Suggestions Archive 1

This is an archive for  reference, please comment on the new Suggestions page.

Please post ideas for new threads, tips on relevant and interesting threads elsewhere, and notes about pretty much anything you like here.

The scissors will be wielded to commercial spam, lewd suggestions, and anything else I don’t like. 8)

  1. Patrick Geryl says:


    I want to publish a theory about solar rotation…

    It is in an excell file..

    How can i do this?


    Patrick Geryl

  2. tallbloke says:

    Hi Patrick,
    do you have any graphical output to go with your theory? I can upload the file to make it available to people if that is what you would like to do. Please could you write a few paragraphs about your theory and create some sample output from the excel file. Then I will write a new article about it and publish it on the site.

  3. Stephen Wilde says:

    Hello Roger,

    I’ve just updated my New Climate Model that started as a guest post at WUWT. It accommodates and explains the implications of Joanna Haigh’s recent paper.

    See here:

    My model does not preclude planetary or gravitational effects on solar activity and so should not be a problem for your regular contributors.

    Stephen Wilde.

    By the way, nice TVR Tasmin. In 1975 I collected a brand new M Series vehicle direct from the factory.

  4. Dave Smith says:

    Michael Mann now says there is “an elaborate P.R. campaign” to discredit he and his mates. If I were to say similar, without showing any evidence of same, I’d be called a conspiracy theorist…

  5. Tenuc says:

    Hi Rog, have you seen this?

    “NASA’s Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope has unveiled a previously unseen structure centered in the Milky Way. The feature spans 50,000 light-years and may be the remnant of an eruption from a supersized black hole at the center of our galaxy…”

    Another unexpected and physical entity not predicted by the current standard model. :)

  6. Tenuc says:
    November 10, 2010 at 3:14 pm
    Another unexpected and physical entity not predicted by the current standard model.
    But nothing unusual for the Electric Universe:

    BTW, That was called the “nun”, the 14th letter (in the middle) of the Arabic alphabet.
    At the center of any galaxy the shorter wavelengths and the higher frequencies are to be found.
    Please LOOK AT THE SYMBOL “ANKH” in my presentation::
    It is time for “settled & post normal scientists” to see the obvious. We are living now in “interesting times”, it’s up to you to keep believing in ‘The Flintstones’ universe” or to wake up: Don’t worry, we’ll welcome you!

  7. Zeke the Sneak says:

    tallbloke says:
    November 10, 2010 at 5:07 pm
    Right, I’m off to this free lecture now. Catch you all later on with a report:

    Bolton Lecture Wednesday 10th November 2010

    Professor Michele K. Dougherty, Imperial College London

    “Professor Michele Dougherty began her academic career as an applied mathematician in the University of Natal, South Africa where she obtained her PhD in 1988. There she conducted research on fundamental plasma processes, including those by which cosmic rays drive a wind out of the Milky Way and others occurring in the Sun’s corona. Subsequently, she spent time at the Max Planck Institute for Nuclear Physics in Heidelberg before moving to Imperial College London where she works in the Space and Atmospheric Physics Group in the Blackett Laboratory.

    In the early 1990s Professor Dougherty began her involvement in the interpretation of data provided by space missions designed to probe the electric and magnetic fields of giant planets and their moons, and the energetic particles that they accelerate.”

    We’d like to hear about that. Did she mention double layers/Langmuir sheaths?
    Yes indeed.

  8. Frank says:

    After your long debate about DLR penetrating the ocean at SOD, I left a long post supporting some of your ideas and reconciling them with some of SOD’s ideas. In the end, I concluded that DLR does warm part of the ocean. I would be interested in your comments.

  9. tallbloke says:

    Lets put it up as a seperate post and discuss it. Thanks for your contribution.

  10. Is the Solar system an expression of harmonics law or rather it has the “scars ” of inharmonious behavior in the past and a possible unstable future?

  11. E O'Connor says:


    Email contact for you? I have some slightly relevant info on an update for you.

