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 21

    [for viewing only please]

  2. oldbrew says:

    Booker: The Guardian’s ‘100 months to save the planet’ was always just a fantasy

    Despite the 2016 El Nino spike, now rapidly declining, satellite measurements still show that the trend in global temperatures has not risen for 18 years.

  3. oldbrew says:

    Case of Earth’s missing continental crust solved—it sank

    “We’re taught in Geology 101 that continental crust is buoyant and can’t descend into the mantle,” Ingalls said. The new results throw that idea out the window.

    Read more at:

  4. oldbrew says:

    Hurricane Matthew: Matt Drudge conspiracy comments kick up storm

  5. oldbrew says:

    Key component of EDF’s flagship nuclear reactor is missing safety certificate

    EDF – the energy company building the power plant – is awaiting a verdict from the French nuclear regulator ASN over allegedly faulty parts produced by its forging facility, including the reactor pressure vessel (RPV) at the heart of its flagship Flamanville project.

    This has surfaced before. It’s the design to be used at Hinkley Point C.

    From Private Eye: The #Hinkley_Point deal will cost taxpayers a fortune — but it’s earning one for KPMG

  6. Paul Vaughan says:

    On S-21 I left a mystery hanging. The first ozone illustration was secular not Schwabe. I’ll illustrate the Schwabe correction sometime down the road as/when time permits.

    I’ve been reviewing an insolation article with co-authors Soon & Carter. I was disappointed to see a false spatial assumption:

    “In contrast to the precessional forcing, the intrinsic changes of solar irradiance are symmetrical and hence produce a synchronized forcing on both hemispheres.”

    I’m guessing they didn’t even check that assertion empirically.

    The “E” in JEV is Earth.

    harmonic of 11.0696499227531 nearest 1 is 1.00633181115938
    (1.006331811)*(1) / (1.006331811 – 1) = 158.9326949 (correlation sign cycle)

    harmonic of 11.0696499227531 nearest 0.5 is 0.503165905579689
    (0.503165906)*(0.5) / (0.503165906 – 0.5) = 79.46634745 (SAOT tower cluster translation symmetry …as I pointed out in the 2010 article that got vanished from the web)

    79.46634745 / 2 = 39.73317373 (Markowitz wobble)

    Climate discussion is about endless misunderstandings.

  7. Paul Vaughan says:


    harmonic of 79.4663474501329 nearest 6.4185927387767 is 6.62219562084441
    (6.622195621)*(6.418592739) / (6.622195621 – 6.418592739) = 208.7651034

    where 6.418592739 is the harmonic mean of the matrix of all possible pairwise harmonic means of JEV, SEV, UEV, & NEV (as introduced previously and shelved for continuation at a later date = today).

    …and also note that a harmonic nearly hits the BDO:

    79.46634745 / 4 = 19.8665868625332

    harmonic of 19.8665868625332 nearest 6.4185927387767 is 6.62219562084441
    (6.622195621)*(6.418592739) / (6.622195621 – 6.418592739) = 208.7651034

    For comparison:

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

    Note also that:

    harmonic of 39.7331737250665 nearest 6.4185927387767 is 6.62219562084441
    (6.622195621)*(6.418592739) / (6.622195621 – 6.418592739) = 208.7651034

    It’s informative that 20 year multidecadal polar motion absolute deviations rectified from a 40 year wave are coherent with the global average SST field. This poses a simple hydrological geometric interpretive challenge for agencies like NASA JPL …who will for sure keep silent (social & political intimidation) should the simplicity of the hydrological geometry consciously register.

  8. oldbrew says:

    British physicist Brian Cox believes he knows why we haven’t found aliens
    He claims any sort of intelligent life is destroying itself before it evolves
    Technology that allows power but produces greenhouse gases, or nuclear weapons, may destroy civilizations within a few thousand years – like us

    Read more:

    Surprise – he’s got a book to sell…

    Professor Cox has just published a book written with his fellow Manchester University physicist Jeff Forshaw – Universal: A Guide to the Cosmos

  9. oldbrew says:

    From Timo Niroma – The Third Millennium BC (3100-2100 BC): Two separate cataclysms

    So there seems to be a difference between the 2350 BC and 2200 BC events. I suggest that the 2350 BC event was local, an Anatolian event, from the Aegean to the Caspian. The 2200 BC event was global, as seen by the evidence from Iberia to China.

  10. Paul Vaughan says:

    Advisory: This individual is neither qualified nor capable of discerning what would constitute a “credible procedure”:

    “Well I don’t have any conclusions obviously at this point, the above summarizes the issues that we are grappling with as we set this up. You may ask why we are even doing this project, given the magnitude of the challenges. […] I would like to establish some sort of credible procedure for developing 21st century scenarios of climate variability and methodology for assessing uncertainty.”

  11. Paul Vaughan says:

    Note also:

    harmonic of 22.1392998455063 nearest 1 is 1.00633181115938
    (1.006331811)*(1) / (1.006331811 – 1) = 158.9326949

    harmonic of 22.1392998455063 nearest 0.5 is 0.503165905579689
    (0.503165906)*(0.5) / (0.503165906 – 0.5) = 79.46634745

  12. oldbrew says:

    One for the Predictions page perhaps…

    Europeans brace for coldest winter in a century
    OCTOBER 10, 2016
    According to meteorologists Dominik Jung, Joe Bastardi and Elena Volosiouk.

    An earlier forecast on fairly similar lines…

  13. RJ Salvador says:

    If this model forecast of the ENSO is valid, then both this winter and the next when will be very cold.

  14. Paul Vaughan says:

    For more conventional mainstream academic minds, from accepted LOD & polar motion:

    (5.9313075)*(6.409530885) / (5.9313075 – 6.409530885) = 79.49610962

    I’ll illustrate a reminder of the stratospheric volcanism temporal translation symmetry when time permits.

    We need to get past these assumptions of insolation uniformity.

    I’m giving 3 different ways to look at it (solar system; conventional earth orientation parameters (EOP) & hydrology; and stratospheric volcanism (aerosol optical depth)).

    What cannot be escaped: (a) asymmetry (b) uncanny temporal translation symmetry.

    The potential may be set by 97 or the integral of solar wind (past illustration), but the event schedule within that envelope appears constrained.

    Amplitude of decadal semi-annual wind, pressure, and temperature gradients in the southern ocean are coherent with the aerosol towers, so a first question I’d be asking modelers is: Are you bothering with a realistic Antarctic circumpolar SAO?

    I’m also looking at coherence with Schwabe polar (total column) ozone.

    It could be quite simple and just no one bothered with realistic representation of volcanic effects at semi-annual timescale at those latitudes (maybe falsely thinking that’s only something you have to think about near the equator).

    There’s definitely something here for a conventional mainstream research paper, even without considering why the 79.5 year temporal translation symmetry is so incredibly striking (as outlined in 2010 and now up for reminder).

  15. Paul Vaughan says:

  16. Paul Vaughan says:

    pairwise XEV harmonic means where X=J,S,U,N

    ___________	11.06964992	9.007246722	5.018891421	4.492694707
    11.06964992	11.06964992	9.932517933	6.906452219	6.391396515
    9.007246722	9.932517933	9.007246722	6.446021398	5.995108925
    5.018891421	6.906452219	6.446021398	5.018891421	4.741238027
    4.492694707	6.391396515	5.995108925	4.741238027	4.492694707

    grand harmonic mean = harmonic mean (JEV, SEV, UEV, NEV) = 6.418592739

    a very old illustration for review:
    I(SW) = integral of solar wind

  17. Paul Vaughan says:

    …so the wind is throwing water around, changing the pattern of SSH (sea surface heights) and thus the pattern of stress on the hull (the crust). In other words: Stuff is coupled …including explosive volcanism. You can put El Nino Modoki on the pictures too (alongside MEIx). It doesn’t change the insight: Stuff is coupled internally and the sun yanks on that chain to shake stuff around. The sun’s temporal patterns get scrambled spatially.

  18. oldbrew says:

    Did China pinch Scottish wave power tech?

