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. 😎

  1. oldbrew says:

    Link back to Suggestions 19

    [for viewing only please]

  2. oldbrew says:

    Exoplanets TRAPPIST-1b and c Confirmed to be Rocky

    ‘The astronomers also determined that the atmospheres of both planets are very compact, similar to the atmospheres of Earth, Venus, and Mars.’

    These two rocky exoplanets have an orbit ratio of 8:5, whereas Venus and Earth have a 13:8 ratio.
    5,8, and 13 are Fibonacci numbers.

    Their orbit periods are very short: 1.51 and 2.42 days approx.

  3. oldbrew says:

    Germany: In Bremerhaven, an environment group has blocked plans for an offshore wind power port with a court order. A conundrum to be avoided?

    Somebody in the so-called green camp finally noticed that greencrap is corrupting the environment 😎

  4. Paul Vaughan says:

    Now that S-20’s open I’m going to start illustrating some of what I noted in the (surely perceived as excessively technical by some tastes) mystery comment:

    Meanwhile, related: Some mainstreamers are waking up slowly to volcano association with circulatory reconfiguration BOTH ways:

    I’m digging back into ICOADS wind EOFs, breaking the analysis down by meridional, zonal, & speed and this is yielding big clues — e.g. 96 volatility (not to be confused with mean) pattern in both speed and integrated meridional ENSO, but NOT in zonal. That’s a big North Atlantic clue. There are simply 2 tracks by which the tropical export can get there, so on average El Nino & La Nina have the SAME effect on ONE region of the world with a UNIQUE long-run average property DUE TO GEOMETRY…).

    FYI this is about crushing the (usually-implicit) BS assumption too many climate commentators make that constant surface geometry (on human timescales) makes flow laminar and flow-physics linear-only. (I can hear the naive reaction: “I never said that!” …well actually yes you did….)

    That’s such an unconscious thing to think (e.g. latent heat? oh just ignore that sort-of wool-over-your-eyes attitude) but it’s implicit (do they even realize???) in some of the (over-the-top-suspicious) narratives commonly encountered in climate discussion…

    For example the landscape may be sitting still (on human timescales), but that does NOT make evaporation a LINEAR function of windspeed — as if!!!!

    Of all the things I’ve seen in the climate discussion over the years, nothing makes me more suspicious than the false uniformity assumption (always asserted implicitly and never stated explicitly or admitted) pushed so shamelessly and bullishly by wuwt. It’s creepy and reprehensibly disrespectful of observations. The only way to correct the problem is to boot out the trouble-makers. There’s no other way.

    Particularly egregious is the tactic they use to scramble their audience’s climate perception with ENSO misinterpretation. I’m convinced that it’s an opportunistically dirty and deliberate strategy.

    I aim to have a first round of false-assumption-crushing map-illustrations prepared within the hour…
    (We’ll see how well people fair at interpretation…)

  5. tallbloke says:

    Paul V: For example the landscape may be sitting still (on human timescales), but that does NOT make evaporation a LINEAR function of windspeed — as if!!!!

    I can’t see why this one couldn’t be settled experimentally quite easily simply by measuring the rate at which a sample of a damp medium drys out (getting lighter) with winds of different speeds passing over it. A variable speed fan, a sponge, a gram scale and a glass of water aren’t expensive…

  6. Paul Vaughan says:

    I can see why: politics!
    [ :

  7. Paul Vaughan says:

    A view of ENSO that does NOT ignore orthogonality:

  8. Paul Vaughan says:

    Land/ocean geometry reminder:

  9. Paul Vaughan says:

    Centennial windspeed EOF (bold red) and integrated meridional ENSO (bold orange) added onto previous 96 insights from ICOADS wind:

  10. Paul Vaughan says:

    …So 96 is observed in SST & SLP volatility, windspeed mean, and meridional wind integral.

    …and I’ve never seen anyone (mainstream, underground, or otherwise) applying conceptualization mindful of this.

    96 Review: This is just a pole-pole contrast (from long-run aggregate QBO/semi-annual/annual circulatory aliasing) draconically (as in the lunar draconic month) mucking up stubborn climate commentator recognition and interpretation of sun-climate spatiotemporal attractors (by systematically biasing statistics based on false assumptions).

  11. oldmanK says:

    @ tallbloke: You forgot two important variables; relative humidity and delta T.

    In July I soak my cloth cap in water every half hour to help cool my old rusty computer. It will be bone dry in 20 minutes. In winter — no way.

  12. RJ Salvador says:

    Below is a two month update to the end of June 2016 of the LOD model. The earth’s rate of rotation in June exhibited a large downward spike. The spikes downward and upward are associated with the moon’s gravity pulling the tidal bulge from the northern to the southern hemisphere and back again. The size of the bulge is dependent on the timing of the cross over with the occurrence of a new or full moon. I am guessing the full moon in June was well positioned to bring a large amount of water to the equator and slowed the earth’s rotation more than the model would predict. I expect the rotation rate to return to the model over the next few weeks or month as it has in the past.
    To refresh memories, the model was created to test the conjecture that the BASE LINE of the LOD is determined by the interaction with the earth of Venus and the gas giants.
    Two times the JEV =11.06964992 X 2 =22.13929985
    And then the beat of the axial period of Jupiter and Saturn with the two times JEV =13.6823310418865
    Finally the beat of the Jupiter orbit with half the Jupiter Saturn synodic = 61.04648218
    And then smaller influence from
    9.007246722 = SEV
    5.018891421 = UEV
    4.492694707 = NEV

  13. RJ Salvador says:

    Guys I am a Chemical Engineer by training. I confess to two degrees on the subject. The near linear relationship of evaporation to wind speed has been shown many times in Chemical Engineering circles. There are numerous equations that are used that contain wind speed as linear or raised to the power of 0.78. Even my old MASc professor developed and published one. So I believe it is close to linear. Reducing the thickness of the the boundary layer next to a surface through which evaporation has to take place is limited with wind speed.

  14. oldbrew says:

    Newly discovered distant solar system objects resonate with Neptune

    ‘What was surprising is that these new objects are all near Neptune Mean Motion Resonances (that is, the locations of their orbits have specific period ratios with respect to that of Neptune). One of the new objects goes around the Sun once every time Neptune goes around 4 times, while the other new objects go around once every time Neptune goes around 3 times.’

    Note: Pluto completes 2 orbits to every 3 of Neptune (almost).

    Scott S. Sheppard, Chadwick Trujillo, and David J. Tholen

    ‘All the new moderately eccentric objects beyond the Kuiper Belt edge are near strong Neptune mean motion resonances.’

  15. oldmanK says:

    @RJ Salvador. Re evaporation. In studying a proposal for augmenting power output and efficiency in gas turbine CC plant by installing evaporative cooling on the air inlet side, we eventually dropped the proposal because of the high relative humidity in the months when power augmentation was needed most. It seems to have worked in countries where the air is sufficiently drier.

    In natural circumstances wind speed is a factor, but other issues are equally relevant. A wind with 100% loading with water vapour may even have negative evaporation (and leaving a near dry forgotten loaded clothesline dripping again).

  16. RJ Salvador says:

    @oldmanK. Your point is made.
    The relative humidity is the driving force. In nature the wind provides the “conveyor belt” to remove moist air and replace it with drier air as the evaporation takes place. Otherwise once the saturation level is reached the process stops.

  17. Paul Vaughan says:

    I’m going to deliberately stay out of the discussion of the physics. I can determine conclusively that a flower has pentagonal symmetry knowing sweet f*** all about DNA!

    There was some paper we discussed quite awhile back on wind speed cubed. Maybe it was about ocean surface water mixing by wind or about some other physical quantity…

    But even cubed is nothing compared to wind belt spatial movement.
    That’s an on/off switch.

    The monstrous wind belts are either present or absent depending on the season. Does it need to get any more nonlinear than that to have seasonal physical aliasing by a discrete switch??? It’s a point that needs to be stressed to confront the dark ignorance (or is it equally dark deception?)

    And aliasing is observed. I’ll leave it to chemical engineers and others to engage in potentially endless discussions of theory. I’ll stick to interpreting observations and tell you squarely (I’m not open to debate on this) that something seriously nonlinear is going on (latent heat is another obvious candidate) to get the observed kind of aliasing.

    I’m sure others can or could add to the list of nonlinear features of QBO, semi-annual, annual, & other cycles if such lines of discussions interest them, but such discussion isn’t needed to advance raw pattern exploration.

    The physical cycling of the spatiotemporal configuration of the circulatory architecture (including poleward equatorial heat export topology) is the aliasing giant and for exploratory purposes it’s sufficient to have basic, simple awareness of just that much.

    It makes no sense — none whatsoever — that the conventional professional mainstream ignores the observed aliasing. Maybe they could model a machine where all the tubes don’t reconfigure over the seasons, but it’s a stretch for them to deal with cycling piping architecture. Curious: Are there any branches of engineering that have to contend with reconfiguring piping architecture? Most engineering structures I’ve seen are not so spontaneously flexible.

    Crudely summarizing a few key points:

    1. Cenntenial timescale SAM is a function of sunspot integral.

    2. Centennial NAM (“96”) is associated with polar volcanic deposition, CAM, glacial mass balance, CAM, poleward SST contrast, integrated meridional wind, wind speed, ENSO volatility, QBO/semi-annual/annual aliasing (or J-S/Hale beats if you prefer a confounded avenue as a placeholder for something grander we’re striving to see), and the Atlantic circulatory branch from North Atlantic Subtropical Gyre to the Antarctic Circumpolar Current (which both rotate clockwise).

    3. BDO is evident in global average SST and MEIx volatility, but NOT in MEIx mean.

    4. AMOC has a branch (from North Atlantic Subpolar Gyre to South Atlantic Subtropical Gyre (which both rotate counterclockwise)) associated with sea ice that’s a function of solar cycle length. (Creepy undercurrents of sketchy/shady politics maintain socially iron-fisted dark ignorance &/or of deception on this one and that’s a permanent, fatal impasse ensuring that scientific resolution of climate issues is contextually strictly impossible at present.)

    5. CAM and LOD differ. (Listen up on this one, I have to assert. And please see below.)

    A little strategic provocation…

    In short: There’s a problem where time-only modellers ignore geometry and spatial patterns. Practical Suggestion: Accompany time series predictions with maps of the predicted spatial patterns.

    According to Bill Illis, circulatory spatial configuration accounts for +/-35C globally (the sensitivity’s where & how much ice accumulates). Maybe we don’t see spatial pattern predictions front and center because modelers have no confidence in their grasp of spatial pattern. Their attempts to predict (e.g. as a global function of CO2) are premature, as they haven’t even bothered to finish the raw spatiotemporal exploration of circulatory architecture evolution that’s prerequisite for realistic modeling.

    Digesting the geometric implications of exploratory insights I’ve been outlining might take anyone serious enough a lot of time and effort, but I can make an immediately practical suggestion to motivate better appreciation of why it’s a worthwhile journey.

    For example, RJ has modeled LOD and if he were to alongside LOD models present CAM models, prediction-oriented people would immediately start having a practical reason to start mulling over all of these 96 patterns and how volcanism relates to polar ice volumes (stratospherically attacking ozone-shaping of polar vortices and via that glacial hydrological balance? something else? whichever way, it’s observed…)

    RJ, if you go that road — i.e. developing a Core Angular Momentum (CAM) model to contrast with Length of Day (LOD) models — you can start with:

    (φ/Φ)/(J+S) = 22.13847667 years ~= 1/JEV = 1/(3V-5E+2J) = 22.13929985 years
    and the beat of half of that with half of 1/(J-S), which you will find is something like 96 years.

    The Hale period in CAM is because CAM is estimated from geomagnetic records.

    I can suggest that it maybe demands a practically unworkable amount of open mindedness for conventional mainstreamers to think about 96 this way, but on previous Suggestions threads I’ve presented a conventional outline of how 96 arises from QBO, semi-annual, & annual cycles (all of which are conventionally observed and readily acknowledged).

    The challenge I’ve been repeatedly putting fore and center is that of recognizing a coherence between CAM, polar volcanic deposition, and polar ice mass balance.

    Perhaps RJ and others are ready and willing to take the 96 challenge…
    (Btw RJ, this would be dead-easy modeling for you compared to other stuff you’ve done.)

    Maybe this week (or next) I can find time to dig out my CAM empirical ensemble for text-tabulation in a comment here on Suggestions-20 (S-20). Wherever aliasing and sampling biases take empirical ensembles flapping around a central limit (e.g. measures of PDO ~= IPO, CAM, EOFs from different coupled physical fields, and whatever else more generally), I advise looking at several members and taking a diagnostic approach to exploration.

    It’s probably impractical to think people are ready to interpret what I’ve illustrated as indicating more than 1 AMOC branch (including a glacial branch common to SST, SLP, & wind fields versus a sea ice branch insightfully apparent only in SST fields), but I’m quite sure we can get people looking at CAM vs. LOD comparatively as an appetizer (step 1) for deeper geophysical cognition.

    One possible outcome of all this is maybe a reconceptualization of AMOC. For example, what if the former branch is through the sky and the latter is through the water? The observations suggest this. The solar-cycle length / sea-ice branch is only apparent in the SST field, whereas the glacial branch is apparent not only in SST but also in SLP & wind fields. (That’s a pretty big atmospheric clue.)

    We can start the path to better mainstream thinking with comparative LOD vs. CAM.

    Part of my background includes botany. In that field there is strong appreciation for comparative sorting and classification of objects of study based on qualitatively differing features. It has always appeared puzzling to me that climatologists don’t seem to bother systematically sorting things via simple comparison & contrast. Looking back and forth between botanists and climatologists, it looks to me like botanists keep their workstations neat, tidy, and organized (they did so even before awareness of DNA mechanisms), whereas climatologists leave everything piled in a mess.

    We can help them with multidecadal-centennial sorting.

    Best Regards

  18. Paul Vaughan says:

    Point of clarification:

    As I indicated years ago I use “wind” as shorthand for water vapor flux and convergence.

  19. Paul Vaughan says:

    Look carefully at the poleward progression of correlated Atlantic belts as the animation (intended to provoke) goes from MEIx derivative to mean to volatility (August 1, 2016 at 9:01 am).

    If you filter out the interannual component of the volatility (by extracting the envelope), you’ll find 96.

    On S-19 I outlined the QBO/semi-annual/annual aliasing that accounts for this observed aggregate progression.

    The 2 parts of the Atlantic conspicuously missing in the animated set of orthogonal MEIx correlation belts relate to solar cycle length and sea ice. See _1_ & _2_ including the spatial pattern map at the bottom.

    NAM is a misnomer. It’s clear in the Southern Ocean SST field and probably/possibly SAM in the SLP field eclipsed awareness of this. Better sorting and classification could have avoided the consequent delays in conceptual evolution.

    AMOC is yet another animal unrelated to NAM and that’s a key point of classification I’m raising. I know there will be resistance to this differentiation. It will be cultural resistance, not scientific. The observations speak for themselves without cultural interference.

    I’ve learned from all of this that conventional methods of EOF extraction need some evolution to overcome some of their shortcomings extracting these insights from SST, SLP, & wind fields. As they (including CEOF & VEOF) are currently they’ll get a user part-way but finishing the job demands higher awareness and manual compensation for automated failure (stemming from base assumption failures identified diagnostically).

    If a lot of this isn’t making sense — and maybe (probabably?) won’t even as I elaborate down the road — compare CAM & with LOD & the “60 year” cycle and notice that IT JUST DOESN’T MATCH. That raises the question of fundamental geophysical differences.

    The observations suggest one relates to glacial mass (depressing polar continents) and the other relates to sea ice. Those 2 things very simply differ fundamentally, so I’m not inclined to resist where the observations are directing exploration. I actually find this exhilarating. It points to something clean and simple: water — frozen land water weighing down land versus frozen sea water floating like an ice cube. They’re not the same.

  20. Paul Vaughan says:

    I suspect that the barrelling katabatic winds driving the sea ice margin currents and ice export are dry and cold …in sharp contrast to the MEIx-related poleward aliased water vapor fluxes.

    The wind — and moisture-laden or not — factors shaping glacial mass balance versus sea ice extension and export differ:

    wet winds importing tropical water for deposition as snow versus cold winds blowing ice cubes offshore.

    As Bill Illis showed us, AMOC gets started under the sea ice.

    The data suggest NAM is tied to a gravity tide controlling glacial mass balance whereas AMOC’s roots are thermal tides paced by solar activity. (I’m basing this comment on an integration of insights accumulated over the years, including the solar-terrestrial weave in semi-annual LOD and it’s deceleration/acceleration.)

  21. Paul Vaughan says:

    Clarification: I’m not suggesting NAM is soley controlled by a gravity tide. I’m just pointing out that gravity tides appear to crudely shape pole-aliased MEIx envelope limits. I should take care to note that higher resolution exploration caN’T overlook solar wind. I’m pointing out that gravity tides appear to be an important factor in poleward export limits.

    I’ll leave it there for now.

  22. RJ Salvador says:

    Paul, if you are saying the wind (air) is a moving conveyor (tube, pipe etc) for mass and heat in the form of water vapor, I agree that is not a linear process. As for Core Angular Momentum (CAM) is there a data set for that? It’s new to me.

  23. Paul Vaughan says:

    CAM illustration reminders:

  24. Paul Vaughan says:

    RJ, the major wind belts at all levels migrate spatially and/or turn off/on with the seasons. (Over the years I animated a few dozen annual climatologies from JRA-25 and other sources, but unfortunately imageshack links no longer work.)

    We can agree that there’s discrete (nonlinear) switching and observed aliasing. There’s nothing mysterious about it. The only mystery is dark ignorance and/or deception about it (mainstream & underground alike). It’s socially and politically informative that something so simple isn’t acknowledged in a straightforward manner.

    If you look back on S-19 you’ll find additional CAM illustrations where I kept layering on more coherent variables. The number of variables showing the 96 wave is something ridiculously high.

    There’s a geophysical talent pool with above-average geophysical perception at NASA JPL, but one of the most corrupt reports I’ve seen circulating in climate discussion was from a NASA JPL study trying to make climate inference from CAM & LOD. I don’t entertain the possibility that people from that particular concentrated talent pool could be so ignorant. Rather, I suspect they were under political pressure and allowed that to guide.