  12. Zeke the Sneak says:

    Can someone help me read this paper, in German, on WJSchmidt
    Ten examples from W. J. Schmidt’s workshop illustrate the method of ultrastructural research before the advent of the electron microscope. The consistency is shown with which the research worker W. J. Schmidt pursued his goal, how he succeeded in making fundamental discoveries with his polarizing microscope, and interpreted the results of his indirect structural investigations in such a forward-looking and clearsighted manner that many of them were confirmed by direct reproduction in the electron microscope. This makes W. J. Schmidt one of the great pioneers of ultramicroscopic structural research…

    I am hoping DirkH will see this.

    Thanks, Zeke the Sneak

  13. DirkH says:

    Zeke the Sneak says:
    December 4, 2010 at 6:42 pm
    “I am hoping DirkH will see this.”

    Ok i’m here. How do we proceed?

  14. Zeke the Sneak says:

    Hi DirkH,

    I am going to have to contact one of these libraries

    for “Das wissenschaftliche Werk W. J. Schmidts”

    I will let you know when I find a copy. It should not be that long and if you want to read through it, you can either translate it or just give the sense, whatever you have time to do. I think it is only a few pages.

    Thanks, Zeke

  15. E O'Connor says:

    Not a suggestion just noting that the Economist has an article mentioning Roger Penrose’s latest paper in

  16. orkneylad says:

    Mystery of Sun’s Hot Atmosphere Solved. Not!

    “Now I do like Watts Up With That but I think it’s time they reconsider their long-standing stance of ‘zero-tolerance’ censure on this EU topic. Or are they just another useful tool of the Current Scientific paradigm?”

  17. Zeke the Sneak says:

    orkneylad says:
    January 7, 2011 at 6:43 pm
    “…censure on this EU topic. Or are they just another useful tool of the Current Scientific paradigm?”’

    Anthony Watts’ true calling is to question “climate” “science” and all of us want him to succeed at that. I can understand if they do not want to alienate all of the physicists and astronomers unnecessarily while questioning one area of mainstream science.

    But it is hard to contain the subjects of conversation among so many people from all around the globe, many of whom have science backgrounds. I think he balances the natural mix of people and subjects with his own wishes very well. The professionals which might be alienated by discussions of the sun, I suspect, are not all that thin skinned, and are more likely interested to see that people are genuinely interested in solar dynamics, celestial mechanics, and where their taxes are going. Laypeople are also counting sunspots, watching CMEs and the speed of the solar wind, noting the positions of the planets, and keeping track of the many discrepancies between theory and observation.

    The Electric Universe is a serious challenge to astronomy and astrophysics as it’s always been done. Issues with particular problems in the mainstream models of the thermonuclear sun can be pointed out but it must be very specific and respectful of Anthony Watts’ goals and success with WUWT.

    “Allowing electrical effects into astronomy, astrophysics, and planetary science will be the greatest scientific revolution in history.” -Wal Thornhill

  18. tallbloke says:

    Agree. Anthony treads a difficult path between ‘accepted knowledge’ and the ‘push on the edge’. I give great credit to him for his reconsideration and openness to debate of concepts which attract disapproval from weighty opinions.

  19. orkneylad says:

    I notice that a couple of posts on EU theory have now been allowed to stand on that WUWT thread…….has the wind changed?

    I too have a lot of respect for Anthony, but the extermination of EU posts has troubled me.

    I’ve spent a running battle these last two days just trying to get posts using the word ‘plasma’ to stick on the daily telegraph……it feels like orchestrated clampdown, but with this latest Sun-plasma research surely the gate is open & the horse bolted?

  20. @Zeke the Sneak says:
    January 7, 2011 at 10:05 pm
    Their real concern is that the EU is really a KEY, almost the “verbum dismisum” (the forgotten word) : ήλεκτρον (ēlektron) Greek word for amber.
    Or, as Dante would say it: Love (He was a member of the school”fedeli d´amore”): Attraction, repulsion and separation between both forces (pathos=emotion=passion) rules the Universe…but that´s too simple for complicated and self conceited minds.