    Mysterious factory break-in raises suspicions about Chinese visit

    A burglary at an innovative Scottish wave-power company went forgotten, until a very similar project appeared in China

  19. oldbrew says:

    Baffled scientists again: Mystery of KIC 8462852 Deepens

    “It’s a big challenge to come up with a good explanation for a star doing three different things that have never been seen before,” Dr. Montet said.

    No known or proposed stellar phenomena can fully explain all aspects of the observed light curve.

  20. Paul Vaughan says:

    Catching up on what Pukite’s been up to…

    Provocative Question:

    How else would Earth-Venus angular momentum be stable at Milankovitch timescale without JEV antiresonance?…

    13.68233104 = φ/(J+S)

    “In addition, some signals that were previously not definitely observed by predecessors were detected in this study, with periods and amplitudes of 9.13 d and 0.12 ms, 13.69 yr and 0.10 ms, respectively.”

    2016 – Detection of different-time-scale signals in the Length of Day variation based on EEMD analysis technique

    9.13d is neither new nor mysterious.

    Maybe an illustration of globally-averaged 41ka obliquity phase anomalies will help…

    (to be continued….)

  21. oldbrew says:

    Discussing the difference in meaning between random and chaotic in climate theory, or something like that.

    PV says: ‘Provocative Question:

    How else would Earth-Venus angular momentum be stable at Milankovitch timescale without JEV antiresonance?…’

    8 E-V = 1 J-N is fairly accurate?

  22. oldbrew says:

    Solar Panel Road Still Hasn’t Generated Any Power After Spending Millions

    Scientists repeatedly criticized the scheme as panels on roads wouldn’t be tiled to follow the sun which makes them incredibly inefficient, would often be covered by cars during periods when the sun is out and wouldn’t be capable of serving as a road for long.

    Read more:

    Teething problems perhaps…
    Despite internet hype, a prototype of the solar “road” built in Idaho couldn’t be driven on, didn’t generate any electricity and 75 percent of its panels broke within a week of installation. Of the panels installed to make a “solar footpath,” 18 of the 30 were dead on arrival due to a manufacturing failure. A short rain shower caused another four panels to fail, and only two panels appear to be presently functional.

  23. oldbrew says:

    Observable Universe contains ten times more galaxies than previously thought

    The decreasing number of galaxies as time progresses also contributes to the solution of Olbers’ paradox—why the sky is dark at night.

    Read more at:

    According to the research, about 90 percent of galaxies in the observable universe are too faint and too far away to be seen with present-day telescopes. [JWST will change that]

  24. Paul Vaughan says:

    OB, that “Lorenz Validated” thing is just total BS and so is the commentary on “Chaos Theory”. A theory of SPATIOtemporal Chaos DOES NOT YET EXIST (in public for humans on Earth at least). Having endless conversations about TEMPORAL (time-ONLY) chaos doesn’t change that. There’s due cause for stern suspicion of all agencies playing games with this.

  25. oldbrew says:

    Rising Rivers in South Iceland

    ‘Heaviest rain in years’

  26. oldmanK says:

    Something on ‘Chaos’ — with plenty of chaotic/greek maths where to get lost -for me definitely.

    After a 40 year plus career involved with prime movers, and being one with a cat’s curiosity to fiddle their governor systems, (out of necessity and being the only fool who dared) I was looking for something on the related maths. Something more modern than the maths of half a century ago. I came across the below.

    Click to access 0702044.pdf

    Something on what’s beyond the stability fringe. It is put interestingly even if you choose to skip the math squiggles.

  27. oldbrew says:

    Charity Calls on Leo DiCaprio to Resign as UN Climate ‘Messenger of Peace’

    The calls for DiCaprio to resign from his position at the United Nations, which was bestowed upon him in 2014, stem from the actor’s reported connection to several figures embroiled in the world’s largest embezzlement scheme.

    Climate of suspicion 😎

  28. oldbrew says:

    Another renewables fiasco, this time in Canada…

    Ontario’s electricity, “carnage”, “a train wreck”, electricity costs double to reduce carbon at $250/ton
    Boondoggle: How Ontario’s pursuit of renewables broke their electricity system

    A bunch of parasites fooled the Premier and they are getting rich by selling expensive electrons that are supposed to change the weather 50 years from now.

    Calling them naive would be an understatement. They’ve been mugged and there are plenty more like that.

  29. Paul Vaughan says:

    97 ENSO volatility in South African Rainfall & Drought:

    2001 – 20th century droughts in Southern Africa: Spatial and temporal variability, teleconnections with oceanic and atmospheric conditions

  30. oldbrew says:

    Scientific support for this Talkshop Why Phi? post.

    Capture Resonance of the Asteroid 1685 Toro by the Earth
    L. Danielsson1, W. -H Ip2
    + Author Affiliations
    Science 26 May 1972:
    Vol. 176, Issue 4037, pp. 906-907
    DOI: 10.1126/science.176.4037.906

    See also:
    (section 8.5.2)

  31. oldbrew says:

    Extraterrestrial impact preceded ancient global warming event

    Could be something or nothing. No impact crater found to date.
    Annoying article keeps referring to ‘carbon’ when it means ‘carbon dioxide’.

    Also: A reliance on negative emissions technologies is locking in carbon addiction

    More hand-wringing about the ‘dreaded’ trace gas that is a tiny 1 part in 2500 in our atmosphere.

  32. oldbrew says:

    Spiral galaxy (left), tropical storm (right)

  33. Poly says:

    Paul Vaughan says:
    October 15, 2016 at 9:17 am
    97 ENSO volatility in South African Rainfall & Drought:

    Prof Will Alexander spent a career alleviating, studying and documenting this drought cycle. Unfortunately, he has not been much acknowledged;

  34. oldbrew says:

    Lawsuit charges conspiracy to hide truth, promote propaganda for financial gain

    A mathematician and software engineer has filed a lawsuit in Texas naming dozens of environmental groups and others seeking to influence public action and expenditures regarding global warming programs in an action alleging violations of RICO.


  35. oldbrew says:

    The biter bit – more legal argy-bargy [H/T WUWT]

    Federal Court Delivers Stunning Blow to Mass. AG and #ExxonKnew Campaign

    …a federal judge today issued a discovery order against Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey to determine whether “bias or prejudgment” influenced her decision to initiate a “bad faith” investigation into ExxonMobil, just days after she appeared before news cameras with New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, Al Gore and other Democratic state attorneys general in New York.

    Unlucky 😉

    Looks like Al Gore has dumped these hapless AGs in the smelly stuff.

  36. Paul Vaughan says:

    What can we learn about circulatory asymmetry from the East Pacific and South Atlantic voids on these cyclone maps?

  37. Paul Vaughan says:

    “Theories concerning infrequency of occurrence

    Until April 1991 it was thought that tropical cyclones did not develop within the South Atlantic.[1] Very strong vertical wind shear in the troposphere is considered a deterrent.[2] The Intertropical Convergence Zone drops one to two degrees south of the equator,[3] not far enough from the equator for the Coriolis force to aid development. Water temperatures in the tropics of the southern Atlantic are cooler than those in the tropical north Atlantic.[4]”,-60,180,85&width=375&height=151&srs=EPSG:4326&format=image%2Fpng&transparent=true&layers=ndh:ndh-cyclone-hazard-frequency-distribution,cartographic:national-boundaries

  38. oldbrew says:

    Re El Niño and wind shear…

    ‘In general, warm El Niño events are characterized by more tropical storms and hurricanes in the eastern Pacific and a decrease in the Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean Sea.’

    ‘In El Niño years, the wind patterns are aligned in such a way that the vertical wind shear is increased over the Caribbean and Atlantic. The increased wind shear helps to prevent tropical disturbances from developing into hurricanes. In the eastern Pacific, the wind patterns are altered in such a way to reduce the wind shear in the atmosphere, contributing to more storms.’

  39. Paul Vaughan says:

    East-west is second order. North-south is first order. I’m not ignoring second order …but I am suggesting first order FIRST.