    Just like I did with Thompson’s work and the sunspot integral (several suggestions threads and a few years back), I’ve been working on CAM and LOD political distortion clean-up. Basic EOF analysis and diagnostics on SST, SLP, and wind fields yields the insights I’ve been outlining.

    The relationship between LOD and multidecadal SST isn’t time-only and linear. The aggregation governing the relationship is spatiotemporal and nonlinear, but it is certainly well-approximated to first-order piece-wise over qualitatively-differing eras via time-only linear approximation.

    Multivariate coupled integration is univariately over differing spatiotemporal domains and at different levels on ladders of powers. Aberrations from 1:1 correspondence inform of multivariate coupling lapses, tightening, and regime shifts.

    If you present side-by-side models of multidecadal-centennial CAM & LOD, I think that could help motivate people to more deeply appreciate and respect what we’re learning about geophysical nature from simple SST, SLP, & wind field EOF/PC variance decompositions and diagnostics.

  25. RJ Salvador says:

    Thanks for the info. I’ll take a look at it.

  26. Brett Keane says:

    So, the answer is NOT 42. Jokes aside, I think I get it: Orographics (geospatiality); intermittency (seasonality?); 96 year basic cycles? Brett

  27. oldbrew says:

    Paper: Assessing atmospheric temperature data sets for climate studies
    – Magnus Cederlof, Lennart Bengtsson, Kevin Hodges

    JC comments:
    The most interesting point (to me) in the paper is this:

    Another area with a large warming trend is in the Arctic, most likely due to reduced sea ice cover in summer and autumn. The Arctic warming trend is most pronounced in ERAI with the largest values in the Russian sector. Such values are consequently not a direct effect of increasing greenhouse gases. It is most likely due to reduced sea ice in summer and autumn that in turn can be a secondary effect of climate warming but with no apparent warming response at upper levels.

    This is a particularly interesting result, since the direct retrievals of upper level temperatures by RSS and UAH are not deemed to be reliable at high latitudes. The ECMWF reanalysis of upper level temperatures is arguably more reliable in the Arctic, but how reliable is a subject requires more investigation. The absence of upper level warming in the Arctic leads the authors to conclude that the surface warming trend in the Arctic is not a direct consequence of increasing greenhouse gases. Any GHG impact on Arctic sea ice is lost in the decadal scale variability of ocean heat advection and cloudiness changes (which may have a component from GHG warming), further supporting my contention (shared by the IPCC) that we do not have confidence in attributing a substantial fraction of the recent Arctic sea ice decline to GHG warming. This important point is lost in the public alarm surrounding the decline of the Arctic sea ice.
    [end of JC comment quote]

    Worth emphasising: ‘Any GHG impact on Arctic sea ice is lost in the decadal scale variability of ocean heat advection and cloudiness changes’

  28. oldbrew says:

    The Larne compressed air energy storage (CAES) technology project in Northern Ireland has been awarded an additional $9.24m (€8.28m) financing from the EU.

    Commenting, Keith McGrane, Head of Energy Storage at Gaelectric, said: “The Project will provide critical generation capacity of 330 MW for periods of up to 6 to 8 hours duration which is enough to meet the electricity needs of over 200,000 homes, and create demand on the system of 250 MW. It will also be the first in a pipeline of CAES projects which Gaelectric is developing across the rest of the United Kingdom and into Europe, each designed to help system operators meet generation needs and the challenges of increasing renewable generation being connected to Europe’s power systems.”

    Of course ‘the challenges of increasing renewable generation being connected to Europe’s power systems’ is code for intermittency. Schemes like this are sticking plasters only.

  29. oldbrew says:

    Observations prove that sunlight controls the atmospheric pressure on Jupiter’s moon Io.

    ‘Space scientists observe Io’s atmospheric collapse during eclipse’

  30. oldbrew says:


    They’re still in the middle of closing nuclear sites down. If they dump coal as well they’ll be finished as an industrial power.

  31. RJ Salvador says:

    There is coherence between the CAM derived LOD and the gas giant contribution to the LOD Model. The graphic below is messy but you will understand it. The LOD model does not contain a 96 year frequency. A quick check of the optimum frequency of the CAM LOD would put it at 107 years. I will add a 96 year frequency to the LOD model. I think it will give a good result. The light blue line is the model and it dances back and forth across the gas giant line as it is sampled on january 1st. The dance is the seasonal and moons contribution. I’ll post another result with the 96 year frequency when time permits.

  32. RJ Salvador says:


    Here is the result of a model with a 96 yr frequency. The r^2 =0.93
    I used the smoothed CAM data adjusted by 0.5 to get it to flange together with modern data.

    This is the projection of that model to the year 2100.

    This is the model with 107 year frequency (the best fit). The r^2-0.94


  33. oldbrew says:

    14 month minor earthquake pattern detected in US Pacific Northwest.

    ‘The Outdoor Society recently emailed a staff member at the United States Geological Survey (USGS) who helped not only calm our nerves, but also learned some good information about the fault activity in the Salish Sea region of the Pacific Northwest.

    The earthquakes shaking the region are not large, and usually occur without press or fanfare. In fact, roughly 99.99% of these quakes have been under magnitude 2.0, with only one large quake, a magnitude 4.3 near Victoria, BC, felt in the area being reported. The quakes are part of what is called an earthquake swarm and a Slow Slip Episode. The Slow Slip Episodes and Swarms are actually quite common in the region. Around Southern British Columbia and Northern Washington State, they have been occurring every 14 months or so since at least the 1990s.’

    14 months is about the same period as the Chandler Wobble.

    ‘The Chandler wobble or variation of latitude is a small deviation in the Earth’s axis of rotation relative to the solid earth,[1] which was discovered by American astronomer Seth Carlo Chandler in 1891. It amounts to change of about 9 metres (30 ft) in the point at which the axis intersects the Earth’s surface and has a period of 433 days.’

    433 days /14 = 30.93~ days

  34. RJ Salvador says:

    As they are easy to do, here are two final graphics showing just the gas giant contributions to the model with the CAM LOD extended data with a frequency of 96 and 107 years. Makes one want to believe in spin orbital coupling.

    I will end it here.

  35. tallbloke says:

    R.J. ; There is a spin-orbit coupling. I believe it’s caused by the mutual inclinations of the planetary orbital planes producing a gyro-precessionary effect on rotation.

    Also, regarding your LOD model; you say:

    To refresh memories, the model was created to test the conjecture that the BASE LINE of the LOD is determined by the interaction with the earth of Venus and the gas giants.
    Two times the JEV =11.06964992 X 2 =22.13929985
    And then the beat of the axial period of Jupiter and Saturn with the two times JEV =13.6823310418865

    And as we know, the relationship between these two periods is phi.

    22.13929985 / 13.6823310418865 = 1.618094

    It’s worth noting that the gravitational effect of Venus on the Earth is of a similar magnitude to that of Jupiter on the Earth.

  36. tallbloke says:

    Paul V: The number of variables showing the 96 wave is something ridiculously high.

    3 * J-S * 1.618 = 96.4

  37. tallbloke says:


    We study systematically the estimation of Earth’s core angular momentum (CAM) variation between 1962.0 and 2008.0 by using core surface flow models derived from the recent geomagnetic field model C3FM2. Various flow models are derived by changing four parameters that control the least squares flow inversion. The parameters include the spherical harmonic (SH) truncation degree of the flow models and two Lagrange multipliers that control the weights of two additional constraints. The first constraint forces the energy spectrum of the flow solution to follow a power law inline image, where l is the SH degree and p is the fourth parameter. The second allows to modulate the solution continuously between the dynamical states of tangential geostrophy (TG) and tangential magnetostrophy (TM). The calculated CAM variations are examined in reference to two features of the observed length-of-day (LOD) variation, namely, its secular trend and 6 year oscillation. We find flow models in either TG or TM state for which the estimated CAM trends agree with the LOD trend. It is necessary for TM models to have their flows dominate at planetary scales, whereas TG models should not be of this scale; otherwise, their CAM trends are too steep. These two distinct types of flow model appear to correspond to the separate regimes of previous numerical dynamos that are thought to be applicable to the Earth’s core. The phase of the subdecadal CAM variation is coherently determined from flow models obtained with extensively varying inversion settings. Multiple sources of model ambiguity need to be allowed for in discussing whether these phase estimates properly represent that of Earth’s CAM as an origin of the observed 6 year LOD oscillation.

  38. RJ Salvador says:

    I should have put a smiley face after my spin orbital coupling comment. Thanks for the pointing out the phi relationship, I hadn’t understood that fact.
    The historical LOD derived from core angular momentum is a close fit to the LOD model if a 96 year frequency is included. I was surprised to see many of the same “bumps” in the CAM-LOD curve as in a hind cast of the gas giant contribution to the model. The historical astronomical derived LOD is not as good a match.
    I think the evidence for the venus, earth, gas giant synodics changing the earths spin is definitive when looking at the CAM-LOD data.
    Paul has derived the 96 year frequency in a number of different ways. As usual everything seems to be synchronized. He deserves credit for continually calling it to our attention.

  39. Paul Vaughan says:

    OB, thanks for the Salish CW quake link.
    I followed the trail from your link to this one:

    I see that there was a phase shift, noticeable to the naked eye and timed exactly with the financial bubble burst as China eclipsed USA as #1. Comically and/or suspiciously (depending on how one decides to look at it) the government’s “Not Analyzed” portion of the illustration points right at and strongly draws attention to the phase shift. Very interesting.

  40. oldmanK says:

    A very interesting link PV, thanks.

    Question: might there be a similar one for the subduction zone in the Mediterranean? maybe you have come across that. It holds a particular interest to me. See here, it is likely just as active

  41. oldbrew says:

    TB’s abstract (August 4, 2016 at 3:50 pm ) says:
    ‘Multiple sources of model ambiguity need to be allowed for in discussing whether these phase estimates properly represent that of Earth’s CAM as an origin of the observed 6 year LOD oscillation.’

    The 6 year lunar wobble may also play a part?

    de Rop describes the relevant lunar motions like this:
    ‘The perigee moves 0.164 358 002 0 a day relative
    to the node, corresponding to 360 [degrees] in a period
    p 2190.340565 days. So, when the perigee of
    the Moon’s orbit coincides with the ascending
    node, then this situation repeats after
    2190.340565 days. This period p corresponds
    to 5.996 667 350 anomalistic years, thus nearly
    an entire number of anomalistic years.’

  42. oldbrew says:

    Many of America’s electronic voting machines are running on Windows XP, not secure because no longer supported by Microsoft.

  43. Paul Vaughan says:

    RJ wrote:
    […] Thanks for the pointing out the phi relationship, I hadn’t understood that fact.”

    It goes the other way too — i.e. φ = 13.68 / 8.46 …the latter of which is 1/(J+S).

    I remember at the time when I was doing those derivations I was doing most of the commentary on one thread but with some exceptions scattered on other threads, so probably when I left notes on one of your threads the context was fragmented.

    It may take us some time to sort this out:

    I don’t see CAM and LOD as being the same thing — not at all. In fact that’s the point I’m underscoring. They’re not the same thing. That’s actually what I found so egregious about the NASA JPL study where they made climate inference using this stuff.

    There’s a gross mismatch in the early record, so while there may be coupling (and I believe there is), it’s not a rigid coupling or at least it isn’t at all times. This probably makes the topic more interesting, not less …so it’s probably good that you take a different (complementary) approach to engage interest in exploratory geophysical puzzle-solving more generally.

    I’m only going to state this vaguely now (I suspect no one will anticipate where I’m going with this), but I believe there has been a misinterpretation of NAO reconstructions.

    I’m going to suggest that RJ model the integral of the NAO reconstruction that goes back to 1658. Readers may recall that Scafetta & Mazzarella compared it with LOD.

    This also relates to the distinction of ERSSTv3b2 EOF3 from EOF4 and the phase shift in the LOD relationship with EOF4 (see illustration near top of S-19).

    For now I’ll just say NAM & AMOC aren’t the same thing and there appears to have been a lot of mainstream data misinterpretation that has undermined multidecadal-centennial regional climate conceptualization.

    From KNMI Climate Explorer’s “Monthly climate indices”:

    Time-integrated North Atlantic Oscillation as a proxy for climatic change

    Click to access NS_2013013110495367.pdf

    There’s only 0.04% of the time and resources needed to deal with everything, but we can point at prerequisites so readers can prep for postponed discussion.

  44. Paul Vaughan says:

    OB, the “6 year” term in LOD matches 2/J, not the 6 year lunisolar cycle …but there is something quite interesting about annual aliasing of the “6 year” lunisolar cycle …and I’ll share that someday when a dozen other things aren’t competing for time.

    – –

    Point of strategic provocation:

    If I were going to revise 96 it would be towards 82 or 83, not towards 107.

    We have so much to discuss. Actually it’s getting beyond ridiculous what a backlog of stuff there is to discuss. What does it look like when the Pareto Principle gets raised to the tenth power? Necessity’s mothering that kind of discussion evolution and I advise looking at that as a blessing because those with the luxury of time and resources appear to get lost only in computer fantasy modeling.

    Something I want to underscore now:

    96 is a contrast.
    It’s not a blend.

    Blends and contrasts differ fundamentally. (I’ll keep repeating it.)

    Global averages are blends.

    Contrasts don’t appear in the global average.

    I’m trying to make an important point about volatility and constraints on volatility. Modelers: This can be applied for model diagnostics to ensure models are realistic. Models can’t just mimic the mean. They have to mimic the other statistical properties too, so this is a useful tool — an additional level of constraint so models don’t fool people for example with good mean properties but grossly out-of-line volatility properties.

    I’ve got a lot more to say about 96, polar contrasts (which are NOT a part of global average!!!), & MEI volatility.

    It’s important to NOT accidentally think I’m saying 96 is a property of global MEAN temperature. This is about stupid spatial assumptions mainstream modelers make, how to diagnose them, and how to work towards (hopefully orders of magnitude) better awareness of aggregation criteria in general.

    The suggested NAO integral modeling is a deliberate provocation to help expedite COMPARATIVE multidecadal-centennial awareness. Once a bunch of stuff is on the plate SIDE-BY-SIDE, spot-the-differences no-brainer insights flow effortlessly.

    Anyone want to bet?? Will RJ find 107 where M&S found 65? Stay tuned for comparative insight… (…if/when RJ has time/interest)


  45. Paul Vaughan says:

    Maybe we should hire a bunch of botanists and/or taxonomists to come in and help the climate people sort, classify, and better organize their profound natural variations workstation mess.

    I think I’m going to have to redo the BLEND vs. CONTRAST illustrations I threw up in a rushed hurry on S-19 in the weeks ahead for better clarity. At least they’re there in rough format to alert the community of volcano & circulation architecture meanwhile — alerts of need to independently work towards filling in prerequisite background awareness of observed multivariate spatiotemporal patterns. Later discussion will flow more efficiently if all join the discussion prepared with prerequisite comparative spatiotemporal awareness of observed multivariate geophysical pattern.

  46. Paul Vaughan says:

    See how the blue line mismatch goes dotted?

    That kind of underhandedness undercuts trust.

  47. Paul Vaughan says:

    Strategic reminder:

    Remember: That was when vukcevic revealed the data source. Before then we all just wondered why a 22 year wave was being reported in LOD when no such thing exists. I contend that the “geomagnetic LOD” does NOT measure the same thing as astrometric LOD. HOWEVER, the geomagnetic data is telling us something important and it’s important that we NOT misinterpret it.

    It’s good that people (like RJ) are at least looking at it now. It has been a nearly 2 year wait for such a development!

    This reminds me of another file I have to review…

  48. RJ Salvador says:

    Are you saying I was mislead by the heading on the CAM-LOD data which implied it was another way to get at surface LOD.

    Quote from the data lead:
    ” The CAM is then transformed into an equivalent change in the length of the day as seen on the solid Earth by conservation of angular momentum. The predictions only give relative changes in the lod, therefore an arbitrary offset should be chosen in order that the predictions agree reasonably well with the lod series from astronomical observations. A value of 3.25 milliseconds has been added to the predictions to give the values presented here. Three different series are given rough, intermediate and smooth – they have different misfits to the magnetic data. The smooth model is the preferred one.”

    Are you saying the core and surface have different LOD?

  49. RJ Salvador says:

    For the record below is a graph of the historical CAM-LOD and the Astronomical LOD data.

  50. RJ Salvador says:

    Are you of the belief that the LOD surface and core are different and the core is moving to a different beat than the surface? That would imply that we should take the historical data at face value as we find it.
    This is not criticism , I just want to know what you are thinking.

    When I was working in research on a chemical engineering thermodynamics subject, (seems now like shortly after the discovery of entropy) I would find published data sets that were thermodynamically inconsistent. My thesis professor, at the time, wanted to call them out on it. All I wanted to do was finish and get the hell out of there.
    So I am little skeptical of data, particularly global temperature data and historical reconstructions. But I digress.
    The surface is clearly moving with respect to the core but is that what this is measuring???


  51. tallbloke says:

    R.J.: Two times the JEV =11.06964992 X 2 =22.13929985

    And 22.13929985 x phi =35.82 which is Landscheidt’s ‘big finger cycle’ – which is 1/5 of the Jose cycle of 179 years.


    Also note that 3 x Big finger cycle is 107.46 years.

  52. tallbloke says:

    R.J. ; I originally produced this plot in 2008, and uploaded it to wordpress in 2011. I think it confirms your line of inquiry. Note there is a 30 year lag between the planetary induced motion of the Sun wrt the solar system barycentre in the z axis and the LOD response. I think that’s due to the fact that the LOD response is a damped oscillation. The z axis motion is a 24 year (two Jupiter orbits) moving average of annual data.

    There has never been any doubt in my mind that multi-decadal LOD is externally driven by the gas giants, though I had no idea of the exact mechanism. OldmanK pointed to the theoretical work on gryoscopic precession which I think explains the effect.

  53. oldbrew says:

    TB says: ‘And 22.13929985 x phi =35.82 which is Landscheidt’s ‘big finger cycle’ – which is 1/5 of the Jose cycle of 179 years.