  21. P.G. Sharrow says:

    The house of the universe is all electric. The only thing to discuss is the length and colors of the drapes.

    The very soul of the universe is electric in nature. ;-)

    God is an electrician. :-D pg

  22. Zeke the Sneak says:

    Adolfo Giurfa says:
    January 8, 2011 at 1:52 am
    Or, as Dante would say it: Love (He was a member of the school”fedeli d´amore”): Attraction, repulsion and separation between both forces (pathos=emotion=passion) rules the Universe

    Adolfo, you have to remember, some of us are of mere Northern European descent.

    (He also eats peppers that are 50 times hotter than jalapenos…)

  23. Zeke the Sneak says:

    Sometimes an electron is just an electron. :-D

  24. E O'Connor says:

    P.G. Sharrow says:
    January 8, 2011 at 3:30 am

    She charges hellish penalty rates, or so I’ve read.

  25. Daedalus says:

    Paul Hudsons latest on windfarms.


  26. Fred T says:

    The Antarctic Oscillation (AAO) is the dominant pattern of non-seasonal tropospheric circulation which guides jet streams.

  27. tallbloke says:

    Thanks Fred, useful link.

  28. Zeke the Sneak says:

    How do I change the icon to this?

  29. tallbloke says:

    Go to and set it up for yourself.

  30. Zeke the Sneak says:

    Gravatar says Zeke the Sneak is not available. Thanks though.

  31. tallbloke says:

    Sign up to Gravatar for an account and make sure that the email you used for Gravatar should be the same email as in your WordPress profile.
    1. Sign up with your email address.
    2. Upload your image to Gravatar.
    3. Use your Gravatar email in your WordPress profile, because Gravatar works with your email address

    Hope that helps

  32. E O'Connor says:

    How may one shout you to a bottle of Port or Mateus while in Lisbon? Where is your tip jar?

  33. tallbloke says:

    Thankyou, that’s a kind offer I’ll take you up on. Would you like a decent bottle bringing back? I’ll email you for an address.

  34. E O'Connor says:

    No need to bring one back.

    The distinctive flask shape of Mateus wine sends me back in time to the 60s when restaurants used empty mateus bottles as candlesticks and wonderful paterns were built by the dripping candle wax. Life just isn’t the same since dripless candles took over.

  35. Dave Smith says:

    A friend emailed me this article which I thought just had to be passed on:

    Scary story about Global Warming

    Please read all the way to the end!

    FLASH NEWS!!!!

    The Washington Post

    The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consulafft, at Bergen, Norway. Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm. Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared.

    Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds. Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice melt the sea will rise and make most coastal cities uninhabitable.

    Oops. Never mind.

    This report was from November 2, 1922, as reported by the AP and published in

    The Washington Post – 88 years ago!

    Cheers, Dave.

  36. Michele says:

    @ Geoff sharp

    Negative Sunspots, Global Eruptions and Mega-Filaments
    After researching the Negative Sunspots, Patrick Geryl found a startling correlation with global eruptions and mega-filaments…

    The Negative Sunspots Dominate the Maya Predictions and Calculations
    To conclude: Cycles 10, 9 and 8 where spot on… And we are sure the other cycles are on the Mayan Track to Armageddon in december 2012….
    We expect COMPLEX Negative Sunspots to appear before these dates. There is a high chance for complex eruptions (if the sunspots are not too big and in the Northern Hemisphere, because this seems to counteract this effect) on the calculated dates….

    7 Tuesday, April 19, 2011

    6 Friday, July 15, 2011

    5 Tuesday, October 11, 2011

    4 Friday, January 6, 2012


    Maurice cotterell and Patrick Geryl ???

    What do you think ?

    187….11,49….87,4545 days ?

  37. Michele says:

    I have a comment in moderation !

