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 20

    [for viewing only please]

  2. Paul Vaughan says:

    2013 – Asymmetric forcing from stratospheric aerosols impacts Sahelian rainfall

  3. Paul Vaughan says:

  4. Poly says:

    Thanks again for some very thought-provoking posts.
    The Heywood et al paper is obsessed with the Sahel;
    “We suggest that sporadic volcanic eruptions in the Northern Hemisphere also strongly influence
    this gradient and cause Sahelian drought. Using de-trended observations from 1900 to 2010, we show that three of the four driest Sahelian summers were preceded by substantial Northern Hemisphere volcanic eruptions”
    However, the greater concern to me is drought in the Indian subcontinent and sub-Sahara Africa – there are far more people living there and the risk consequences are greater.
    I have had first hand experience with sub-Saharan droughts and they are horrible. Dying animals, hungry and and dispirited people and economic ruin.
    The global economy is so fragile at the moment that a significant economic shock of a large natural event could have far greater economic and social knock-on effects than was the case in the past.
    I offer the following economic and social crude risk assessment on large natural events for discussion;
    1) Major earthquake in Japan; We were there recently. They are resilient but their economy is weaker now. Risk moderate and consequence moderate.
    2) Major earthquake in NW America; Risk low and consequence huge. It could tip the USA and the world into a global financial crisis.
    3) Major volcano in Iceland/N.Hemisphere; Risk moderate and consequence large. Air travel disruption in Europe and drought in Sahel and Indian subcontinent.
    4) Major volcano in SE Asia/S.Hemisphere; Risk moderate and consequence moderate. Drought in Sub-Saharan Africa and other S.Hemisphere tropical countries.
    We really should be turning our resources to predicting the probabilities and risks of these events.
    Global cooling or warming seems so petty in comparison.

  5. oldbrew says:

    Climate models can’t predict climate variability.

    ‘How predictable is the timing of a summer ice-free Arctic?’ – CLIVAR, 29/8/16

    ‘…even the best climate models cannot narrow down the exact year or even the exact decade when researchers expect to see an ice-free Arctic for the first time, as the timing depends on the exact trajectory of the weather and climate variability between now and then, which can’t be predicted.’

  6. Paul Vaughan says:

    Poly suggested:

    “The global economy is so fragile at the moment that a significant economic shock of a large natural event could have far greater economic and social knock-on effects than was the case in the past.
    We really should be turning our resources to predicting the probabilities and risks of these events.”

    The degree of exploration needed as background for such a task is nowhere near finished. As constructive provocation I might even suggest it’s nowhere near beginning.

    There are people — of course — who will pretend they can provide meaningful probabilities, but I can guarantee you they will base their estimates on floods of false assumptions. False assumptions are a culturally-supported staple of standard practice in Statistics and Actuarial Science.

    The desire for estimates is so strong that the consumers of such estimates are gullible suckers. When desire is that strong, the ability to be sensible is lost and gambler’s instinct is the substitute. The real motivation is influencing what others think. On some kind of an instinctive level (even if it is unconscious, subconscious, or whatever), it’s about fooling other people and trying every which way to deke them out. Since a lot of people are conditioned by our societal norms to put faith in administrative-looking things (lol – so stupid), producing official-looking estimates might be a useful way to fool a lot of people …but I won’t be among them!!

    I will stick to exploration. Perhaps one day exploration will be complete and sensible modeling will become a possibility. When that day comes, my interest and focus will be (get this!!!) exploration. You’ll never see me modeling!

    I respect that others will pursue complementary activity.

    Poly, your contributions are sharp. You appear more-than-well-aware that the various campaigns (e.g. CO2 alarm, lukewarm sun-climate belief policing, etc.) are completely undermining the social context needed to support efficient exploration of real risk.

    The movements have taken on a “willing do die for” dimension, attracting aggressive risk-takers who are willing to go to any extreme. These are the types of people who will keep pushing and keep pushing and keep pushing limits and eventually of course everything they’ve worked for will break and that’s inevitable because their whole philosophy depends on NEVER losing power and authority. All regimes eventually fall. That’s natural.

    I agree with you that it’s very interesting to think about what natural (never mind anthropogenic! – I’m not talking about something generated by activists!!) regime changes look like. Of this I’m certain: NATURE will change powers and authorities. It’s unethical to be too suggestive about exactly when.

  7. oldmanK says:

    Poly is rightly concerned, but there are more volcanic threats than the ones he mentioned. This link: lists others of known high risk, nicely distributed in the lower latitudes. The Mediterranean region is not without its champions. The recent events in Italy are telling something.

    However volcanoes are responding to something else, and that ‘else’ -from my point of view- is conspicuous by its absence in the many studies.

  8. Paul Vaughan says:

    Claim: “No study to date has investigated the long-term effects of high-latitude eruptions.”

    2015 – Impacts of high-latitude volcanic eruptions on ENSO and AMOC

  9. Paul Vaughan says:

    “The lack of robust simulated behavior likely depends on various aspects of model formulation”

    Ya don’t say!
    [ :

    VolMIP – Model Intercomparison Project on the climate response to Volcanic forcing

    Let the comedy begin.

  10. oldbrew says:

    M7.1 earthquake off New Zealand coast (North Coast of the North Island).

    Elevated geomag Kp index again [yellow bar = G1].

  11. Paul Vaughan says:

    These authors link the 1260 European flagellant movement to ENSO & explosive volcanism ….keep in mind that these are MAINSTREAM authors:

    2008 – Volcanoes and ENSO over the Past Millennium

    Quite entertaining and revealing (about the way their thought process is artificially constrained by cultural convention) to see the way they dance around ENSO – explosive volcanism coupling.

    Here’s another author who’s work I’ll flag for exploration (no time now):

  12. oldbrew says:

    Giant ancient supervolcanoes threw rock right across Australia

    ‘A blast from the past? The east coast of Australia was once lined by volcanoes that were so explosive they could shoot sand-sized particles 2300 kilometres – ­­all the way across to the west coast.’

  13. oldmanK says:

    The NZ 7+ quake was in the news, but the 8+ off Spain was not mentioned. It showed on this site some days ago.

    The system is very busy in the Med.

  14. Paul Vaughan says:

    3.7 billion year old fossils found in Greenland

    …clarifying that Earth life was already diverse only 200 million years after meteorites stopped pounding. They suggest there may have been similar life on Mars at that time.

    ….so the story they told us in Biology 101 was …..wrong.

  15. ralfellis says:


    You had a thread a while ago, about DLR (downwelling) not being able to penetrate the sea surface, and thus not being a component in oceanic warming.

    I agree. So I thought I would create an energy flowchart that took this into account. It is presented below – and it works as well as any other heat flowchart.

    The major difference is the red double-headed arrow, which represents DLR from the troposphere hitting the ocean, not being absorbed, and being reradiated back up again. So this is an energy flux that is bouncing around in the atmosphere and not doing very much at all, in terms of surface heating (although it can heat the atmosphere or land-surface). So we have 279 wm2 of DLR that is no longer being absorbed by the oceans, which means that oceanic warming may be a more problematic process than previously thought.

    The left purple upflow is ULR resulting from SW absorption by sea, and DLR-SW absorption by land.

    The right blue downflow is DLR from the atmosphere being absorbed by land.

    The small green-turquoise arrows represent thermic and latent heat radiation. I have split them into two, to represent flows from direct SW oceanic heating (green) and from SW-DLR heating of land surfaces (turquoise).

    And contrary to Willis’ argument that the oceans would freeze if DLR was not absorbed by the oceans, the flowchart is balanced. There is NO net energy loss from the oceans in this chart. The only difference is that a large chunk of the energy (the red 279 wm2) is not taking part in the oceanic warming or cooling process – it is just bouncing around aimlessly between the oceans and troposphere.

    Ralph Ellis

    DLR = Downwelling Longwave Radiation.
    ULR = Upwelling Longwave Radiation.

  16. oldbrew says:

    ‘You had a thread a while ago, about DLR (downwelling) not being able to penetrate the sea surface, and thus not being a component in oceanic warming.’ – ralfellis

    Roy Spencer complained when I put that idea forward.

    Commenter mpainter said:
    Seems that everyone agrees that water is opaque to DWLWIR. The implications of this escape many. They believe that the GHE warms the oceans, which means that the atmosphere determines SST. But No. The opposite is the case: the oceans warm the atmosphere. The whole GHE is misconceived, based on the assumption that the GHE determines surface temperature, when in fact SST is determined by insolation alone.
    In the tropical ocean surface temperature (SST) is 30-31 C max, and air temperature one or two degrees less. Yet the tropics has the highest GHE, according to ghg concentration. Whither surface warming?
    The GHE is misconceived. In fact, it moderates air temperatures by reducing diurnal extremes. Compare humid tropics with dry Sahara.

    Again Roy Spencer objected.

  17. oldbrew says:

    Florida storm and the golden spiral – just doodling.
    The two red rectangles are the same size – note spiral shape of contents.


  18. Paul Vaughan says:

    ralfellis, can you provide spatial pattern maps to associate with your comment and illustration?

  19. oldbrew says:

    Motion of coupled oscillating bodies

    Alternating energy transfer.

  20. Paul Vaughan says:

    Samantha Stevenson (BA math, MA astronomy, PhD oceanography) appears to have unjustified naively-optimistic faith in models in general ….BUT she deserves credit for stratifying exploration by season and hemisphere and clearly acknowledging that models fail ENSO-volcano diagnostics:

    2016 – “El Nino Like” Hydroclimate Responses to Last Millennium Volcanic Eruptions

    […] after ‘‘Tropical’’ and ‘‘Northern’’ eruptions, even when ENSO-neutral conditions are present. This pattern results from Northern Hemisphere (NH) surface cooling, which shifts the intertropical convergence zone equatorward, intensifies the NH subtropical jet, and suppresses the Southeast Asian monsoon. El Niño events following an eruption can then intensify the ENSO-neutral hydroclimate signature, and El Niño probability is enhanced two boreal winters following all eruption types. Additionally, the eruption-year ENSO response to eruptions is hemispherically dependent: the winter following a Northern eruption tends toward El Niño, while Southern volcanoes enhance the probability of La Niña events and Tropical eruptions have a very slight cooling effect. Overall, eruption-year hydroclimate anomalies in CESM disagree with the proxy record in both Southeast Asia and North America, suggesting that model monsoon representation cannot be solely responsible. Possible explanations include issues with the model ENSO response, the spatial or temporal structure of volcanic aerosol distribution, or data uncertainties.

    She has another article in press:
    2016 – Seasonal Dependence of the ENSO Response to Tropical Volcanism

  21. Paul Vaughan says:

    A key conceptual error in the paper to which I just linked:
    The authors make false assumptions trying to partition variance associated with the coupled multivariate bundle. They don’t realize the coupling. They are not aware of it. This ignorance is the root of the false methodological assumptions …of which I suspect they are not aware. I suspect they are making the assumptions implicitly and unconsciously. Re-education will likely be a piece of work …and if there’s any religious resistance (or even if there are just too many “misunderstandings”) it won’t be worth the effort.

  22. scute1133 says:

    ESA are crashing the Rosetta orbiter on comet 67P/CG on 30th September 2016. It will take data at low altitude on the way down, transmitting in real time, then going silent immediately on crashing. Marco Parigi and I are campaigning for them to do a close flyby, escape and return in 2020 to do follow-up science. Success isn’t guaranteed but it’s risk-free and virtually cost-free. The alternative is a pristine comet strewn with man-made junk anyway. Even the very close flyby returns at least 4x the data as the crash scenario, and probably even more due to not needing to transmit it in real time at (nowadays far from the sun) low bit rates.

    Marco has captured the essence of the naivety of their approach in a blog post linked below. At the end, he links my blog post with a nuts and bolts approach calculating delta v for flyby, escape and 2020 reacquisition. It’s part 59 of “67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko- a Single Body That’s Been Stretched.” Part 1 was blogged here on the Talkshop in December 2014.

    If you feel strongly about trashing a €1.4 billion spacecraft that might manage to do follow-up science virtually for free in 2020-2021, by all means go and let the Rosetta mission know by leaving a comment on their blog here:

    I have a feeling ESA’s EU government paymasters had a hand in this. The EU is getting into space environmentalism these days and I’m sure €1.4 billion of waste won’t sway them otherwise.

  23. oldbrew says:

    Still relying on experiments in glass jars to justify ‘the greenhouse effect’.
    Forgetting that 0.04% CO2 in the atmosphere is an extremely tiny ‘concentration’.

    ‘Meet the woman who first identified the greenhouse effect’

    She goes on to speculate that concentrations of carbon dioxide in the air could influence global temperatures.

    ‘Speculate’ – plenty of that going on in climate-land.

    Re the Foote experiments: would the pressure inside the container be a significant factor?

    Dangers of Heat Exposure to CO2 Cylinders

    More about the experiment here – looks like it was 100% CO2 in a sealed glass jar.
    ‘One receiver being filled with carbonic acid, the other with common air, the temperature of the gas in the sun was raised twenty degrees above that of the air. The receiver containing the gas became very sensibly hotter than the other, and was much longer in cooling.’

    Not surprisingly it heated up – nowhere for the gas to expand into, apart from anything else.

    Surely climate science can’t be based on this?

    Eunice Foote’s Pioneering Research On CO2 And Climate Warming
    – Raymond P. Sorenson

    According to conventional wisdom John Tyndall was the first to measure the variation in absorption of radiant energy by atmospheric gases and the first to predict the impact on climate of small changes in atmospheric gas composition. Overlooked by modern researchers is the work of Eunice Foote, who, three years prior to the start of Tyndall’s laboratory research, conducted similar experiments on absorption of radiant energy by atmospheric gases, such as CO2 and water vapor. The presentation of her report at a major scientific convention in 1856 was accompanied by speculation that even modest increases in the concentration of CO2 could result in significant atmospheric warming.

  24. Paul Vaughan says:

    Their attitude is: “Spatial dimensions and geometry? Meh… We’ll just ignore them and pretend.”

    Reminder: In public on Earth a complete theory of spatiotemporal chaos does not exist.

    I’ve been acutely suspicious for years about why WUWT & CE keep running articles about TEMPORAL chaos. They keep repeating a narrative about temporal chaos that’s based on false spatiotemporal assumptions. (Search in-page for “spatio”, “spatial”, or just “spati”. Nothing.)

    This has been going on for years so they can no longer plead ignorance. It’s deception that has become a staple of the skeptic-luke conversion campaign.

    So far as I know Tomas Milanovic no longer bothers to comment. I suspect he has given up on their capacity and willingness to be sensible.

  25. oldbrew says:

    PV: this might be more to your liking, or you may already know of it.


    From the abstract:
    Solar variations associated with the Schwabe, Hale, and Gleissberg cycles are detected by their spatial patterns in sea-surface temperature and sea-level pressure.
    [Copyright  2004 Royal Meteorological Society]

  26. oldbrew says:

    Latest bright (not really) idea from greenies: turn wind power into gas (via hydrogen) – a hated fossil fuel surely?