  40. Paul Vaughan says:

    “This prompts a word of caution that analogies between temporal chaos (relatively well understood) and spatio-temporal chaos (badly understood) should not be used because they are likely wrong and misleading.” – Tomas Milanovic

    This is the most significant development I’ve seen in the climate discussion in a long time. Tomas Milanovic is back with a timely correction of 99.99% of climate commentators:

    The title of the article wasn’t the best choice. I can suggest the following titles for future Milanovic articles:

    1. Temporal chaos is NOT spatiotemporal chaos.
    2. SPATIOtemporal chaos DIFFERS FUNDAMENTALLY from temporal (time-ONLY) chaos.
    3. A complete theory of SPATIOtemporal chaos DOES NOT YET EXIST (in public for humans on Earth at least).

    Telling excerpts from Tomas’ article:

    “The Real Climate statement is equivalent to the implication: “If model A says 1 = 0 AND model B says 5 = 0 then the model (A+B)/2 saying 3= 0 gives a better answer“.”

    “[…] when there are more papers studying why model A doesn’t behave like model B than papers studying the climate itself, you suspect that something must have gone wrong.”

    One thing I’ve learned over the years is that no matter how many times you remind climate commentators that temporal chaos and SPATIOtemporal chaos DIFFER FUNDAMENTALLY, they JUST IGNORE THAT FACT …AND THE IMPLICATIONS. They similarly ignore the fact that a complete theory of spatiotemporal chaos DOES NOT YET EXIST (in public for humans on Earth at least).

    Tomas comments on the fundamental misdirection of conventional mainstream climate modeling:

    “[…] it is reasonable to suppose that this research direction is not adapted to explain and predict regional features. However if this post only criticized the shortcomings of numerical climate models what is quite easy, it would miss the mark .

    There are other research directions actually unfortunately understudied. I believe that the weather and therefore the climate have a global finite dimensional attractor. As the boundary conditions of the system are given by the shape and location of the continents and of the ocean floor on one side and the orbital parameters as well as the energy output of the Sun on the other side, this attractor can be considered as invariant over the time scales of interest – e.g hundreds or thousands of years.”

    I’ve selected a few article excerpts for adjustment:

    1. “Considering that almost all energy of the system is in the oceans and in the water cycle (ice, water, water vapour), the characteristic spatio-temporal functions defining the attractor would mostly describe oceanic dynamics.”

    No, the ocean is coupled to the atmosphere, wind drives ocean currents, and always always remember that glaciers fall from the sky.

    2. “Even if the attractor had millions of dimensions, by analogy with a Taylor expansion, only a small number of them could be enough to explain the system’s behaviour at the scales of interest. For instance the observations suggest that ENSO is the leading order oscillation with other large scale features like the Gulf Stream and the Circumpolar Antarctic stream following.”

    Yes to the former, but no on the latter. ENSO is secondary if with common sense you recognize the ITCZ as the central aggregation criterion …unless you restrict your comment to interannual timescale, ignoring multidecadal-centennial timescales.

    3. “Techniques allowing to reconstruct the attractor properties from lower diemnsional projections exist for temporal chaos. They could be extended to spatio-temporal chaos.”

    So far empirically I have found at least 3 types of effective spatiotemporal orthogonality, but the time-only crowd (the overwhelming majority of climate commentators — literally nearly 100% of the community) paralyzes discussion by falsely assuming there exists only 1.

    4. “I am convinced that the direction of research aiming to understand oceanic oscillations and their interactions as they are observed could lead to a real breakthrough in our understanding of climate.”

    Since it is not possible to decouple ocean from atmosphere (for example wind, evaporation, wind-driven ocean currents, water vapor flux and convergence, strong coupling of SST pattern to volcanic aerosol pattern, and the show-stopping grand closer: glaciers fall from the sky), it’s not even remotely sensible to artificially narrow focus to the ocean. I would interpret such artificial restriction as DELIBERATE SABOTAGE by leaders to ABSOLUTELY ENSURE the absence of real exploratory progress.

    Dark Agent Response…

    I notice in the comments section that a highly educated commentator is outright lying about aggregation criteria fundamentals. Do aggregation criteria affect spatiotemporal pattern? The trivial answer is YES. I recommend immediately banning the commentator for abuse of authority, same as should have been fairly done to an authority-abusing commentator at wuwt 5 or 6 years ago.

    Corrupt authorities lying to innocents is a serious transgression warranting fair banishment from the community of influence. It’s unethical to allow them predatory access to innocent victims.

    I’m particularly concerned by the implicit lying about the evolution of knots in the circulatory architecture. It comes across as a bold power play where the perpetrator assumes the audience to be of such deep ignorance that it is powerless to avoid being fooled on aggregation fundamentals.

    Based on my observations of the climate discussion over the years, the assumption is actually true for probably more than 99.99% of participants. Tomas Milanovic is the ONLY commentator I’m SURE is not in this category. What can an individual do when facing such mass ignorance? The appropriate response is to do what one can without sacrificing one’s health and general well-being.


    Absolutely refuse to entertain the notion of an anthropogenic greenhouse effect until Tomas Milanovic’s suggestions have been thoroughly heeded.


    ERSSTv4 should be retracted and v3b2 reinstated immediately:

    More generally authorities should stop callously messing around with data as this activity is adding unnecessary orders of complexity magnitude to the divide. It’s reprehensibly fracturing divisions ever more deeply, pushing even more remotely any prospects for the establishment of sound, common ground. Destroying trust like that was a fatal mistake. If you have to resort to abusive coercion to make people go your way, you’re not a natural leader and subjects will live with instinctive awareness that a natural can overthrow you and that thus you are incapable of providing stable leadership. Consider seizing this clear, easy opportunity to rebuild trust with a simple announcement: “With v4 we screwed up so we’re retracting it.” (Given the hubristic behavior patterns we’ve seen, we might instead expect an even more corrupted v5 without any admission of systematic corruption of v4.)

    A BAD subset of Americans is going to extremes to devilishly manipulate the climate discussion. An appeal to GOOD Americans: Could you please do something to help restore integrity?

  41. oldbrew says:

    Interesting analysis PV.

    “[…] when there are more papers studying why model A doesn’t behave like model B than papers studying the climate itself, you suspect that something must have gone wrong.” – Milanovic

    Good point 🙂

  42. oldmanK says:

    PV’s link is interesting, including the comments — although it is definitely not my cup-of-tea.

    However from PV’s –quote “the shape and location of the continents and of the ocean floor on one side and the orbital parameters as well as the energy output of the Sun on the other side, this attractor can be considered as invariant over the time scales of interest – e.g hundreds or thousands of years.”

    Not quite. This is what I have been trying to point out all along. There is evidence disputing that. There have also been pronouncements by ancient authors saying otherwise, although these have been called liars by the historical community. We have been fed palliative ‘untruths’. What I’m referring to would not effect the gist of the subject in the link for the past two to four millennia, but be wary beyond that. Corroborating evidence of abrupt drastic changes that are way beyond of being ‘invariant’ -as I am finding- is there from multiple sources.

  43. Paul Vaughan says:

    …and you’re looking at only at 2000BC-5000BC and extrapolating back before that. I again encourage you to look at the actual multivariate observations from times before then. Time did not begin in 5000BC. You may have found evidence for a transient disturbance from the theoretical obliquity backbone. That sort of information adds richness to our understanding of perturbations, but it does not imply that 0 is a better backbone model, especially given that when you go back further — including much further — obliquity is there in the record. Have you looked? It’s not sensible to put extrapolations from one obliquity proxy before actual observations from other obliquity proxies for times before 5000BC. Maybe you can find observational evidence of lots of transient deviations from the backbone if you look at a bunch of other proxies. That sort of information from observations (NOT from extrapolations) would be quite interesting. I’m quite busy, but I look forward to succinct presentation of such information by other interested parties …and meanwhile I’m definitely not the type to put extrapolations (to out-of-sample eras) ahead of observations (from actual in-sample eras).

  44. Paul Vaughan says:

    OB, I laughed out loud (involuntarily) when I read this one:

    “The Real Climate statement is equivalent to the implication: “If model A says 1 = 0 AND model B says 5 = 0 then the model (A+B)/2 saying 3= 0 gives a better answer“.” — Milanovic

    The coercive culture of illogical mainstream climate math:
    ( completely wrong + completely wrong ) / 2 = right!

    This is UN thinking?… Children will be taught:
    The average of 2 wrongs is a right …so commit the crime twice!