  38. Zeke the Sneak says:

    I would like to invite any and all interested to attend a web presentation on World Science Database, this Saturday:

    Dr. Edward Henry Dowdye Jr.
    Physicist, Laser Optics Engineer, Independent Researcher
    Date: Saturday, February 12, 2011
    Time: 07:00 AM – 09:00 AM (U.S. Pacific time)

    “An application of the Mathematical Physics of Gauss’s Law for gravity along with intense observational evidence, reveal that solar lensing does not occur in the empty vacuum space slightly above the plasma rim of the sun. The thin plasma atmosphere of the sun represents a clear example of an indirect interaction involving an interfering plasma medium between the gravitational field of the sun and the rays of light from the stars. There is convincing observational evidence that a direct interaction between light and gravitation in the empty vacuum space above the solar rim simply does not occur. Historically, all evidence of light bending has been observed predominantly near the thin plasma rim of the sun; not in the empty vacuum space far above the thin plasma rim. An application of Gauss’ law clearly shows that, if the light bending rule of General Relativity were valid, then a light bending effect due to the gravitational field of the sun should be easily detectable with current technical mean in Astrophysics at various analytical Gaussian spherical surfaces of solar radii, namely, 2R, 3R, 4R, 5R, …, respectively, where R is one solar radius. An effect of at least one half, one third, one forth, one fifth, etc., respectively, of the observed light bending noted at the solar rim within currently technical means should be easily observable effects. This has not been the case….”

    These presentations usually last over an hour and include a discussion time afterward. An enjoyable way to spend a Sat morning, it may become habit forming.

  39. Tim Channon says:

    Readers might enjoy this

    [reply] Thanks Tim, I’ll follow this up. It also relates to the equinox-solstice day length ratios I think

  40. Check out this global 3D Earthquake app..

    Free edition with neat viewing global real time features.

  41. Tenuc says:

    Tim Channon says:
    March 28, 2011 at 12:13 am
    “Readers might enjoy this

    Thanks Tim, incredible stuff!

    You may be interested is a similar device found in Dorset, the Clandon Barrow Lozenge. An plausible explanation for its possible use can be found here…

  42. Tenuc says:

    Couple of interesting and pertinent papers on solar activity and climate from the Miles Mathis collection, could for the basis for a useful discussion here, I think…

    The Hole at the Centre of the Sun.
    “…by this equation we can find the fraction that goes to charge, which is 15%. That leaves 85% of the energy of the Sun produced by fusion. That makes sense, because it explains why all this loss of charge energy doesn’t cause the Earth to freeze over like Neptune…”

    How the Charge Field Causes the Ice Ages
    “…Over time, the high end of the Solar disk makes a full revolution, returning to its original position. This is one cycle, and it is this cycle that takes about 23,000 years. But the nodes will be in line with the galactic core in two positions: when the high end is at ¼ and ¾. Or, if the galactic core is north, the nodes will line up with it when the high end is east or west. And so we get an alignment every 11,500 years or so. Alarms should be going off in your head now, because that number is already an important one in the history of ice ages. According to the math of many, interglacials have lasted about 11 thousands years. This is where that number comes from. 11.5 is half of 23…”

  43. Roger Andrews says:

    Hi Tenuc

    Agreed. Might as well go with this.

    Mathis’ theory implies sinusoidal ice-age cyclicity, but the plot of the Vostok ice core record he presents shows a clear sawtooth pattern, with the recoveries from ice ages being much more abrupt than the descents. This suggest to me that while the sun may provide the push, something else provides the shove.

    Maybe dust?

  44. Tenuc says:

    @Roger – I agree, the fall in temperature is slower than the previous rise and has a distinctive and fairly regular saw-tooth profile. I don’t see a link to CO2 and wonder if the eratic link with dust could be a sympom of the drier climate during deep glaciation?

    It is interesting that the slope of maximum temperature during the decline show almost the same approximate trend, while the minimum trend varies somewhat…

  45. Roger Andrews says:


    Don’t know what the gradients mean, but more dust = less incident sunlight = cooling.