    ‘The resulting hydrogen is easy to store — it can be turned back into electricity, converted to natural gas-like methane’

    Hydrogen easy to store – since when?

  27. Paul Vaughan says:

    OB suggested: “PV: this might be more to your liking, or you may already know of it.”

    We’ve certainly come a long way since then. That article might motivate a newcomer to start doing analyses, so it certainly has that utility …but we now have much clearer insight into aggregation criteria than they had back then …so we can see (with the benefit of hindsight) where they went wrong laudably exploring natural pattern. We have access to superior insights now and part of the reason is that seeing incomplete exploration motivates further exploration.

  28. oldbrew says:

    Winds of change in Antarctica region – cause unknown.

    ‘Freshening of Southern Ocean linked to moving sea ice’

    ‘Unfortunately, the models the team created were unable to offer any additional clues as to why the winds have changed over the past few decades—that will be the focus of future research efforts.’

    Read more at:

  29. Paul Vaughan says:

    Earth’s circulatory architecture is a SHAPE-shifting filter.

    4-dimensional circulatory architecture is a developmental challenge for naive climate enthusiasts. Here’s something to consider carefully:

    2000 – The Global Monsoon as Seen through the Divergent Atmospheric Circulation

    My suggestion for modelers stubbornly ignorant of both aggregation criteria and circulatory architecture: Free yourself to take 2 steps forward by stepping back.

    It certainly raises suspicion when models TRANSPARENTLY don’t have spatial dimensions. A good inspector (not to be confused with a corrupt inspector who grins and turns a blind eye!) notices the omission of geometry and that (obviously!) raises sharp suspicion.

    I’m becoming acutely suspicious about the agenda of climate commentators who promote ignorance of the spatial dimensions…

    The train-of-thought I suspect:

    Put forth a parade of models of spatiotemporal phenomena based on temporally-global time-only methods (and consequently FALSE assumptions about circulatory architecture) to accumulate a straw man target eminently useful for converting people into belief in chaos + CO2 = climate.

    Omission of the spatial dimensions and geometry is a deliberate shepherding tool.

    They’re engineering the appearance that modelers are trying and failing, NEVER ACKNOWLEDGING that there was NEVER any chance they would succeed. They were GUARANTEED to fail by omitting geometry and spatial dimensions.

    It’s hard to believe people are actually stupid enough to fall for the act. The beneficiaries (whether accidental or intentional) of this core component of the skeptic-luke conversion campaign:

    the clintons

    (sarc) pole, equator; land, ocean; wet, dry. meh – what’s the difference? meh… (/sarc)

    I think the californian activists would rather you just smoke a joint and let the geometry blend in your well-spun-mind so you won’t BE ABLE to see a contrast.

    (sarc) blend? contrast? meh, close enough to mathematically equal if you smoke a joint in california trust me you can assume they’re equal! (/sarc)

    The uniformity assumption is the glass house of californian stone-throwers.

  30. Poly says:

    Further to previous posts about the importance of the ITCZ (because it controls the rain over vast areas of the world).

    1) Previously we saw the ITCZ was influenced differently by the driver of explosive volcanism in each hemisphere.

    2) Now we see the ITCZ has a major newly found driver;
    “A major new result from this study is the importance, especially regionally, of the lower-tropospheric overturning cell that is centered about 800 mb and accounts for 20% of the mean annual cycle of the divergent wind. . . . . It is especially strong over Africa . . . It influences the Middle East and also has a seasonal signature over Australia. It also appears to be a very important component of the overturning in the tropical eastern Pacific and the Atlantic, and thus of the ITCZs in these regions.

    3) And the ENSO driver also influences ITCZ heavily;
    ” The existence of a single vertical structure function throughout the year and seasonal spatial structure functions also means that time series of these can be determined. . . . the global system does not vary coherently, but rather the regional monsoons and ENSO are in competition with one another, although those patterns evolve in time (e.g., Kumar et al. 1999). More vigorous activity in one sector is apt to create subsidence in another and help suppress activity there, as the largest scales tend to be emphasized in the Tropics”.

    My question is;
    Knowing these drivers, is there any reason why we cannot predict early and mitigate these terrible tropical droughts (and floods) in Sahel, Indian subcontinent, Australia and Sub-Saharan Africa?

    As usual, the trader in me sees potential for financial leverage here, but really that is secondary to the alleviation of vast human suffering.

  31. Paul Vaughan says:

    Poly, regarding your quote under item #3:

    That’s what I’ve meant whenever I’ve said
    “balanced multi-axial differential”.

    I think it’s foolish to try to do prediction before the exploration is finished.
    Certainly sensible prediction will never happen if no one has the patience to take careful exploration far enough.

    As/when time permits I continue exploring. (I have less and less time for that now.)

    I explore because it’s just natural. It has nothing to do with prediction. It’s like going for a hike or kayak. I don’t explore a waterway or a mountain to predict something.

    Perhaps modelers will use the clues of (everyone’s) exploration one day to do the prediction you desire.

    – –

    Here’s an interesting development:

    VIENTIANE, Laos — President Barack Obama called off a planned meeting Tuesday with new Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte […]

    […] the Philippine leader insisted he was only listening to his own country’s people.

    “You must be respectful,” Duterte said of Obama. “Do not just throw questions.” Using the Tagalog phrase for “son of a bitch,” he said, “Putang ina I will swear at you in that forum.” He made the comment in a televised news conference […]
    Managing Duterte has become a worsening headache for Obama since the Filipino took office on June 30, pledging his foreign policy wouldn’t be constricted by reliance on the U.S. Washington has tried largely to look the other way as Duterte has pursued closer relations with China […]

    I barely have time to do any research now, but I’ll be back on the IPO-volcanism-EOP trail as soon all the right factors fall into the alignment that eases efficiency (work smarter, not harder has to be the new philosophy under the new set of tighter time constraints…).

  32. Paul Vaughan says:

    Duterte is nobody’s fool.

    This marks a clear opportunity:

    “[…] people who live in glass houses should not” throw stones at others.
    Duterte has previously cursed Pope Francis and U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon.

    “Who is he (Obama) to confront me?” Duterte said […]
    He has also taken on a more conciliatory position with U.S. rival China. […] Duterte proclaimed early in his presidency that he would pursue a foreign policy not dependent on the United States.

    X marks the spot:

    “The dominant energy outflow center coincides closely with the region of highest sea surface temperatures in the oceans and this migrates back and forth across the equator following the sun.” — 2000 – The Global Monsoon as Seen through the Divergent Atmospheric Circulation

    This is the richest place on Earth.

  33. Paul Vaughan says:

    Epic Blunder 101…

    At wuwt WE recently admitted he did not know about poleward advection.

    My suggestion:
    If you don’t realize how serious that is, do the climate discussion a favor by resigning.

    This ranks up there with his June equator insolation graph. (sarc) Earth’s equator rejects peak insolation that comes in any other month of the year, don’t you know? (/sarc)

    Why someone wants others to follow such incompetent, unethical leadership is an exploration-worthy human mystery. My guess based on observations to date: plain and simple corruption.

  34. Paul Vaughan says:

    Further to the comment I made here… (September 5, 2016 at 7:22 am)

    Balancing against US climate aggression and deception demands stability leadership at levels far above and beyond good protesting.

    The time is naturally ripe to shift the center of global stability.

    Perhaps signalling intention to be trustworthy players in a new stability constellation, today Saudi Arabia and Russia led. And China will back up solid moves supporting stability.

    When old sources of stability fail, people naturally look for alternative sources of stability.

    Solar cycle modulation of the terrestrial semi-annual oscillation is more than a smoking gun.

  35. Jan Braam says:

    Professor Murry Salby says:

    “Atmospheric CO2 is not coming from fossil fuels, fossil fuel emissions are re-absorbed. Emissions coming from natural temperature induced sources, mostly near high vegetation equatorial areas.”

    What if the very first assumption of the whole climate scare is wrong?

    I did a curve fit on the Mauna Loa CO2 curve using true data.
    The results are astonishing, however there is nothing scientific about it.
    Here’s the link:

  36. oldbrew says:

    Global warming and oceanic oxygen outgassing
    Modeled atmospheric oxygen budget
    Gian-Kasper Plattner, Fortunat Joos, Thomas F. Stocker and Olivier Marchal
    Climate and Environmental Physics, University of Bern, Switzerland
    [single page doc.]

    Global CO2 Budget for the 1990s
    At present, the partitioning of fossil-fuel CO2 uptake between
    components of the global carbon cycle is based on observations
    of atmospheric CO2 and O2 [2]. The method is based on the
    assumption that oceanic processes do not influence atmospheric
    O2 concentrations on multi-annual time scales.

    The partitioning of fossil-fuel CO2 uptake between the ocean
    and the terrestial biosphere using atmospheric CO2 and O2
    measurements has to take into account oceanic outgassing of
    O2 due to global warming. We find that the oceanic carbon
    sink is underestimated by 0.3 GtC yr-1 during the 1980s and by
    0.5 GtC yr-1 during the1990s if this effect is not accounted for.
    The terrestrial carbon sink, on the other hand, is accordingly
    overestimated by the same amount.

  37. oldbrew says:

    Bavaria faces 4 GW shortfall by 2022

    The head of Germany’s largest internationally active crude oil and natural gas producer says Bavaria is set for an energy crunch by 2022, with development of the state’s gas-fired power capability the best means of avoiding such an outcome.

    Wintershall CEO Mario Mehren told delegates at the German Energy Congress industry event on Tuesday, “In 2022 if not before, Bavaria will face difficulties with its electricity supply.”

    Have German political leaders got any serious answers, instead of parroting ‘more renewables’?

    The environment ministry’s final version of the plan is still to be coordinated with other ministries. But critics say it had already been watered down under pressure from Sigmar Gabriel’s Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy, which insisted on the omission of a date for the coal exit.

    The German govt. is stuck between a rock and a hard place: placating the green lobbyists and having to actually deliver enough power to run the country. They can’t do both at the same time.

  38. oldbrew says:

    Jo Nova – Dismal: The polarization of climate debate depresses believers: The solution they all miss

    Reality will bite, and sooner or later the public will all realize that like the fear of Witches, the man-made climate crisis was overblown, exaggerated, based on poor data, badly managed and overrun with political self interest and confirmation bias.

  39. oldbrew says:

    ‘Bill Illis comment’

    The warming residual is only 0.038C per decade

  40. Paul Vaughan says:

    Bill made that comment here:

    …and note that he admitted it’s based on FALSE assumptions (residuals fail diagnostics) here:

    “Solar […] Technically, it is not statistically significant and is just a +/- 0.05C in the regression. I leave it in just to say it is in but there is no solar cycle imprint in any of the residuals I have tried. […]

    I think the solar impact needs to be an accumulation over many decades […] the math actually works at this level […]”

    Leaving it in the model is incorrect. IT’S A MISREPRESENTATION …and an egregious one.

    Bill’s ignorance of the solar-terrestrial weave and the solar cycle length differintegral are not only clouding BUT CORRUPTING his judgement.

    It’s time to just call out AS CORRUPT all the people implicitly / UNCONSCIOUSLY / brainlessly assuming north-south symmetry. IT’S A TRANSPARENTLY CORRUPT ASSUMPTION!!! Earth is NOT north-south symmetric!!!!!

    What is the higher purpose behind all of this corruption? Electing clinton??? That’s worth all this trouble????….

  41. Fast says:

    The Earth’s climate system recurrent & multi-scale lagged responses: empirical law, evidence, consequent solar explanation of recent CO2 increases & preliminary analysis

    Abstract. This paper analyzes the lagged responses of the Earth’s climate system, as part of cosmic-solar-terrestrial processes. Firstly, we analyze and model the lagged responses of the Earth’s climate system, previously detected for geological and orbital scale processes, with simple non-linear functions, and we estimate a correspondent lag of ~1600-yr for the recently detected ~9500-yr scale solar recurrent patterns. Secondly, a recurrent and lagged linear influence of solar variation on volcanic activity and carbon dioxide (CO2) has been assessed for the last millennia, and extrapolated for future centuries and millennia. As a consequence we found that, on one side, the recent CO2 increase can be considered as a lagged response to solar activity, and, on the other side, the continental tropical climate signal during late Holocene can be considered as a sum of three lagged responses to solar activity, through direct, and indirect (volcanic and CO2), influences with different lags of around 40, 800 and 1600 years. Thirdly, we find more examples of this ~1600-yr lag, associated with oceanic processes throughout the Holocene, manifested in the mineral content of SE Pacific waters, and in a carbon cycle index, CO3, in the Southern Atlantic. Fourthly, we propose the global ocean circulation processes, that include the well known meridional overturning circulation, and the thermohaline circulation, as a global mechanism capable of explaining the lagged forcing (volcanic activity & CO2) and continental tropical climate responses to solar activity variations. Finally, some conclusions are provided for the lagged responses of the Earth’s climate system with their influences and consequences on present and future climate, and implications for climate modelling are preliminarily analyzed.

  42. Paul Vaughan says:

    2014 – Migrations and dynamics of the intertropical convergence zone

    Rainfall on Earth is most intense in the intertropical convergence zone (ITCZ), a narrow belt of clouds centred on average around six degrees north of the Equator. The mean position of the ITCZ north of the Equator arises primarily because the Atlantic Ocean transports energy northward across the Equator, rendering the Northern Hemisphere warmer than the Southern Hemisphere. On seasonal and longer timescales, the ITCZ migrates, typically towards a warming hemisphere but with exceptions, such as during El Niño events. An emerging framework links the ITCZ to the atmospheric energy balance and may account for ITCZ variations on timescales from years to geological epochs.

    Beware ongoing ignorance of wind:

    A harsh correction is due.

  43. craigm350 says:


    Date: 10/09/16 Wen-Juan Huo and Zi-Niu Xiao, Chinese Academy of Science

    Did the 2014 solar peak trigger strong 2015/16 El Niño warming?

    Wen-Juan Huo and Zi-Niu Xiao, two physicists at the Chinese Academy of Science, have publish new research suggesting that the strong 2015/16 El Niño event occurred right after the 2014 solar peak year and may be directly linked to solar activity peaks. The Chinese scientists found a significant positive correlation between sunspot numbers and the El Niño Modoki index, with a lag of two years. Moreover, El Niño Modoki events were found within 1–3 years following each solar peak year during the past 126 years, suggesting that anomalously strong solar activity during solar peak periods may be the key trigger of such El Niño events.

  44. Paul Vaughan says:

    2011 – South China Sea hydrological changes and Pacific Walker Circulation variations over the last millennium

    The root of the controversy is misinterpretation of SPATIAL changes as TEMPORAL changes. All of these studies need sober review divorced from any “either or” mentality. There’s a shortage of sufficiently-careful qualified judges.

  45. Paul Vaughan says:

    The number of authors (18) on this paper immediately raises suspicions:

    2015 – Aerosol forcing of the position of the intertropical convergence zone since ad 1550

    Based on their interpretation of what volcanoes have done, they’re suggesting humans can move the ITCZ with geoengineering and by relocating industry.

