largest solar cycle and maximum since records began and it will increase the warming effect of man made green house gases. (I couldn’t find the link)

    The Economic Times, India; Today are putting out the spin that this Solar Maximum Is a once-in-a-century event comparable to the Carrington event of 1859

    “Brace up for a once-in-a-century solar activity that could potentially throw life out of gear as the Sun reaches `Solar Maximum’.”

  117. David Blake says:

    GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 36, L05809, doi:10.1029/2008GL036359, 2009
    Sudden stratospheric warmings seen in MINOS deep underground muon data

    From 2009, but has this been covered?

  118. tchannon says:

    I don’t recall this David.

    Find the author list highly amusing, just kept on arriving

    We can’t nor want to cover everything. It’s generally a good idea to add something rather than point, takes time and effort.

    Might or might not pick it up. Thank you for highlighting. Others will see and visit anyway.

  119. tchannon says:

    Comments on this thread are closed, please use the current Suggestions page.
    (we try to keep the page of an easy length so much over 100 items, close and created new page)

  120. Doug Proctor says:

    tallbloke says:
    November 9, 2012 at 11:13 pm
    Hi Doug,
    Take a look at this post and comment from Vuk

    Hi, Roger,

    I gather the reference was that I should do my homework carefully before I criticize. Very good point, as all blog-responders are offering more off-the-cuff opinions than well-demonstrated research result. In this case, however, I was asking merely about a statistical approach dealing with averages subject to non-constant “clipping”.

    When your initial data is all recorded, you can take the average or centerline (weighted) to find the trend. When one end has a threshold, however, the over “negative” or “positive” that would have informed the total uncertainty or variance range are lost. You should redetermine the center mean from the remaining limit (if you can consider the range from center to high/low to be consistent). This would drive the pattern closer to the threshold/clipping point.

    My point here is that the umbral intensity etc. will trend closer to an actual “zero” of 1500 and 100% in these two cases. If we are headed to a zero sunspot figure, then this modification will show the coming date as earlier, while non-consideration of the clipping problem will cause the apparent centreline away from the bottom/top, and misinform us of what and when it will happen.

    However, if the clipping problem has been taken into account, then my concern is moot and results from me not understanding how the trendlines were created.

    P.S. It takes me a while sometimes to think things through.

  121. […] AGW skeptic Richard Smith noticed the change and brought it to the world’s attention on January 5th, 2013. […]

Leave a Reply

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

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s