    Which brings up an issue that everyone seems to have forgotten about – “global dimming”. A 2008 JGR paper on this by Wild ( notes that while TSI hardly varied between 1980 and 2000, solar radiation incident at the Earth’s surface increased by maybe 5 w/sq m, presumably because of decreases in aerosols and cloud cover. It also shows some very interesting global dimming/brightening/surface air temperature relationships (see Figure 9). I think this would also make a good thread if Tallbloke were around to post it.

  46. […] Tenuc says: April 2, 2011 at 12:13 pm […]

  47. Lawrence Wilson says:

    Re Mathis’ Ice Age paper – Mathis sets out his most interesting hypothesis on long term cycles deriving from galactic/solar ecliptic radiations/mechanics, and E/M charge fluctuations impacting the Sun and its E/M ‘charge’ activity status, then with Jupiter’s precession possibly bringing the right cycling frequency and amplification effect – but I am not clear from his paper as to what he says is the precise consequential mechanism of energy transmission between the Sun and the Earth which then causes Earth warming/cooling variations. Could someone enlighten me please.

  48. Roger Andrews says:

    I suggest we all need a laugh.

    From the Mexico City News of April 14th:

    “On Tuesday, Mexican Petroleum (PEMEX) reported the preventive evacuation of 638 workers from the Jupiter Flotel Submersible Housing Platform (PSS), in Sonda de Campeche. The platform developed an inclination due to the entrance of water.

    A failure in the valve system caused the platform to lean slightly.”

    Below was this picture of the slightly-inclined platform

  49. Zeke the Sneak says:

    Experimental Results In Measuring Atmospheric Electricity

    Dr. Michael A Treat
    Date: Saturday, April 23, 2011
    Time: 07:00 AM – 09:00 AM (U.S. Pacific time)

    Atmospheric electricity (AE) refers to the electrical phenomena occurring in the atmosphere of the Earth. There are many manifestations of AE, ranging the spectacular to the subtle. Lightning is one of the most visible phenomena, but AE also probably plays a key role in other major atmospheric disturbances such as tornadoes. The presence of AE can be also be measured even on clear days (“clear air electricity”) by means of appropriate detecting devices. Benjamin Franklin and Lord Kelvin were two of the most notable people that studied these effects.

    This will be an interesting live web presentation. Anyone interested in attending may follow this link:

    Thanks, Zeke

  50. E O'Connor says:

    Hi Tallbloke et al

    I’m back and soooo much to catch up on here.

    Recently saw a NASA item on ‘Cassini Probe Sees Electric Link With Saturn And One Of Its Moons’

    Another indicator of climate in a bottle of red wine?

    Because of the cooler summer this year, the grape harvest in SE Australia is likely to have lowered concentrations of alcohol in the wines produced. An average of 13% is predicted for 2011 compared to 2008 average levels of 14.5 – 15%.

    The hotter the year the higher the sugar levels rise. One producer in my area made rose rather than red wine because the grape came into top flavour at lower sugar levels. White wine doesn’t seem to have the same problem though.

  51. Zeke the Sneak says:

    E O’Connor says:
    April 27, 2011 at 3:05 am
    Hi Tallbloke et al
    Because of the cooler summer this year, the grape harvest in SE Australia is likely to have lowered concentrations of alcohol in the wines produced. An average of 13% is predicted for 2011 compared to 2008 average levels of 14.5 – 15%.

    We must look into this

  52. Zeke the Sneak says:

    …immediately. I will make further observations. I also read that the Australian Sec of Treasury estimates the recent floods caused 20 billion AUD in damage, so cheers to buying Aus wine.

    For more on the non-gravitational, powerful electrical effects of the moons on the gas giant planets, please see “Electric Enceladus.”

    I think somewhere in this relation between parent planets and their electrically active moons, lies the key to the planetary effects on the sun. In other words, Enceladus’ modulation of Saturn’s auroras is somehow an analogue for our Solar System dynamics. If this is so, even the small rocky planets may play a part in modulating solar activity.

  53. E O'Connor says:


    Re grapes.