    Their reasoning appears simple:

    Move the bulk of industrial jobs from one country to another to move the ITCZ and engineer a new global order.

    It’s a socialist sculptor’s dream.

  46. Paul Vaughan says:

    Willie Soon & Bob Carter were on the trail and they published in Nature (…which is biased against skeptics so that this got through is informative):

    2015 – Dynamics of the intertropical convergence zone over the western Pacific during the Little Ice Age

    They’re suggesting pole-equator (expansion & contraction) instead of north-south migration.

    I can start by agreeing that more care is needed sorting contrasts:
    1. land-ocean
    2. equator-pole
    3. pole-pole

    Something else to consider:
    4. surface–non-surface (instinct: subsumed by 1-3 including geography)

    A blend is not a contrast and we have fundamentally different types of contrasts.

    More care is needed with spatiotemporal sorting and classification. This is about aggregation criteria. Awareness of cycles and aliasing is an ingredient …but an insufficient one without better attention to the changing order of spatial contrasts over time.

    SEA ICE and ITCZ

    This is a modeling study but note from the introduction that it was motivated by observations:

    2005 – Influence of high latitude ice cover on the marine Intertropical Convergence Zone

    This may help any still-puzzled people striving to understand how LOD relates to the solar cycle length differintegral ….and I do apologize for not getting those illustrations up before the conference to emphasize that when it comes to asymmetry we do have both natural aerosol and natural SCL-differintegral roots.

  47. Paul Vaughan says:

    […] were on the trail and they published in Nature (…which is biased against skeptics so that this got through is informative):

    2015 – Dynamics of the intertropical convergence zone over the western Pacific during the Little Ice Age

    They’re suggesting pole-equator (expansion & contraction) instead of north-south migration.

    I can start by agreeing that more care is needed sorting contrasts:
    1. land-ocean
    2. equator-pole
    3. pole-pole

    Something else to consider:
    4. surface–non-surface (instinct: subsumed by 1-3 including geography)

    A blend is not a contrast and we have fundamentally different types of contrasts.

    More care is needed with spatiotemporal sorting and classification. This is about aggregation criteria. Awareness of cycles and aliasing is an ingredient …but an insufficient one without better attention to the changing order of spatial contrasts over time.

    SEA ICE and ITCZ

    This is a modeling study but note from the introduction that it was motivated by observations:

    2005 – Influence of high latitude ice cover on the marine Intertropical Convergence Zone

    This may help any still-puzzled people striving to understand how LOD relates to the solar cycle length differintegral ….and I do apologize for not getting those illustrations up before the conference to emphasize that when it comes to asymmetry we do have both natural aerosol and natural SCL-differintegral roots.

  48. oldbrew says:

    VW: first scapegoat could be a whistleblower…

    Volkswagen engineer charged in emissions probe

  49. oldbrew says:

    Where Do Wind Turbines Go To Die?

    ‘Unlike coal mines, wind farms aren’t required to set aside funds for clean-up.’

    Nice work for scrap dealers?

  50. Paul Vaughan says:

    oldmanK, as Tomas Milanovic has counseled us, a complete theory of spatiotemporal chaos does not yet exist. You will find a lot of deception artists pretending that temporal (i.e. spatiotemporal minus the spatial dimensions) chaos theory applies to climate. There’s not a shred of observational evidence to support that belief. Of course people are free to have whatever beliefs they want.

    There are a lot of propaganda agents who like the idea that climate = temporal (not spatiotemporal) chaos + CO2. It’s useful to them because they use it as a catch-all. They say there’s all the natural stuff and since it’s chaos no one should ever try to figure it out because that’s impossible and therefore the only thing that can be figured out is CO2. They love it. They push it hard.

    This is nothing new. There was lots of discussion of temporal chaos at Climate Etc. years ago and Tomas Milanovic tried to straighten people out and exposed the whole community as being corrupt. I began my boycott of that venue shortly thereafter.

    My suggestion is to be extremely suspicious any time you see people pushing TEMPORAL chaos and keeping it swept under the rug that a complete theory of SPATIOtemporal chaos does not yet exist (for humans on Earth).

    As for literature on TEMPORAL chaos. It’s endless. You could spend years of your life reading it. It’s VERY addictive. The activists are baiting you onto that hook so you’ll get lost and confused.

    Here’s a credibility tip to apply vigilantly:
    Every time you see a climate discussion thread on chaos, search the page for “spatial”, “spatio”, or “spati” more generally. Very close to 100% of the time climate articles on chaos are pure fraud and it only takes a few seconds to determine this and leave morons behind to argue about temporal chaos as if that helps develop a theory of spatiotemporal chaos (which it doesn’t).

    In plain simple terms: Don’t be a gullible sucker!

    I don’t take seriously at all anyone applying temporal chaos theory to climate. I regard their voluminous spin as an ABSTRACT bubble based on false assumptions. Earth’s surface wraps on itself, imposing aggregate constraints on chaos. Perhaps one day someone will develop a complete theory of SPATIOtemporal chaos. (Today it does not yet exist.)

  51. Paul Vaughan says:

    49 times out of 50 I skip Tim Ball articles. He’s often so worked up about the politics that he can’t keep his eye on the ball ….but today we see a notable exception:

    He appears to fathom clearly that climate’s not a time-only phenomenon. Let’s hope moving forward he can minimize his distraction by the politics and keep his eye on the ball ….maybe the wind education ball – or something complementary.

    I’ve started working on algebraic statement of the spatial constraints (the different types of contrasts) on temporal aggregates (blends).

    In a theory of spatiotemporal chaos, chaos can be afforded a (placeholder) role in the partitioning (and the consequences of the partitioning) but not in the aggregate!

    The partitioning accounts for no more than 20% of climate, but it’s the shiny bouncy part so it’s foremost in political and financial minds most days in climate discussion it seems.

    It seems to me there are a lot people (inefficiently and unwisely) working on the Pareto Principle Corollary rather than on the (order of magnitude more efficient) Pareto Principle. These are detail-oriented people and the appearance is that in their obsessive attention to luxurious detail they miss first order pattern. They are focused on second-order features (like the day’s ensoic choice of face-paint and hairstyle) that (comically) blind them to more important things accounting for 80% of the variance (like strong abs and heart in a more sensible attraction accounting scheme).

  52. oldbrew says:

    Stunning Before and After Space Pics Reveal Massive Ice Avalanche

    When the ice and rock settled, the avalanche debris spanned 4 square miles (10 square km) and was 98 feet (30 m) thick. The massive avalanche killed nine people, 350 sheep and 110 yaks that lived in the village of Dungru.

    The deadly natural disaster has stymied researchers.

    “This is new territory scientifically,” Andreas Kääb, a glaciologist at the University of Oslo, said in a statement. “It is unknown why an entire glacier tongue would shear off like this. We would not have thought this was even possible before Kolka happened.”

  53. Paul Vaughan says:

    Daily Reminder:

    A blend is NOT a contrast…

    2000 – Indices of El Nino Evolution

    “[…] the Trans-Nino index (TNI), can be given by the difference between the normalized SST anomalies averaged in the Nino-1+2 and Nino-4 regions. Because N3.4 can be approximately thought as the sum of these two indices, N3.4 and TNI are approximately orthogonal at zero lag.”

    Remember that TNI ~= EMI (El Nino Modoki Index)

    The recent awakening at wuwt to the existence of advection is a significant milestone in climate discussion. It’s the beginning of the climb-down.

    Further background links forthcoming.

  54. Paul Vaughan says:

    Recall that I’ve advised KNMI to add capacity to the “Make EOFs” feature to facilitate factor rotation (including varimax). Bright Chinese explorers waste no time cracking western code:

    2016 – Reinspecting two types of El Nino: a new pair of Nino indices for improving real-time ENSO monitoring

    Trenberth and Stepaniak (2001) used the lead/lag correlation between Nino3.4 and TNI to describe their interconnection evolutions at various leads and lags and spectacularly revealed the abrupt transition of the changes in evolution of ENSO.”

    Digest carefully. This exposes the californian dark agency. You may find that your conceptualization of ENSO is due for harsh adjustment….

  55. Paul Vaughan says:

    5:1 cloud geometry….

    1996 – Why is the ITCZ mostly north of the equator?

    Next Up:
    A geometry lesson on dry static versus moist (latent) advection. You may be surprised when you realize what you didn’t know about sign reversals with latitude….

  56. Paul Vaughan says:

    wet & dry geometry….
    note which latitudes share sign and which ~cancel

    DS = Dry Static
    L = Latent

    links to background reading forthcoming

  57. Paul Vaughan says:

    Trenberth & Stepaniak 2003a – Covariability of Components of Poleward Atmospheric Energy Transports on Seasonal and Interannual Timescales

    Trenberth & Stepaniak 2003b – Seamless Poleward Atmospheric Energy Transports and Implications for the Hadley Circulation

    Better awareness of wet & dry circulatory similarities & differences can raise the aggregation criteria bar.

    I recommend comparing and contrasting the images above, digging in the articles for background.

  58. oldbrew says:

    Hawaii’s Kilauea volcano is getting lively.

    September 12, 2016 – 8:06 AM HST
    Activity Summary: Kīlauea Volcano continues to erupt at its summit and from its East Rift Zone. Summit tiltmeters recorded the onset of inflationary tilt at midnight, and inflation continues this morning. Kīlauea’s summit lava lake began to rise again with the switch to inflation.

    GPS and InSAR data show continued long-term inflation of the summit magma reservoir complex, ongoing since 2010.


  59. oldbrew says:

    Westerly winds have blown across central Asia for at least 42 million years
    September 13, 2016

    The gusting westerly winds that dominate the climate in central Asia, setting the pattern of dryness and location of central Asian deserts, have blown mostly unchanged for 42 million years. A University of Washington geologist led a team that has discovered a surprising resilience to one of the world’s dominant weather systems. The finding could help long-term climate forecasts, since it suggests these winds are likely to persist through radical climate shifts.

    Read more at:

  60. craigm350 says:

    No surprises where today’s new record came up:

    Highest September temperature since 1911 as 34.4C recorded

    The UK’s hottest day of the year so far – and the warmest September day since 1911 – has been recorded in Gravesend, Kent, where it reached 34.4C (93.9F).

    The spell of warm Autumn weather is forecast to continue across parts of England until Friday…

    The highest temperature of 2016 had previously been 34.1C, which was reached on 23 August at Faversham in Kent.

    The all-time record for September of 35.6C (96.1F) was set in 1906, in Bawtry, South Yorkshire…

    Hurricane Hermine, which hit Florida in early September, pushed large kinks into the jet stream – large atmospheric waves which lock our weather patterns in place. For Spain and Portugal, that meant temperatures rising to 10C above average last week.

    A large area of high pressure centred over northern Europe has brought southerly winds, which have drawn this warm air northwards, reaching our shores today. And we have mainly clear skies across much of England, so we’re topping it up ourselves.

    We saw 31C in September in 1973, and in 1961, in Gatwick, the temperature recorded was 31.6C. It’s very doubtful that we will break the all-time record though, as a 1906 heat wave brought September temperatures of 35.6C (96.08F).

    Tim has looked at Gravesend before:


  61. Bamse says:

    Tallbloke, are the videos of the London conference available? Also, how do I send a donation to assist with the conference costs? (If this has been addressed elsewhere on this blog, apologies)

  62. oldbrew says:

    Study: Batteries Necessary To Support Solar Power Don’t Exist

    One of the world’s largest and most powerful batteries, located in Fairbanks, Alaska, weighs 1,300-metric tons and is larger than a football field. It can only provide enough electricity for about 12,000 residents, or 38 percent of Fairbanks’ population, for seven minutes. That’s useful for short outages, which happen a lot in Alaska, but isn’t effective enough to act as a reserve for solar and wind.

  63. oldmanK says:

    A reply to PV. First, thank you for the warning and pointing out the pitfalls of applying any Chaos theory to climate. It is appreciated,- and looking up what Tomas Milanovic had to say was informative.

    I had something else in mind. Some basic aspects behind the “Chaos” maths look like offering a different perspective to the matter of stability of the dynamics of systems. In the old perspective formulae were the rule and we were always concerned with the areas where the formulae were proven to work by experiment. Most everything had its SOA (safe operating area). Engineering always demanded staying there – beyond was No-man’s-land. Formula extrapolation many times ran into trouble- sometimes at great cost as it would turn out.

    Hence the lure of what Chaos theory might offer. In engineering most everything is put to a test. However no one has put to test the equations of the dynamics of the Earth. We extrapolated into the future blindly. We extrapolated backwards in time equations that are stable – they have a stable attractor – when we know the Earth did not follow that attractor path. Worse, there is evidence of other separate attractor points. Those attractor points may determine whether it will be a ‘waterworld’ or snowball or something in between. We are lost with the details, sometimes of one variable or of a very short span of time, but have no idea which variable matters most or when.

    Someone may find these interesting. Brief videos on ‘Chaos’ maths on

  64. Paul Vaughan says:

    oldmanK, the spatial patterns are MANY-TO-ONE.

    Look at the wet & dry energy transport illustrations to develop some intuition about the array of heating and cooling partitioning possibilities.

    We’re in the realm of aggregate proof.

    Tomas Milanovic’s most informative insights are not concentrated in articles he volunteered at CE but rather scattered around as spontaneous comments on various threads.

    People keep slipping into discussion of UNIvariate TEMPORAL (TIME-ONLY) chaos. The bottom line is this: A complete theory of MULTIvariate SPATIOtemporal chaos DOES NOT YET EXIST (in public at least for humans on Earth).

    Indeed there are attractors. I’ve isolated some of them empirically (as I hope you are aware) and I’ve explored algebraic expression of some of the aggregate constraints. Throwing around blizzards of algebra isn’t one of my passions so I will not allow myself to become consumed by the task of developing a theory of MULTIvariate SPATIOtemporal chaos.

    As always I’ll stick to exploration (we need an efficient division of labor) and remind anyone contemplating theory that the context is NOT UNIvariate TEMPORAL chaos, but rather MULTIvariate SPATIOtemporal chaos.

    Chaos, yes (multivariate spatiotemporal chaos to be more precise) …but as I’ve said before it’s in a box. The box accounts for 80% of the variance …and technically multivariate spatiotemporal chaos is just a placeholder for the 20% leftovers.

    Boycotting exploration of the leftovers doesn’t change the box.

    I’ve given one of the aggregate proofs algebraically. Regarding the multi-axial spatiotemporal variance partitioning about the attractors, as I have advised countless times: the empirical attractor indicates BOTH SPATIAL AND LATENT axes on the balanced multi-axial differential.

  65. Paul Vaughan says:

    Pareto Principle
    Wet vs. Dry 101

    In central limit the (superficially apparent) sign is opposite for eras of net heating and cooling.

    It’s simple:

    Evaporation COOLS.
    Precipitation WARMS.

    Simple deduction:
    The integral steers (widely misinterpreted) global sign changes.