    What you see there could be the Saturn-Neptune synodic period: 35.854549y

    Broadly speaking:
    Hale / J+S = 2.618 = ϕ²
    Hale / J+N = 2
    Hale / S-N = 0.618 = φ (= 2.618 – 2)
    [‘+’ = axial, ‘-‘ = synodic]

    NB ‘Hale’ here means the theoretical mean period of the Hale cycle.

  54. oldbrew says:

    Rocks tell story of China’s great flood

    ‘When the dam burst, up to 16 cubic kilometres of water inundated the lowlands downstream.’

    They’ve carbon-dated it to ‘about 1900 BC’ when a massive natural dam on the Yellow River burst.

  55. tallbloke says:

    OB: What you see there could be the Saturn-Neptune synodic period: 35.854549y

    It’s certainly a linked phenomenon that one of the gas giant synodic periods coincides with the average period of Landscheidt’s big finger cycle, but all four of the gas giants are involved in that cycle, since it is describing the change in angular momentum of the Sun wrt the solar system barycentre. Saturn and neptune’s dispositions represent a minority percentage of those AM changes.

  56. Paul Vaughan says:

    Karl resigned but v4 has not yet been retracted.
    If I were Karl’s replacement I would want v4 off the books before I started.

  57. oldmanK says:

    oldbrew pointed to BBC’s “Rocks tell story of China’s great flood”. I’m more inclined to a date, now the famous ~2200. (with C14 dating some have a habit of frequently moving the goal-posts, perhaps to mislead, but ???)

  58. tallbloke says:

    Hi Paul V. I’d be interested in the answers to the questions R.J. asked you too, it’ll hopefully improve mutual understanding. Please could you address them.

    By the way, Pielke Sr posted years ago about Karl’s strong arm tactics here

  59. oldbrew says:

    oldmanK: from the report below … ‘Three children’s skeletons were found in the rubble of an earthquake, which is believed to have triggered a landslide, researchers said.’

    Read more at:

    Seems a bit shaky to move a historical event by 3 centuries based on such flimsy ‘evidence’. Can they be sure the deaths occurred at the time of the flood?

  60. RJ Salvador says:

    TB & OB:
    Thank you for the info on the Landscheidt’s big finger cycle. TB your graphic, which I have studied before, certainly indicates it is all connected and synchronized.

    Maybe everything can be expressed in terms of the spacial quantities φ, √5 and pi altering relationships through time.

    I will look at the NAO when I get some time. It will be awhile. Thanks for the data sources.

  61. tallbloke says:

    R.J.: Maybe everything can be expressed in terms of the spacial quantities φ, √5 and pi

    That’s where we were heading on the last long thread on this stuff.

    In fact, √5 is simply
    φ + ϕ
    φ + 1/φ

    And Pi can be expressed in terms of φ quite simply to within 0.1%
    (π-(4/√φ))/π = -0.000959022308782551 = -0.0959022308782551% is the formulation Paul derived to demonstrate this.

    So π ~= 4/√φ

  62. oldmanK says:

    oldbrew; had seen the link. Well, things do happen, but for a global something there has to be correlations from several other sites with same date.

  63. oldbrew says:

    Solar Activity Controls El Niño and La Niña
    by Dr Theodor Landscheidt

    Section 2: 11-year sunspot cycle and the Golden section

    ‘The 11-year sunspot cycle is not built symmetrically. The ascending part from minimum to maximum is shorter than the declining part from maximum to minimum. I have shown that the sunspot maximum divides the sunspot cycle according to the Golden section. It falls at the minor of this special irrational proportion. The Golden section divides a frame structure like a line segment, a surface, a cycle, or any other delimited feature so that the ratio of the smaller part (minor) to the larger part (major) equals the ratio of the larger part to the whole. When we set the whole equal to 1, we get 0.3819 … : 0.618 … = 0.618 … : 1. To find the major of the length of a cycle, it has to be multiplied by 0.618. Multiplication by 0.382 gives the minor.’

    Lots more – see link above.

  64. tallbloke says:

    OB: If the letters ‘P-H-I’ were written up in the night sky in 1.618 million mile long neon tubes it couldn’t be any more obvious.


  65. Paul Vaughan says:

    TB & RJ, have you read the papers on how they estimated the geomagnetic field and modeled CAM from it? Their “CAM” is not CAM. They’re misinterpreting.

    LOD can be modeled from Hale-filtered year-over-year differences of the square-root of geomagnetic aa index. We went over that like 7 years ago.

    Their CAM matches NEITHER that nor astrometric LOD. Their model assumptions are wrong.

    What I find REALLY interesting is that their wind estimates are highly sensitive to the VOLATILITY of Earth’s most ferocious surface winds over the Southern Ocean. Hopefully everyone realizes that their estimates of the geomagnetic field are biased by NOT ONLY wind SPEED, but also wind speed VOLATILITY. (Here I’m applying the statistical (not sociological) definition of “bias”.)

    They’re misinterpreting what they measured and modeled. They apparently lack sufficiently deep intuition about the statistical properties of the aggregation criteria they’ve applied.

    I suggest reviewing the multivariate coherence of the pile of variables I layered on the 96 illustrations.

    If they hired me I could extract the LOD signal they seek from their estimated geomagnetic field. It wouldn’t look like their CAM. Their CAM is geophysically informative, but it doesn’t estimate LOD. Rather it estimates something about pole-pole contrasts and the meridional wind field and/or something confounded.

    Misinterpretations don’t help advance geophysical awareness. They’re calling it “CAM”, but it’s actually a modeling estimate of some other (useful but not for the purpose they had in mind) geophysical parameter.

    Please try not to lose focus here. There’s a centennial pole-pole contrast in climate that doesn’t affect the global average. We are probing its multivariate spatiotemporal structure.

    A request, please: Let’s not get dragged off on some precious-time-wasting unproductive tangent just because the mentors of some geomagnetic MODELERS educationally failed to address aggregation criteria with sufficiently provocative philosophical depth. That should touch neither your day nor mine. We can stay focused on what we know based on OBSERVATIONS. Mainstream modeling sucks. We know that. It’s nothing new. We can say we saw it again and move on with broader awareness and more sensible interpretations of the MULTIvariate observations we have of the interhemispheric centennial wave.

    Bottom line: There’s an observed interhemispheric centennial geophysical wave and it’s coherent with ENSO volatility …and there’s plenty more discussion to be had about it….

    [ :

  66. RJ Salvador says:

    Your solar motion and lod also looks like the Integrated NAO.

  67. Paul Vaughan says:

    “Wind” is shorthand for water hosing …and glaciers fall from the sky.
    ENSO volatility is about the power of poleward tropical warm wet pulsation.

    …so the poleward continents get weighed down and some fluid pressure patterns change down under the crust somewhere and some volcanoes blow and wind belts move simultaneously.

    Look at it holistically.

    All this sh*t is coupled and something is pulsing a centennial wave in the power of the turbulence ripping through the system. Step back and just look at it. Never mind cause-and-effect for a minute. Just look at it. All this sh*t is coupled and the power of the turbulence ripping through it has a centennial pulse.

    “96” is a fun placeholder name with fun astronomical roots but the main thing to note here is that we have this ridiculously high pile of geophysical variables that all pulse together in this “96” (or centennial or whatever you want to call it) way, including poleward blasting of wet warm tropical water and sub-crustal explosive pressuring that finds volcanic outlets blasting all the way to stratosphere. It’s the whole f*****g thing.

    Maybe it’s time to just say this: I think some of this geomagnetic modeling theory is just total BS. What looks obvious to me is that they’re making false assumptions about the structure of the field. Much of what they appear to ascribe to the core theoretically appears in observations to be MUCH closer to the surface. I suggest more focus on core-mantle boundary fluid pressure & flow patterns. They’ve got something fundamentally wrong and they’re lost in their false modeling assumptions. This minor mountain of geophysical coherence is a sign-post directing sober review of their stubbornly entrenched modeling misconceptions.

  68. Paul Vaughan says:

    Conflating mean and volatility and blend and contrast doesn’t help sort and classify pattern…

    z-axis motion long-period is N which nearly equals the length of the long JEV wave (indistinguishable at the timescales for which we have data), which beats with the “60 year” JS cycle to give 96.

    Remember: 96 is in the contrast, not the blend. (I keep repeating this because I sense that the spatiotemporal significance of this fact is not yet registering…)

    This is about systematic sorting and classification of multivariate spatiotemporal pattern. Remember: Multidecadal separates from centennial in ERSSTv3b2.

    “96” derives from geometry and aggregation criteria.
    The different groupings of coherent variables are rooted in geometry and aggregation criteria.

    MEAN and VOLATILITY are NOT the same thing and BLENDS are NOT CONTRASTS.

    I think I’ve confused people and this has become a serious communication setback.

  69. oldbrew says:

    ‘Existing field studies extending back 10 thousand years show greater geomagnetic variability in the
    southern hemisphere than in the north, and lower average field strength.’

    Click to access EGU2015-8159-1.pdf

    International Geomagnetic Reference Field: the 12th generation [IGRF-12]

    ‘In particular, the minimum of magnetic intensity (see Figure 1 bottom), also known as the South Atlantic Anomaly, has continuously drifted westward and decreased since 1900. The point of minimum intensity at the Earth’s surface is currently over Southern Paraguay and is expected to cross the political boundary with Argentina during the second half of 2016. Maps of the predictive annual rate of change for D, I, and F between 2015 and 2020 at the Earth’s surface are shown in Figure 2. They are consistent with the continuation of the long-established westward drift and deepening of the South Atlantic Anomaly.’

    Figure 4
    The northward velocity of the geomagnetic dip poles in the northern (purple dots) and southern (orange crosses) hemisphere as estimated by IGRF-12 on the WGS84 spheroid.

    The northern purple dots take off in a big way after the late seventies.

    IGRF-12 comments:
    ‘The north magnetic pole appeared to be accelerating rather smoothly over the last century (Figure 4) from about 5 to about 50 km/year with an increased acceleration around 1990 (Chulliat et al. 2010).’
    ‘Perhaps the most striking feature of IGRF-12 is that the north magnetic pole appears to have started a phase of deceleration with a velocity of about 53.2 km/year in 2015 and a projected velocity of 42.6 km/year in 2020. Note however that the later estimate relies on the predictive (SV) part of IGRF-12 for epoch 2015.0 to 2020.0 and that retrospective analysis has shown that errors could be significant’

    Limitations of the IGRF

  70. Paul Vaughan says:

    I don’t think the NAO reconstruction reconstructs NAO. It does however estimate an interesting climate parameter …but I can’t regard that parameter as NAO.

    If/when RJ models the “60 year” wave in the “NAO reconstruction” integral, you’ll see that “60” isN’T centennial. I had to provoke like this to help people start to realize independently that EOF3 is not EOF4.

    A little review as I think perspective is getting lost:

    EOF1 is the sunspot integral and southern hemisphere temperatures.
    EOF2 is ENSO.
    EOF2 + EOF3 is “96”.
    EOF4 is a “60 year” north-south Atlantic contrast (what some would call AMOC).

    What makes the puzzle interesting is that different sets of aggregation criteria give different insights. These are NOT mutually exclusive criteria, which means that we’re looking at the same thing (climate) through COMPLETELY different partitioning lenses, based on different criteria.

    An EOF/PC decomposition does not directly identify the solar cycle length differintegral even though it’s obvious in SST north of the thermal equator (a different partitioning criterion), but you can recompose the PCs/EOFs to extract SCL from the SST field. So in other words there are complementary decompositions that are mathematically equivalent even if that is not obvious to untrained eyes comparing aggregation criteria.

    “96” has nothing to do with the global mean. I’ll keep repeating that because I’ve observed that in climate discussion there are always a lot of participants who think “climate” is just global average temperature. But let’s call that for what it is: ridiculous.

    “96” is a spatial contrast that flips over in time without affecting the global average …but it matters for regions …AND INTERPRETATIONS OF REGIONAL PATTERNS GET REALLY SILLY WHEN PEOPLE ARE IGNORANT AND/OR DECEPTIVE ABOUT AGGREGATION CRITERIA.

    When people talk about the North Atlantic in particular the misinterpretations due to spatiotemporal aggregation criteria ignorance are problematic and formidable. I worry that even NATO is basing strategic planning on extremely bad — incompetent to be blunt — “expert” opinion.

    EOF4 is a contrast of sunspot integral and solar cycle deceleration. It isn’t “96”. It isn’t NAO/AO/NAM …and yet people talk about NAO as if it’s synonymous with AMOC (Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation). Well, it isn’t. That’s a misinterpretation.

    We’ve got a lot of work on our plates. It’s not a TIME-ONLY puzzle. It’s SPATIOtemporal and whenever people build a time-only model I want to ask them FOR WHAT SPATIAL PATTERN is that temporal model??? And where are the models for the other spatial patterns???

    What I really want to be doing is finishing cracking the puzzle. Conveying it loosely, the next level is about how IPO relates to a spatiotemporal harmonic of “96”. I felt I was very close to cracking that piece of the puzzle when communication about sloppy “CAM” modeling (not at all a good use of our time) sidelined my attention and focus. Maybe the moment will come back during the coming months. Maybe it won’t.

    Anyone looking at NAO reconstruction: I suggest comparing it with the integral of other AO/NAM/NAO integrals — i.e. look at an empirical ensemble. What you’ll find is that this is neither “96” nor AMOC, which is a wake-up call. MOST people are misinterpreting AO/NAO/NAM & AMOC. Correcting this is going to be a piece of work. Herding cats type of work.

    …Okay, I’ve just decided to leave that piece of work for someone else!

    [ :

    I’m going back to beloved exploring …but I will illustrate “96” in some new formats to see if that helps promote better digestion.

    Honestly I thought there would be a lot more interest in this. I mean the coherence with explosive volcanism is just wow! and that Southern Ocean centennial SST wave has been on minds for years …and here’s a whole collection of variables doing the exact same thing. It was a mystery due for better classification and sorting.

    …but maybe what I failed to anticipate was that since this is a SPATIAL contrast that does NOT affect the global average, a lot of people might just be puzzled about why it interests me so much and why I’m not instead modeling global averages with a time-only approach …but I sure hope that’s not the case! Anyone thinking that way needs to stop and think about this: Why is the BDO (bidecadal oscillation) not in the ENSO mean instead of in the ENSO volatility? Fundamentally it’s an important question with which to provoke philosophically.

  71. tallbloke says:

    Paul V, many thanks for this extensive clarification and enlargement on your thinking. Plenty there for us to chew on. I agree with you that models of what the modelers think generates a reconstruction of Core Angular Momentum are not reliable. I also agree we should think for ourselves about what the OBSERVATIONS are telling us. I also agree with what you are saying about the centennial pole to pole see-saw contrasts not affecting GLOBAL averages (much).

    I do think there’s more going on in the z axis than just the peak to peak N periodicity, but I’ll work quietly on that and come back later with my own summary.


  72. oldbrew says:

    Study: Sunflowers Move by the Clock

    ‘This behavior of sunflowers had been described by scientists as far back as 1898, but no one had previously thought to associate it with circadian rhythms.’

  73. RJ Salvador says:

    Thank you for your thinking on the subject of spatial temporal climate effects. That clarified for me many of you previous post on the subject. The climate spatial difference in the north and south with a 96 year contrast that is neutral to temperature is a concept that I had not grasped until now. I have not found 96 in any work I have done. But I have not looked at contrasts across spatial differences.

    So CAM goes into the dust bin and we can move on.

    Thanks again!


  74. oldmanK says:

    from oldbrew: “Study: Sunflowers Move by the Clock”. Plants are far more complex than that.

    A curiosity:

  75. oldbrew says:

    Climate science: Cooling in the Antarctic

    ‘The Antarctic Peninsula has been warming for many decades, but an analysis now reveals that it has cooled since the late 1990s. Inspection of the factors involved suggests that this is consistent with natural variability.’

    So ‘natural variability’ trumps other real or imagined ‘factors’.

    Also: Antarctic Sea Ice Increase A Thorn in the Side of Global Warmers

    Paper: ‘Antarctic sea ice increase consistent with intrinsic variability of the Amundsen Sea Low.’

  76. tallbloke says:

    OB: Amusing to see the paper is by one Eric J. Steig. The same guy who smeared the continent red with dodgy stats a few years ago, and then became one of the peer reviewers of the paper by sceptics which debunked his methodology.

  77. Paul Vaughan says:

    Confusion over the North Atlantic and conflation of AO/NAO/NAM with AMOC based on false assumptions is getting SO ridiculous. This really underscores the need for better sorting and classification of features. People need to STOP AND THINK MORE CAREFULLY.

    Frankly I think Rahmstorf is lying. It’s time to just say so. I cannot accept that a man with his knowledge could actually believe the storyline he fed the media. Like as if he does not know that deep North Atlantic WIND mixing happens in winter. We’ve animated that here at the talkshop and we’re not so-called “mainstream experts” …nor do we want to be such a thing!!!

    – –

    RJ wrote:

    “So CAM goes into the dust bin and we can move on.”

    In name only.

    The problem is one of interpretation.

    They’ve derived some informative quantity and called it “CAM” but it’s actually something else that’s coherent with a pile of variables. Or maybe I should say maybe it is CAM, but it’s not LOD!!

    Whatever it is it’s coherent with a pile of variables I’ve illustrated and as we see in the RECURRING North Atlantic controversy (linked immediately above and we’ve discussed this controversy in depth in past talkshop discussions), this is an area needing FAR more careful sorting and classification of pattern — the way a botany taxonomist would do it …and one of my past mentors was exactly that with extreme specialized awareness.

    Differentiating hybrids via morphological features can be challenging.

    Aspects of the phenotype can mislead about the underlying DNA.

    Some species bank on such a strategy. For example some NON-poisonous butterflies MIMIC poisonous butterflies TO ALARM potential predators into not striking for learned fear of WARNING COLOR pattern.

    Rahmstorf’s a false advertiser and I cannot believe that a man with his knowledge actually thinks the natural DNA is poisonous.

    We don’t retire CAM.

    Rather we ponder better interpretations of it and what it tells us that there’s this huge pile of “96” variables with coherence. Remember: 96 is a SPATIAL pattern. Whenever I say “96” I’m talking about a spatial pattern, NOT a period people should be looking for in global averages!!! (I’ll keep repeating it as most newcomers seem to automatically assume climate is “global average temperature” and nothing else!!)