    Looking into this I find that ‘Climate scientists’ are there already. Grape harvests have been studied and used as proxy indicators for reconstructing past temperatures. Comes under the category of phenological indicators of climate.

    Thanks for the ‘Electric Enceladus’ link.

  54. Malaga View says:

    Stumbled across an interesting paper by Nils-Axel Mörner that brings together many threads…


    At around 2040-2050 we will be in a new major Solar Minimum. It is to be expected that we will then have a new “Little Ice Age” over the Arctic and NW Europe. The past Solar Minima were linked to a general speeding-up of the Earth’s rate of rotation. This affected the surface currents and southward penetration of Arctic water in the North Atlantic causing “Little Ice Ages” over northwestern Europe and the Arctic.

  55. A G Foster says:

    TB, I’m curious to know what you know about solar penetration into ice. A couple of locals drilling in Greenland at 3,000 meters on the Arctic Circle hit water ten meters down:

    This seems to me to be due to lake pooling caused by the intense heating that spelled the end of the LIA. What do you think? –AGF

  56. Tenuc says:

    Came across an interesting graph today showing total earthquake energy (>6) from 1973 – 2011. The rapid rate of increase since 1992 really surprised me – looks like something significant is afoot.

    Graph here…

  57. Adrian says:


    In your recent post about Rossi, you stated the output at 1.5 kW, likely a typo – the actual amount is 15 kW. Cheers

    [reply] Thanks Adrian, I’ll correct that.

  58. Stephen Wilde says:

    Hello Rog,

    That guest post about the bottom up oceanic effect on the air is ready so please let me have your email address so I can let you review it fot possible discussion purposes here.

    It will also be published at Irish Weather Online shortly and at


    [reply] Email on it’s way, thanks Stephen.

  59. Link to site where Ed Oberg has info on; The Iasoberg Model was developed to locate the Allais Effect within, on and near the Earth as a means to explain a gap in the current understanding of gravity. The location of the Allais Effect is shown by the orange and blue bands in the diagram on the right. These bands are called Iasobergs (pronounced ice-o-bergs). The location of bands is based on the positions of the Earth, Sun (yellow icon), Moon (black circle and crescent moon), and centre of the galaxy (blue icon) at a particular time. All outputs are displayed and calculated using Universal Time (UTC). Refer to for more information on the Iasoberg Model, its development and the Iasobergs. The Iasoberg Model has been proposed as a means to attempt to explain a number of experimental observations that cannot be explained by our current knowledge of physics. The model has not been verified scientifically. However, the output of the model has demonstrated a strong correlation with some severe weather activity in the USA over a number of years for which accurate data is available. Further information about the Iasoberg Model and its correlation with severe weather activity can be obtained from Note 4 in the publications section at The display of the output of the model should not be interpreted to predict an activity/event, nor should the proposed forces in the model be linked to the cause of an activity/event. The Iasobergs indicate where the Allais Effect may exist on the surface of the Earth at a certain time.

  60. jumbuck says:

    Hi TB and good morning. First of all, I congratulate you and Richard on the fabulous blog. I note that under Meta the Cmment RSS feed allows people to view comments as a webpage that can be narrowed without loss of text. That’s great, because it permits writing in a word document and then copying it into the box. You coud improve that by moving the little display box in the top right corner to under the header box so more width is made available to view other things on the monitor screen. Cheers

  61. jumbuck says:

    One firther suggestion, if I may: When I get the RSS feeds in my email there’s no name with it. Are you able to fix that?

  62. tallbloke says:

    I’ve never played with the RSS feed, I’ll have a look. Thanks for the obs.

  63. Tenuc says:

    Richard Holle says:
    June 15, 2011 at 1:14 am
    “ Link to site where Ed Oberg has info on; The Iasoberg Model was developed to locate the Allais Effect within, on and near the Earth as a means to explain a gap in the current understanding of gravity…”

    Thanks for the heads-up Roger, I’ve not come across the idea of Iasoberg models before. Current physics seems unable to explain the Allais gravity effect and the related Podkletnov gravity ‘blocking’ proved by lab experiments with superconductors.