  66. oldbrew says:

    From New Scientist: New Horizons discovery raises solar wind riddle around Pluto

    ‘… when Carey Lisse at Johns Hopkins University, Maryland, and colleagues viewed Pluto using the Chandra X-ray Observatory in 2013, they saw far fewer X-rays than anticipated.’ report seems to contradict New Scientist:
    The immediate mystery is that Chandra’s readings on the brightness of the X-rays are much higher than expected from the solar wind interacting with Pluto’s atmosphere.

    “Before our observations, scientists thought it was highly unlikely that we’d detect X-rays from Pluto, causing a strong debate as to whether Chandra should observe it at all,” said co-author Scott Wolk, of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Cambridge, Mass. “Prior to Pluto, the most distant solar system body with detected X-ray emission was Saturn’s rings and disk.”

    Paper: The puzzling detection of x-rays from Pluto by Chandra [abstract only]

    My money’s on here😉

  67. RJ Salvador says:

    Quote “A Market-Roiling La Nina Is Dividing World Weather Forecasters”

    There are fortunes to be made if you can get it right!

  68. oldbrew says:

    NASA quotes GMAO modellers: ‘a La Niña event in late 2016 is unlikely’

  69. oldbrew says:

    A Hiatus of the Greenhouse Effect
    Jinjie Song, Yuan Wang & Jianping Tang
    Published online: 12 September 2016


    The rate at which the global average surface air temperature (Ts) increases has slowed down during the past few decades. This so-called hiatus, pause, or slowdown of global warming has inspired investigations into its potential causes worldwide. Although some researchers doubted the existence of a global warming hiatus because of coverage bias artificial inconsistency, and a change point analysis of instrumental Ts records, it is now accepted that a recent warming deceleration can be clearly observed. There are two primary hypotheses to explain the recent slowdown of the upward trend in Ts. Both hypotheses attempt to explain the contradiction between the trendless Ts variation and the intensifying anthropogenic greenhouse effect resulting from the steadily increasing emission of greenhouse gases (GHGs). The first attributes the warming hiatus to external radiative forcings, such as decreasing solar irradiance, increasing tropospheric and stratospheric aerosols, reduced stratospheric water vapor, and several small volcanic eruptions. The warming effect of increasing GHGs is largely cancelled out by the decreasing solar shortwave radiation received by the Earth’s surface. The second considers the warming pause to be a result of internal oceanic and/or atmospheric decadal variabilities against the centennial warming trend, in which two leading theories are proposed. One asserts that the recent warming hiatus likely results from a La Niña-like state or a negative phase of Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation (IPO) associated with the cooling tropical Pacific sea surface temperature (SST) and the increasing Pacific trade winds. This theory is supported by the successful simulation of the warming hiatus by nudging the tropical pacific SST or trade winds relative to observations. The other suggests that the warming hiatus is accompanied by increasing heat uptake in global deep oceans. This extra heat, which originates from a positive radiative imbalance at the top of the atmosphere (TOA), is reserved in the deep oceans instead of warming the Earth’s skin. Note that both aforementioned hypotheses indeed include an enhancing greenhouse effect in which more heat is captured by the Earth–atmosphere system. The main difference between them is how this additional energy is prevented from warming the Earth’s surface.

    H/T the GWPF [report continues – see Nature link above – this is only a small portion of it]

    Comment: looks suspiciously like an attempt to prop up ‘man-made greenhouse effects’ in the face of obvious natural variation.

  70. oldbrew says:

    Psst! Wannabe a smart meter installer?

    Report: ‘Lack of engineers puts UK smart meter rollout at risk’
    The UK government could miss its target to roll out smart meters in 30 million homes and businesses because of a lack of investment in training engineers.

    ECTA estimates that up to 6500 new smart meter engineers are still required to help meet the requirements.

    Maybe the EU could send over a few/hundreds/thousands – delete as appropriate😎

  71. RJ Salvador says:

    If climate experts among Japanese, American and Australian scientists can’t agree when it comes to la Nina then for anyone who is in a gambling mood below is an update of the ENSO model forecast to 2020 based on data back to 1870. Add to your woodpile!

  72. oldbrew says:

    It could be either El Nono or La Nada😎

  73. oldbrew says:

    Odds of mega-quake rise at high tide: study

    Many of the largest earthquakes, including the December 26, 2004 quake in Sumatra, occurred during periods when the pull of the Moon and Sun were particularly forceful

    Read more at:

  74. Paul Vaughan says:

    There seems to have been some kind of major misunderstanding about El Nino Modoki at wuwt. Above I’ve given a link to background reading. Anyone with the inclination will find it’s not difficult to create an El Nino Modoki index empirical ensemble via KNMI Climate Explorer’s “Make EOFs”.

    While messing around getting a handle on what the various authors have been going after I came across something really clean and simple — something else …and something a whole lot more important ….and it’s first order. I aim to illustrate by the end of September, possibly sooner.

  75. Paul Vaughan says:

    I’m flagging this up to provoke philosophical level consideration of data reduction and aggregation criteria:

    2012 – An Evaluation of Rotated EOF Analysis and Its Application to Tropical Pacific SST Variability

    Also here’s a reminder of a VEOF paper we discussed years ago:

    2005 – Interannual Variability of Patterns of Atmospheric Mass Distribution

    There’s a tremendous amount of work to do in this area. Method development is far from finished. To me this is far and away the most interesting topic in climate discussion. It’s one sharp edge that cuts clean exploratory pathways.

    Taxpayer-funded explorers can be directed to develop evolving (in time) aggregation criteria capacity — i.e. facilitate not only non-square gridboxes to allow for diagonal lines and polygons but also shape-shifting to track (over time) architectural boundaries like the ITCZ …to get differintegral observation more finely tuned. Meanwhile we do things like 8 degrees North is the average ITCZ.

    This is a piece of work for patient programmers. The amount of work that needs to be done is formidable.

  76. oldbrew says:

    Data charts show 2016 not the ‘warmest in a 1000 years’

    With an avalanche of articles coming out claiming 2016 as the warmest year ever as the planet cools in a damage control fashion, I present 20 data charts that prove this year is not the warmest ever and the warming experienced in 2016 El Nino is a natural cycle.

  77. RJ Salvador says:

    After working with the numbers, my guts tell me that MEI ENSO is entirely a lunar earth tidal interaction. Yes the sun supplies the heat but the moon/earth tidal interaction arrange the heat and distribute it through advection. If there is a correlation with the sunspot activity it is an artifact of the general solar system synchronization.

  78. oldbrew says:

    Re El Nino and the Moon, see:

    Quote: This repost of Ian Wilson’s Jan 1st article at his Astro-Climate-Connection blog continues development of his hypothesis that the Moon triggers El Nino events.

  79. Paul Vaughan says:

    RJ, perhaps we are having an absolutely brutal communication breakdown.

    I don’t mean to sound sarcastic, but to underscore a point I must ask:

    Do you acknowledge the existence of thermal tides?
    For example, have you ever heard of the day and year?

    Sometimes (whether by intent or accident) the obvious gets swept under the rug and frankly all that does is rouse (very strong) suspicions.

    On a less sarcastic tone:

    Are you taking care to differentiate between lunar and lunisolar?
    I’m open to the possibility that miscommunications are at least partially semantic in origin.

    The sun accounts for 85% of the variance.

    Distortion artists and deception agents are having a murderous field-day capitalizing on the opportunities presented by the scrambled residual 15%.

    The trigger scrambles ….but it is not the underlying potential source.

  80. RJ Salvador says:

    Thanks for the reminder of Ian Wilson’s article. Ian appears to be correct as usual.
    I should have posted above that MEI ENSO is entirely a sun lunar earth tidal interaction.
    The timing of the new moon, full moon solstice and equinox are all factors in determining the MEI ENSO.

  81. Paul Vaughan says:

    It could maybe reach a wider audience with careful rewrite for simplified clarity …but it’s only necessary to reach luminaries …and so it’s sufficient as-is:

    “[…] because the Cross Equator SST Gradient (CESG) is southward, the cross equator northward wind, which decelerates trade winds north of the equator and accelerates those south of the equator due to Coriolis force […] Thus the evaporation of the northern tropics is weakened, thereby cooling down the northern tropical SST slightly. Vice versa […] Therefore, SST of northern tropical is much higher […] increases the CESG. […] positive feedback […] Wind-Evaporation-SST (WES) […]”

    2 days ago I arrived at a point where I can see exactly where people are gong wrong.

  82. oldbrew says:

    Some sanity returning down under…

    Australia cuts renewables agency funding

    The agency’s entire AUD1.3bn budget was initially due for the chop as part of a wider AUD6bn package of cost-cutting measures, but this amount was reduced in a bid by the coalition government to secure support for the move from the opposition Labour party.

  83. oldbrew says:

    ‘Power prices have surged to record highs this week following a number of plant shutdowns and a heat wave.

    “The supply-demand crunch has given us an early taste of what could be a very volatile six months for the UK power market, as it will be the first winter since the mass closure of coal-fired plants that took place in March this year.”

    The bullishness continued on Thursday as the price for baseload power on Monday hit £200/MWh – four and half times the average for 2016.

  84. Paul Vaughan says:

    As advised before:
    Water conservation politics is extremely serious business.

    This article intensely strikes a chord of lucid awareness that leadership immersed in such an extreme regional worry bubble cannot possibly be representative of what’s best for our own (radically differing) regions:

    The article makes an intense impression, crystallizing the context of extreme passion for sun-climate thought-policing.

  85. Paul Vaughan says:

    How would the moon cause a drought lasting millennia?
    And how would a La Nina lasting millennia be hindcast using NASA JPL Horizons output?

    Imagine you could double radiation …or increase it ten-fold.
    What would that do to day-night gradients? …summer-pole–winter-pole gradients? …land-ocean gradients? …thermocline stability?
    How would it reshape wet and dry energy transport?

    Did the moon do something fantastic (!!) in 2200BC??

  86. oldbrew says:

    PV: as one WUWT commenter says, it’s ‘one borehole in one lake’.

  87. oldmanK says:

    Repeating oldbrew’s quote: “The bullishness continued on Thursday as the price for baseload power on Monday hit £200/MWh – four and half times the average for 2016.”

    Some price increase that for base load! Once it was said of power generators, that they were ‘donkeys shitting gold’. Are we heading back to that era?

  88. oldmanK says:

    PV, a very interesting link (from WUWT) (and an invite/tease??- no matter its welcome). Simply for the fact that they found something linking to the 2200bce event, (to me that the reasons they give, give a wrong lead, means better still; its look more genuine). No problem if its -as oldbrew points-‘one borehole…..’, . That’s your Pareto Principle at work.

    An old groove (as in vinyl disc) of mine, real evidence of 2200 event comes in singular cases. In my case its dimensions in a contemporary building, others from ancient astronomical data. So when PV asks “Did the moon do something fantastic (!!) in 2200BC??”, I’ll point once more –look at all the evidence. I’ll add this: whatever the moon did(?) in 2200, it happened several times before in the holocene, between 1-6ky bce.

  89. Paul Vaughan says:

    “Even more exciting to the researchers was a brief shift in the record toward moister conditions around 2,200 B.C. In the middle of thousands of years of mid-Holocene dryness, Kirman Lake suddenly became moister again, MacDonald said, while simultaneously the Pacific Ocean record switched to more El Niño-like conditions.

    “This change at 2,200 B.C. was a global phenomenon,” MacDonald said. “It’s associated with the collapse of the Old Kingdom in Egypt. It’s linked to the decline of the Akkadian Empire in Mesopotamia and similar Bronze Age societal disruptions in India and China. It was amazing to find evidence of it in our own backyard.””

    – –

    Let’s take a minute to add perspective….

    It is a long-standing mystery that the intertropical convergence zone (ITCZ) stays north of the equator over the Atlantic and eastern Pacific Oceans despite that the annual-mean solar radiation at the top of the atmosphere is symmetric with respect to the equator.
    While latitudinal asymmetries of land-sea distribution certainly are the ultimate cause of the perennial Northern Hemisphere (NH) ITCZ, the chain of causality is poorly understood.
    The atmospheric response to an eastern Pacific-type SST distribution–with an equatorial minimum and two off-equatorial maxima–is quite straightforward: It forms its ITCZ in the warmer hemisphere […]. How the atmosphere forms its ITCZ over a western Pacific-type SST distribution–with a broad equatorial maximum–is a matter of controversy […].

    Now I ask the lunar-ENSO fans a very simple question:

    Have you seen anything in your lunar modeling adventures that would lead you to hindcast surface pressure patterns, sea surface temperature patterns, sea surface height patterns, wind patterns, thermocline depth patterns, and all the other coupled things to LOCK into a La Nina pattern FOR MILLENNIA???

    Suggestion 21:

    Use intense funding coercion to force the climate mainstream to understand what they don’t understand about ITCZ position with orders of magnitude more clarity.

    “This wind- evaporation-SST (WES) feedback is very effective in adjusting SST: a wind speed difference of a factor of two translates into a SST difference of 11 C […].
    A condition for this spontaneous development of latitudinal asymmetry is the equatorial upwelling that prevents the ITCZ from forming at the equator.
    A symmetry-breaking forcing by Americas […]”

    ((Divide and conquer anyone?….))

    I’ve looked into this and what I found is geometrically simple:


    It’s a new approach to polarization.

    “Break on through to the other side” — The Doors

    Before we can go there there’s review of prerequisites people missed last time around (and the time before).

    oldmanK, they say 2200BC. Can you again concisely (a simple chronological list would be an effective way to stoke detective instincts) remind us of the key dates you’ve seen scattered around the symmetry-breaking incident?

    I do have new first order perspective to share. ITCZ asymmetry prerequisites come first. Hitting people over the head with 1+1 doesn’t assure capacity to recognize 2. (Willingness is another matter.)

    Leveraging the californian bubble and passion for lukewarm recruiting and marketing purposes was natural.

    We’ll also go over El Nino Modoki indices. You can blame a devilishly naive boss for hiring an advection and insolation clown who assumes spatial independence.

    […] the tropical ocean- atmosphere system contains two major feedback mechanisms: The Bjerkness feedback is responsible for equatorially centered phenomena like El Nino/ Southern Oscillation, whereas the WES feedback generates features anti- symmetric about the equator. Upwelling dominates SST variations on the equator, while surface heat flux becomes important off the equator where prevailing Ekman downwelling decouples SST from oceanic variability beneath.

    “Solar radiation” as the answer to “what drives ocean-atmospheric motion” would be considered too vague today. Only a few years ago, our answer–“land-sea distribution”–to “what keeps the ITCZ north of the equator” was as vague.
    Yet there are still gaps to fill: Which continental features are the trigger that puts the oceanic ITCZ to the north of the equator?

    Lunar modelers:

    Is your mind open enough to consider the moon a “continental feature”?

    Are you working on the Bjerkness feedback? or the WES feedback??

    Hint: What LIMITS the INTEGRAL of the Bjerkness feedback? Could it be the WES feedback?

    Is the sum of the parts the whole? …or are the parts a partitioning of the whole??