  45. Paul Vaughan says:

    NASA JPL struggles to understand Meridional Mode asymmetry and asserts that CMIP5 ensemble averages do NOT represent air-sea coupling realistically — look at the combination of admissions and confusion in the “conclusions”:

    Click to access AMM_WES.pdf

    Probably their funding should be increased for such honesty and integrity, especially in a time when there’s intense, malicious coercion and harassment to bluff otherwise.

    I’m going to have to dig deeper into the literature on Meridional Modes.

  46. Paul Vaughan says:

    As I instinctively expected, PMM (Pacific Meridional Mode) is related to TNI & EMI (modoki indices). It’s remarkable looking at what a scramble there has been in the literature to fundamentally rethink ENSO. Here’s another article that should provoke aspiring ENSO forecasters:

    2011 – ENSO regimes: Reinterpreting the canonical and Modoki El Nino

  47. oldmanK says:

    From PV: “you’re looking at only at 2000BC-5000BC and extrapolating back before that”. No, I am saying exactly the contrary. I am saying Do NOT extrapolate from the observed.

    The last “Observed” obliquity measurement was around 1100 bce by the Chinese. I am inferring an obliquity measurement for 2000 -5000bce from a reliable source. Beyond that it is all extrapolation from formulae. I do not think anyone has an idea where obliquity was actually parked. There are, and there will still be, signatures in the records from orbital variations, including precession, but AFAIK not from obliquity, but -ok- I may be wrong.

    I am fully in agreement with this, quote “It’s not sensible to put extrapolations from one obliquity proxy”. This is what I have been saying all along. What I have seen so far on obliquity – everywhere – is only extrapolation, and from the last 1k years; and that extrapolation departs from reality from the known 1k bce era.

    But I would question this ” before actual observations from other obliquity proxies for times before 5000BC” . Proxies on precession obliquity variation/oscillation I would agree but not on the actual value of the obliquity. But again I may stand to be corrected.

  48. Poly says:

    You are correct – there has been a huge recent interest in ENSO.
    This is a good sign because large ENSO events significant social and economic risks for a large areas of the globe.
    In particular, residents of E.Australia and SW Africa need to be aware of the critical importance of ENSO to them.
    Improved prediction of ENSO can only be a good thing.

  49. oldmanK says:

    A correction to the above. “proxies on obliquity variation/oscillation” instead of on precession.

  50. oldbrew says:

    Unsettling result for modellers of ‘settled science’…

    Problems in CMIP5 Modeling of Atlantic Multi-Decadal Variability [AMV]

    In conclusion and summation, Peings et al. thus state that (16) “the amplitude of SST anomalies [in models] is generally smaller than in observations, especially in the subtropical Atlantic,” and that (17) “the potential feedback of the ocean that is identified in observations around 5 years after the peak of the AMV is not identified in the models,” which fact they suggest is (18) “likely related to the underestimation of AMV amplitude in the models.”

    Peings et al. conclude by stating that (22) “the current generation of coupled ocean-atmosphere models may underestimate the unforced AMV and [23] the associated impacts on the wintertime atmospheric circulation,” while once again noting that (24) “the internal component of the AMV is too small in the CMIP5 models.”

  51. oldbrew says:

    UK news: Major role for solar an ‘impossible dream’, says think tank

    Variability, intermittency and low load factors mean solar power cannot make a significant contribution to meeting the UK’s energy needs, a new report from the Adam Smith Institute and the Scientific Alliance has concluded.

  52. Paul Vaughan says:

    OB, I feel naive for being astonished at how little they understand asymmetry of the tropical Atlantic & East Pacific. I was expecting to find a longstanding crystal clear explanation for it, but in the mainstream literature I’m finding speculation, confusion, and lots of sentences ending in question marks. They’re lacking geometry and topology foundations; that much is evident. They seem to have little appreciation for the fact that no matter the physics BOUNDARY CONDITIONS SHAPE. As Bill Illis has counseled us, that accounts for plus or minus 35 C. In the literature they obviously realize land/ocean geometry is at the root (at a vague, general level), but the detailed speculation about regional implications in the tropical Atlantic and East Pacific appears to be in its infancy. It’s really disappointing.

    oldmanK, the phase of obliquity in the proxies varies with aggregation criteria. When time permits this is something I will explore. Based on a quick preliminary look, I suspect there has been a lot of misinterpretation of records based on at least 2 false SPATIOtemporal assumptions. When I did the quick look I immediately noticed something I’ve never seen reported anywhere. I’m actually starting to get quite angry at people who insist on a time-only view of climate. Their ignorance has caused just-staggering amounts of communication trouble because a consequence is that most people come to the conversation implicitly making false spatiotemporal assumptions and they don’t even realize it. How they got cultured to implicitly make these false spatiotemporal assumptions is a mystery, but it’s a vexing problem. Jose Rial is one explorer I can think of whose mind was opening in the right direction.

  53. Paul Vaughan says:

    I have never even looked at the core curriculum courses for a degree in climate science. Do the students see geometry and topology? What philosophical foundations do they get on aggregation criteria? I would love to see a webpage that summarizes variation in climate science curricula across institutions. If anyone locates such a page, please link us. Thanks.

  54. Paul Vaughan says:

    Poly, ENSO is just one component of a balanced multi-axial differential. What can be predicted is the balance. I’m not sure where this idea comes from that the multivariate partitioning can be discerned from a single component. The conservation equations are coupled to the attractors I’ve illustrated. ENSO is just one component of the residual spatiotemporal scatter that’s balanced in aggregate. The mainstream is engaged in a fundamental rethink for good reasons.

  55. oldbrew says:

    Game over for record-hungry climate alarmists?

    The planet’s longest hot streak in 137 years of record-keeping came to an end Tuesday, with last month registering as the second warmest September in modern times, said US government scientists.

    Read more at:

  56. oldbrew says:

    Australian rock formation could be older than Stonehenge, researchers say

    The Wurdi Youang stone arrangement 45km west of Melbourne was formed using about 90 blocks of basalt, a custodian, Reg Abrahams, said and clearly identifies the equinox, the winter solstice and the summer solstice.

    It could prove to be the world’s oldest astronomical observatory, with the stars and the night sky important to Aboriginal ceremony, song, navigation and time-keeping. [bold added]

    “Geologists and experts estimate it to be around 10,000 years old”

    Details could be interesting.

  57. RJ Salvador says:

    The influence of solar system oscillation on the variability of the total solar irradiance.

    Harald Yndestad, Jan-Erik Solheim

  58. Paul Vaughan says:

    oldmanK, I suggest not automatically assuming Milanovic does not mean ACTUAL values. If someone says “obliquity” my first instinct is that they mean ACTUAL obliquity (as opposed to modeled).

    Also, invariant is a technical term. It does not mean constant.

  59. oldmanK says:

    PV, good day. Some clarification from my side.

    I cannot, presently, place where Milanovic refers to obliquity. However, as it is we only have an Actual value for the past two millennia. In the previous millennium we also have a reading, which has been queried. It was investigated by Wittmann who left it a question-mark – as a possibly very erroneous reading.

    After Wittmann, JH Lieske from JPL (in a paper below) also quoted Wittmann’s findings and he too was circumspect about discarding the ancient measurements (pg 213, note that it talks of the ‘rate’ not the ‘mean’ value). There are no more ACTUAL.

    Paper here (interesting reading re the development of what is today taken for granted):

    What is noteworthy is that the difference for 1100bce is appreciable enough to cause concern, for both historical ancient disasters, and for climate considerations. It is of more concern when ‘rates of change’ are considered, being much higher for 1kbce than 1kce. (My toying with curve fitting gives a better fit for a decaying exponential. Which tied in to a lower value post ~~2900bce as measured from calendars).

    Historical background (read online):

  60. oldmanK says:

    Copy/paste all the line for paper, from http—to YES.

  61. oldbrew says:

    PEI: Summit makes case for UK tidal lagoons

    Tidal lagoon projects could provide billions of pounds to manufacturers in the UK’s so-called ‘Northern Powerhouse’.

    That was the conclusion of a summit held at Sheffield Forgemasters, the steelmaker that makes many small and large components and structures for the energy industry.

    Or they could save a fortune and build a few reliable and efficient CCGT power stations in a fraction of the time.