    Let’s recall what started this journey: Bob Tisdale’s graph of Southern Ocean Sea Surface Temperatures (SST) several years ago. There’s a centennial wave. It puzzled everyone and aroused NATURAL curiosity.

    I noticed that a lot of people just ignored it because it made no sense to them that it didn’t match some “60 year” cycle or look like of some global average T graph they were used to.

    With that approach, MISINTERPRETATIONS of REGIONAL climate variability WILL BE ONGOING and alarm fraud based on mimicry and warning color instinct can more easily be manufactured by climate dark agents.

    My advice to party leaders: Duly appreciate and respect domineering nature. Don’t plan your economy based on the assumption that everything (mean, volatility, whatever) derives either linearly or from a landmine series of hidden thresholds (“tipping points”) on a CO2 curve. I’m VERY curious to see if USA will vote to surrender to that mindset in the fall.

  78. Paul Vaughan says:

    TB wrote:
    “I do think there’s more going on in the z axis than just the peak to peak N periodicity, but I’ll work quietly on that and come back later with my own summary.”

    I just want to make sure the community is aware of what I’ve pointed out several times:

    1/N ~= JEV long wave period


    statistically 1/N = JEV long wave period at the timescales for which we actually have data

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

    This is about mindfulness. Whatever else we discuss — some of it in complementary fashion — may it be in a context of broader mindfulness.

    The natural landscape is rich and ripe for ever-deepening mindfulness.

    I wasn’t sure if you saw the geometric connection between your graph, JEV, & 96.

    Viewed as just a time-series we see only 165, but 96 comes into focus with mindfulness of JS geometry and consequent spatial contrasts. (Remember: Blends are not contrasts …something we’ll repeat as often as necessary in support of fundamental truth.)

    In summary: Natural tropical volatility and aliased polar spatial contrast is not a function of hidden tipping points on a CO2 curve! Rather it’s a function of alignments of QBO, the semi-annual oscillation, and the tropical year. (Hopefully everyone remembers that LOD has CLEAR semi-annual, annual, & QBO parts …and remembers the derivation I’ve given of 96 from them several times.)

    …and there TB is the geometric connection (via spatial contrast) between your LOD insights (insights about the blend, to be neither confused nor conflated with the contrast!), Southern Ocean SSTs, integrated meridional wind, polar volcanic deposition, “CAM” (whatever informative geophysical quantity it actually estimates), ENSO volatility, etc.

    A word of caution to everyone:

    The thing a lot of people call AO, NAO, or NAM is a conflation of 2 other things (including AMOC) and this is getting really difficult to discuss because existing labels are too limiting for where the discussion needs to go for next level mindfulness. I’ll give it some thought. There must be a way…


  79. Paul Vaughan says:

    I’ve spent some reflective time reviewing the files and I’m settling on this perspective for now:

    • Like Sun rotation, Earth rotation is differential.
    • Core LOD, Land LOD, Ocean LOD, Atmosphere LOD, etc. are NOT equal.
    • Shell LODs vary as a function of shell partitioning criteria.
    • Even though it relies on modeling (always a concern), CAM is also based on observations (so sort of like reanalysis) and it may be the best available estimate we currently have of Core LOD.
    • CAM is NOT a good estimate of Crust LOD. Astrometric LOD is a better estimate of crust LOD.

  80. Paul Vaughan says:

    Something to think about:

    The atmosphere rotates faster than the crust so (global) water vapor LOD and (global) cloud LOD are greater than crust LOD (…and there’s local variation).

    The discussion above caused me to review old files with the benefit of hindsight. I have new insights on western European eastward geomagnetic field variations in connection with Rahmstorf’s neurologically instinctive dangerous-warning-color-pattern defensive-mimicry campaign.

    Here’s an experiment idea: Hire a research psychologist specialized in visual pattern recognition to test degree of subject alarm when presented with arrays of geophysical patterns organized NOT ONLY by color BUT ALSO BY GEOMETRY AND SHAPE. So for example within subsets of different patterns represented with the same colors, what is the psychological impact of pattern geometry and shape? I bet more alarmist research funding is available for this kind of research than for fundamental climate exploration.

  81. stuartlarge says:

    I have a problem bookmarking your site book, sometimes it just does not show new editions.
    If you had a “home” button I would find it easier to check.
    I like you blog and read it everyday, but the last article I can find is aug 1st


  82. tallbloke says:

    Stuart Large: When the top article has a black dotted line round it, new articles appear below that one, because it has been pinned to the top of the page. Just scroll down a bit and you’ll see them.

  83. oldbrew says:

    There is a Home button [‘Blog Home page’] at the foot of the web page.

  84. oldmanK says:

    Following the various links yesterday I came to this link at WUWT [ here: ]. It is about the Holocene.The graph shown was based on GISP2, and gisp2 is a curiosity cum problematic. So I made some fiddling with Photoshop to check out.

    Some time ago I was checking some info from Wiki [from here: ]. The aim was to compare polar temperature changes with equatorial. I used GISP2, Vostok and Kilimanjaro (lifted from Wiki; similar proxies). I found that the sudden temperature rise at the Younger Dryas for gisp2 occurred ~1100 years after the other two. Impossible????? When moved there were some interesting correlations between Gisp2 and Vostok–which are well known–.

    Superimposing WUWT’s graph on mine, the two gisp2 graphs agree nicely and show the same chronological anomaly. And when gisp2 is moved to correspond with the other two at the YD, then there is interesting peak correspondence, particularly at 2400-2200 region. There they show fast polar warming but equatorial cooling. This region is interesting because tree ring dating indicates global events. But also indicating that the gisp2 timescale is off. And that makes nonsense when this period is linked and compared to historical eras (on WUWT graph) like the Minoan and Roman periods which cannot be moved for these are well known from elsewhere.

    The compared graphs are here:
    The dashed line curves are from Wiki with gisp2 moved. Light green is gisp2 from WUWT and dark pink is same but moved to correlate with others.

    Has this been noticed before?

  85. RJ Salvador says:

    Below is a two graphics update of the 1000 year sunspot model to the end of July 2016. Cycle 24 is unusual in that it started in January of 2008 but its activity did not increase for two years. Then cycle 24 produced a prominent second peak. The model forecasts that cycle 24 would end about June of 2018. That seemed unlikely until the recent rapid decline in sunspot number. There is no point in making models if no forecasts are shown and predictions followed up. Right or wrong we learn something.

  86. Paul Vaughan says:

    MEIx volatility (i.e. the negative of the ENSO volatility index) can equivalenty be interpreted as a La Nada Index.

    Zonal & meridional terrestrial piping are crossed.
    La Nada is a qualitatively different disturbance regime in the pipe crossing architecture.

    Conventional time-only modeling approaches to cherry-picked aggregations — e.g. modeling the global mean with NO attention to spatial asymmetry (an OBSERVED feature of the REAL spatiotemporal world) — are very nice from a Lukewarmist point-of-view, as they ensure the cover of false modeling assumptions (like uniformity) will never be blown.

    The spatial information exists to use as a diagnostic tool …and yet the time-only distortion crew keeps sweeping it under the rug when you’re not looking …so look. Watch and you’ll see it being done right in front of your eyes.

    The attitude is: “Spatial information? I couldn’t be bothered with making sure the model matches that inconvenient OBSERVED constraint. I’ll just cherry-pick an aggregation and assume uniformity …and sneakily be quiet about the diagnosed false implicit assumption of my illustrated narrative!”

    Yes we learn something…
    Modeling Provocation:

    Why can BDO be found in global BLENDS but NOT in north-south CONTRASTS?…

    Tip: LOD is predominantly a blend. CAM is predominantly a contrast. BDO scrambles naive perception of the preceding.

    AO/NAO/NAM & AMO perception and reconstruction are distorted by failure to differentiate.
    Alert: For you 96 = 60 if you’re buying conventional North Atlantic narratives.

  87. Paul Vaughan says:


    Perfectly coincident with minima of the integral of SAOT (stratospheric aerosol optical thickness), I’ve identified a DISCRETE SWITCH in the Globigerina bulloides abundance series of Black+ (1999) (an Atlantic Ocean meridional SST gradient indicator).

    This is an ITCZ switch coupled to the North Atlantic SubPolar Gyre. This volcanic aerosol regime switch is a long missing link in North Atlantic multi-decadal–centennial conceptualization.

    This has been both a tantalizing and vexing puzzle for a long time, but suddenly something simple became apparent: a constant offset between GB abundance and solar cycle deceleration between ~1885 & ~1965 accounts exactly for the uniqueness of the SubPolar Gyre spatial correlation pattern in the more general context of interhemispheric SST contrast.

    The interpretation is a physical bias dictated by a presence/absence aggregation criterion — something like a qualitative change in north-easterly versus south-easterly trade winds …what you’d expect from an ITCZ location switch.

    Another satisfying moment in climate exploration with clear views from on high …and yet another reminder that we can’t ignore wind-belt architecture evolution.

    There are implications for LOD interpretation. LOD isn’t just about temperature. It’s about pressure fields and wind …and circulatory architecture evolution more generally.

    As emphasized with accompanying illustration on S-19: Contrasts DIFFER from blends. I’ll work on clarifying illustrations in forthcoming weeks.

  88. tallbloke says:

    Thanks for the update R.J.
    I think we’ll see some unexpected behaviour from the sun over the next decade, but it’s hard to tell when with any certainty..

  89. Paul Vaughan says:

    Now that other things have come into focus I’ve gone back for diagnostics on the relationship of LOD with multidecadal temperature. It’s related to the half-derivative or -LOD+LOD’ if you prefer.

  90. tallbloke says:

    Paul V: LOD isn’t just about temperature. It’s about pressure fields and wind

    It’s also about the relative positions of Jupiter, Saturn, Earth-Moon and Venus, if the success of R.J.s model is anything to go by. Now we also know solar activity is synchronised with planetary motion, and that affects cloud/wind too, so there may be some confounding of variables going on, but I think it’s one of those ‘all of the above’ situations where all these factors contribute.

  91. oldbrew says:

    The Lunacy of Pledging to Eliminate Fossil Fuel Use since Wind and Solar Are Not the Answer to Much of Anything
    Alan Carlin – August 5, 2016

  92. oldbrew says:

    K2’s First Five-Planet System

    ‘The system’s candidates include two sub-Neptune-sized planets, which were both observed over multiple transits. They orbit in what is nearly a 2:1 resonance, with periods of 31.7 and 15.6 days. Based on modeling of their transits, Vanderburg and collaborators estimate that they have radii of 2.6 and 2.9 Earth radii.’

    ‘The system also contains three larger outer-planet candidates: one Neptune-sized (~4 Earth radii), one sub-Saturn-sized (~5 Earth radii), and one Jupiter-sized (~10 Earth radii). These planets were detected with only a single transit each, so their properties are harder to determine with certainty.’


  93. Paul Vaughan says:

    From OB’s link:

    “Professor Valentina Zharkova:

    Some of them were welcoming and discussing. But some of them were quite — I would say — pushy. They were trying to actually silence us. Some of them contacted the Royal Astronomical Society, demanding, behind our back, that they withdraw our press release.

    I BELIEVE permanently dismissing 6 particular commentators from the climate discussion could CHANGE THE WORLD.

    Do you believe?

    Believe brother. Believe!!!!

    I’m quite serious. It will change the world in a VERY SUBSTANTIAL WAY if they are PERMANENTLY dismissed by next Friday.

  94. Paul Vaughan says:

    TB commenting on LOD…

    “It’s also about the relative positions of Jupiter, Saturn, Earth-Moon and Venus, if the success of R.J.s model is anything to go by. Now we also know solar activity is synchronised with planetary motion, and that affects cloud/wind too, so there may be some confounding of variables going on, but I think it’s one of those ‘all of the above’ situations where all these factors contribute.”

    The most important modeling anyone could possibly do is solar cycle length.

    Readers may recall that I ran diagnostics on RJ’s sunspot model and commented on the possibility of further constraining the model using observations of solar cycle length.

    I’m here to volunteer strategic diagnostic support should RJ ever decide to pursue what I regard as the most strategic modeling any climate enthusiast (academic, professional, hobbyist, whatever) could do at this point in time.

    I’m also the first person to respect that people have limited time and resources.

    I’ll post an interesting illustration soon to help inspire and/or motivate RJ or whoever else. It’s a nice little insight about LOD geography that ties in with some other things we already know about solar cycle length and deceleration. It’s a very satisfying insight.

  95. Paul Vaughan says:

    The first successful solar cycle length modeler should receive a MAJOR award.
    This is presently the MOST pressing and MOST URGENT problem in climate research by far.

  96. RJ Salvador says:

    There are only 23 data points for cycle length and the error in many of the early dates could be significant. Any insight into a mechanism that would overcome this lack of granularity it would be welcomed.
    Awards are for the Olympics.

  97. oldbrew says:

    Latest ice core analysis methods.

    Ancient Ice Reveals Vital Clues About Earth’s Past Climate

    ‘A technique called continuous flow analysis allows them to slowly melt a one-yard stick of ice and analyze it drop-by-drop, instead of cutting it into small pieces, melting them one-by-one and averaging the results. The new technique gives scientists up to 2,400 measurements per yard instead of 20, Vaughn said.’

  98. Paul Vaughan says:

    RJ, if you’re referring to cycle length estimates like the following…

    …be aware that they are systematically biased by aggregation criteria that discard nearly all of the recorded cycle length information. They pick one phase on which to apply calipers and discard all others. That by itself (one setting on a dial) could be part of a more general exploratory scheme (all settings on the dial considered), but they stop there. Such artificial restriction of aggregation criteria puts blinders on exploration.

    Suggestion: Use a complex (as in complex numbers, not as in complicated) set of calipers to do the measurements — for example wavelets …but not conventional wavelets. Conventional wavelet parameters are resolution, grain, & span, but (as I’ve counseled the community repeatedly for years) a vastly superior class of wavelets that mathematically subsumes all fourier methods includes a 4th parameter: extent.

  99. Paul Vaughan says:

    In case it isn’t obvious:
    Cycle length modeling is multivariate.

    More generally I advise the community to switch from univariate modeling to multivariate modeling so that all of the constraints available from observations are allowed to influence models.

    In particular spatial configuration accounts for +/-35C. That is something natural to appreciate and respect rather than bafflingly discard as if irrelevant.

    Realistic modeling needs to be multivariate in more than one sense.

    First we have observations on multiple geophysical fields (e.g. SST, SLP, wind, etc.).

    Second we have observations at multiple times and places and it’s MATHEMATICALLY IMPOSSIBLE to model a contrast with a blend. I’ve watched in amazement as univariate modelers toss out observation-based information that’s available to constrain models towards realism (including realism that doesn’t completely ignore observed contrasts).

    Third — and this is the big one philosophically — we have aggregation criteria.

    Progress on #1 & #2 is feasible. However:

    I’m not optimistic at all about humanity’s readiness for #3. Not at all. No one is discussing it sensibly anywhere. I’ve only ever encountered a single individual with the patience and drive to try to think about it carefully. Everyone else buys the standard cultural assumptions (unconsciously it seems). Voluntary subscription to such a set of blinders is baffling, but it’s easy to see that the cultural entrenchment is formidable. I would even describe the cultural entrenchment as ominous. Effective leadership on this front will have to be profoundly luminary.

    All of the preceding considered collectively may appear overwhelming, but this isn’t defeating. There are smart ways to REDUCE multivariate information to a few things that really matter. I’m here trying to help with that. Small steps… Maybe multivariate sounds intimidating, but I think the community’s ready for 3 or 4 variables simultaneously to get things started.

    …and a lifelong or intergenerational pursuit is to further contemplate #3. Meanwhile I have a few workarounds in mind that may help get people working the problem without realizing it…. (illustrations forthcoming….)

  100. RJ Salvador says:

    OB and PV
    The statement by Professor Valentina Zharkova about lack of southern hemisphere measurements
    “Whatever we do to the planet, if everything is done only by the sun, then the temperature should drop similar like it was in the Maunder Minimum. At least in the Northern hemisphere, where this temperature is well protocoled and written. We didn’t have many measurements in the Southern hemisphere, we don’t know what will happen with that, but in the Northern hemisphere, we know it’s very well protocoled. The rivers are frozen. There are winters and no summers, and so on.”

    is the big unknown that could upset a lot of climatic ideas. We are a western science based and most of the world has been hidden from this base until as PV would put the date “the opening of the Panama canal”. That is when a lot more world wide information started to appear on climatic conditions.
    It’s getting interesting starting right now.

  101. oldmanK says:

    Further to my earlier post: GISP2 and Vostok oxy isotope are known to correlate closely. The data is from the GISP2 site itself, see here:

    The peak at around 2400-2200 bce, pointing to an event as already said above, agree in the Vostok-Kilimanjaro date, and are supported by other evidence coming from various sources that are mutually unconnected (but agree as to event date), leading to GISP2 being the one bearing erroneous dating. Why ??????

  102. oldbrew says:

    Textbook story of how humans populated America is ‘biologically unviable,’ study finds

  103. tallbloke says:

    R.J and Paul V; Timo Niroma analysed the dates of Solar Max and Min on his website here:

    He found a distribution in SCL which looks like this.

    10.3 is JEV and 11.9 is J

  104. RJ Salvador says:


    Here is a thought experiment. Times are in earth years. Imagine 2 equal size planets A and B in the same 50 year circular orbit (no tilt) around a sun that has a sinusoidal solar output that oscillates over 100 years. The planets are identical smooth spheres with non condensing gas atmospheres except planet B has a spatial feature of an albedo that is high on one side and low on the other with a gradual transition between the two sides. Both planets rotate once on their axis very 10 years. Scientists on planet A measure the temperature variation at high noon for 100 years and get a sine wave result of frequency 100 years. They produce a function for temperature based on solar output and one on time. On planet B a scientists gets a variable temperature result that is of course different because of the spatial feature. They know the results for planet A and contrast them. They see a 10 year frequency sine wave caused by albedo. They measure B planets albedo and produce a function for temperature in the two variables of solar output and albedo. It gives the same result as a two sine wave function with time as the single variable.
    A function with respect to time is okay if the spatial can be described as varying with respect to time.