    You could put 10 moons in the sky and let them scramble (climate and human minds).
    Which limits would not change?? And on which axis??

    An exercise for modelers:

    How would QBO, AMO, & ENSO differ — or be the same — if Earth had 10 moons instead of one?

    Thermal and gravitational tides differ fundamentally. What comparative provocations are needed to correct thinking about aggregation criteria, axial differences, and limits? It’s something to explore.

  90. Paul Vaughan says:

    “The asymmetry of the east Pacific depends on processes that are notoriously difficult to capture in general circulation models (GCMs). […] Most atmospheric GCMs produce a tropical climate that is too meridionally symmetric, with southerly winds that are too weak and these biases tend to amplify upon coupling to ocean GCMs (above).”

  91. oldbrew says:

    The inclination of the planetary system relative to the solar equator may be explained by the presence of Planet 9

    Rodney Gomes, Rogerio Deienno, Alessandro Morbidelli (Submitted on 18 Jul 2016)

    We evaluate the effects of a distant planet, commonly known as planet 9, on the dynamics of the giant planets of the Solar System. We find that, given the large distance of planet 9, the dynamics of the inner giant planets can be decomposed into a classic Lagrange-Laplace dynamics relative to their own invariant plane (the plane orthogonal to their total angular momentum vector) and a slow precession of said plane relative to the total angular momentum vector of the Solar System, including planet 9. Under some specific configurations for planet 9, this precession can explain the current tilt of approximately 6 degrees between the invariant plane of the giant planets and the solar equator. An analytical model is developed to map the evolution of the inclination of the inner giant planets’ invariant plane as a function of the planet 9’s mass, inclination, eccentricity and semimajor axis, and some numerical simulations of the equations of motion of the giant planets and planet 9 are performed to validate our analytical approach. The longitude of the ascending node of planet 9 is found to be linked to the longitude of the ascending node of the giant planets’ invariant plane, which also constrain the longitude of the node of planet 9 on the ecliptic. Some of the planet 9 configurations that allow explaining the current solar tilt are compatible with those proposed to explain the orbital confinement of the most distant Kuiper belt objects. Thus, this work on the one hand gives an elegant explanation for the current tilt between the invariant plane of the inner giant planets and the solar equator and, on the other hand, adds new constraints to the orbital elements of planet 9. [bold added]

  92. Paul Vaughan says:

    That probably deserves it’s own feature article OB.

    [reply] thanks for this suggestion

  93. Paul Vaughan says:

    Since landing a significant finding last week (illustrations forthcoming in the weeks ahead) I’ve begun digging around in whatever strained spare time I can manage for background info on ITCZ definition, aggregation criteria, climatologies, etc.

    The lack of search results (using keyword combos tried so far) suggests this is an area of too-deep mainstream ignorance. I suspect that better (specifically less ignorant) attention in this area will result in an orders-of-magnitude increase in clarity of climate perception.

    There may be superior, supplementary, and/or complementary info out there that I haven’t yet hunted down, but so far I’ve turned up 2 nice clues about the roots of the global-scale pattern partitioning I’m detecting:


    “Our wind climatology of the ITCZ contains a single ITCZ characterized by large seasonal migration; over the global ocean the ITCZ location shifts by about 20° between July and January (Figure 2g). The corresponding shift of the precipitation maxima is about 4° (Figure 2d).”

    2011 – Climatology of the ITCZ derived from ERA Interim reanalyses

    tropical belt illustration
    1. global
    2. ocean
    3. land
    1. TRMM precipitation
    2. ERA Interim precipitation
    3. meridional wind
    4. meridional wind convergence

    Looking across the 3rd row (meridional wind where a positive value indicates northward wind and a negative value indicates southward wind) you can see that monsoons over land (3rd column) are blowing out the global zero-crossing extremes.

    From the ocean illustration (3rd column, 3rd row = panel h) looking at July (red) and January (blue) we see that annual meridional wind zero-crossing migration is from roughly the equator to 15°N.

    Such clear and simple insight immensely helps guide sorting and detection of multidecadal-to-centennial spatiotemporal pattern.


    Illustrations here further underscore 0-15°N intensity with eye-catching triangular patterns:

    2002 – Wind Convergence Observed by QuikSCAT – Liu, Xie, & Tang (NASA JPL)

    See particularly sections “3. Intertropical Convergence Zones” & “4. Wind and Sea Surface Temperature Coupling”

    “Fig. 6 Latitude-time variations of meridional components of surface wind from ERS scatterometer (upper) and SSM/I (lower) in the eastern tropical Pacific.”

    “Fig. 5 Latitude-time variations of (from top to bottom) surface wind convergence (10^(-5)/s), meridional wind component (m/s), cloud liquid water (mm), and sea surface temperature (°C), from QuikSCAT and TMI, averaged over (a) 5°W-15°W, (b) 25°W-35°W, and (c) 95°-105°W. On the back line, the meridional wind is zero.” (Interpretive caution: column 1 latitudinal range = 10S-10N versus 15S-15N for columns 2 & 3.)

    Some key notes from the article:

    1. “The high accuracy and resolution made it possible to compute derivative quantities, such as atmospheric wind convergence, which reveal details of the atmospheric processes [Liu, 2002].”

    2. “Despite many studies, the existences and seasonality of the ITCZ south of the equator is still controversial. By definition, ITCZ should be examined through surface wind convergence, but surface wind convergence are largely not available in the past because of the poor resolution of wind maps computed from routine ship reports. Two different mechanisms which distinguish the formation of stronger from the weaker ITCZ were revealed by the vector winds from QuikSCAT and the sea surface temperature (SST) from the microwave imager on TRMM [Liu and Xie, 2002].”

    3. Near the equator, -∂u/∂x is much smaller than -∂v/∂y; wind convergence is dominated by the meridional gradient of the meridional wind component.”

    4. “The Atlantic, south of the northern ITCZ, is largely dominated by southerly winds, all year round.”

    5. “There are two scenarios to achieve local maximum of C. […] The coexistence of a stronger convergence zone on one side of the equator with a weaker one on the other side cannot be explained with the same mechanism.” (They postulate 2 different mechanisms (see paragraph 1 of p.6).)

    6. “The scenario is similar in the eastern Pacific (Fig. 5c), except that during boreal springs, the northerly trade winds cross the equator and meet the southerly trade winds at the stronger convergence south of the equator.”

    7. “For the long time series in the Atlantic, the stronger convergence zone is always in the north and weaker one in south consistent with two mechanisms we postulated.”

    8. “[…] wind divergence is in quadrature rather than in phase with SST.” (from section “4. Wind and Sea Surface Temperature Coupling”) “Similar relation between SST and surface winds appears to be much more prevalent. It was observed in the cold patches left behind typhoon passages […] and even over Gulf Stream rings […] similar relation in the Asian marginal seas. The vertical mixing mechanism appears to be applicable over a broad spectrum of temporal and spatial scales over different regions. (Connection: Recall the work of Jose Rial. We’re dealing with fractals. Although working on different timescales, Rial and I both developed sufficient awareness of aggregate differintegral structure to make downscale inference.)

    Another illustration turned up by the search engine:

    These illustrations remove much of the mystery about how insolation and land-sea geometry sort sea surface temperatures zonally (explaining 85% or more of global SST variation). I’ll be reviewing last week’s findings in light of the above, which suggest (minor) refinements to the aggregation criteria.

    In combination with a semi-annual (spring/fall) reinterpretation of Trenberth, Stepaniak, & Caron’s (2000) CEOF2, this also opens up new avenues of tropical east-west axis (including ENSO) exploration (to probe the residual 15% or less of global SST variation).

  94. oldmanK says:

    PV in above asked “oldmanK, they say 2200BC. Can you again concisely (a simple chronological list would be an effective way to stoke detective instincts) remind us of the key dates you’ve seen scattered around the symmetry-breaking incident?”

    Its best to refer again to chart here: Since I mentioned this chart some time ago I have confirmed its correct. That chart shows a precursor to the 2200bc event–at 2345–that is supported by various evidence:
    a—Dodwell’s paper to the Astro society. b—same date highlited in dendrochronology. c—a megalithic calendar converted to a higher obliquity but no clear date except between 2900-2200. d—the chart indicating polar warming but equatorial cooling at about ~2400. e—evidence from Quelccaya glacier of permanently frozen plants dated initially to an event ~5000 years ago (3000bc), but that number has since been revised downwards. It would happen with abrupt insolation reduction between tropics as chart indicates.

    The calendars indicate earlier obliquity swings. The chart at 4375bc again indicates similar polar warming but equatorial cooling at about the right time a calendar was built to a higher obliquity (ie chart, date and indication from calendar dimension agree). An even earlier instance exists in the chart at 6150 or 6200(?), a date that is linked to the sinking–or flooding–of Doggerland, but nothing else at this early period.

    Then in between there are reverse events, but only one is firm. About 3200–precise at 3195 from dendrochronology,– occurs the Piora Oscillation. It is linked to cataclysmic (ugly) events because there is an orientation change in the new calendars and total abandonment of all earlier. However cannot yet interpret chart. It is also linked to earlier civilisation collapse.

    Chart originates from Wiki–holocene temp variations, all O2 isotope. To note: averaging hides and obfuscates rather than gives clearer indications.

  95. Paul Vaughan says:

    of course …and image searches often work better than regular searches. Strained time is one limiting factor and the other is that the mainstream hasn’t done as much work on ITCZ migration as I would have imagined. The info I’ve posted just above is enough for the explorations I’m pursuing, but I’ll also spend more time mapping out mainstream awareness as time permits.

  96. Paul Vaughan says:

    …not sure why the key image I posted above isn’t displaying:

    [mod] Link returns message:
    You don’t have permission to access [link address] on this server.

  97. Paul Vaughan says:

    Regarding La Nina lasting millennia: Is there anyone here foolish enough to think that isn’t based on absolutely totally insane assumptions about static spatial patterns?? It’s gross incompetence.

  98. oldmanK says:

    Something of ‘mutual’ interest — ITCZ related. It relates to a period in the Holocene, but shows something else — to me interesting. The subject: “Holocene Forcing of the Indian Monsoon Recorded in a Stalagmite from Southern Oman”

    In fig.1 particularly there can be identified ‘down-turns’ at 8200BP (~6200 bce) and ~6400BP (~4375bce). Then up-turns at 5000BP (~3000bce)… others that might fill some gaps, — but cannot tell yet.

    Fig 3A shows relationship to insolation and -my interpretation-seem to indicate system(?) instability. The more so since at about 4500BP (~2345bce) it becomes more stable; a fact that is known from megalithic calendars since the periodic great destructions stop.

    Markers from my earlier post. The 8200BP is a ‘Bond’ event.

  99. oldbrew says:

    ‘Liberal billionaire George Soros gave Schneiderman $64,500, while members of the uber-wealthy Rockefeller family have shoveled over more than $10,000 to the New York attorney general since 2004.’

    Read more: Judge In Exxon Case Says Al Gore’s Role Makes It ‘Political’

  100. oldmanK says:

    Another interesting paper with corroborating pointers sourced from other sites.

    Note fig2 chart a, the smooth dotted line representing insolation is a wrong assumption, since from 4,5ky to 6,6ky other evidence says that obliquity was changing way beyond either side of the 22-24 deg. secular swing.

    For many this is difficult to accept, but its now a case of ‘faith-in-dogma’ against evidence.

  101. oldbrew says:

    Another UK power station on its last legs…

    Aberthaw power station pollution ‘too high’, EU court rules

    Aberthaw, which began operating in 1971, can generate around 1555MW of electricity for the National Grid – enough to meet the needs of some three million households.

    Its max output is around half that of the proposed £20bn Hinkley Point C nuclear project.

  102. oldbrew says:

    Another MM brainteaser…

    The Cycloid and the Kinematic Circumference

    MM quote: If you roll a wheel on the ground one full rotation, it will mark off a path on the ground that is 2πr in length, as most people know. That length has been assigned to the circumference of the circle or wheel, which assignment is correct as far as it goes. My papers have not questioned that. However, if you do the same thing but follow the motion of a given point on the wheel (point A in the diagram above, for instance), it draws the red curve. That is called the cycloid. Obviously, the red curve is not the same length as the line on the ground. It is considerably longer, being 8r in length. That is 21% longer than the circumference.

    Wikipedia confirms:
    Another immediate way to calculate the length of the cycloid given the properties of the evolute is to notice that when a wire describing an evolute has been completely unwrapped it extends itself along two diameters, a length of 4r. Because the wire does not change length during the unwrapping it follows that the length of half an arc of cycloid is 4r and a complete arc is 8r.

  103. oldbrew says:

    Earth Wobbles May Have Driven Ancient Humans Out of Africa

    Previous research suggested that shifts in climate might help explain why modern human migrations out of Africa happened when they did. For instance, about every 21,000 years, Earth experiences slight changes to its orbit and tilt. These series of wobbles, known as Milankovitch cycles, alter how much sunlight hits different parts of the planet, which in turn influences rainfall levels and the number of people any given region can support.

    ‘known as Milankovitch cycles’ – surely not? More like precession of the perihelion IMO.

    Wikipedia says: it takes about 21000 years for the ellipse to revolve once relative to the vernal equinox, that is, for the perihelion to return to the same date

    Re. ellipse, see:

  104. tallbloke says:

    ‘known as Milankovitch cycles’ – surely not? More like precession of the perihelion IMO.

    OB, precession is one of the three MC’s

  105. oldbrew says:

    TB: OK but see my e-mail.

    There is more than one type of precession, but only one can be Milankovic if the other two M cycles are 41k and 100k years.

  106. oldbrew says:

    A case can be made that apsidal and axial precession are related, as I tried to show here:

    From the ‘quarter precession’ model:
    4 x 6441 tropical years = 25764 TY (= 26,000 years axial precession in TB’s diagram above)
    13/4 x 6441 tropical years = 20933.25 TY (= 21,000 years apsidal precession in the diagram above)

    So their ratio is 16:13 according to the model. Axial relates to sidereal years and apsidal to anomalistic years.

  107. oldmanK says:

    TB, I would query the ’tilt’ in that chart, plus some other issues as well.

    In a chart I have referred to before, I have just added material culled from the paper “Holocene East Asian monsoon variability: Links to solar and tropical Pacific forcing”. It shows abrupt changes in the K/Br ratio from figure 1 of the paper, and superimposed to same time scale. On my part its maverick work but it provides a couple of evident correlations to other evidence, e.g. indicating greater tilt changes than appear in the chart you posted. It also means the events in the Holocene were widespread and global. still early work.

    A lot is being said presently on the Holocene, but one thing is quite certain. It was not only climatic events but definitely also astronomic and very seismic, and possibly cyclic with cycle near 2k (but only 1+1/4 show). These show on a centennial scale but would be completely hidden on larger scales.

    My primary aim is to date the calendar dates and events. But may be found interesting in other respects.

    Chart here:

  108. oldbrew says:

    Cosmology safe as universe has no sense of direction
    Date: September 22, 2016
    Source: University College London
    Summary: The universe is expanding uniformly. Space isn’t stretching in a preferred direction or spinning.