  62. oldmanK says:

    oldbrew, you send me back in time, memory-wise.

    The 60% effcy is achievable, but watch for excessive wastage in plant itself, a very normal pitfall. For then you will have less to sell. Better still, if flexibility is an essential in the design, one can improve the ‘combined’ output of a mix of plant – the extra benefit from single ownership.

    Your PEI link says this on flexibility “Ten years ago this type of CCGT would only have needed about 50 starts a year.” But PEI said this in 2000 : (sorry-could not resist that ).

  63. Paul Vaughan says:

    oldmanK, actual obliquity is whatever obliquity actually is.

    Repeating the same concern repeatedly does not change the fact that we are already aware of your concerns. The matter is shelved awaiting significant new information.

    Due to endless competing demands and higher priorities, I have no more time for this. Please alert us if/when you have significant new information for succinct presentation.


  64. oldbrew says:

    Even warmists can’t get round the problem of climate models chronically over-predicting global warming.

    Roy Spencer:
    ‘Overall, it looks to me like Santer et al. twist themselves into a pretzel by cherry picking data, using a new hot satellite dataset that appears to be undocumented, ignores independent (radiosonde) evidence (since it does not support their desired conclusion), and still arrives at a substantial 1.7x average bias in the climate models warming rates.’

    In other words, what they seem to want (if the bias of the models is any guide) is just not happening.

  65. oldbrew says:

    Juno mission to Jupiter already turning up surprises for scientists…

    The probe flew over the auroras with multiple instruments turned on, but “the things we expected to see weren’t there, and things we didn’t expect were there.”
    But in the last few minutes before the probe reached its closest point of approach to the planet, the data drastically diverged from the predictions, showing that the magnetic field was much stronger than expected

  66. oldbrew says:

    Baffled scientists again…

    First results from long-term, hi-res tracking of eruptions on Jupiter’s moon Io

    “While it stretches the imagination to devise a mechanism that could operate over distances of 500 kilometers, Io’s volcanism is far more extreme than anything we have on Earth and continues to amaze and baffle us”

    Read more at:

  67. oldbrew says:

    Maxwell’s demon turns up in quantum physics…maybe.

    Researchers posit way to locally circumvent Second Law of Thermodynamics

  68. oldbrew says:

    Roy Spencer: What Do 16 Years of CERES Data Tell Us About Global Climate Sensitivity?
    October 21st, 2016

    Short Answer: It all depends upon how you interpret the data.

  69. Paul Vaughan says:

    The concept of “climate sensitivity” is based on misconceptions. Why do people keep talking about it as if it’s meaningful? The answer appears to be: “Because it’s tradition.”

  70. Paul Vaughan says:

    From OB’s 2nd Law link:

    “”Although the violation is only on the local scale, the implications are far-reaching,” Vinokur said. “This provides us a platform for the practical realization of a quantum Maxwell’s demon, which could make possible a local quantum perpetual motion machine.”

    For example, he said, the principle could be designed into a “refrigerator” which could be cooled remotely—that is, the energy expended to cool it could take place anywhere.

    The authors are planning to work closely with a team of experimentalists to design a proof-of-concept system, they said.”

    Air-conditioning for hot-heads = refrigeration for air-heads! It will be a blessing if they can get the devilish lukewarmers to chill out! From the sound of it, this can be done from the Sun. Poetic justice!! Put them on ice remotely — it sounds like an overdue drug prescription!!

    We have to have some fun. It can’t always be dead serious…

  71. Paul Vaughan says:

    Luxury is not clouding this common sense observation of necessity:

    “Duterte has said he did not want to embroil the Philippines in an unwinnable war with China, which could instead be tapped as a major trading partner and source of development funds.”

    It’s eminently practical to anticipate common sense similarly gaining light — possibly suddenly under sufficiently conducive circumstances — in South Korea & Japan. Fatally suspect is the competence and honesty of naive contingency planners publicly downplaying the likelihood of human nature opting for a simpler, more effective path.

    Certainly (blame the media if you like) US politics has developed the optics of a rigged wrestling match. It’s untenable to hold this clownish model up as an ideal to be embraced uniformly. China on the other hand appears orders of magnitude more serious and sharply focused on the critical difference between necessity and luxury. There’s acute awareness of this in the East: Putting luxurious ideals before raw survival is suicide. It’s primal instinct.

  72. oldbrew says:

    PV says: ‘The concept of “climate sensitivity” is based on misconceptions. Why do people keep talking about it as if it’s meaningful?’

    I think that’s what Spencer is saying really. The data can be interpreted in such different ways that the supposed results are not useful.

  73. oldbrew says:

    Delingpole writes:

    Pielke’s mistake was to write a piece for FiveThirtyEight stating what he thought was a fairly unarguable, scientifically grounded truth: that there has been no increase in “extreme weather events” as a result of supposed man-made climate change.

    Almost instantly, Pielke found himself viciously attacked from a number of quarters, everywhere from The Guardian and The Week to the Columbia Journalism review, not to mention FiveThreeEight’s comments section, where he was accused of writing “propaganda for big oil.”

    Pielke Jr was so mortified that he never wrote on the subject of climate change for the site again and was subsequently dropped as a writer by Silver.

    Thanks to Wikileaks, we now know that the dark agent behind this monstering, was Climate Progress – the eco-fascist sub-section of ThinkProgress, run by Joe Romm, devoted to promulgating green propaganda and smearing sceptics.

    If the “science” is as settled as it frequently claims, why is it necessary to orchestrate attacks on any scientist who speaks even slightly out of turn?

  74. Paul Vaughan says:

    Spencer’s too socially conventional and not quite bright enough to be of any help OB. Someone might want to give him some points for bravery, but anyone following him is definitely going in the wrong direction.

    More generally, anyone talking about “climate sensitivity” is lost and definitely not worth listening to.

    Here they go again with TOTAL BS:

    There are a lot of mistakes in that article. The author is not qualified to write on the subject.

    No matter how many times Tomas Milanovic reminds that spatiotemporal chaos DIFFERS FUNDAMENTALLY (the key word there for any morons is “FUNDAMENTALLY”) from temporal chaos, people just keep yammering on and on and on as if they’re fundamentally the same.

    The community is 100% resistant to correction. Correction has NO effect. The community WILL push ahead with a corrupt narrative. It’s absolutely guaranteed. You can plan confidently.

  75. Paul Vaughan says:

    I’ve been following the commentary on Tomas Milanovic’s recent article at ce. It’s that rare occasion when I actually do so. It’s an opportunity to unambiguously assess integrity. That community is decisively corrupt. They do not care AT ALL about getting their thinking sorted out and corrected on the fundamental differences between temporal chaos and spatiotemporal chaos. It’s 100% crystal clear that rather they ONLY care about generating false persuasive appearances. The whole community should be dismissed …but let me balance this assessment with one enduring credit: captain dallas shared one very insightful graph of equatorial SSTs and eccentricity.

  76. Paul Vaughan says:

    “In Washington, officials seemed puzzled by Duterte’s comments.
    “It isn’t just the United States that is baffled by this rhetoric,” Kirby said. “We have heard from many of our friends and partners in the region who are likewise confused about where this is going.””

    “A Philippine police van rammed into protesters, leaving several bloodied, as an anti-U.S. rally turned violent Wednesday at the American Embassy in Manila.”

  77. Paul Vaughan says:

    Typhoons & Quakes ….

    “[…] Liu and his team proposed that storms might act as safety valves, repeatedly short-circuiting the buildup of dangerous levels of strain that otherwise could eventually instigate large, destructive earthquakes. This might explain, the researchers say, why the contact between the Eurasian and Philippine Sea tectonic plates, in the vicinity of Taiwan, has far less in the way of major quakes than further north where the plate boundary swings past Japan.”

    I’ll have related illustrations forthcoming. This location is the global nexus.

  78. oldbrew says:


    ‘the [PDO] index has been on a steep decline over the past couple of months’

  79. oldbrew says:

    New paper demonstrates a large gravito-thermal greenhouse effect on Earth

    A paper published today in Geophysical Research Letters confirms the gravito-thermal greenhouse effect in Earth’s atmosphere using a computer model of the lower-mass early Earth atmosphere compared to the higher-mass present day atmosphere.