    Now let’s complicate the picture with a planet C that is in the same orbit, has the same rotation and is identical to A and B except the northern hemisphere of planet C is like planet B and the southern hemisphere is like planet A. Clearly each hemisphere is going to impact the other’s temperature in some way. What data does a scientist C need and how does he analyze it? What does a contrast of temperatures between hemispheres reveal? A spatial feature and a fluid dynamics temperature driven process etc. etc.?
    For further thought and discussion.


  105. Paul Vaughan says:

    This may be what I was recalling about wind speed cubed from earlier Suggestions:

    Air-sea CO2 exchange function of wind speed cubed

    Click to access 1999_geophys.pdf

    Same for wind-mixing of ocean (which rips apart stratification).
    KNMI Climate Explorer caters with “wind speed cubed” hyperlink:

  106. RJ Salvador says:

    I don’t know if this has physical significance or not. I integrated the ENSO and NAO, took their difference and passed a best fit curve through the result. The three frequencies that gave an R^2 0.87 are 248, 51, 29 years. The 248 is highly suspect since there is only 145 years of data.
    Below is the curve.

    Does this tell us anything????

  107. Paul Vaughan says:

    As I’ve said many times, Niroma’s methods are subsumed by a broader class of methods that can be used to more thoroughly explore the available information about solar cycle length. I’m recommending that perception not be limited to a fraction of what’s possible.

    RJ suggested: “A function with respect to time is okay if the spatial can be described as varying with respect to time.”

    Circulation (including albedo which is tightly coupled with it) is nonlinear. +/-35C (contrasted with fractions of a degree) depending on land/ocean layout and consequent physical aliasing …like glaciers seasonally falling from the sky.

    Additive sinusoids alone is too limiting. There are on/off switches like accumulating or not accumulating and wind mixing of ocean or not depending on ice cover presence/absence. Those are just a couple of obvious examples.

    But this is no problem. Modeling a switch is easy and the model of LOD can morph into a model of solar cycle length to be later integrated into the sunspot model.

    The thing I think people overlook is that things like whether a wind branch shoots one way or another relative to a spatial discontinuity (e.g. ITCZ) changes everything qualitatively.

    The teleconnections in the system aren’t perfect. The coupling isn’t that tight. So due to spatial disparity, coupled time series run in and out of phase with one another on different timescales.

    The observations tell us this. I’ve documented hundreds of examples. We should not ignore what is observed.

    This is not to say we have to model every single time series. There are broad generalities. The more important thing to keep in mind is that the time series chosen for modeling may not be the best multivariate data reduction for time series modeling…

    For example compare the various ENSO indices with NPI, IPO, SPCZ, water vapor, SSH, etc. etc. etc. They all measure the same coupled thing, but there are differences in the series and that will affect the model terms.

    An educational example to focus on:

    Decadal polar motion and IPO go together for decades and then the phase relationship flips over perfectly. That indicates a spatial reorganization. You can make 2 models (one of decadal PM & one of IPO). They will differ. Which models the fundamental underlying process?? (Do either?)

    Broader generalities and deeper awareness emerge with comparative exercises. (I know we agree on that.)

    I suggest modeling decadal PM & IPO side-by-side to see how the relative phase-reversal affects model terms. Such an exercise may immediately make a point (for readers) I’m failing to make otherwise. I’ll dig for the 2 time series and post them.

    …And then we can ponder the question:

    What if we had one of those series and were ignorant of the other (because it hadn’t been sampled, we didn’t know about, or whatever)?

    I think it will be educational and illustrative to compare the 2 models side-by-side. How would one know which model captured the underlying time series (if either) without awareness of how the 2 different variables sample the underlying time-dependent process?

    There may be some other geophysical variable that’s broadly similar to LOD that represents the true underlying process and LOD is just the imperfect sample we have of it.

    When I talk about aggregation criteria I’m talking about sampling.

    I once knew a statistician who said, “I don’t question the data. I just model them perfectly.” Well, what if we’re misinterpreting what we sampled? What if we sampled something that at times runs perfectly out-of-phase with the underlying fundamental process? I think that might be enough word elaboration.

    Ignorance of switches is the sampling-interpretation and modeling problem. Exploration can overcome it.

    What we’ve got is a braided, cycling circulatory topology from which we sample in ignorance of braiding evolution and aggregation across braid-boundaries. The times series we have don’t necessarily represent the underlying time-dependent process.

    If we’re smart, aware, and also patient, we can sort out perception obstacles. We compare the series that have similarities and sort out the relative phase-reversals and try to figure out which time series comes closest to the underlying time-dependent process and isn’t just a reflection of spatial reorganization or ignorant sampling and integration across MOVING discrete boundaries, etc.

    This is about diagnostics rather than just assuming the sampling and aggregation regime is perfect. I don’t think MEIx represents the true underlying time-dependent process. Nor LOD. I believe there are phase-reversals of varying duration in those series (relative to underlying time-dependent fundamental processes) due to sampling and aggregation issues of which we’re ignorant. It’s a turbulent multi-faceted system and we sample and aggregate in ignorance of lacing structure.

  108. Paul Vaughan says:

    RJ, the integral of that particular NAO reconstruction is a blend of PCs 3 & 4 and the the integral of MEIx is a blend of PCs 1, 3, & 4, so it’s no surprise that the contrast shows broad similarity with PC1.

    Rather than write more long paragraphs to (try to) make points I may switch to just illustrating and posting data. (That way I’ll have time to actually illustrate and post data!)


  109. Paul Vaughan says:

    Reminder: Solar_Cycle_Length_beats_algebraic_proof (I can keep reminding for another 5 years…)

  110. oldbrew says:

    Astrophysicists discover mechanism for spiral-arm formation in disk galaxies
    August 11, 2016

    Strong evidence for the density-wave theory of spiral structure in disk galaxies, The Astrophysical Journal (2016).
    DOI: 10.3847/2041-8205/827/1/L2

  111. oldbrew says:

    Climate models predicting hotter drier summers in Europe need drastic revision.

    Surface Frost Strikes Germany As Mid August Temperatures Shatter Old Records!

  112. Paul Vaughan says:

    RJ & others, I’ve never mentioned this before, but RJ’s last illustration gives occasion. We know there’s a 1/(2J) term in LOD (PC4). I suspect a 1/(2S) structure in SAM reconstruction (PC1). Putting the 2 of them together gives the long JEV cycle and the “25” term in the (phi-based) solar system Hale Core Model. It’s going to be such a piece of work sorting this all out…

    Freeing the mind to explore as RJ has done is the way to break free of the militant brainwashing and thought-policing which I have observed has even left its enduring marks on a leader as free-spirited and strong as TB. Let’s all wash ourselves 100% clean of organized thought-containment campaigns led by people who are smart enough to fool most of the people all of the time.


    Recombine after sorting and classification.

    New insight.

  113. oldbrew says:

    Energy storage: holy grail or pie in the sky?

    ‘US energy chief makes bold claim for storage technology’

    ‘The US Department of Energy is funding 75 projects developing electricity storage, mobilizing teams of scientists at Harvard, MIT, Stanford, and the elite Lawrence Livermore and Oak Ridge labs in a bid for what it calls the ‘Holy Grail’ of energy policy.’

    Place your bets 😉

  114. Paul Vaughan says:

    Peak summer recordings….

    “Bad Berleburg: 0°C
    Carlsfeld: +1°C
    Nürnberg: +2°C
    Carlsfeld: -1°C
    Braunlange: 0°C
    Neuhaus am Rennweg: 0°C
    Feuchtwangen: +1°C”

    Nobody will believe it happened.

    “Quality” control algorithms will flag these observations and they will end up in databases with a symbol indicating “missing”.

    Research assistants will consult their “superiors” who will agree there has been a data truncation. The values will be corrected to:

    “Bad Berleburg: 20°C
    Carlsfeld: +21°C
    Nürnberg: +22°C
    Carlsfeld: -21°C
    Braunlange: 20°C
    Neuhaus am Rennweg: 20°C
    Feuchtwangen: +21°C”

    Don’t laugh.
    That’s what will happen.

    No one’s going to believe the data are accurate.
    Past news reports won’t stop algorithmic adjustment.

  115. oldbrew says:

    Another climate hobgoblin rolls off the production line: the ‘neoskeptic’…

    Panel offers advice on how to combat climate-change “neoskepticism”

    This means ‘people who believe that using money to combat the problem of rising global temperatures due to human greenhouse gas emissions is a waste, in large part because scientists cannot prove one way or another what might happen.’

    This type of propaganda tries to get people to take for granted that ‘the science’ is correct, which is a dud in its own right. Climate models are notoriously wide of the mark, and always in favour of non-existent levels of warming. They never draw the obvious conclusion that their ‘climate drivers’ don’t work.

  116. Paul Vaughan says:

    Consensus Investment…

    Money paid out to synchronize models …to build consensus:

    “Even if the models manage to agree on global averages they surely don’t agree on regional changes.”

    They’re starting to get it that they can’t evade natural multidecadal credibly.
    Look at the bottom right matrix cell (CMIP5):

    Marcus (researching multidecadal LOD) is now independent from NASA JPL (so they say) …but (given the link-trail) what new affiliations (?) one has to wonder…

    I think it would be interesting to run some diagnostics on some of these models, particularly the ENSO ones. Do I think the models would pass basic diagnostics? No.

    I’m working on LOD illustrations, but the insights are ballooning and there just isn’t time to communicate. Probably I’ll be forced to settle for conveying a fraction of the insights.

  117. Paul Vaughan says:

    “Steinman et al. (2015) [with co-author Mann] […] Using multiple climate models, they generate
    an average of all climate simulations. The resulting time series – a multi-model ensemble-mean – is their defined forced signal.”

    “forced” all right!
    Trying to force a consensus is all!

    That’s a beyond-ridiculous statement.
    This is one of the all-time biggest goof-ups I’ve seen in climate discussion.

    Still raising intense suspicion…

    In their reply (published in Science), note that Kravtsov, Wyatt, Curry, & Tsonis don’t even mention the solar cycle length differintegral:

    Click to access Kravtsov_et_al_2015.pdf

    It doesn’t get any more creepy.

    As the community may recall I terminated correspondence with Marcia Wyatt (it has been years now) because she could not or would not be serious about the solar cycle length differintegral.

  118. oldbrew says:

    Alan Carlin on CO2 data – are increases in CO2 mostly natural?

    ‘If the CAGW hypothesis is correct, major increases in human-caused CO2 emissions should result in a substantial increase in the rate of increase in atmospheric CO2 levels. After all, the alarmists maintain that decreasing human CO2 emissions will slow or even prevent global temperatures from increasing by reducing the rate of increase in atmospheric CO2 levels. But Dr. Murry Salby has recently claimed that human-caused CO2 emissions doubled in the period 2003-13. If so and if the CAGW hypothesis were correct, this should have resulted in a greatly increased rate of increase of global levels of CO2, but instead the rate of increase in atmospheric CO2 levels has remained the same as before 2003 according to Salby. He argues that this data imply that at least 75% and more likely 97% of the increases in atmospheric CO2 is of natural origin, which would not be impacted by the changes in human emissions so strongly advocated by the climate alarmists and USEPA.’

    ‘So where did the alarmists go wrong? They assumed that global temperatures are determined by global atmospheric CO2 levels even though the evidence suggests that just the opposite is the case.’

  119. oldbrew says:

    From Michele’s link – August 13, 2016 at 1:49 pm (Signs of Cycle 25 Seen in the Surface Toroidal Field):
    ‘The typical “11-year” cycle take approximately 16 years to move from high to low latitude.’

    6 x 16 = 96

  120. Paul Vaughan says:

    “Regarding their first point, Kravtsov et al assert (in their second reference/note) that the standard deviation of the mean of internal variability is not exactly zero only because the data were filtered before analysis [figure 2 and figures S2 to S4 in (2)]. This is true, however, only if the full ensemble of realizations, N, is used in the calculation. If (N-1) realizations are instead used as is the case in our analysis, the standard deviation of the mean is not zero (regardless of whether the data are filtered beforehand) (3). Our method for assessing statistical independence is valid.”

    “By this rationale, the CMIP5-All mean provides the best overall estimate of the forced signal, with an uncertainty that can be estimated (among other methods) using bootstrap resampling [figure 3C in (2)].”

    They know multidecadal’s not independent of LOD, but they’re not being honest (with themselves or us) about the dependence of this statement on assumptions (spatiotemporal and otherwise).

    There are too many people involved in the climate discussion who do NOT understand that all statistical inference (NOT to be confused with data exploration which differs fundamentally by NOT being dependent on a model) is based on model assumptions.

    No one even does diagnostics on their inferential model assumptions. Frankly I don’t think they’re even aware they should …and I don’t trust they would competently know how …and/or I don’t trust they would report publicly with integrity.

    The perfect example is the “0.1 degree C” per solar cycle narrative. It’s a classic and comical textbook example of wool-over-your-eyes ignorance: It fails elementary diagnostics …and no one even checks!!

    Their concluding sentence:

    “Our regression-based approach (2, 6), by contrast, yields faithful estimates of the internal variability.”

    “faithful” indeed

    I don’t think the choice of that word was any accident.

    If the American public proves incapable of correcting these people (which I believe WILL be the case we observe), China’s our one hope.

    When time permits I will convey a series of illustrations referencing systematic coupled volcano-climate disturbance regimes to a half-derivative-LOD—SST correlation map to underscore mainstream ignorance of geometry …simple geometry included.

  121. Paul Vaughan says:

    “Our method is based on the principle that internal variability is uncorrelated among distinct realizations of a large ensemble.”

    “We define the AMO, PMO, and NMO as the difference between the observations and estimated, regional forced temperature series for each of the three respective regions, low-pass filtered at a frequency of 40 years in order to isolate multidecadal variability (27).”

    “The results of the target-region regression analysis show for each of the three model ensembles that the estimated internal variability components derived from the various realizations are statistically independent, as they should be if the method is performing correctly […]”

    “Under the assumption that the observational temperature series are the sum of a forced component and the real-word realization of internal variability, we estimate the true historical internal variability component as the residual series after the forced components are removed.”

    “[…] incorrect partition of internal and forced variability. We have demonstrated that our target-
    region regression method correctly isolates the internal variability components.”

    Click to access SteinmanEtAlScience15.pdf

    The Mann & Wyatt sides in this debate are both lost.

    We’ll never correct these people. They’re unable and/or unwilling to be corrected.

    – –

    Modelers may be brilliant at computer coding but they shouldn’t be so deeply lost in everyday coding challenges that they never step back to simply realize a blend is not a contrast.

  122. Link :




    EM force SC25 =< EM force SC24 ?

  123. Paul Vaughan says:

    It’s time to start getting serious…

    LOD-climate coupling

    Click to access 00b4953c511af6d441000000.pdf

  124. Paul Vaughan says:

    ^ That’s LOD-volcano-climate coupling. ^

    Prepare to have your mind warped BY REALITY.

  125. oldbrew says:

    Our Tilting Solar System Could Hint at Properties of Proposed Planet Nine

    ‘…if Planet Nine exists it provides a nice theoretical explanation of our tilting Solar System.”

  126. Paul Vaughan says:

    Space-time distribution of explosive volcanism

    Rumor has it that explosive volcanoes are NOT distributed randomly in time and space.

    Similarly there’s a rumor that land-sea boundaries and western boundary currents are NOT distributed randomly in time and space. Same for sea ice margins.

    More specifically one rumor is that all land-sea boundaries occur along coastlines.

    Lukewarmist American Republicans (not so kindly) ask members of the international community to dismiss such rumors and submit to the climate agenda because their financial master thinks a financial model brings certainty to his business plans no matter what nature does.

    (sarc) sounds like a safe bet (/sarc)

  127. Paul Vaughan says:

    We need to speed things up…

    RJ, you’ll get different models for these:

    You could tabulate model similarities and differences for comparative insight.
    If you’re handy with multivariate methods, you might go steps further.

    Exploration Update: I’ve figured out the phase reversal:

    The (mean) baselines of
    meridional ENSO
    zonal ENSO

    I’ve been COMPARATIVELY studying how DIFFERENT ensos relate to the solar wind.

    The solar wind controls the ENSO baseline.
    The phasing of the meridional baseline and the zonal baseline is the root of that phase reversal.

    Back in 2010 or whenever it was when I started studying explosive volcanism in relation to solar wind I was looking at the following ENSO (& nearly-ENSO) indices: NPI, PDO, PNA, & SOI.

    In more recent years I broadened my outlook to comparative empirical ENSO ensembles as I became more lucidly aware and appreciative of subtle differences dependent on ENSO aggregation criteria.

    A final, FIRM conclusion I draw today:

    The zonal wind ENSO baseline is coherent with solar wind.

    Remember: LOD alone does not span multivariate EOP space. PM gave the clue I used to diagnose the axial geometry.

    I’m growing very concerned about the climate corruption in the United States. My hope is that China will call their bluff by this Friday.

  128. Paul Vaughan says:

    North Pacific (NPI) / Arctic (AO) multiscale coupling strength flames doused hard by southern volcanic injection (red symbols):

    interpretative caution: edge effect before 1905 & after 2005.

    Years ago I did not sufficiently appreciate the capacity of chemical distribution changes in the atmosphere to rock circulatory architecture. We can’t do the time-only thing. The multi-level wind-belt & water-hosing architecture (which determines teleconnection pattern) gets rocked by solar wind.

    The circulatory geometry & topology isn’t static. Because of the spatial dimensions the time-only correlation can go either way (up OR down) as architectural reconfiguration can be shocked in more than one direction. Hence the need to consider not just the mean but also the extremes (volatility).

    Years ago I prototyped a method for embedding complex oscillations to explore mode-coupling evolution. I can now see how to develop the method (and other methods) further to clearly empirically underscore zonal-wind ENSO-mode coupling to the solar wind. Will I have time for the tedium? Maybe not, but it’s clear in concept at this stage.

    With better attention to qualitative sorting and classification based on observed circulatory architecture evolution it will be possible for patient and/or bright explorers to see the spatial directions underpinning the temporal volatility. Without attention to background spatial configuration at the time of strikes, there’s no way to predict which extreme the temporal mean will rock towards …meaning temporal prediction will be limited to aggregate volatility and not extensible to temporal mean …until spatial geometry steering of time-cycles is sorted and classified by spatiotemporal modelers (not to be confused with time-only modelers) with due care.