    So shouldn’t there be a central point that it’s supposedly expanding from?

  109. oldbrew says:

    Injecting wastewater deep underground as a byproduct of oil and gas extraction techniques that include fracking causes human-made earthquakes, new research has found. The study, which also showed that the risk can be mitigated, has the potential to transform oil and gas industry practices. [bold added]

    [A researcher said] the study, published in the journal Science, shows that researchers can estimate how much pressure is increasing underground, providing a chance for wastewater injections to be halted before the buildup reaches a critical stage. The pressure, he said, eventually returns to normal, allowing the injections to resume.

  110. oldbrew says:

    New Science 26: The solar fall and the delay means David Evans’ predicted global cooling could be just around the corner

    This post predicts an upcoming global cooling, based on the large fall in underlying total solar irradiation (TSI) in 2004 and either of the notch-delay hypotheses (Force X, or Force ND). If the hypothesis is right, sustained and significant cooling of about 0.3 °C will begin in around 2017, one sunspot cycle after the 11-year smoothed fall around 2004 (=2004+13), or for various technical reasons, possibly up to five years after that.

  111. oldbrew says:

    First test of driverless minibus in Paris

    The electric-powered driverless EZ10 minibus, able to carry up to 12 passengers, has already been tested on closed circuits in Japan, Singapore and California and in a road test in Helsinki.

    Read more at:

  112. oldbrew says:

    Scientists say ocean fossils found in mountains are cause for concern over future sea levels
    September 22, 2016 by Tom Parisi

    Read more at:

    They would say that, wouldn’t they?

  113. oldmanK says:

    oldbrew says “First test of driverless minibus in Paris “.

    But not the first crash. I saw the other day (somewhere) a driverless truck crashed because it did not distinguish a white van from the white sky background.

    Still a long way to go (not to mention the many faults in the ECU programming for engine management that still result in mishaps).

  114. oldmanK says:

    For a sunday afternoon – to play with (with a twist).

    So there may not have been a few impacts in the Holocene…..??

  115. tallbloke says:


  116. Paul Vaughan says:

    El Nino Modoki derivative BDO (bidecadal oscillation):

  117. Paul Vaughan says:

    People keep forgetting about spatial heterogeneity and implications…

    Solar cycle deceleration (a temporal parameter) SPATIAL reminder:

    Equatorial and north polar solar schwabe (~11 year) cycle phase leads the northern mid-latitudes and southern extra-tropics by ~1/4 cycle.

    The translation of the spatial PHASE difference into an ABSOLUTE NUMBER OF YEARS difference VARIES as a function of solar cycle length.

    People keep forgetting about the algebraically proven (5 years ago) implications of this…

  118. Paul Vaughan says:

    I advise anyone sufficiently serious to check the last graph.
    Here’s another one to check:

    There’s a serious error in one of the 2 graphs.

  119. Paul Vaughan says:

    Competent parties can verify that this result is robust (no change to nearest 1%) to variation of the central ITCZ aggregation criterion (whether based on precipitation, meridional wind, or meridional wind convergence):

    EOF = empirical orthogonal function
    PC = principle component

    The analysis was restricted to 1 PC to ensure ONLY FIRST ORDER variation unaffected by rotation in multivariate space.

    This is a serious result that conclusively confirms earlier exploratory insights.

    No games or tests being issued here. This is final.

  120. RJ Salvador says:

    Below is an update to the actual versus the prediction of the LOD model as of August 30, 2016. This update includes lunar phases as it could be that the timing of the Lunar phasing this year with the seasonal variation has accentuated the slow down in the earths rotation. If so, then the actual LOD should trend back to the model LOD as the lunar phases move into a position that pulls water away from equator as the moon swings north and south.

  121. Paul Vaughan says:

    RJ, you’ve got a clear refinement diagnostic there: the biggest failures are in summer and winter. That’s semi-annual. Are you excluding the solar cycle effect on semi-annual volatility from your model? If so, why? (It’s the biggest thing.)

  122. Paul Vaughan says:

    FYI the dark red agents are devilishly cataloging (mouth-watering from their perspective) skeptic modeling failures. Building models that exclude the KNOWN most important factors HELPS (perhaps accidentally?) the Cal-Luke agenda.

    Elaboration on recent exploration update:

    Anyone who thinks they’ve seen that result in the past is mistaken. It’s a new result based on a fundamentally different method …and it gives the same insight we had before by looking a different way.

    This insight is one of 2 gauges being used to assess the integrity of climate discussion agents (and their possible Cal-Luke mission affiliations…)

  123. Paul Vaughan says:

    Bill Illis keeps reminding us that GEOMETRY-DRIVEN circulatory configuration accounts for +/- 35 degrees C …and comically and/or creepily (depending on whether you choose to look at it with due suspicion or a healthy sense of humor as perspective inclination naturally vacillates) everyone just IGNORES that inconvenience.

    Reminders: (gulf stream spatial flapping) (+/- 35C) (ENSO +/- 2.5C interannual not millennial)

  124. RJ Salvador says:

    PV: These are the frequencies in the model.

    The earth at 1 year and 0.5 year for the seasonal change.

    There are four lunar frequencies in years =:
    half the sidereal orbit of 0.037402114 yrs and
    very close to half the draconic of 0.037327206 yrs which gives a beat of 18.6 years.
    two other frequencies which are very close to the tropical and anomalistic but not an exact match
    of 0.074359156 and 0.075442014.
    The frequencies above combined with the gas giant synodic frequencies to produce the fit. (r^2=0.947)

    The three smallest ones are :
    9.007246722 = SEV
    5.018891421 = UEV
    4.492694707 = NEV

    The three biggest frequencies drive the curve which all the other frequencies ride.
    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 the Jupiter orbit with half the Jupiter Saturn synodic = 61.04648218

  125. Paul Vaughan says:

    Very interesting RJ.
    The clear opportunity for refinement is as I suggested: Schwabe cyclic volatility of semi-annual. While I suspect no one will know how to do this, it is the holy grail. You may be closer than anyone …but I won’t be betting on the model as long as it omits the solar-terrestrial weave.
    Looking forward: I think it will be absolutely fascinating if/when you start trying multivariate climate modeling.

  126. Paul Vaughan says:

    Philippine President Duterte on EU Friday: “group of idiots in the purest form.”

  127. Paul Vaughan says:

    Bill Illis (the only sensible commentator at wuwt) again generously reminds that a time-only modeling approach is fundamentally wrong.

    Bill Illis
    September 29, 2016 at 8:42 pm

    Just wanted to also note that continental drift pays a major part in these cycles.

    If there is not enough land mass at 75N or 75S, the Milankovitch Cycles have no impact. Really large continental scale glaciers cannot build up on the ocean at 75N, only land-based glaciers can.

    One issue with the ice ages which is also important, is that if glaciers build up on land at 75N or 75S, they can depress the land enough so that is now becomes Ocean for up to 1.0 million years at a time and this can suppress glacial activity for a long period of time.

    For example, we have Hudson Bay, and the Barents Sea and the Kara Sea and East Siberia Sea which were all above sea level until 2.0 million years ago or so. The glaciers that built up starting at 2.6 million years ago, pushed them below sea level and this completely changed the impact of the Milankovitch Cycles. The timelines of glaciation then do not compare to what really happened with solar radiation at 75N because now we are dealing with ocean conditions which were previously land conditions.

    As North America has slowly rotated more north-west, this left more and more landmass above sea level so that that Milankovitch Cycles could begin to have an impact in the last 2.7 million years. Before this time, it was too far south for glaciation. As northern Eura-Asia dropped lower and lower because of previous glaciations starting at 2.7 million years ago, this also affected the timeline of Milankovitch Cycle impacts.

    When Gondwana moved across the South Pole between 460 million years ago and 290 million years ago, there are periods when glaciation could not happen because all of the landmass was pushed below sea level due to previous glaciations.

  128. Paul Vaughan says:

    May portrayed as now getting it:

    […] basking in the glow of party acolytes, a beaming May sounded as if she had campaigned for Britain to leave the EU all along — even though she had opposed that outcome before the June 23 referendum. In what sounded like a stump speech for “leave,” she hit on the emotive issues of sovereignty, immigration and world status.

    Canadian mainstream media coverage of EU Change…

    […] the foreign minister of founding member Luxembourg suggested Hungary should be suspended or expelled from the EU […]
    “It would be a fatal error to assume that the negative result in the U.K. referendum represents a specifically British issue,” EU Council President Donald Tusk wrote to the 27 leaders ahead of the summit.
    As he chairs the summit, Tusk will be counting on frank, even blunt exchanges. Increasingly, politeness has gone out the window as one crisis has been heaped onto the next.
    “People in Europe want to know if the political elites are capable of restoring control over events and processes which overwhelm, disorientate, and sometimes terrify them,” Tusk wrote to the leaders. “Today many people, not only in the U.K., think that being part of the European Union stands in the way of stability and security.”
    Uncertainty and even fear abound […]
    […] they agreed to push for the creation of a permanent EU military headquarters that could dispatch European troops quickly when necessary — a project long opposed by Britain.
    French […] leader Marine Le Pen promised a referendum on France’s place in the EU should she seize the presidency next year.

  129. oldbrew says:

    Circles, cycloids and Pi – a simple experiment

    See also:
    Wiki: the length of half an arc of cycloid is 4r and a complete arc is 8r

  130. Paul Vaughan says:

    OB, I note that twice you’ve hinted about cycloids via video. I’m boycotting all videos and I may decide to boycott all threads with videos embedded. If there’s some important hint, please be sure to convey it with plain text and/or still image(s). Thank you.

  131. Poly says:

    I don’t normally do politico-econo commentary but the risk potential is seriously peaking and I feel I must speak out.
    You are picking up on the EU risks above, but I they are much more widespread;
    – UK – Brexit economic reality shock
    – Germany – Deutsche Bank and Merkel fade
    – France – anti-EU and anti-migration groundswell
    – Italy – Banks and anti-EU and anti-migration groundswell
    – Greece – ongoing economic and social collapse
    – Austria – anti-migration groundswell
    – Hungary – anti-migration groundswell.
    Add the international risks of;
    – demented POTUS election in the USA and erosion of USA global predominance.
    – cesspit of international warmongering in Syria and rise of Russia assertiveness.
    – loss of credibility and control by major Central Banks.
    – deluded, ideologically AGW-driven energy policies (think South Australia blackout) coming against the reality of a cold climate cycle.
    When we consider all these risks together there is a low possibility they will cascade into some horrible black swan shock.
    I suggest you all look at your vulnerability to a major economic shock and consider implementing mitigating strategies.

  132. Paul Vaughan says:

    Poly, regime change is natural. A sensible theme: stability during natural change. My advice to world leaders is unchanged: China, Europe, USA, and Russia should form an alliance. My advice for genuine, sensible environmentalists is unchanged: Drop the corrupt climate narrative and focus on parks and pollution. USA & Europe miscalculated. It was an unwise gamble.

  133. Paul Vaughan says:

    OB if this is what you’re hinting at, it’s mathematically equivalent to what I illustrated about SCD 5 or 6 years ago and to what Jose Rial has illustrated at higher timescales:

    You may be correct if you’re subtly advising that people do not realize this yet. It should have been obvious to them right away (it’s an implication of the simple algebraic proof), but maybe it wasn’t.

    There’s some fun history on the wiki pages for anyone linking through them: Galileo, Lagrange, Newton, Bernoulli, Euler, etc., …and the development of the calculus of variations itself was needed to finish solving the problem (why Galileo got stuck in his time).

    I’m going to suggest we start Suggestions-22 …and hopefully keep it free of embedded videos.

  134. Paul Vaughan says:

    Based on some of Rial’s comments on the spatial patterns of some of the paleo-records, I’m concerned that he doesn’t lucidly realize it’s a fractal, but I got the impression he may have vague or intermittent awareness.

  135. Paul Vaughan says:

    Delayed weeks by competing obligations, here’s an illustration highlighting a critical semi-annual monsoon interpretive error in Trenberth, Stepaniak, & Caron (2000) (linked upthread):

    Reminder from several Suggestions threads back — for reference:

    Semi-annual ignorance is the root of serious strategic miscalculation.
    Trusting any model that doesn’t get semi-annual right near the ITCZ isn’t sensible.

    I’m concerned that Bill Illis has a serious blindspot in his conceptualization of variations of equatorial SST in relation to eccentricity.

  136. oldbrew says:

    PV: the video above is a science demo with moving balls so difficult to show as a still image.
    Does this help…

  137. oldmanK says:

    @oldbrew: If the plastic pipe is full of air, as seems to be the case, then pushing air out in a straight line is easier than in a bent situation. With bending there is a loss factor to consider. Apart from other issues. Otherwise nice joke.

  138. oldbrew says:

    oldmanK – wouldn’t that cause the ball in the curved pipe to decelerate due to increased air resistance? We don’t see that, as the video shows.

    The cycloid itself isn’t a joke. Half the cycloid = Pi = 4 bars on the x axis (graphic below).
    The video is at ‘’ – commentary explains the graphic.

    A cycloid is the curve traced by a point on the rim of a circular wheel as the wheel rolls along a straight line without slippage. It is an example of a roulette, a curve generated by a curve rolling on another curve. – Wikipedia

    Another immediate way to calculate the length of the cycloid given the properties of the evolute is to notice that when a wire describing an evolute has been completely unwrapped it extends itself along two diameters, a length of 4r. Because the wire does not change length during the unwrapping it follows that the length of half an arc of cycloid is 4r and a complete arc is 8r.

  139. oldmanK says:

    Oldbrew, the math is ok but the experiment is another thing. Both balls are decelerating, losing their gained energy from the drop. The greater the resistance the shorter the travel. The ball forced into the circular pipe is also imparting momentum into the plastic pipe wall.

  140. Paul Vaughan says:

    “Jakob Bernoulli solved the problem using calculus in a paper (Acta Eruditorum, 1690) that saw the first published use of the term integral.”
    “Later, the mathematicians Joseph Louis Lagrange and Leonhard Euler provided an analytical solution to the problem.”
    “[…] use the Pythagorean theorem, the fact that the slope of the curve is equal to the tangent of its angle, and some trigonometric identities to obtain ds in terms of dx […]
    […] kinetic energy at any point is exactly equal to the difference in potential energy from its starting point.”

    “Johann Bernoulli noted that the law of refraction gives a constant of the motion for a beam of light in a medium of variable density […]”

    “In an attempt to outdo his brother, Jakob Bernoulli created a harder version of the brachistochrone problem. In solving it, he developed new methods that were refined by Leonhard Euler into what the latter called (in 1766) the calculus of variations. Joseph-Louis Lagrange did further work that resulted in modern infinitesimal calculus.
    Earlier, in 1638, Galileo had tried to solve a similar problem […]
    We are warned earlier […] of possible fallacies and the need for a “higher science.” In this dialogue Galileo reviews his own work. The actual solution to Galileo’s problem is half a cycloid. Galileo studied the cycloid and gave it its name, but the connection between it and his problem had to wait for advances in mathematics.”