  80. Paul Vaughan says:

    OB, remember that Bill Illis counseled that there’s not enough subsurface cool anomaly in the pipeline for a big La Nina.

  81. Paul Vaughan says:

    This is a stop-and-take-stock type of comment.

    Just like during the last US election, there’s a campaign pulling climate commentary off-message. It’s working. They hose a torrent of off-topic misinformation to distract people away from the core topics that matter. They herd people onto manipulable side-topics that are more easily controlled and push the pace off-the-dial so that during the campaign climate discussion never returns to normal.

    In future US election intervals it may be wise to just abstain from participation until it’s over. Too much time is wasted on all the red-herring chases …and going after bait just makes fools of commentators.

    There’s always room for improvements in participation strategy moving forward.

    I’m considering suspending participation until after Nov. 8 because discussion is just jerking around from one false-topic to another at a frantic pace, making involuntary yo-yos out of participants. It’s stupid.

    On the other hand I might just set a policy of strictly ignoring distractions from my own research.

    Letting torrents of egregious misinformation cross the radar unchallenged will save a lot of time. There will be countless days in the future when people will be far more receptive to sober, sensible discussion of geophysical aggregation criteria than what we’ll see during the next few weeks (when people are provoked into a devilishly defensive state by a particularly creepy US election), so I’m considering: might as well skip the daily nonsense and stick to the long game (on the scale of multiple decades).

  82. oldbrew says:

    Calls to hike tax on hybrid cars as research shows they are ‘seven times more polluting’ than pure electric

    Depending on what they mean by ‘polluting’ of course.

  83. oldbrew says:

    Scientists Debunk Climate Change Panic Behind ‘Coffee Fungus’

    Recent claims by climate alarmists that global warming was threatening the world coffee supply and the jobs of “125 million people” have turned out to be completely unfounded, according to a new study released Monday by a group of researchers from the University of Exeter.

    While National Geographic warned that “Fungus, Climate Change Threatening Big Part of Global Coffee Supply,” and the Guardian proclaimed “How Climate Change Will Wipe Out Coffee Crops – and Farmers,” the whole thing turns out to be just one more baseless climate scare.

    The scientists observed that despite volumes of literature to the contrary, “both the warming since the 1950s and the cooling since the late 1990s are entirely consistent with natural climate variability.”
    [bold added]

    The Guardian makes a fool of itself with climate exaggerations, yet again.

  84. oldbrew says:

    On the Existence of a “Tropical Hot Spot “
    The Validity of EPA’s CO2 Endangerment Finding

    Abridged Research Report

    Click to access wwww-ths-rr-091716.pdf

    [68 pages]

    These analysis results would appear to leave very, very little
    doubt but that EPA’s claim of a Tropical Hot Spot (THS), caused
    by rising atmospheric CO2 levels, simply does not exist in the
    real world. Also critically important, even on an all-other-things-equal
    basis, this analysis failed to find that the steadily rising
    Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations have had a statistically
    significant impact on any of the 13 critically important
    temperature time series analyzed.

    Thus, the analysis results invalidate each of the Three Lines of
    Evidence in its CO2 Endangerment Finding. Once EPA’s THS
    assumption is invalidated, it is obvious why the climate models
    they claim can be relied upon, are also invalid. And, these results
    clearly demonstrate–13 times in fact–that once just the ENSO
    impacts on temperature data are accounted for, there is no
    “record setting” warming to be concerned about. In fact, there is
    no ENSO-Adjusted Warming at all. These natural ENSO impacts
    involve both changes in solar activity and the 1977 Pacific Shift.

    Moreover, on an all-other-things-equal basis, there is no
    statistically valid proof that past increases in Atmospheric CO2
    Concentrations have caused the officially reported rising, even
    claimed record setting temperatures. To validate their claim will
    require mathematically credible, publically available,
    simultaneous equation parameter estimation work.

    The temperature data measurements that were analyzed were
    taken by many different entities using balloons, satellites, buoys
    and various land based techniques. Needless to say, if
    regardless of data source, the results are the same, the analysis
    findings should be considered highly credible.

  85. oldbrew says:

    BOM ENSO outlook latest: La Niña WATCH remains in place

    A La Niña WATCH status means there is approximately a 50% chance of La Niña developing in the upcoming season, which is about twice the normal likelihood.

  86. oldbrew says:

    Americans are more scared of clowns than they are of climate change.

    According to a poll conducted by Chapman University, 42 per cent of Americans are afraid of clowns, whereas only 32 per cent are afraid of climate change.

    Essentially climate change has become a luxury problem which only liberals in rich countries can afford to worry about. For everyone else, there are many, many more pressing concerns…

    Make your own joke up about clowns and climate change 🙂

  87. oldbrew says:

    Strong earthquake strikes central Italy, shaking historic buildings in Rome

    The first quake struck at a fairly shallow depth of around 10 kilometers (six miles), and was felt as far south as Rome, where it rattled the historic city center. Given the size, depth and location of the quake, the US Geological Survey estimates that about 12 million people would have felt the shaking. The INGV said the second earthquake was of 5.9 magnitude and had a similar depth.

    “It was a very strong earthquake, apocalyptic,” Ussita Mayor Marco Rinaldi told the ANSA news agency. “People are screaming on the street and now we are without lights.”

  88. oldbrew says:

    Saturn’s weird hexagon changes colour

    The mysterious hexagon at Saturn’s northern pole has changed colour from blue to gold, scientists have said.

    The change in colour is thought to be the result of seasonal changes on the planet.

  89. Paul Vaughan says:

    Readers may recall that for years I focused on just exploring climate quantitatively, deliberately steering well clear of the connected toxic politics.

    The ERSSTv4 event was sufficiently egregious that I reconsidered and decided that the politics cannot be ignored. There was an ethical imperative.

    Now I’m back to ignoring (it’s just the practical thing to do) the politics because it’s clear that all political stripes are too corrupt to be corrected (efficiently).

    ENSO Aggregation Criteria

    People like MEIx, but studied in isolation it limits insight.

    I’ve been further exploring splits of SST & SLP fields according to the central ITCZ aggregation criterion and one of the things that’s becoming clear is that ENSO properties follow at least 4 different attractors depending on aggregation criteria.

    This is a comparative sorting and classification challenge demanding patience familiar to biologists, including generations who knew nothing of DNA.

    In the pressure field there’s a southern ENSO volatility attractor relating to NAM and volcanic aerosols and there’s a northern ENSO volatility attractor relating to SAM and sunspot integral.

    Did I mean south where I wrote north in that last sentence and vice versa? No.

    Expression in the SST field isn’t the same, so this is a useful diagnostic clue.

    The politics is running such vexing interference on climate exploration that it’s possible that we will remain in darkness as light is turned away.

    I’ll be sharing some illustrations (spread out over weeks and months) to get people starting to think about this more carefully.

  90. oldbrew says:

    Researchers on cloud nine as they uncover the origin of atmospheric particles
    Date: October 27, 2016
    Source: University of Leeds

    Summary: Scientists have solved one of the most challenging and long-standing problems in atmospheric science: to understand how particles are formed in the atmosphere.

  91. Paul Vaughan says:

  92. RJ Salvador says:

    Arctic sea ice is at a record low and could, in spurts, disappear within our lifetimes

    So writes Jason Samenow of the Washington Post;

    Here is the graphic to prove it.

    This does not square up however with the sea ice data from the University of Illinois

    Here is coverage on October 27 2007

    Here is coverage on october 27th 2016

    This is their disclaimer:
    “Special Sensor Microwave Imager and Sounder (SSMIS) on the Defense Meteorological Satellite Program (DMSP) F-17 satellite that provides passive microwave brightness temperatures (and derived Arctic and Antarctic sea ice products) has been providing spurious data since beginning of April. Working on resolving problem or replacing this data source.”

    Funny how every time the data looks like it is not going as expected then something must be wrong with the data

  93. Poly says:

    Whoa people, wake up and heads-up.
    The US election may have had a black swan tipping point.
    There will now be a massive global risk revaluation, and all sort of unexpected consequences may appear.
    The global warming corruption cabal will be feeling the chill wind of change!

  94. Paul Vaughan says:

    Is this what you’re referring to Poly?