    On the crude illustration above, look at the timing of the strongest coupling flame: AO & NPI merged (and then blew apart) during the Chandler Wobble phase reversal.

  129. Paul Vaughan says:

    Here’s an empirical ensemble of ENSO indices at polar-motion group-wave timescale (Gaussian 6.4 years) to support early-record versus late-record comparative multivariate study (with sampling evolution) of ENSO baseline coupling to solar wind kinks and volcanic explosivity index (VEI) clusters:

    As/when/if time/resources permit, more ENSO indices will be added to the ensemble.

    Please: Can I get some acknowledgement from community members that a time-only modeling approach — naively ignorant of spatial dimensions, geometry, and coupling-sign — can go upside-down-wrong?

    We’re running out of time folks in the international community. You need to get serious and fast to clarify to the corrupt lukewarmist american campaign that our patience with their deception has expired. According to the information I have, at this point they still think they’re going to force the wool over the international community’s eyes to ram through their climate agenda, even if it means staging a coup in their own national election. Let us firmly show them that our tolerance for aggressive sun-climate bullying and deception has expired. My hope is that China will join us in demanding that the americans start being truthful with the world about sun-earth relations.

  130. Paul Vaughan says:

    Why does explosive volcanism cluster at solar wind and IPO change-points??

    Come on NASA JPL. Is there some (perhaps formal) reason why you do not speak of this??
    Is it (FORMALLY) unspeakable? Come on. Is there some reason why you’re not boldly speaking the truth??

    And here’s another serious question:
    Why are NOAA’s “bias” “corrections” PERFECTLY COHERENT with these features OF NATURE??

    You can taste the corruption it’s so thick in the air.
    This is underhanded DECEPTION (international community we have to call it) to put the rest of the world down.

    The appropriate thing to do is appreciate and respect nature.
    More illustrations are forthcoming.

  131. Paul Vaughan says:

    Folks, they’re busy rewriting the records TO ERASE this coherence from the observations (ERSST v4 from v3b2). Don’t you think that perhaps you should say something about it? The silence of the California dark agents about this is telling. It will be up to folks from OTHER places to balance against that bold, dark deception …by letting in a flood of sunlight.

  132. Paul Vaughan says:

    The solar wind can apply it’s influence EAST OR WEST.
    East and west ARE DIRECTIONS.

    One step closer to freedom from american lies…

    Tomorrow I’ll illustrate the other axis (meridional). (If you assume meridional ENSO matches zonal ENSO, you’re wrong.)

  133. oldbrew says:

    Professor Brian Cox clashes with Australian climate sceptic [Malcolm Roberts].

    As usual the ‘consensus’ card is played, to answer the question ‘where’s the empirical evidence?’ [of man-made climate change].

    Malcolm Roberts on Q&A.

    It’s OK – Cox has a graph 😉

  134. oldbrew says:

    Why is Mercury so far from the Sun? [compared to some exoplanetary systems]

    ‘…our solar system may have had an anti-aligned magnetic field that prevented any planets from forming closer in than 0.3 AU, thereby offering a possible explanation as to why Mercury is so far from the Sun compared to the closest planets in roughly half of other planetary systems.’

  135. oldmanK says:

    Question: In “Why is Mercury so far from the Sun? “, isn’t the magnetic field the result, or follows from, an already formed system? My ‘guess’ would be for the same reason sun and planets acquire spin.

  136. oldbrew says:

    Generally speaking: no magnetism without electricity.

    ‘As Ampere suggested, a magnetic field is produced whenever an electrical charge is in motion.’

  137. oldbrew says:

    Seismic Activity and Global Warming: How Might They be Related?

    Not sure if this study is on the right track, but may be worth a look.

  138. oldmanK says:

    Something different:

    F*** ups like these are the norm, and it seems to be increasing. It *nice* to find that out at startup. Forget ISO9001, nobody really follows them.

  139. RJ Salvador says:

    OB says:
    “Not sure if this study is on the right track, but may be worth a look.”

    Indeed there maybe something to this. Below is an integration of PV’s VEI data and the El Nino index. There appears to be coherence with the Volcano Explosivity Index leading.

  140. oldmanK says:

    I delayed looking at oldbrew’s recent link (commented on by RJS)

    The last line in that link says a lot: “seismic activity is the leading indicator, while global temperature is the laggard.” I recall pointing to a graph of mine indicating seismic upheaval in Holocene effecting polar versus equatorial temperatures, particularly circa 2345bce, supporting Dodwell. (but no good news!).

  141. Paul Vaughan says:

    Remember (I’ll keep repeating it…):

    East-West, North-South, & Up-Down ARE DIRECTIONS

    Explosive Volcanism, Chandler Wobble amplitude, and ENSO are coupled and governed by Solar Wind:

    Digest carefully & comparatively (sampling, aggregation, multivariate coupling).

    The solar wind is kinky.
    It whips (or blows if you prefer) Earth this way and that.
    Earth’s response is explosive & clustered.

    To state it memorably:
    It’s a kinky cluster-f***.

    Sun plays Earth like an instrument.
    “Lightning strikes every time she moves” — Rihanna

    Mneumonic devices aside,
    Note particularly how Meridional ENSO baseline differs from Zonal ENSO.

    California Luke: “When you think the final nail is in, think again…” — Katy Perry

    Next Up: Heliospheric Asymmetry….

  142. oldbrew says:

    If there’s a really big volcanic eruption e.g. Pinatubo, there’s a strong possibility of temporary cooling.

  143. oldbrew says:


    Jeremy Berg, new editor-in-chief of Science Mag, warns scientists are straying into policy commentator roles.

    Obviously phoney predictions about Arctic ice, hurricanes etc. don’t help.

  144. RJ Salvador says:


    Where did you get solar wind data of such a long time frame?

  145. Poly says:

    I have been looking at your Aug18 18:14 Solar Wind ensemble graph.
    Please can you comment on the following apparent anomalies. (Of course, I may not be interpreting the patterns correctly) ;
    1) 1903; solar wind very low but VEI has a high spike
    2) 1963-65 and 2007-10; solar wind falling rapidly but VEI high.
    Keep up the good work. Prediction of volcano and earthquake activity is the holy grail. The social and economic risks and consequences are huge.

  146. Paul Vaughan says:

    Poly, the clusters occur at highs AND lows — i.e. at kinks in the evolution. I have no interest in prediction. “I’ve got a job. I explore. I follow every little whiff.” — Tragically Hip

    Here we can flag up some REALLY interesting areas for further exploration and we can also draw some really HARD conclusions. It’s a satisfying mix. It’s the satisfaction of discovering and knowing some things FOR SURE along with the even more satisfying intoxication of knowing FOR SURE there’s deeper exploration in our sights attracting us.

    Some of us enjoy the chase more than the catch. Here we got both.

    All the way around it’s nourishing win-win and there are some days when it just feels so good to be in love with nature and natural beauty. I don’t understand all of these people who have such a hate on for nature and natural beauty.

    Anyone modeling ENSO in ignorance of solar wind and explosive volcanism?? …makes me suspicious.

    The really interesting thing here: the systematic phase reversals. Lots more illustrations to go….

    The comparative 1945 & 1950 cluster-associations with IPO ensemble-members are highly informative. So many layers to this simply beautiful masterpiece of Nature….

    When I saw meridional ENSO comparatively, whole arrays of lights came on….

  147. Paul Vaughan says:

    RJ, in early 2011 I linked to solar wind estimates here.

  148. oldmanK says:

    Something Poly says above caught my eye ” Prediction of volcano and earthquake activity is the holy grail. The social and economic risks and consequences are huge.” . The consequences can be far greater than thought, therefore the causes need to be understood much better.

    PV says : ” it just feels so good to be in love with nature and natural beauty.” Even more so when understanding of nature is deeper. But recall that the ‘gods’ that controlled nature were hated and despised by ancient man, for their cruelty towards life and humankind. ‘Explosive volcanism’ was a main source of cruelty the gods resorted to. But that is the ‘bang’. What is the trigger?

    In my locality, when Etna growls and throws a tantrum, frequently it is preceded by increased activity around this sector of the ‘ring of fire’. Why???? Crust relaxation?,,, but to what cause?? Someone linked it to changing polar ice load.

  149. Paul Vaughan says:

    RJ, for you or anyone else trying to model these things I’m exploring, I would suggest that a multivariate approach is necessary.

    I’m recommending comparative exploration of models in contexts where prediction is premature.

    For example all these ENSOs that differ (the low frequency parts in particular): Which one is it that someone/anyone should be modelling? My answer: ALL of them …comparatively …and not just means, but other summaries as well (JOINT constraints).

    In the early stages I wouldn’t see the goal as predicting but rather evolving comparative insight and instinct to support sorting and classification of spatiotemporal pattern. I’m recommending that people finish sorting out spatiotemporal patterns before predicting.

    I’m a little suspicious — ok extremely suspicious — of the motives of writers like Larry Kummer (wuwt & ce). Exploration is orders of magnitude more fundamental and more basic than science …but never mind if this is getting too philosophical — rather we can just do complementary contribution to be practical so long as it’s clear to the community that I’m opposed to prediction where exploration is incomplete.

  150. Paul Vaughan says:


    I’ll keep repeating it…

    “Apart from all other reasons, the parameters of the geoid depend on the distribution of water over the planetary surface.” — Nikolay Sidorenkov

    Yes that includes polar ice.

  151. oldmanK says:

    PV, thank you for that little repeat.

    I googled that, partly out of curiosity. It is from this older thread : It is an interesting read, in my case from some years from before I stumbled on this site. ( and I would recommend a re-read). Some links made interesting reading, and I post a little tit-bit here:

    “Consensus” does not exist in science – but facts do. Computer models can provide great inside knowledge – or can be utterly wrong, the latter for sure if the data behind it are “cooked.”

    Perhaps I should also be repeating something, nauseating as it may be. If it remains a basic assumption that between 5000 and 2000bce obliquity obeyed the mathematical model, then we remain still running blind. GF Dodwell was on the right track and I added to his ammo. Those are facts and no one I know got round that.

    Those events had nothing to do with burning fossil fuels. After 2000bce things went quiet. As i see it everyone seems to be looking in the wrong spot (like some historians – history does not exist if it is not scripted in the Latin or Greek works, —and yet its all over the place in Mathematica).

  152. Paul Vaughan says:

    oldmanK, I assume everyone reading here is familiar or deeply familiar with Sidorenkov’s work including his book on circulation. I’ve been repeating that quote (many times) for years.

    I’ve observed that few climate commentators do MULTIVARIATE diagnostics on their modeling. We have the data to place JOINT constraints on models including models used to do prediction and yet people throw that information away and produce predictions that are not jointly constrained using all available information we have. A basic requirement of climate modeling should be that it also models EOP (Earth Orientation Parameters).

    If EOP can’t be output from a climate model, modelers aren’t even trying to model HYDROLOGY correctly.

    Grossly philosophically-inadequate exploration and interpretation of coupled multivariate sampling and aggregation is leading to predictions that are NOT constrained to match all available information we have from observations. People don’t even try.

    When I talk about “loving” nature I’m doing that on purpose (tactical provocation) to put the haters in a contrasting light

    …It’s rich hypocrisy. They claim to love nature, yet they hatefully scold anyone who shows DUE appreciation and respect to nature and the natural beauty of natural geophysical variations. They hatefully attack all exploration of the beauty of nature. It’s the hypocrisy of the haters I’m underscoring. What they’re up to is POLITICS, pure and simple. And the hypocrisy is knife-cut thick.

    As for your Dodwell promotion, a reminder: I’ve asked you to link to a plain-text data-webpage.

    – –

    Perspective on the SOLAR WIND coupling to IPO:

    We’re talking about a very small fraction of RESIDUAL variations, but it’s the fraction that obsesses and perplexes people.

    Sunspot integral and solar cycle deceleration account for the 82% of multidecadal-centennial variations. The residual 18% is ENSO. We’re down to exploring leftovers…

    …and IPO is the LOW-frequency component of ENSO (a fraction of the 18%).

    The “96” and sun-blown volcanism explorations diagnose sampling and aggregation hindrances rooted in false spatiotemporal assumptions.

    The circulatory architecture isn’t static. (No matter how many times this is emphasized I’ve noticed that commentators just lapse back into false topological assumptions.)

    Sampling and aggregation issues are being totally ignored. It makes NO sense that people just ignore the MOST interesting part of the IPO / polar motion puzzle, which is ALIASING from a circulatory architecture that KEEPS RE-BRAIDING ITSELF.

    Anyone who thinks the assumed (implicit in the act of prediction) sampling criteria are met IS NUTS …or at least willfully blind!

    A stationary monitoring system GUARANTEES aliasing from the RE-BRAIDING structures. The topology flaps around the monitoring station and we sample from a multitude of jets and eddies and no one bothers to DIAGNOSE THAT by SYSTEMATICALLY varying the aggregation.

    My counsel: Never mind notions of sober, sensible prediction before the sampling and aggregation issues are SORTED AND CLASSIFIED. This is a rich, nourishing puzzle due to the layers of multivariate aliasing from the re-braiding circulatory structures.

    I counsel that an order-of-magnitude more exploratory sobriety is needed before rushing naively and blindly into ill-informed prediction. I advise abandoning ALL prediction and formal writing (this is a strategic provocation where I see community lapses and voids) to reallocate floods of resources to raw exploration.

    I’ve always found it fascinating how people get yanked around by ENSO’s every turn. It’s just a left-right push-pull thing flapping around a zero-sum attractor.

    The thing to do is map out the coupling structure of multivariate IPO and multivariate solar activity. This is the path to more enlightened diagnosis of sampling and aggregation issues confusing people (it’s so comical to watch) about volcanic ENSO.

    There’s plenty of scope for comparative exploratory modeling to contribute to the diagnostics, but I regard all ENSO prediction ignorant of false sampling and aggregation assumptions as premature, counterproductive, misleading, etc.

    I’m advising a tactical prediction-boycott to underscore the prerequisite need for sound interpretation of multivariate observations.

    I endorse none of the prediction methods currently in use. I advise better exploratory sorting and classification of multivariate coupling structure.

    For reassuring perspective in case people aren’t connecting multivariate dots with ease:
    We each have a different role to play. Different roles can be complementary.

  153. oldbrew says:


    ‘The rotation of the relatively large and stable preceding sunspots and that of the α sunspot groups located in the same hemisphere have opposite rotational direction in 2003 and 2014/2015.’

    ~11 year sunspot cycle behaviour – study.

  154. Paul Vaughan says:

    I’m repeating this because it’s important:

    “My hope is that China will join us in demanding that the americans start being truthful with the world about sun-earth relations.”

  155. Paul Vaughan says:

    Coarser-scale aggregation of CW amplitude for comparative study:

    At this stage the challenge is not prediction but rather interpretation.

    The sun is strumming the lunisolar strings.

    Those trying to model enso with just lunisolar are focused on the strings without the excitation of strumming. (sarc) Wow, look at those strings sitting still (/sarc) …and then look what they do when the sun strums them up and down, left and right…

    Remember, this is just about leftover variation. We’re trying to interpret the spatiotemporal leftovers from the main (82% sun-climate) accounting. Interpretation: There’s a (solar) spatial steering effect (volcanic ENSO) not accounted for with a time-only global approach.

    It’s worth the effort to carefully interpret these plots and ones that will follow (heliospheric asymmetry). I believe the work has already been done and classified. We’re just very slowly rediscovering the wheel in our leisurely spare time whereas someone with the time, resources (including algorithmic), and prerequisite aggregation criteria foundations could blast right through this flow-geometry puzzle at 10000 times the speed.

    Some of you might want to start reviewing the sunspot asymmetry files in anticipation of forthcoming illustrations of systematic DIRECTION phase-reversals in IPO–solar-wind relations …which get comically misinterpreted with a time-only approach. (You can’t just add sine-waves ignoring direction switches.)

  156. Paul Vaughan says:

    “At this stage the challenge is not prediction but rather interpretation.”

    Let me rephrase that:

    At this stage the challenge is not prediction but rather SPATIOtemporal interpretation.


  157. oldmanK says:

    PV thanks for the long post (and the bother).

    To go straight to your reminder, I collected all and will post at the end of this thread:

  158. oldmanK says:

    PV sorry, no ‘Leave reply’ box there, so its below.

    1. Original doc only as web-page here:
    glean the important from this.

    2. Another investigation by A Wittmann here:….73..129W/0000129.000.html Wittmann does the same thing as Dodwell and leaves it with an acknowledged question-mark.
    Wittmann link

    3. My input you only find here : the only way I could publish without taking a big bite of my pension is with Amazon, but I post enough data on the Facebook site specifically for anyone from this blog site who follows matter. You won’t find it anywhere else.

    4. Re dating of events this site is also useful.

  159. oldbrew says:

    Zero sunspots in solar southern hemisphere from 17-31 July 2016.

    Click to access monthlybull201607.pdf

    1,4 and 25-27 July: no sunspots in either hemisphere.
    (None on 3,5,6, and 25-30 June either).

  160. RJ Salvador says:

    Work by Zharkova and others have found a rate of change relationship (first derivative) in the northern or southern solar magnetic field and the sunspot number. I have checked this out and it appears to hold true. If there were no sunspots in the southern hemisphere of the sun then the southern hemispheric magnetic field was not changing at the time. A look at the Stanford magnetic field data confirms this.
    From a modelling viewpoint this allows sunspot data to be tied to magnetic field data and probably everything else since the suns magnetic field is huge. All of PV’s graphics indicate things happen at inflection points and these things are all dancing to some big tune and looks like the BIG W in the era of the past 150 years. Sorry to be so cryptic.

  161. oldbrew says:

    ‘It is possible that the convecting, magnetized, ‘ocean’ beneath the Sun’s optical surface could exhibit similar global-scale wave behaviour to those readily observed in our atmosphere and other planetary atmospheres in the solar system.’

    Article: ‘The solar magnetic activity band interaction and instabilities that shape quasi-periodic variability’

    Figure 2: Magnetic variability over the last three decades. [From: see link above, includes notes on Fig. 2]

    ‘All panels show a thick vertical dashed line indicating the time of sunspot maximum and the lower two panels show dot-dashed lines at 55° to delineate high- and low-latitude variation.’