    We had related discussion several Suggestions threads ago. It may be an opportune time to review with hindsight.

  141. Paul Vaughan says:

    oldmanK, experimenters can use a particular solution to design an apparatus. OB is engaging in strategic provocation. Something I’ve come to realize from years of immersion in the climate discussion is the utility of such provocation. By introducing a particular solution, OB has reminded us of 3 papers we discussed a few years ago (on wind and land-ocean phasing relative to insolation). It’s now a good time to go back and review them with the benefit of hindsight.

  142. oldbrew says:

    The experiment is only an attempt to illustrate the principle (cycloid = 8 radii), which is accepted maths as far as I can tell. The real interest lies in identifying ‘cycloid situations’ so to speak.

    For example, Wikipedia says:
    ‘A cycloid is the curve traced by a point on the rim of a circular wheel as the wheel rolls along a straight line without slippage. It is an example of a roulette, a curve generated by a curve rolling on another curve.’

    Is a planet orbiting the Sun similar to this description?

    NB Wiki quote may be poorly phrased, mixing straight lines and curves.

  143. Paul Vaughan says:

    As the US election approaches, the level of misinformation being put out by Cal-Lukes and associates (in staunch support of Washington & Hollywood mainstream elite status quo) is going off the charts.

    First, here’s a cautionary note:

    Recently we saw a prediction of 2017 cooling. We’re still on the BDO (bidecadal oscillation) UPswing untill 2020 and it doesn’t turn negative (in central limit) until 2025. NOWHERE during the observational record have we EVER seen substantial cooling during a BDO max:

    The BDO can delay the (noticeable portion of the) downswing.

    We also still have not turned around on the polar asymmetry cycle (watch for stratospheric volcanic activity). The northern hemisphere is still on a high. That’s zero-sum, but most people live in the north.

    Milankovitch misrepresentation is also off-the-charts again. It’s so ridiculous. There’s lots of discussion COMPLETELY ignoring the following:

    Precession controls the monsoons. Eccentricity controls equatorial SST and poleward advection potential. People always talk about obliquity controlling local polar radiation, but they ignore its role in realizing poleward advection potential set by eccentricity. And finally: Geography is a BIG trump card.

  144. Paul Vaughan says:

    There’s widespread ignorance of the following:

    Maximum tropical insolation over the year minus minimum polar insolation over the year = eccentricity.

    This controls the potential to spray water poleward (including over orographically desiccating mountain ranges) to overwhelm the input side of the mass balance equation.

    There’s too much focus on the summer radiation melt side of the mass balance equation and not enough appreciation and respect for the potential of the input side to overwhelm the poles with tropical spray. (Wet spraying and dry heating aren’t the same thing.)

    …And of course ignorance of the role of geographic change — e.g. open/close Drake Passage & Panama Isthmus, depress/uplift northern continents changing sea level, deepen/shallow &/or reroute gulf stream, cluster/disperse and/or tectonically move continents poleward or equatorward, etc. — on circulatory architecture is epic.

    Careful, concise distillation to cut through misinterpretation / misunderstanding / misrepresentation is feasible.

  145. oldmanK says:

    PV said “OB is engaging in strategic provocation.” I suspected as much. But I think it helps to call out errors, — just in case. Then OB says “The real interest lies in identifying ‘cycloid situations’ so to speak.” A classic case is the lead weight that balances car wheels. Wheel balance is made with that weight in circular motion, yet in action the weight it traces a cycloid.

    PV (and others), in the above graph of Insolation there is an assumption that obliquity is within the 22-24 deg bounds. Mathematical analysis gives that answer because it was originally based on a fallacious assumption to start with. Maths is ignorant of archaeological findings, and those tell a different story. The empirical factor in the maths appears, from archaeological evidence which is better than any other proxy in this case, to change –arbitrarily, or chaotically or by some design,-but it changes, way beyond what is assumed.

  146. Paul Vaughan says:

    oldmanK, note that that’s the equator, so you’re looking at precession and eccentricity (not obliquity). Moving out towards the poles you’d see obliquity pronounced.

    I have no idea when I’ll ever have time, but as I mentioned a long time ago the climate discussion community would benefit from a SINGLE SIMPLE 4-DIMENSIONAL illustration of insolation.

    There gets to be such BS in Milankovitch discussion because there are too many participants who don’t visualize it in 4D. They instead conceptualize based on SELECT CROSS-SECTIONS. They focus on insolation rather than CIRCULATORY ARCHITECTURE EVOLUTION (including hydrology).

    The mass balance equation has 2 sides, but they focus ONLY on 1 side of it.

    For example have a look at the recent thread at ce on dust. It does not diagnose the hydrological cycle (circulatory architecture reconfiguration) as the SHARED cause of synchronous regional symptoms (dessert dust and ice mass balance change).

    They’re always going on about insolation melting snow with never a thought devoted to changing tropical water pumping through the sky to the glacier. They don’t properly differentiate precession and obliquity effects on flow-driving insolation gradients.

    More generally they fixate on local radiative effects OBLIVIOUS to the implications of spatiotemporal insolation pattern change for CIRCULATORY ARCHITECTURE EVOLUTION. It’s completely moronic and infuriating at the same time.

    Everyone has their very own personalized interpretation of what “Milankovitch” means.

    Almost no one has a broad, generalized, adaptable (iteratively refined) interpretation of what it means. The definition most people are using is conceptually corrupt. The discussions go to h*ll.

    There are a lot of commentators deliberately being devilish just to infuriate others they perceive as political dissidents — a culturally-infectious, vicious psychological tactic that warrants banishment …but its encouraged by the hosts at ce & wuwt, thus clarifying the cultural goals in those venues.

    Reassurance: We know mysterious deviations have occurred.

    Recap: You’ve pointed out a deviation that interests you around something like 2000BC along with a handful of others.

    REQUEST: If you have observational evidence of deviations at Milankovitch timescale (as opposed to instinct-based extrapolation from the Holocene), please enrich the discussion by raising our awareness with an illustration (…reminder: NOT interested in links to sites demanding that I set up an account).

    (Analogy: We don’t have sunspot integral and solar cycle length differintegral observations at Milankovitch-timescale.)

    QUESTION: As a basis against which to compare deviations that interest you, would you rather assume a flat 0 variation backbone everywhere? I’m sure you won’t be able to convince many people that’s a better reference. What anomaly baseline do you propose if you dislike the conventional one?

  147. Paul Vaughan says:

    oldmanK, perhaps there’s opportunity that some other strategic questions can advance our understanding of your concerns…

    Reflecting I can only remember you leveling observation-based complaints about conventionally modeled obliquity.

    Question: Do you have any observation-based challenges to assumed precession and eccentricity?

    I just had an idea that might help reconcile your concerns with conventional thinking …but I want to differentiate a little more thoroughly before going there.

    I can actually see a way that both you and the mainstream are right …and like usual it comes down to recognizing false assumptions (misinterpretation of observations that are informing about something else that’s important…)

  148. oldbrew says:

    Hurricane Matthew update.

    The storm is expected to pass east of Florida through the Bahamas, although it is too soon to say whether it will hit the US coast.
    Hurricane Matthew is the region’s most powerful since Felix in 2007.

  149. oldmanK says:

    PV Quote “oldmanK, note that that’s the equator, so you’re looking at precession and eccentricity (not obliquity).”

    If obliquity is reduced for reasons as said above, insolation at equinoxes is unchanged but at any other time of year there is an increase, eg at a 14.5 deg obliquity tropics are narrower, the spread of solar heating is more concentrated. Beyond ~lat40 there starts a decrease. It may not be much change up to 60deg latitude but then change increases faster.

    Someone – presently I cannot find the source- said there cannot be polar ice build-up at present obliquity (and 22-24 deg is a small change). At about 14.5 (as per the archaeological source) it is a different matter especially polar regions, and holocene matters take on a different aspect.

  150. Paul Vaughan says:

    ….so because of 1 datum at 2345BC (and nothing before then) you want the baseline changed to 0?? ….or do you think it makes more sense to keep the conventional baseline and note with emphasis the anomaly?

  151. oldmanK says:

    PV, the 2345bc datum is a date from another independent source (which thus also corroborates). ‘My’ source gives no reliable dates (I learnt to distrust proxy C14) , but gives a reliable obliquity value of a ‘before and after’. That value changed back and forth but outside the 22-24 limits– for reasons (and dates) that I seek to find reliably, though I have rough indications. Indications strongly suggest my source covers or goes back to ~5000bc.

    That is all I can say -with conviction-. I have asked myself this: does it take circa 2000 years of building calendars to get the two horizon solstice sunrise positions correct? (when one can find that out in a year). The last modification is correct still – and tested with surprisingly accurate results; in fact it beats anything used today for solstice day prediction from observations – to the credit of the ancient astronomers.

    Re: “….so because of 1 datum at 2345BC (and nothing before then) you want the baseline changed to 0??” Well what can I say? I come from a field where the singular anomalous failure eventually leads to the destruction of the whole. We look out for such with “seven eyes”.

    Then: “or do you think it makes more sense to keep the conventional baseline and note with emphasis the anomaly?” The answer in No, for two reasons. 1) A lower obliquity during the holocene changes many things – which leads to a better understanding of recent/any climate change. 2) Not tying obliquity to a narrow limit opens a whole can-of-worms –weather; glaciations; geological history; history of humanity…….none of which are understood, maybe in some measure due to a mathematical fixation.

  152. Paul Vaughan says:

    1. In your view, are the conventional PRECESSION and ECCENTRICITY baselines (note the absence of obliquity in this list) wrong BASED ON OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE?

    2. Humans make all kinds of clumsy mistakes and play all sorts of games. They’re also stubborn about admitting mistakes and it may become tradition to stick inter-generationally with inherited mistakes. Despite the perfection of some instrument, what if the people who oriented the structures and calendars were drunk, made a mistake, had a sense of mischievous fun, were reporting to a difficult boss who was threatening, deluded, misguided, or messing with the populace, or whatever?

  153. Paul Vaughan says:

    3. Are you suggesting some archaeological data from the Holocene imply that conventional obliquity models are wrong from 3Ma to 0.8Ma?

    4. Are you suggesting authorities are lying about current obliquity?

    Note to other readers: I’m trying to map out oldmanK’s thinking more precisely …including any assumptions and extrapolations. Is this the best use of my time? Definitely not.

  154. oldmanK says:

    PV: reply to 1) and the earlier question ” Do you have any observation-based challenges to assumed precession and eccentricity?”, the answer is no.

    On 2) I think I understand your concern, and it is something that I thought about for very long before taking the risk of making a fool of myself (and I would not have done it if I still had a career to protect; one speaks out late in life when its safe). There are 1001 reasons, and an infinite number of ways, of doing what you said. But only one studied way of doing it right and precise every time. In that respect one can also see where cult took over and messed it good and proper.

    As an engineer I marvel at the ingenuity in the last functional stages — No, they were not drunk. Searching Wiki on how to determine the solstice day (and no forecast)– I feel we today are a bunch of smart asses.

  155. J Martin says:

    Reblog this. ?

    [reply] reblog not available but it’s interesting stuff about precession, obliquity, eccentricity, ice ages etc.

  156. RJ Salvador says:

    I hope you all find this as unexpected as I do. Below is a graph of the residual of the LOD model with its 120 day rolling average. This is the LOD minus the LOD model.

    The shape of the 120 day rolling average looked familiar so I graphed it together with the ENSO. Below you can see the very strong coherence between the Residual 120 day average times 4000 and the ENSO.

    The implication is that the model over its present range accounts for most of the LOD changes except those caused by the ENSO. Those changes caused by the ENSO are very small and of the order of 10 to the minus 4 of a second.

  157. J Martin says:

    Clive Best thinks that he Holocene will last another 15000 years because eccentricity is at a minimum. I think that would depend on whether the planet is on the warm side or the cold side of the goldilocks orbit. As we are on the cold side I think he’s wrong and the glaciation will procede as usual.

  158. oldbrew says:

    RJ: why is the rolling average 120 days?

  159. RJ Salvador says:


    It could be less it could be more. All averages exhibit the ENSO shape. This was my personal preference to show the coherence.

  160. oldmanK says:

    PV, I missed your Q 3 and 4 before replying, so here’s the answers to those.

    3. existing archaeological evidence gives good to precise indication of obliquity between 5k-2k bce, measurable from several sites ( besides a good lesson on astro-engineering).

    4. No. No one has figured out before, that what they believed were female-shaped cult spaces were – and still are- functional calendars, and then what their design implied. I tested the technique of both early and later designs and they worked perfectly. Most are, or have been forced into obsolescence by geological events (now with enough evidence). The last from that era is still functional. I have voiced this publicly only here (apart from an ‘unknown’ publication). This could be a hard landing for many who built stories about them, so ????

    To counter “Is this the best use of my time? Definitely not.” I understand your feelings. I might feel the same today, except that the free debate here is and remains enticing. What I thought was an elevated science, now seems, er- like the geocentric model of the universe; bound in dogma – all because it has ignored in the past those who did point to the anomalies. As it is I’m not saying something new, just pointing to the proof.

  161. Paul Vaughan says:

    oldmanK, you’ve misread Q3.

  162. oldmanK says:

    PV , apologies. Possibly more than question 3. (I came back to switch off from the twilight zone after two hours nearly unconscious listening to world politics – and I found Q3,4).

    Re Q3 I’m suggesting nothing – except point out to evidence ( evidence that in time I found reasons to consider it reliable) that says between about 5k to ~ 2.3k bce obliquity was substantially different/lower than anticipated from formulae. My past efforts in following this site and others were to verify solidly that point. The implications would then be multi fold.

    An addition to Q4, I do not blame the ‘authorities’ for being wary of the ‘maverick’ who first pointed out that ‘probability’ early last century, but ignoring him was a mistake.

  163. Paul Vaughan says:



    You have no observational challenges to conventional precession and eccentricity modeling.

    You have no major observational challenges to conventional obliquity modeling outside of ~5000BC-2300BC and the challenges you have inside that interval (something I won’t be making time to verify firsthand as there are far too many competing obligations of much higher priority level …so it will have to be others who look into this) are based on assumptions about human behavior — an extremely untrustworthy thing in my experience and I’m certainly not willing to rule out the possibility that anomalies were anthropogenically dictated by an oppressive boss — something quite normal in human society – definitely the norm.

    Nonetheless, until I see natural (never mind anthropogenic) observational evidence (never mind theory) convincing me otherwise, my mind is open to the possibility that obliquity fluctuates (maybe even jolts) around the conventional obliquity model …which remains the best central limit and baseline we have against which to put anomalies in context.

    The few Wittman (1979) data there are bounce around the central limit of the conventional models (Newcomb (1906), Wilkins (1960), Laskar (1986), & Astronomical Almanac (2010) are so close to one another they’re indistinguishable on graph below), so conventional modeling DOES appear to represent the central limit.