    “…blocking the gravitational field breaks so many Newtonian and Einsteinian rules. I am not one for obeying rules for no reason. But I am not one for breaking rules for no reason, either. Einstein’s rule of equivalence is a lovely rule, one that is both logical and backed by a century of data. Why break it when you can keep it by a simple mechanical manipulation?”

    Miles Mathis has a good explanation of the possible cause of the observed effects, which is well worth a read, here…

    It would be good to have a discussion about the Iasoberg model I think.

  64. Russell C says:

    Just wondering how much you are aware of the smear of skeptic scientists – I knew nothing specific about it before October 2009, I just thought of it as a laughable implausible matter. But one day, I was prompted to look into a specific accusation phrase, and 17+ months later, I’m still hitting paydirt anytime I dig into it. Please see my latest article, “There is a Cancer Growing on the IPCC and Al Gore” , about two people who’ve participated in the long term smear of skeptic scientists, who are also involved in the IPCC.

  65. Malaga View says:

    Interesting extension to Svensmark’s observations reported at based upon a posting

    Cloud Altitude Change Causes Global Temperature Change by Dan Pangburn
    Clouds radiate energy from the planet. Cloud elevation determines cloud temperature and thus the energy rate. The analysis presented here determines that an increase in average cloud altitude of only about 72 meters results in an increase of steady-state average global temperature of 0.3 Celsius degrees. Svensmark2 has shown that more sunspots correlate with fewer low-level (below 3 km) clouds. If there are fewer low-level clouds then average cloud altitude must be higher, average cloud temperature lower, less energy radiated from the planet and thus the planet warms.

  66. Doug Proctor says:

    Dr. Jim Salinger suggests that the Chilean volcano spewing its thousands of tonnes of sulphur into the atmosphere would have a barely noticeable effect, only 0.2C in a couple of months cooling. So he dismissed it.

    1. Now we know what Salinger is up to post NIWA temperature scandal and political activities: he’s landed on his feet in a bed of down pillows, and

    2. Now we know that 0.2C up or down mean nothing in terms of the climate but is all about weather, despite Hansen talking about 0.01C rise in 2010 being very significant for the global temperature record.

    I’d copy more, his exact words, but you will find them at the top noted location.

    Tallbloke: I sent by Windows Live mail a graph or two, with explanations. Did you get them?

  67. tallbloke says:

    Hi Doug,
    no sign of your graphs here.

  68. Tenuc says:

    Is Britain about to be plunged into a Little Ice Age?

    Mike Lockwood, professor of space environment physics at Reading University, says Yes…

    I was the sun that did it, after-all… :-)

  69. DaveR says:
    The upper atmosphere is cooling causing more noctilucent clouds. Possible cause is magnetically charged comet dust?

  70. Dave Smith says:

    Hey Rog, some of your readers might enjoy my latest Thunderblog, if I may be so self-serving. If you want to feature or mirror it, be my guest. The AAAS has no shame and I thought it high time someone called them on it…

    The AAAS – Climate Change Causes Blurred Vision

    Cheers, Dave.

  71. Zeke the Sneak says:

    tim channon: Great Matchless, I need one of those world travel posters.
    Which side is the clutch on, remind me?

    Dave Smith, nice blog post. You had better do something about that red head whom your countrymen elected, or you are going to be eating cold poridge in the dark. Zeke

  72. tallbloke says:

    Tim, what a beaut!

  73. Dave Smith says:

    @Zeke thanks for the kudos. As to the politics downunder, my father-in-law said we’ll soon all be living on Gillard’s Island. But I don’t see a “Professor” nearby who can save the day and come up with a way to cook the porridge…

  74. Oh no, Gillard’s Island, God forbid a thousand times, lol (-:

    What was that theme song, something about “no coal, no lights no motor car, not a single luxury. By 2020 she wants Oz as primitive as could be, as primitive as could be…”

  75. Dave Smith says:

    Just sit right back and you’ll hear a tale
    A tale of a shameful trick
    That started with a carbon tax
    Upon this sunburned strip.