    “[…] “great respect” for the FBI and the Justice Department, now that they are “willing to have the courage to right the horrible mistake that they made” […]”

    In the long game that is nothing compared to ERSSTv4.

    v4 and sunspot number revisions were creeping step # 1 of incremental elite history revision and with its absolutely impotent reaction the grassroots climate discussion community proved itself fatally ignorant and incompetent.

    The elite kicked grassroots *ss by decisively demonstrating that the grassroots are powerless to resist incremental climate history revision.

    In the long game this has profound implications as I do not think many realize we are potentially only 1 step (v5) from end game. Certainly even with more conservative incremental revisions the solar-terrestrial climate signals would be unrecognizable by v6, but with one bold move it could be done by v5. With those history revisions hubristically shoe-horned in, broader lucid awareness of solar-terrestrial spatiotemporal pattern could easily be delayed by multiple decades.

    No my friend, you can have your politics. The US has a very serious problem that’s threatening to undermine the stability of the whole world. There’s too much corruption in the US elite class. Everyone knows this. The grassroots wants something done about it, but is ineffective.

    “”willing to have the courage to right the horrible mistake that they made””

    I would love to see that on v4. Until then my faith in humanity will never be fully restored.

  95. oldbrew says:

    Climate Hustle comes to Brussels

    Given my own experience as a (fairly) lone voice in the climate debate in the EP, the movie’s affirmation of my own views was hugely encouraging, and I am grateful to Marc Morano and to Climate Depot for coming to Brussels. They are working on a sequel, and are flying on to Prague to interview inter alia Vaclav Claus – a hero in the climate wars.

  96. oldmanK says:

    Have a look here and focus on the Med:

    What’s going on?

  97. oldbrew says:

    Sun-clouds-climate connection takes a beating from CERN

    Cosmic rays and other radiation may help clouds form, but their effect is marginal.
    JOHN TIMMER – 10/28/2016

  98. Oldbrew… Rog …Tim… new earthquakes in Italy !!

    M 6.5 – CENTRAL ITALY – 2016-10-30 06:40:18 UTC

    [reply] noted, thanks

  99. oldbrew says:

    Watergate II? National Review calls Clinton’s State Department “Racketeering”.

    ‘For those wondering why the FBI would make this “blockbuster” announcement now, read the National Review to get an idea of the potential.’

  100. Paul Vaughan says:

    OB, I’ve been advising the community for years that the popular cosmic ray – cloud narrative is wrong. I’ve actually started to find it comical that people cling to that narrative when the observations clearly tell the story of sun-climate relations differently.

    The Fram Strait itself handles 90 % of the heat exchange and 75 % of the mass exchange between the Arctic Ocean and the rest of the World Ocean (Aagaard and Greisman, 1975), and therefore it is of great importance to have a good understanding of the ice transport through the Strait.”

  101. oldmanK says:

    Michele do check my link above. It is more extensive than that. And for me worrying too. Getting nearer.

  102. oldbrew says:

    PV says: ‘the popular cosmic ray – cloud narrative is wrong’

    That was my impression too after reading what Piers Corbyn had to say about it.

    We cannot defend a theory which doesn’t work in order to show CO2 theory doesn’t work! CO2 theory does not work – period.

    1. There is no evidence that Cosmic Rays as such are drivers of any significance – or indeed at all – of world temperature or Climate Change. If they were there would have to be an 11-year signal in world temperatures (since it is the magnitude of the sun’s magnetic field which blocks out cosmic rays) but there is not.

  103. Paul Vaughan says:

    OB quoted:

    “If they were there would have to be an 11-year signal in world temperatures (since it is the magnitude of the sun’s magnetic field which blocks out cosmic rays) but there is not.”

    That is NOT a true statement.

    Climate has turbulent LATENT and SPATIAL dimensions. It’s a balanced multi-axial differential. You can’t make sensible inference on a joint multi-factor distribution from a single factor.

    Ignorance of aggregation criteria fundamentals is ubiquitous in climate discussion and observational evidence suggests very strongly that correction of the community is strictly impossible. Community members appear unwilling and/or unable to be corrected on aggregation criteria.

    This leaves leaders in an awkward position.

    Do they:
    (a) Do something wrong because no one will understand if they do it right?
    (b) Do something right knowing they’ll be crucified because no one understands?

    My suggestion:
    Go hiking and sea-kayaking and be as healthy as possible despite however people are.

    Maybe generations from now aggregation criteria fundamentals will be widely well-understood …but I’m sure there will be other vexing problems by then!

  104. oldbrew says:

    PV: Corbyn prefers the ’22 year magnetic cycle’.

    He goes on to say:

    ‘The largest signal is the 22 year magnetic cycle of the sun, so there is observational evidence AGAINST the Cosmic ray driver theory and FOR solar charged particles* themselves having a prime effect. (*which are vastly more numerous and also carry in total 300 times more energy flux despite the much higher individual energy of the relatively much much rarer Cosmic rays)

    2. The failure of the Cosmic ray theory does not in any way negate the excellent findings by Svensmark et al (and work years ago on cloud chamber physics) that charged particles have an important role in cloud physics and therefore weather and climate. It is just that the charged particles of importance are not Cosmic rays.’

    I don’t know if all this is correct or not, but he [Piers] has studied astrophysics as well as his weather/climate interests and it’s his take on the question of cosmic rays.

  105. Paul Vaughan says:

    Remember: The 11 year signal manifests in the cyclic volatility of the semi-annual oscillation. That’s where it’s OBSERVED. Via “reasoning” based on false latent and spatiotemporal assumptions (including about ENSO), people get other ideas about where it ought to be in their misconceptions of climate.

  106. Paul Vaughan says:

    OB, it’s not an “either-or”. Neutron count rates (cosmic rays) inform about changes in the shape of the atmosphere. The sun is doing more than one thing. The 22 year thing Corbyn is talking about is minor in comparison with what we know from cosmic rays, but what we know from observations about cosmic rays does NOT match the cosmic ray – cloud narrative. People appear to be sternly opposed to developing a narrative based on what we know from actual observations. It’s curious, comical, and creepy all at the same time. I’m going hiking….

    [ :


  107. oldbrew says:

    Making hefty losses and selling off ‘assets’ doesn’t sound like a successful wind power operation.

    ‘Norway’s state-owned utility Statkraft has recorded significant loss for its wind power division for the third quarter.’

    But ‘the company noted that its Q3 underlying EBITDA has been affected by lower wind speeds compared to those in the same period last year’.

    Wind varies from year to year – who knew?

  108. oldbrew says:

    End of British summer time triggers National Grid warning system

    Capacity market notice used for first time as clocks change and unexpected outages put extra pressure on UK power network

    Industry analysts said the actions did not signal the likelihood of winter blackouts, but warned that they were a symptom of an energy crunch likely to push up household bills.

  109. oldbrew says:

    Henrik Svensmark says:

    Finally, there are a large number of studies showing that past climate changes are closely correlated to variations in cosmic rays. For example, the energy that goes into the oceans over 11 years solar cycle is of the order 1-1.5 W/m², which is 5-7 times too large to be explained by solar irradiance variations [5]. Therefore something is amplifying the solar cycle, and “cosmic rays and clouds” is a good candidate to explain the observed forcing.

    In conclusion, observations and experiments go against the above mentioned numerical model result. As I see it, something is missing in the prevailing theory. A solution to this problem is still worth pursuing.

  110. pearce m. schaudies says:

    Hi Tallbloke. I think the Holocene ended about 700 yrs ago starting with the Wolf Minimum. I need help to see if this is a type 1 problem. I am elec engr. I sent this to ja curry a few hrs ago …
    Hi Judith. I posted on nature Unbound number one by Javier on 31 October regarding the end of the Holocene starting with the little Ice Age solar minimum sequence of wolf, Sporer, Maunder, and Dalton. I did not receive any comments on that so today I took the difference the start dates and-made average have to be a 170 year cycle. Then I Googled Earth interactive cycle 170 years. One of the sites that came back with an answer was from a paper published by Russian geophysicist named VP melnikov and the title of the document was compound modeling of Earth rotation and possible interactions with continents. Their procedure was to use Moscow supercomputer model the solar system with nine bodies. Instead of using Poisson equations they use second-order differential equations. This resulted in more accuracy and information. Cutting to the bottom line they found a precession cycle for all of the planets that was a hundred seventy years. Haha. I am not well enough versed in climate physics and planetary interaction to know if this is significant. However I don’t think it’s just happenstance. Maybe you or someone you know could investigate this a little further. Thank you.