    Again: Until I see natural (never mind anthropogenic) observational evidence (never mind theory) convincing me otherwise, my mind is open to the possibility that obliquity fluctuates (maybe even jolts) around the conventional obliquity model …which remains the best central limit and baseline we have against which to put anomalies in context.

    This subject is taking a grossly disproportionate share of available harshly-limited time.

  164. Paul Vaughan says:

    J Martin,

    Bill Illis suggests:

    “Basically we are already at the end of a low cycle right now and the next low cycle is 52,000 years out. But I don’t think a 15 W/m2 drop at that time versus today is enough to put us into an ice age. The next big drop is 130,000 years from now which itself may not be enough for ice age as well (probably close though).”

    …But I’ve noticed some blindspots in his conceptualization of Milankovitch.

  165. oldbrew says:

    PEI reports: German power link to treble in cost to $16.7bn

    By Diarmaid Williams
    International Digital Editor

    TenneT have confirmed that the cost of the vital Suedlink power transmission link in Germany is to treble in cost.

    Ulrike Hörchens, press spokesperson for the company told Power Engineering International, “At the moment we are in an early planning phase and can only roughly estimate the costs for the two DC-projects. For both projects together we estimate the costs at €14bn to €15bn ($16.7bn).”

    The increase in costs is due to a decision by the government to use underground cable, because of public resistance to overhead power lines on the landscape.

    Whether there’s ‘public resistance’ to picking up the tab through their electricity bills remains to be seen.

  166. oldbrew says:

    PV: Dodwell showed that the further back in time you go, the further away from reality Newcomb’s calcs seem to get, as his graphic demonstrates.

    See: Dodwell’s surprising study of the obliquity of the ecliptic

  167. oldbrew says:

    Paper: Solar Activity Modulates the Frequency of Central European Floods

    The three researchers discovered that flood frequency in both records [see link] is significantly correlated to changes in two types of solar activity,” namely, (1) “the solar Schwabe cycle” and (2) “multi-centennial oscillations.” And they thus further conclude that (3) “the unexpected direct response of variations in River Ammer flood frequency to changes in solar activity might suggest that the solar top-down mechanism is of particular relevance for hydroclimate extremes.”

  168. oldmanK says:

    PV, you have put two conclusions that do not follow the logic. For the sake of record this is the converse (then drop it by all means).

    1. Quote “You have no major observational challenges to conventional obliquity modeling outside of ~5000BC-2300BC”. If the modelling does not hold in that stretch of time, then it is faulty for all the rest. To be precise that piece, on my part, is inferred not proof, but then that is what the model does – infer only, it is not proof -. The reason I see for that is that the model was figured only for secular planetary dynamics without any consideration of possible transient changes or jumps, a normality with most dynamic systems.

    2. Quote “are based on assumptions about human behavior “. Not quite, by a long stretch. What its based upon is tangible (actually a large building – several) with design and dimensions and a technique that one can reverse engineer and dissect with a relatively high degree of certainty. As against a mathematical model which (to my mind) is a similar case to Ptolemy’s geocentric model – for reasons as in 1.

    3. Qoute “conventional obliquity model …which remains the best central limit and baseline we have against which to put anomalies in context”. I like this, if nothing else but to point an accusing finger (not at PV). History is a good teacher. The ancient Greeks were already working on the Heliocentric idea. We give a lot of credit to Ptolemy where it is not deserved ( and for more than one issue). A bigger establishment used Ptolemy’s idea, and all know the rest. And history repeats itself too.

  169. Paul Vaughan says:

    oldmanK wrote: “If the modelling does not hold in that stretch of time, then it is faulty for all the rest.”

    No for 2 reasons.

    There are other terrestrial variables that MATCH the modeled obliquity. That’s why I picked the 3Ma-0.8Ma example (an example most will be familiar with) to see if you would acknowledge that. I note that I’ve raised this 3 times now and so far you’ve not acknowledged. I picked a very well-known simple example on purpose.

    Also, the model may be just fine in central limit and you may be pointing to an anomaly. That’s what other variables suggest when you put things in long-run multivariate context.

    You may be drawing attention to a source of variation AROUND the central limit. You may very well be correct that the mainstream is ignorant of such sources of variation, BUT IT DOESN’T NECESSARILY MEAN THEIR MODEL OF THE CENTRAL-LIMIT IS WRONG …and you should at least acknowledge that in the multivariate longer-run OTHER variables suggest the mainstream is NOT wrong IN CENTRAL LIMIT.

    Gentlemen: You may have something important to say about this, but it needs to be consistent with OTHER multivariate observations of obliquity in the long-run.

    Request: OB (or anyone), please link to plain-text data. (I’ve seen the Dodwell graph and thread before.) To explore the data, I need the data. (It looks like there are a few data on the graph that are not in Wittman (1979).)

    There’s hardly any data with which to explore this (…and the few more Dodwell data won’t change that).

    It is what it is:
    an unexplained anomaly that’s shelved until substantial new info triggers a revisit.

    No damage has been done to the long-run central limit model. Only a suggestion has been made that there are additional sources of variation about the central limit …and certainly that much is well worth our attention.

  170. oldbrew says:

    Southeast U.S. braces for potentially ‘catastrophic’ Hurricane Matthew

    A storm surge of up to 9 feet (2.7 meters) was expected…more than 12 million U.S. residents were under hurricane watches and warnings, according to the Weather Channel.

    Mass evacuations are underway.

  171. Paul Vaughan says:

    On the Pareto Principle with NO link provided to a plain-text Dodwell data page I focused on “KARNAK” which was the ONE thing in the Dodwell illustration that jumped out as significantly different from Wittman (1979).

    “In ancient times Egypt was pre-eminently a centre of Sun-worship. […] The Great Solar Temple of Amen-Ra at Karnak […] the orientation of the original axis of the temple, was 25° 9’ 55” […] The Obliquity given by the solar orientation of the Temple of Karnak, 25° 9’ 55” […] there must be some other factor, in addition to those which are represented by Newcomb’s Formula (or equally by Stockwell’s Formula), affecting the sun’s apparent position in past ages. […] Karnak Temple […] building period […] approximately 475 years (2045 B.C to 1570 B.C.) […] a particular type of mathematical curve, namely a logarithmic sine curve, which provides its own determination of the date of its starting point in 2345 B.C.” (2345BC is an EXTRAPOLATION.)

    “[…] what is the significance of the azimuth of the axis at Amun Re? The authors of the temple study have an excellent suggestion. They also tabulated the angle that the axes of symmetry made to the direction of the flow of the Nile River at each location. Most axes, including the one in question here, are aligned at right angles to the river. This suggests that once a site for a temple was selected, the axis was laid out so that one viewed the axis of symmetry as one approached the temple from a boat on the river. This makes sense, because most sites probably had boat landings at their entrances, and so this would have grand entrances for nearly everyone who visited the sites.”

    Table 1.
    Name Epoch ε Error
    Thales 558 BC 24º 01´ 12´
    Pytheas 326 BC 23º 54´ 3´
    Eratosthenes 230 BC 23º 52´ 8´
    Ptolemy 139 AD 23º 52´ 3´

    I reached the “aha!” moment when I read this:

    “[…] the 2345 BC date for the dramatic change in the earth’s axial tilt is very close to the Ussher chronology date of the Flood (2348 BC).”

    I wasn’t aware of religious dimensions fueling the fuss.

    All along I’ve been wondering why there’s such a fuss about a few anomalous data points that can be patiently shelved awaiting new clues and/or revelations.

    Now I get it.

    People excitedly looking at it this way might not have observation-based long-run multivariate perspective.

  172. oldmanK says:

    PV, first TY for the reply. We may be getting somewhere, but to clarify further from my side, I hope, lets tackle some points:

    Quote “There are other terrestrial variables that MATCH the modeled obliquity. That’s why I picked the 3Ma-0.8Ma example (an example most will be familiar with) to see if you would acknowledge that.” I am not familiar with that region so cannot comment. I stick only to the ~5k to 2.3K. However that “there are other terrestrial variables that MATCH the modeled obliquity” may be so, but not because it is dictated by the model, but for other reasons. The model may only appear to dictate.

    To illustrate better, with a little patience from readers, download this: –the work of JN Stockwell. Go to page 180, part6, which will refer you to eqn (566) on page 178; note that all is computed around the “as is” value of obliquity of year 1850, an empirical constant. The computations give the secular motions. However the empirical constant is and remains an unknown entity. If it changes the model ‘likely’ still holds, but there would be other ramifications. The main thrust of my argument/claim is that that number has changed in the holocene.

    Or go to Wiki here: section Oscillation. The first section of the term for epsilon is a constant, the “as is” of “as found” value. As far as I know (and my knowledge is limited) there is no Grand Design Order that that number does not budge. In many dynamic system I met that number is or can be arbitrary – a ‘set bias’.

    Last point. What is intended by the term ‘central limit’ I fail to grasp. In fact I’m lost with para5.

  173. oldmanK says:

    PV, I have posted above without realising your latest post. Two quick points. 1) I have discreetly warned of a cultic issue. I suggest ignore that — Wittmann has no such connection. 2) Also ignore Karnak — too many questions there for my liking. Stick purely to those who specifically measured obliquity. However you still get the same answer.

    I was also very wary of the 2345bce date because of the Ussher connection. I have quoted it since because it is one of the firm dates in dendrochronology. Sometimes, as much as I hate it, one has to give the devil his due.

  174. Paul Vaughan says:

    oldmanK, I would say yes we are getting somewhere with this.

    I know what needs to be done to solve this puzzle. Some of the needed steps are firmly beyond my reach presently due to lack of time and resources, but it’s on a list of hard core things I’ll do if I ever get solid, long-term, secure opportunity.

    Meanwhile, as always I’m open to the dead-simple. In a way, being short on time and resources is a blessing as it forces this and prevents getting lost in the culture of sophisticated academic simulation. If there’s something simple to discover on the Pareto Principle, that’s almost certain to be of MORE value than the feedback academics get from their models about their input assumptions!

    More later, but for now 2 things:

    1. A model can account for low variance and still be significant. There can be LOTS of error and the model can still improve odds.

    2. The various models (e.g. Newcomb (1906), Wilkins (1960), Laskar (1986), & Astronomical Almanac (2010)) are NOT dynamical models. They’re just polynomial fits that approximate the long-run SECULAR variability. They’ll ballpark obliquity on-average in the long-run. They don’t necessarily give an exact authoritative value for a SPECIFIC point in time or even over intervals. I need to assert: You’re misinterpreting the model output. Anomalies from the model are informative. They can be used for model refinement. I’m not aware of any resistance to the notion that the obliquity models can be improved in detail. (I think you’re imagining resistance that doesn’t exist.) The models are already fine at coarse scale and you should concede this. (If you take a long-run multivariate view, this will be no problem.)

    We’ll need to slow down the pace of discussion and multi-task. I’ll need to be doing other exploration in parallel and it absolutely cannot take a back seat. I appreciate your patience. Thank you for bringing to the table an interesting puzzle.

    Some of the ideas I have about how to solve this puzzle and what the answer will look like are sure to be very upsetting to some people.

  175. oldbrew says:

    This is a table [from a Sidorenkov paper: Synchronization of terrestrial processes with frequencies of the Earth-Moon-Sun system (2015)] which relates other planetary orbits to that of Jupiter.

    The sum of ‘observed’ columns 6,7, and 8 (Saturn, Uranus and Neptune) is 0.61602
    That’s their combined number of orbits completed in the time it takes for Jupiter to orbit the Sun once.
    Of course if Jupiter itself is included the figure goes up by 1 to 1.61602, which is a 99.875% match to Phi (= 1.618034)

  176. Paul Vaughan says:

    That matrix is from:

    Molchanov 1968 – resonance structure of solar system: law of planetary distances

  177. oldbrew says:

    Thanks PV.

    Huygens synchronization of two clocks
    Henrique M. Oliveira & Luís V. Melo [2015]

    The synchronization of two pendulum clocks hanging from a wall was first observed by Huygens during the XVII century. This type of synchronization is observed in other areas, and is fundamentally different from the problem of two clocks hanging from a moveable base. We present a model explaining the phase opposition synchronization of two pendulum clocks in those conditions. The predicted behaviour is observed experimentally, validating the model.
    Youtube ref: v=SGgbRkix_hY

    From the intro:
    We present a mathematical model where the coupling is assumed to be attained through the exchange of impacts between the oscillators (clocks). This model presents the additional advantage of being independent of the physical nature of the oscillators, and thus can be used in other oscillator systems where synchronization and phase locking has been observed. [bold added]

  178. oldbrew says:

    Researchers discover effect of rare solar wind on earth’s radiation belts

    Date: October 6, 2016
    Source: University of New Hampshire
    Summary: Unique measurements of the Van Allen radiation belts, which circle the Earth, have been captured during an extremely rare solar wind event.

    ‘…during the unusual episode, which was caused by the passage of a solar eruption over Earth, the data recorded by the researchers showed the solar wind became subsonic, or slower than the speed of sound…Two unusual phenomena occurred; a long-lasting electron drop in Earth’s radiation belts and large oscillations in the magnetic field.’

    “There have only been a handful of these solar wind events since the beginning of space exploration.”

  179. oldbrew says:

    Antarctic sea ice reaches winter maximum on a record early date

    Antarctic sea ice extent reached 18.44 million square kilometers (7.12 million square miles) on August 31, 2016, and this appears to be the maximum extent for this year. This is the earliest maximum in the satellite record since 1979, and the first time the maximum has occurred in August. The maximum was 240,000 square kilometers (93,000 square miles) greater than the average extent for this date of 18.20 million square kilometers (7.03 million square miles). It is the tenth lowest maximum extent on record. On average, the maximum occurs much later (September 23 to 24).

    The early maximum appears to be the result of an intense wind pattern in September

    The NSIDC summary says ‘Antarctic ice extent saw a sharp decline during the first half of September’ without mentioning either that it was at a record level at the end of August, or that the winds were unusually strong straight afterwards, disrupting some of the seasonal sea ice build-up. Why would they do that in the summary? The usual alarmist spin no doubt.

    NSIDC sea ice news policy seems to be:
    Record high? – obscure footnote
    Record low? – front page news

  180. oldbrew says:

    More ‘alternative’ theorising on orbital and climate matters from Tim Cullen… ‘The Arabian Horizon: The Big Chill’

  181. oldbrew says:

    Electric cars are a turn-off for Europeans…

    There Is A Lot Of EV Talk In Europe. And Very Little Buying

    Whether customers want the EVs, or not, regulations force carmakers to sell the electric cars, come hell, or low price.

  182. Paul Vaughan says:

    The signature of wind in ocean currents…

    meridional & zonal mean geostrophic velocity:

    On the meridional map, note the opposite pattern at the equator in the Indian Ocean (compared to Pacific & Atlantic) and on either side of Australia (compared to the Americas).

  183. oldbrew says:

    Please note: we’ve moved to Suggestions 22 now.


  184. Eilert says:

    Watching Trumps rally at Lakeland Florida just now.

    Said will CANCEL the Paris Climate Deal !!!!!

Leave a Reply

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

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s