  162. Paul Vaughan says:

    oldmanK, a simple link to plain-text data-webpage quickly engages data exploration. (I’ll be analyzing the data seconds later.)

    Here’s an example for geomagnetic aa index:

    An alternative is to post the data in a comment here (by wrapping it in code & pre tags).

    1868  1  10.5
    1868  2  15.9
    1868  3  19.6

    I did not find data at any of the links you gave. I await simply-formatted data.

  163. Paul Vaughan says:

    Given how easy it is to make progress exploring this while with an old computer and no time to finish developing prototyped software, I’m confident that full-time professionals working for some navigation and guidance branch of some government departments of military power nations should have this whole thing cracked to 100% completion with ease.

    It should be a breeze for professionals in such a well-supported setting.

    To be more clear:
    I’m confident the solution is already known and classified.

    I know exactly what software I need to develop to finish cracking the puzzle. I literally don’t have the time and the resources.

  164. Paul Vaughan says:

    RJ, Please take care to differentiate between VEI & SAOT. Not all VE is stratospheric.

    An integral of VEI may yield useful and or complementary info vital to puzzle-solving, but it’s not isolating qualitatively-unique stratospheric coupling like an integral of SAOT. This matters for meridional pattern. VEI is always there in zonal at the equator, but coupling to the stratosphere (when the braids line up the right way) connects to the poles. It’s too vague the way I’m stating this and I’m orders-of-magnitude short on the time needed to state it clearly, but even a note this vague should be enough to alert of a diagnostically qualitative hydrocirculatory difference between VEI & SAOT (which you’ll also find emphasized in conventional literature). We can exploit the difference.

    This may be an opportune time to introduce explorers to a further confounding beyond the confounded N and long-JEV cycles.

    harmonic of 19.8658067707802 nearest 2.36971803266583 is 2.48322584634753
    (2.483225846)*(2.369718033) / (2.483225846 – 2.369718033) = 51.84264304

    harmonic of 51.8426430428219 nearest 0.5 is 0.498486952334826
    (0.498486952)*(0.5) / (0.498486952 – 0.5) = 164.7294278 tropical years = 164.7230354
    sidereal years

    So that’s an aggregate circulatory structure from semiannual aliasing of QBO aliasing of BDO …and not-so-mysteriously it matches the long-period on TB’s classic LOD graph.

    We’ll come back to this later.

  165. Paul Vaughan says:

    Polar Motion & Hale 101 brainstorming…

    harmonic of 22.14 nearest 6.4 is 7.38
    (7.38)*(6.4) / (7.38 – 6.4) = 48.19591837

    (22.14)*(6.4) / (22.14 – 6.4) = 9.002287166
    (11.07)*(9.002287166) / (11.07 – 9.002287166) = 48.19591837

    2*(48.19591837) = 96.39183673

    harmonic of 11.07 nearest 6.4 is 5.535
    (5.535)*(6.4) / (5.535 – 6.4) = 40.95260116

    (40.95260116)*(48.19591837) / (40.95260116 + 48.19591837) = 22.14

    2*(40.95260116) = 81.90520231

    The ~40 year thing is evident in CW amplitude — what traditionally has been called Markowitz Wobble. (Caution: There are misleading estimates of MW period.)

    The ~80 year thing is evident in SAOT tower & tower-cluster spacing (temporal translation symmetry).

    IPO is looking less mysterious by the minute.

    Sidorenkov worded it right. The sun is throwing water around, changing pressure patterns on the crust.

    Ignorance/Deception Alert: Don’t believe the recent NASA JPL press release suggesting this is a NEW insight. It has LONG been known that sea surface height (SSH) is coupled to temperature …and other variables (including wind) in a multivariate bundle. Pretending it’s a new insight rouses suspicion…

    The draft timing-framework above is a bit crude. Later I’ll refine it to account for cycle length changes (notably CW & solar cycle).

    It should be possible to estimate multivariate IPO, CW, and explosive volcanism phases relative to multivariate solar activity. In the past I prototyped the needed software.

    The arctangent function is extremely sensitive. Exploring conventional methods I discovered 4 commonplace errors corrupting phase estimates: one involving span shortcuts (intended to save on computation time but with side-effects), one involving end-effects (very easy to correct as I’ve mentioned before), and one related to insufficient smoothness. I solved all 3 problems. It wasn’t that hard.

    I believe I can adapt the prototyped methods to next-level the current exploration. This multivariate puzzle is sorting and classifying very cleanly. That’s a sign that we’re approaching geometric lock.

    Reflection: I knew about the coherence in 2010 and although I was looking at solar variables using multivariate methods it was a few more years before I realized with sufficient lucidity the degree, nature, & exploratory significance of variation in climate indices measuring the same thing. The empirical ensemble view was a cognitive game-changer when I started applying it.

    Interpretive reminder: Polar motion measurements before the mid 1960s were crude and they were an additional order of magnitude more crude before 1900.

  166. oldmanK says:

    PV sorry about Wittmann link. here, this is opening every time.….73..129W

    As to the other material that is all there is, in that format. You will not find those kernels of fact anywhere else, in any other format that is near enough to original. I have tried to obtain Dodwell work in the original form but to no avail.

    Pls allow me one comment. In the case of Dodwell and Wittmann, ignore for a moment their analysis. Go to the basic data, the ancient measurements, and make a first analysis yourself. In my input ignore first my comments, read the evidence from the plans of the ancient structures themselves. They tell the story. I’m afraid the informative evidence does not come in plain text, but it is more reliable than a lot that is presented from the prolific sources.

    Link edited [mod]

  167. oldbrew says:

    Study reveals meteorological impact of 2015 solar eclipse

    ‘…cloud cover has a much greater effect than wind on the air temperature’s response to an eclipse.’

  168. Paul Vaughan says:

    oldmanK, I’m not able to access that link. It’s demanding an account and login (things I don’t do). Please copy and paste the data into a comment posted here. (The other links I’ve seen before.)

  169. Paul Vaughan says:

    Comic Relief…

    Top Headline I just found when I checked conventional mainstream Canadian news:

    “Feds spent $10,681 on photos of Catherine McKenna and her staff during Paris climate change talks”

    would love to see someone like JoNova tear into this comedy

  170. Paul Vaughan says:

    …Remember that’s the minister chumming around with Mark Carney pitching climate politics to Toronto business.

  171. oldmanK says:

    PV , the link modified by admin (with tks) works each time. Its pdf (not pay-walled) –but have not managed to copy/paste it.

  172. Paul Vaughan says:

    No oldmanK, It’s the facebook link. I’m not willing to do accounts and logins. Plain-text data link or no go.

  173. Paul Vaughan says:

    Natural History Interpretation

    CW phase reversal tip from ICOADS2.5 Wind Speed PC2 — look at the familiar bracketing:

    The way EOF works is it pulls out big sources of variation that differ in some qualitative sense from other parts of a picture.

    ICOADS EOFs carve out some features that some explorers might be inclined to write off as sampling methodology related signals…

    …but here’s a big heads up:

    These things are real signal. We can no longer look at the “1940s blip” as methodology related. It’s real signal and with sound interpretation we’re close to understanding why.

    We’re looking at a MASSIVE synchronization.

    bright Green flash:

    Sun rocked Earth hard with a whirlwind strike.
    During Charvatova’s Trefoil, Earth was a ripe sunflower.

    I remember my Dendrology prof doing forest history interpretation. He was a master. We’d go out to some site and he’d find fire scars and talk about shade tolerant saplings coming up under r-strategy post-fire opportunists in natural succession etc. He was patient. He would go around looking at all the clues piecing it all together carefully. It was an inspiration.

  174. oldbrew says:

    This is the pdf of the Wittmann paper: The Obliquity of the Ecliptic (1978)
    Wittmann pdf

    This 1976 paper discusses the discrepancy in observed and calculated changes in obliquity.
    Lieske pdf

  175. oldmanK says:

    oldbrew, thanks for the assistance.

    Note, -to be clear-, Wittmann published a second paper on the same enigma, some three years later. His aim this time was to attribute the discrepancies to faulty measurements. But with large dimensions for gnomon to measure obliquity the errors are necessarily small, much smaller than they seem (as is also evident in the old calendar).

    Lieske derived a formula for ‘rate of change’ of obliquity (as does Wittmann in paper). The first term of the equation is a constant, an empirical value, the ‘as is’ value. When going back three thousand years the old measured values become incompatible with the formulae. Other than Wittmann’s attempt, no one has tried to find an answer (there as well, perhaps that was also seen as a career wrecker).

    For whoever is interested today there is more info. There is an earlier value of obliquity, and from a known date. The value is about 14-14.5 degrees (can be worked out more accurately); the date 2345bce from dendrochronology (in item 4 in post above). It is an ‘impulse’ change followed by ‘ringing’ decay — which can tell some about the earth interior (rather than picking assumed/convenient values for the earth’s interior viscous damping). It is effectively a convenient instance of the behavior of a step change.

  176. oldbrew says:

    The IAU already admitted the obliquity formula was in effect kaput about ten years ago.

    ‘Abstract. The IAU Working Group on Precession and the Equinox looked at several
    solutions for replacing the precession part of the IAU 2000A precession–nutation
    model, which is not consistent with dynamical theory[bold added]

    Click to access cm06_94_PEWG.pdf

    Terminology: ‘Considering that the term equator precession
    does not differentiate between motion of the equator and motion along
    the equator, this report will adopt the terms precession of the equator
    and precession of the ecliptic. Further, we recommend that these terms
    be adopted for general use.’

    The report goes on:
    ‘Since its adoption, it has become apparent that the IAU 1976 theory
    of general precession (Lieske et al., 1977, henceforth Lieske) is in error
    by approximately 300 mas cent−1, where 1mas = 0.001 and the century
    (cent2) consists of 36,525 Julian days Terrestrial Time (TT). Williams (1994)
    showed that in addition to the precession in longitude there should also be
    a secular motion in the obliquity of the Earth which he estimated to be
    about −24 mas cent−1. This motion in latitude is caused by the slight inclination
    of the lunar orbit to the ecliptic when averaged over the period of
    its node.’

    One of the problems:
    ‘The precession and nutation of the Earth are most accurately observed
    using Very Long Baseline Interferometer (VLBI) observations. These observations
    are only sensitive to the linear portion of the precession and insensitive
    to the ecliptic
    .’ [bold added]

    Part 3 starts: ‘There is no unique method of parameterizing the precession.’

    The IAU recommends:
    ‘3. The choice of precession parameters be left to the user.’

    Read that last one again. Yes, that’s what they say 😎

  177. Paul Vaughan says:

    Liu+ 2015 Obliquity pacing of the western Pacific Intertropical Convergence Zone over the past 282,000 years

    …suggests SORTING AND CLASSIFYING land-ocean (precession) DIFFERENTLY FROM interhemispheric (obliquity) ….based on OBSERVED ITCZ migration ASYMMETRY:

    It’s a helpful provocation.

  178. Paul Vaughan says:

    Optical Character Recognition (OCR)

    -1100	ChouLi	-30	23.881
    -350	Pytheas	-22.5	23.819
    -250	Erathostenes	-21.5	23.856
    -150	Hipparchus	-20.5	23.858
    -114	Greece(Newton,1974)	-20.1397	23.7183
    -30	LiuHsiang	-19.2997	23.745
    89	ChiaKhuei	-18.1097	23.66
    173	LiuHung&TshaiYung	-17.2697	23.837
    173	LiuHung&TshaiYung	-17.2697	23.689
    178	LiuHung&TshaiYung	-17.2197	23.631
    450	TsuChhung-Chih	-14.4997	23.636
    630	LiShun-Fang	-12.6997	23.661
    800	al-MaImUn	-10.9997	23.562
    820	Hsi/Ang	-10.7997	23.541
    845	BenUMasa	-10.5497	23.583
    885	al-Battani	-10.1497	23.583
    900	PienKang	-9.9997	23.556
    911	IbnCorrah	-9.8897	23.558
    918	AbdelbenAmajUr	-9.8197	23.583
    965	al-SUfi	-9.3497	23.6525
    970	AbuJaafaral-Chazzan	-9.2997	23.5833
    994	al-Chojendi	-9.0597	23.5392
    999	al-Buziani&AbuHamed	-9.0097	23.5833
    1003	IbnJunis	-8.9697	23.5833
    1007	AbulRihan	-8.9297	23.5833
    1019	al-Biruni	-8.8097	23.5833
    1061	al-Zarkali	-8.3897	23.5583
    1140	LiuHsiao-Jung	-7.5997	23.5245
    1174	Mosesben-Maimon	-7.2597	23.5
    1240	al-MarrEkusi	-6.5997	23.5625
    1278	KuoShou-Ching	-6.2197	23.5367
    1290	NassirOdin	-6.0997	23.5
    1363	Ibnal-Shatir	-5.3697	23.5167
    1436	MirzaUlughBeg	-4.6397	23.5047
    1490	Walther/Lacaille	-4.0997	23.4964
    1587	TychoBrahe/Riccioli	-3.1297	23.5067
    1590	TychoBrahe/Lalande	-3.0997	23.4978
    1646	Riccioli	-2.5397	23.5056
    1650	Boulliaud	-2.4999	23.5333
    1661	Hevelius/Lalande	-2.3899	23.4861
    1672	Cassini&Cassini	-2.2799	23.4825
    1690	Flamsteed	-2.0999	23.4835
    1703	Bianchini	-1.97	23.4764
    1709	Romer/Horrebow	-1.91	23.4797
    1737	delaCondamine	-1.63	23.4733
    1743	deThury	-1.57	23.4764
    1743	leMonnier	-1.57	23.4761
    1750	Bradley	-1.5	23.4717
    1750	Lacaille	-1.5	23.4719
    1756	Mayer	-1.43997	23.471111
    1800	Bessel	-1	23.465222
    1800	Peters	-1	23.465061
    1850	Leverrier	-0.49999	23.458842
    1850	Hansen&Olufsen	-0.49999	23.458728
    1850	Newcomb	-0.49999	23.4588
    1870	vandeSandeBakhuyzen	-0.29999	23.456111
    1900	---	0	23.452174

    Can someone please carefully proofread the OCR and oldmanK can you please clarify if these are the data you suggest exploring?

  179. oldbrew says:

    PV: re above – it should look like this…

  180. Paul Vaughan says:

    More comparative insight…

    summer vs. winter
    precession vs. obliquity

    Shi+ 2011 Distinct responses of East Asian summer and winter monsoons to astronomical forcing

    Click to access cp-7-1363-2011.pdf

    […] distinct responses of East Asian summer and winter monsoons to astronomical forcing. Different from the dominant local impact on the summer monsoon at the precession scale (~20 ka period), the East Asian winter monsoon is driven predominantly by the obliquity forcing (~40 ka period). We propose that the obliquity forcing controls the meridional insolation difference and, therefore, exerts a more significant effect on the evolution of the East Asian winter monsoon than previously expected.

    See figures 2 & 3.

    Certainly helps with sorting and classification of pattern roots.


    equator-pole (annual equatorial-max-insolation minus polar-min-insolation) = eccentricity
    pole-pole = obliquity
    land-ocean = precession


    Further crystallizes the conceptual error made by those comically expecting to see precession (based on false assumptions) where eccentricity is observed. It’s funny how people try so stubbornly to argue from false theory even when observations are there to tell them otherwise. (Remember WE’s epic June-equator-insolation blunder?)

  181. Paul Vaughan says:

    OB, you left out the continuation of Table 1 on the next page.
    You can submit that image to the OCR freeware and it will convert to text. I’ve already done that for everyone. Tip: Copy/paste to Excel and the columns will align.

    Can someone please proofread the OCR conversion? (I’ve got other things to do…)
    oldmanK, are those the data you have in mind?

  182. oldmanK says:

    PV yes that is the data.

    If you can convert to Excel that saves a lot of inconvenience. Alongside put the values obtained from the Lieske or Wittmann formula (I used both). Plotting all (with Excel) on a time span of some 30 centuries gives an interesting picture. The departure in the trend from the formulae is obvious. How to interpret that is another matter. (In my case I was seeking explanation/evidence for the sudden change I was seeing in the engineering of the structures. A step change with some overshoot and simple exponential decay seemed to fit. Beyond that — too speculative).

  183. oldbrew says:

    Continuation data…

  184. oldmanK says:

    Italy’s knee-jerk reaction??

  185. Paul Vaughan says:

    For comparison with Newcomb (1906) & Wilkins (1960) I also looked at:

    2010 Astronomical Almanac

    Laskar (1986)

    This excursion has not changed my outlook on multidecadal-centennial climate exploration. I would still recommend attention to obliquity RESIDUALS (the part of observations LEFTOVER AFTER mainstream accounting). Any of the models is an adequate producer of leftovers. The RESIDUALS are available from IERS. We’ll know that climate modelers and EOP modelers are serious when we see a merger of the 2 communities.

    This concludes my look at the data posted above (August 23, 2016 at 6:31 pm).

  186. Kelvin Vaughan says:

    Solar activity affects cloud cover.

  187. oldbrew says:

    ‘Solar activity affects cloud cover.’

    Yes, but they keep saying it’s due to cosmic rays. These are a proxy for the solar wind which carries most of the charge, as Piers Corbyn has pointed out. If cosmic rays are blown off by CMEs etc. then the solar wind will be too.

  188. oldbrew says:

    The Interactive Effects of CO2 and Temperature on Wheat and Rice

    ‘regardless of the temperature treatment (ambient or ambient + 2°C), elevated CO2 had a stimulatory effect on the biomass and grain yield of these two important crops’

    This is what the US government calls a pollutant.

  189. oldbrew says:

    NASA’s Juno to soar closest to Jupiter this Saturday

    “This is our first opportunity to really take a close-up look at the king of our solar system and begin to figure out how he works”

  190. oldbrew says:

    A rare deep-Earth tremor has been detected for the first time on the ocean floor in Japan.
    Using seismic equipment, researchers have managed to trace its location to a distant and powerful storm between Greenland and Iceland.

    The findings could help experts learn more about the Earth’s inner structure and improve the detection of earthquakes and oceanic storms.

    Is the Earth hollow?

  191. oldbrew says:

    More baffled scientists…

    “We thought the formation of stars was kind of related to how much dark matter there is, and Dragonfly 44 kind of turns that idea on its head,” he continued. “It means we don’t understand, kind of fundamentally, how galaxy formation works.”