  111. Paul Vaughan says:

    Lots of entrenched misconceptions repeated in that Javier article Pearce …and JC won’t be able to help you.

    A more general comment:

    I’ve noticed that during the US election climate discussion has been reduced to pure stagnation. There are just countless attempts at a rapid pace to divert people towards strawman arguments and red herring chases. It’s really annoying. The strategy appears to be to control the framing to bait people towards well-contained, easily-neutralized disputes and topics to deliberately drain their time and energy with unproductive pursuits.

    I have some new insights to share on explosive volcanism and El Nino Modoki, but maybe I’ll wait until people settle down from the disruptive election before even bothering with trying to coax people towards resuming sensible exploration.

    Perhaps generations will have to pass before clean, efficient public exploration and discussion of natural climate will be feasible.

  112. oldbrew says:

    PV says: ‘Perhaps generations will have to pass before clean, efficient public exploration and discussion of natural climate will be feasible.’

    Does Science Advance One Funeral at a Time?

    Let’s hope not, but…

    Overall, these results suggest that outsiders are reluctant to challenge leadership within a field when the star is alive and that a number of barriers may constrain entry even after he/she is gone. Intellectual, social, and resource barriers all impede entry, with outsiders only entering subfields that offer a less hostile landscape for the support and acceptance of “foreign” ideas.

  113. oldmanK says:

    oldbrew quotes “Overall, these results suggest that outsiders are reluctant to challenge leadership within a field when the star is alive and that a number of barriers may constrain entry even after he/she is gone. Intellectual, social, and resource barriers all impede entry, with outsiders only entering subfields that offer a less hostile landscape for the support and acceptance of “foreign” ideas.”

    It is actually worse than that. The more unholy the dogma, the more the ‘brainwashed’ fight to keep it that way. One may accept that new ideas upset many an apple-cart and other vested interests, but many more simple do not want to rethink and readjust. The brain many times is hardwired.

  114. oldbrew says:

    Tidal evolution of the Moon from a high-obliquity, high-angular-momentum Earth
    Published online 31 October 2016

    In the new model, a high energy collision left a mass of vaporized and molten material from which the Earth and Moon formed. The Earth was set spinning with a two-hour day, its axis pointing towards the Sun.

    Because the collision could have been more energetic than in the current theory, the material from Earth and the impactor would have mixed together, and both Earth and Moon condensed from the same material and therefore have a similar composition.

    As angular momentum was dissipated through tidal forces, the Moon receded from the Earth until it reached a point called the “LaPlace plane transition,” where the forces from the Earth on the Moon became less important than gravitational forces from the Sun. This caused some of the angular momentum of the Earth-Moon system to transfer to the Earth-Sun system.

    Read more at:

  115. Paul Vaughan says:

    There are limits to what can be learned from a univariate mean. Attention to multivariate volatility structure will be an indicator of opening eyes. Luminaries won’t need to wait for people to die before pursuing sober second thought, but the masses certainly are vulnerable to expert intimidation.

    The last graph I presented above will be interpreted by some as CO2 and by others as sunspot integral. That’s the volatility governor right where California meets the Pacific. By looking only at the SST field (and blended fields such as in MEI), people have missed an important clue in the SLP and wind fields. Climate is not univariate. Climate isn’t just temperature. Climate includes FLOW.

    People are confusing ENSO scheduling with ENSO potential. Yes there’s lots of multivariate scheduling coherence, but the univariate potentials are not of uniform origin. Sober second thought is due now. No one has to wait until anyone dies.

  116. Paul Vaughan says:

    I forgot to mention when I introduced this above:
    This is FIRST order.

    ENSO is only second order.

    The potential-governing component that looks like both CO2 and sunspot integral accounts for 50% of tropical variation, whereas ENSO only accounts for 20%.

    ENSO misleads people into conceptualizing incorrectly. It’s fascinating observing the ways in which it distorts thinking about climate.

    People want to talk about a component accounting for 20% of tropical variance (ENSO) while IGNORING the MUCH BIGGER factor in tropical variation which accounts for 2.5 times as much variance.

    Does that make you suspicious about people’s motives???
    If not it should at least make you aware of their amusing ignorance.

    WTF is up with climate discussion anyone, everyone and no one knows!!

    After the election BS settles down and we’re stuck with either a hardened criminal or a monster clown (choose your poison adventurously!!) dangerously leading the second most powerful nation on Earth, we’ll get back to exploring climate eastern style …which means 50% will be respected as greater than 20%.

  117. oldbrew says:

    DT: World’s first zero-emissions hydrogen train to go into service in Germany

    ‘The train operates using a hydrogen fuel tank, stored on the roof of the vehicle, that in turn powers a fuel cell to produce electrical energy, its only emission being steam and condensed water while operating with a low level of noise.’

    Still got to get the initial hydrogen from somewhere…

    There are no natural hydrogen deposits, and for this reason the production of hydrogen plays a key role in modern society.

    Currently, the majority of hydrogen (∼95%) is produced from fossil fuels by steam reforming or partial oxidation of methane and coal gasification with only a small quantity by other routes such as biomass gasification or electrolysis of water. [bold added]

  118. Nelson Woodard says:

    Bright light Power. I believe their approach to energy would make a worthy blog post. I tend to think it’s smoke and mirrors but I am not qualified to say. Worth checking out.

  119. Paul Vaughan says:

    Today’s msm headline — I just laugh without linking:

    “Clinton, Trump warn of dire consequences if rival wins”

    1/3 of a billion residents from which to choose and the ballot choice offered is hardened criminal or monster clown.

    Who will be the first husband-and-wife pair both impeached from the presidency?

    Millions upon millions of better Americans with orders-of-magnitude higher integrity are available …but they won’t be leading America.

  120. oldbrew says:

    Some African governments are regretting the ambition of emissions targets submitted towards the Paris Agreement, say advisers

    Nigeria, Tanzania and Ethiopia are among countries with ambitious carbon reduction goals that may have significant challenges meeting their pre-Paris pledges, says Chukwumerije Okereke.

    A professor in environment and development at Reading University, Okereke has advised a number of African governments on climate and energy policy.

    “I detect a sense of skepticism and buyer’s remorse from a number of African countries, who are asking: hang on, what have we committed to?” he tells Climate Home.

    Not reading the small print first?

  121. oldbrew says:

    2 minute trailer for The Climate Hustle
    H/T Lubos Motl

    More from Lumo…
    Climate Hustle: a wonderful climate change eye-opener

  122. oldbrew says:

    Australian desert telescope views sky in radio technicolour

    Image: ‘The Milky Way is visible as a band across the sky and the dots beyond are some of the 300,000 galaxies observed by the telescope for the GLEAM survey.’

  123. oldbrew says:

    ‘…when it comes to a correlation between CO2 variations and ocean heat content variations, we don’t have one.’

  124. oldbrew says:

    Evidence-Based Climate Science (Second Edition)
    Data Opposing CO2 Emissions as the Primary Source of Global Warming

    2016, Pages 395–411

    Chapter 21 – Using Patterns of Recurring Climate Cycles to Predict Future Climate Changes

    D.J. Easterbrook

    At least three warming events in the past 25,000 years were 20–24 times the magnitude of warming over the past century and four were 6–9 times the magnitude of warming over the past century. The magnitude of the only modern warming that might possibly have been caused by CO2 (1978–98) is insignificant compared to the earlier periods of warming.

  125. oldmanK says:


    “widespread carbon segregation problems in critical nuclear plant components”. I have come across similar on the job; its big trouble.

  126. oldbrew says:

    They Are After Your Sunday Dinner

    ‘Getting people to stop eating beef is the main message. It is now official policy of the Green Blob – they don’t hide it in the small print anymore.’

  127. oldbrew says:

    Please note: we’ve moved to Suggestions 23 now.

    No more comments here. Thanks.


Leave a Reply

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

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

Google photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s