    ‘A new galaxy as big as the Milky Way has been discovered, except it’s 99.99 per cent dark matter’

    Kind of a bummer, man 😉

  192. Paul Vaughan says:

    “09.20 Roger Tattersall & Richard Salvador: Does solar system orbital motion and resonance synchronize solar variation, LOD and ENSO?”

    To harmonize I’ll aspire to expedite communication of insights shelved until a less hurried day.

    The key point to underscore:
    There are a multitude of ways to partition a whole.

    There are informative differences (that can be discovered via comparative exploration) as well as similarities between EOP and climate variables.

    LOD alone does not span multivariate EOP space. The minimum subset of EOP variables (of which LOD & polar motion are members …and obliquity residuals oldmanK (not sure if you knew)) needed to span EOP space is 3 (not 1). That means LOD needs a few companions to solve the puzzle to completion.

    I’ll do my best to clarify how observations tell us that wind (“14.00 Hans Jelbring: The dominant physical processes that cause climate change”) from land-ocean contrasts, wind from equator-pole contrasts, and wind from pole-pole contrasts simply differ.

    It will make a tremendous simplifying difference once people are in the habit of sorting and classifying their circulatory awareness (of wind-blown water) in a more common-sense manner (that isn’t ignorant of basic geometry).

    Through initial interest in LOD, maturing interest in EOP more generally is a natural extension …so it’s good to see 1 of the EOP scheduled for 9:20AM on opening day. It makes it look like the conference intends to get serious right away.

    There’s 1 illustration I’d really like to have done before the conference, but I’m sure there won’t be time to communicate in detail. I can probably relay the core outline that will at least direct luminaries towards independent discovery. On the Pareto Principle that’s what always matters most.

    A little foreshadowing… It relates to this:
    “10.50 Jan-Erik Solheim: Ice margins, the Sun and the planets”

    Specifically the illustration links (simple systematic compare and contrast) the following:
    1. Western Nordic Seas
    2. Drake Passage
    3. Warm Pool

    It’s really simple.

    A key difference between 1 & 2 is on a different axis …clarifying that LOD alone — while initially powerfully informative (the wake-up call) — is a first step on a pathway to deeper, more mature multivariate spatiotemporal awareness …at a generalized level.

    Step 1 on the unification pathway (assured by more careful attention to aggregation criteria) is common-sense sorting and classification.

    The defining challenge for Clexit is saboteurs and infiltraitors.

    California Lukes would rather die than let you see (never mind take) step 1. Firing them without further delay is the sensible option. They promote a belief system based on a few key assumptions that fail basic diagnostics. This is the (transparent) root of their successful skeptic-luke conversion campaign. It rouses tremendous suspicion that this group has not yet been canned. Effectively they’re clinton’s hard-working conversion specialists. Clexit’s first (and perhaps final) test is to demonstrate the political fortitude, capacity, ability, and reach to remove the artificially supported panel of corrupt judges obstructing justice on center stage.

  193. oldbrew says:

    The ‘weather bomb’ storm…

    ‘a golden spiral gets wider (or further from its origin) by a factor of φ for every quarter turn it makes’

    North Atlantic ‘weather bomb’ tremor measured in Japan

  194. oldmanK says:

    PV said “LOD alone does not span multivariate EOP space. The minimum subset of EOP variables (of which LOD & polar motion are members …and obliquity residuals oldmanK (not sure if you knew)) needed to span EOP space is 3 (not 1). That means LOD needs a few companions to solve the puzzle to completion.”

    Sounds like something new and interesting, but I fail to grasp what its leading to. Can you please clarify a little more?

  195. Paul Vaughan says:

    oldmanK, it’s not something new. Around the time of the world wars and the CW phase reversal (~1930) there are some very informative seasonal residual patterns in Dpsi & Depsilon. I shared illustrations and quotes from articles several years ago. Maybe we’ll get back to that stuff someday and maybe time will never allow that. Meanwhile, some background-starter links for those exploring independently:

  196. oldmanK says:

    PV, I am not sure I’m understanding correctly, you seem to be referring to EOP variations as are referred to in the links you provided.

    Those variations are very small, fractions of a second (1/3600 of a degree). The residuals mentioned in the Dodwell works are the ‘remaining’ when from the value of obliquity from the ancient measurements is subtracted the value as calculated by the formula. Those ‘residuals’ amount to much more.

    I repeated Dodwell work but used Wittmann’s data, and only went back in time to the oldest recorded measurement. The difference was about 0.1 degree (360″). Dodwell went further back and there the difference is much greater-well over 1 deg-.

    That is the root of the obliquity enigma.

    Another something to point out then. I found evidence of what Dodwell elicited from the old measurements but enough said of that. However that would mean that the chart in your post of August 23, 2016 at 5:00 pm obliquity (f) and (a) and (e) for insolation are not correct in amplitude. Which would lead to very different interpretation of the other curves.

  197. Paul Vaughan says:

    oldmanK, what’s not clear is why you think records from ancient times are better for studying say 1970-1980 climate than observations from 1970-1980.

  198. oldbrew says:

    What Are “Weather Bombs,” And Why Can They Help Us Peek Inside Our Planet?

    Weather bombs. They are earthly echoes of intense storms, and by listening to them, scientists just detected a rare type of seismic rumbling inside the Earth for the first time.

    These rare, deep-Earth tremors are called S-wave microseisms. Now the discoverers, a duo of Japanese seismologists led by Kiwamu Nishida at the University of Tokyo, are hoping to use these S-waves to probe into the dark unknown of our Earth’s core. The earthquake researchers have outlined their discovery today in the journal Science.

    These S-waves could help us X-ray our own planet.

    This S-wave discovery “gives seismologists a new tool with which to study Earth’s deeper structure,” write Peter Gerstoft and Peter Bromirski, two independent earthquake researchers at University of California, San Diego, in an essay accompanying the paper.

  199. oldmanK says:

    PV, because the recent climate ‘variations’, say the last 1000 years, contain no information of the “High impact – low frequency” events that bring about major changes such as were seen in the late Holocene maximum. Both sides of the present climate wars seem oblivious to that. Those changes were destructive, from evidence, worst than is envisioned by alarmists. There is obsession with climate change but no clue what to look for or how all this started. Yet there are many people studying in various avenues and some have come up with eye-opening results. Many more are just obfuscation. Theories speculate, facts tell.

    In the family of curves you posted above the obliquity curve is a basic. Insolation curves derive from that. If the basic curve is wrong, the others are wrong too. Then any conclusions you are to derive from comparisons to those will be misleading. (The unsavory evidence no one wants to look at says that obliquity is wrong (and that upset a whole market of apple-carts)).

    Studying climate is ok, but climate seems to be an end effect, the result brought about by other ‘disturbances’. It may also be one link in a series of stages of a process, (with positive feedback, from one extreme to another). We KNOW that happened in the past but not why. The climate of the last century is devoid of information, like a long period of calm when we ought to concentrate on what led to a storm. A stretch of time of a couple of decades is a very narrow period, while a scale of several thousands, as in the chart, is too wide.

  200. Paul Vaughan says:

    oldmanK, I agree that climate enthusiasts vary in their particular interests and responsibilities. My highest interest is aggregation criteria and my highest responsibility is to help correct fundamental misconceptions (based on aggregation criteria ignorance/deception) about multidecadal variations.

    You may trust that I know the obliquity and insolation curves are theoretical. I don’t put assumptions before observations.

    I contest your assertion that the instrumental record era is unworthy of attention and study because there was no major obliquity bomb during that era.

    The CW phase reversal (and mainstream climate science ignorance of it) is what initially sparked my entry into the climate discussion. (It had absolutely nothing to do with CO2 and politics.)

    What I’m wondering:

    Do you think you could develop an interest in exploring other dimensions of climate (perhaps at other timescales) beyond the one that interests you most? Thus far you’ve fashioned your contributions as a one-hit wonder. Moving forward are you at all inclined to write new hit songs, perhaps of other genres?

    Actually, this exchange and the one on the latest “why phi?” thread are inclining me to think as follows:

    Given the infinite number of other dimensions of nature there are to explore (for example one of my former interests was population genetics), why do I continue to focus on climate? Is it not maybe time to leave it behind to clear time for other pursuits? Perhaps…

  201. Paul Vaughan says:

    …and perhaps not.

    There are people waking up to the spatial dimensions of climate that can flip temporal correlations upside down:

    2016 – Hemispherically asymmetric volcanic forcing of tropical hydroclimate during the last millennium

    …but no awareness of FRI yet.

  202. Paul Vaughan says:

    Look at this quote from the conclusions:

    “Future developments in model–proxy comparisons should probe the uncertainty space not just in the global-mean radiative forcing and coincident internal variability at the time of the eruption but also in the spatial structure of the aerosol cloud.”

    This is a quote from a mainstream paper. A few years ago it looked impossible to get them to stop throwing away the observed information about x-y (…in their blindered focus on x+y).

    Above OB linked to a paper on cosmic rays and clouds. Same thing applies. Too much obsessive focus on the mean and the one study I remember on the spatial pattern was based on false assumptions …and that never helps.

    The people focused on x+y are ignoring the circulatory architecture. We have information on x-y (a DIFFERENT variable) and they throw it away, instead opting to go on and on and on about radiation calculations based on false geometric assumptions.

    I’ve always been acutely suspicious about why blog hosts don’t just boot out people promoting radiation calculations based on the assumption of uniformity.

  203. oldmanK says:

    Good Day PV,

    To start with the last bit first, I say do not boot out people, especially ones with maverick thinking. We learn from experience. The famous case of the one booted out by the ‘very established wisdom’ was Galileo. No more of that but do not forget. To borrow from someone else “those who forget their mistakes, repeat them”.

    You were wondering. In an other blog site I linked to this: The people who feed the nations, in their majority are on the verge of retirement. How long would the large cities last, in spite of all the scientific advances, if the food chain collapses? Rightly so governments are focusing attention on the farmer. The weather-read climate-is important too and that has become an academic gravy train. But who is looking into why the Sahara became what it is today -barren, for centuries on end- (same mohengo-Daro and several other sites)? Who is guaranteeing those things won’t repeat? Then ask, -What tips that ‘iceberg’?

    I learn from the ‘climate talk’ of others here, but am not wise on that. This site has other subjects of interest, like earth ‘Z’ axis dynamics -this ballerina’s dance is little understood and some academic works I read, I’m certain, are fundamentally flawed.

    I just point to flaws that I can prove they are so.

  204. oldbrew says:

    CO2 is very nearly 0% of the atmosphere

    “Deniers” need to start attacking the fairy tale more aggressively, at the roots.
    By Ray Kraft

  205. Paul Vaughan says:

    “Here we show that it matters greatly over which hemisphere the aerosol loading is concentrated and that this asymmetry in aerosol forcing has a first-order impact on changes in the tropical hydrologic cycle, atmospheric energetics, and the distribution of the isotopic composition of precipitation.”

    Click to access esd-7-681-2016.pdf

    That’s from mainstream modelers. They deserve some credit because observations make it CRYSTAL CLEAR that indeed there is a FIRST-ORDER effect associated with this asymmetry (of explosive volcanism).

    Priorities folks. First-order FIRST.

    Suggested Mission:
    Correct the California Lukes who militantly push their false radiation calculations based on their precious (implicit, maybe even unconscious …more likely hatefully deceptive) uniformity assumption.

    Why are the corrupt judges propped up on artificial center-stage pedestals?

    Sequence matters. First thing FIRST.

    Phi’s an unaffordable luxury when there’s an immediate, pressing matter demanding correction with a due sense of urgency.

    I predict that Clexit will fail precisely because of its ties to wuwt’s false-assumption-based artificially-engineered narratives and boldly corrupt judging.

    RJ: Integrating VEI won’t work. I clarified that the explosive volcanism needs to be referenced SPATIALLY. (THEN your integrals might make sense.) SAOT’s a different animal (S being for stratospheric).

    The people pushing the uniformity assumption in radiation calculations are boldly, blatantly, AND TRANSPARENTLY corrupt. Propping them up on artificial center-stage pedestals (at wuwt) is counterproductive. Correction is due. Come on folks. Move with a sense of urgency. ….Or is the goal to apply clever PR (no matter how underhanded) to ensure Clexit fails? Accidental self-sabotage? Or direction from an infiltraitor??

    A sense of urgency folks. Correction is due. Dare to be bold and frank when confronting people at the September meetings about this. Infiltraitors and saboteurs OUT …NOW.

    Asymmetry IS OBSERVED.
    Why is the assumption of uniformity being propped up on a center-stage pedestal??????

    Get ****ing serious.

    Do something about the corruption.

  206. Paul Vaughan says:

    You know it’s getting bad when mainstream modelers are racing past wuwt’s false spatial assumptions towards reality:

    “simulations that represent volcanic forcing simply as an equivalent reduction in total solar irradiance at the TOA are unrealistic and cannot be expected to be faithful”

    If there is any member of Clexit associated with wuwt, I have to suggest booting them out of the organization. We simply can’t have these patently false spatial assumptions interfering with correction. I suggest that Clexit membership be made conditional upon actively confronting false spatial assumptions (including the implicit, unconscious, and rudely deceptive ones).

    Clean up…

  207. Poly says:

    I read the paper which you have been discussing in a couple of posts above;
    “2016 – Hemispherically asymmetric volcanic forcing of tropical hydroclimate during the last millennium
    It is very important because it indicates large scale volcanic events have amplified effects beyond the immediately observed economic (air travel, land damage, short term cooling) and social (displacement, fatalities) effects.
    The ITCZ is a hugely important rain system for a vast swath of the earth. It has massive economic and agricultural implications. It is scary to see how it can be wildly affected by volcanism.
    All the more reason to focus on volcanic and earthquake prediction.
    As an aside, there are incredible trading opportunities apparent in this physical connection.

  208. Paul Vaughan says:

    Poly acknowledged:

    “The ITCZ is a hugely important rain system for a vast swath of the earth. It has massive economic and agricultural implications. It is scary to see how it can be wildly affected by volcanism.
    As an aside, there are incredible trading opportunities apparent in this physical connection.”

    Thank you Poly.

    A few things to be aware of and keep in mind:

    It was — in considerable proportion — a modeling study. The authors looked seriously (but incompletely) at observations too. Some of their observation-based conclusions ARE CORRECT. In other areas they struggled.

    Specifically it’s VERY important to note how badly they struggled with ENSO-related spatial patterns. It’s a relief that they acknowledged that clearly and put it aside since they got stuck on it, because many (actually I would guess MOST) would MISinterpret the ENSO spatial patterns because they would not do proper diagnostics to fathom how extremely misleading ENSO-correlated spatial patterns can be. (I’m giving this only a quick mention here — insufficient time now.)

    I looked at a simple North / South split of AOD a number of years ago and at that time it was obvious that that’s not enough. In aggregate there’s something to that when looking at volatility related to north-south land-ocean contrast, but it’s not some simple thing in a mean (…which is all most basically unconsciously ever think about …if they’re thinking at all when they blindly run analyses on auto-pilot).

    With absolute certainty: The mainstream are waking up on this file. They are taking it seriously. They are pulling WAY ahead of sites like wuwt, which are losing ground and moving backwards. Wuwt has dug itself into a hole: They can’t acknowledge this research without setting a double-standard. It would precisely clarify the hypocrisy of their solar bullsh*t. They’ve gotten all stubborn about that. Everyone knows they’re full of sh*t. And it’s a long climb-down from the ridiculous perch they’ve gotten themselves on. They’re f****d no matter what they do now. There isn’t a face-saving option in sight. Not even a genius creative mind will find one. They’re done. They played a rude, severely unethical bluff far, far too aggressively and no one will ever trust them again.

    What’s really telling is that mainstream academia is starting to look orders of magnitude more sensible than them.

    I would far rather side with mainstream academia than with wuwt. They admit their minor errors, but they never admit their big errors — the ones that actually matter.

    With a due sense of urgency they need to be eclipsed.

    The people that were involved in that venture must be excluded from the new venture. (This must be absolutely non-negotiable.) It’s like when a board of directors goes corrupt. You have to do a FULL clean up to restore the confidence of the public, shareholders, and/or stakeholders more generally. No one is ever going to trust any of the core people from that crew again. They need to move on to make way for better people. There are some really, really, really good people out there somewhere ready to do a MUCH better job. We shouldn’t be allowing bad people to block them from the good opportunity they deserve.

    This is a very sincere note. Friends, we need to take real action. Say goodbye and welcome a new beginning.

  209. Paul Vaughan says:

    Bill Illis comments are still often very-well worth reading. I haven’t noticed anything egregious in Eric Worrall stories. Could Worrall be a candidate to take over? I haven’t given the matter serious thought, but his articles are noticeably orders of magnitude more sensible than those from the other writers …but I’ve never read any of his comments in the comments section …and (this is a deal-breaking criterion) if he’s aligned with the sun-climate belief policing campaign based on false spatiotemporal assumptions: forget it! (I’ll let someone else check carefully — please let us know.)

    I’ll be taking a look at some of the references from the article Poly and I were discussing above. Before getting back to illustrating I want to see where they’ve gotten (the mainstream) with the flurry of activity on the explosive volcanism file in the past few years. (check to see how far they are to catching up….)

  210. oldbrew says:

    ‘Our results highlight the need for careful consideration of the spatial structure of volcanic forcing for interpreting volcanic signals in proxy records and therefore in evaluating the skill of Common Era climate model output.’

    Is ‘evaluating the skill of Common Era climate model output’ code for ‘those dodgy climate models’ ?

  211. Paul Vaughan says:

    Total BS from CE:

    “7) Chaotic oscillations. Climate is known to be chaotic on relatively small time scales. Whether it is on larger scales needs to be investigated. It might explain the long-term natural variations.”

    Whoever wrote that article shouldn’t be trying to direct climate research. I interpret this suggestion as a deliberate lie — trying to hit hot buttons to anger sensible people to knock them off balance.

  212. oldbrew says:

    ‘Climate is known to be chaotic on relatively small time scales’

    Call it weather 🙂

  213. oldbrew says:

    Please note: we’ve moved to Suggestions 21 now.


Leave a Reply

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

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

Google photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s