    The mate was a Brown-green wannabe
    The Skipper had red hair
    Our country was sold out that day
    For nothing but hot air
    For nothing but hot air

    The weather started getting rough
    “It’s our fault” was the goss
    If not for the courage of the “fearless few”
    The battle would be lost
    The battle would be lost

    They’ve done their best to hijack this
    Once lucky desert isle
    With Gillard
    And Bob Brown too
    Some millionaires
    And their guile
    A movie star (spoken: Al Gore)
    The professors and a master plan
    Here on Gillard’s Isle.

    Dave Smith.

  76. Roger Andrews says:

    Here are the facts in Am-er-i-ca
    Everything lax in Am-er-i-ca
    No carbon tax in Am-er-i-ca
    Fell through the cracks in Am-er-i-caaaaa

  77. Hillarious lyrics – at least one Aus thinks he’s still “young and free!” I think our English cousins were spared that show though, lol

  78. adolfogiurfa says:


    The strong divergence between the two hemispheres produce two distinct max: 1 current, between 2011 and 2012, next up on the other hemisphere to the south between 2013 and 2014.
    The star, however, must make the delicate transition of ‘ magnetic reversal, but in a context like the present with the regions of the southern hemisphere, far away from the equator the reverse is almost impossible to happen and, without a magnetic reversal, there is a distinct possibility that the star falls into a Maunder Minimum style deep .

  79. Enjoy the time off, and be safe.

  80. adolfogiurfa says:

    What happened with Solar Cycle 24? Did it end?…nobody sees any sunspots though SSN=25:

  81. Tenuc says:

    I think the lack of real spots is worrying. To my mind sunspots serve the same function as tornados do on Earth, acting as ‘safety valves’ to remove excess energy. May be possible we’re heading for another Carrington type event?

  82. Malaga View says:

    If you are interested in the Length of Day and / or an Expanding Earth and / or abiogenic oil and / or volcanoes then NASA has some new data according to Science Daily…

    Earth Is Not Expanding, NASA Research Confirms
    The scientists estimated the average change in Earth’s radius to be 0.004 inches (0.1 millimeters) per year, or about the thickness of a human hair, a rate considered statistically insignificant.

    However, contrary to their headline the earth is actually expanding… just very slowly… and as Terracycles explains:

    The expansion of the Earth is claimed to take place over the life span of the Earth, which is five billion years.
    In just 100 million years expanding at the rate of .004 in, the Earth will increase its radius by 6.313 miles.
    In five billion years that would amount to 315.657 miles.
    The Earth is only 4000 miles in radius.
    That seems statistically relevant to me and solid proof that the Earth is indeed expanding.

    So going back to basics:
    There are 1,000 millimetres in a meter… and 1,000 meters in a kilometre…
    So there are 1,000,000 millimetres in a kilometre…
    So by my maths there are 1,000,000,000,000 square millimetres in a square kilometre…
    And according to Wikipedia the Earth has a surface area of 510,072,000 square kilometres….
    This gives us:
    1,000,000,000,000 x 510,072,000 x 0.1 cubic millimetres per year of extra Earth…
    Then divide by 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 for cubic kilometres :-)
    I will let you work out the change to the Length of Day and Length of Year :-)

  83. adolfogiurfa says:

    @Malaga View: If diameter increases then wavelength increases and frequency decreases: That would mean involution. Earth should evolve to higher pitches, don´t you think so?

  84. malagaview says:

    Another way of looking at this is by using the Volcanic Explosivity Index

    VEI  Ejecta km3  Frequency
     4   >     0.1   ≥      1 yr
     5   >     1.0   ≥     10 yrs
     6   >    10.0   ≥    100 yrs
     7   >   100.0   ≥  1,000 yrs
     8   > 1,000.0   ≥ 10,000 yrs

    Lets assume the frequency rates are roughly accurate and that each eruption only produces the minimum ejecta i.e. each VEI 5 = 1 km3… so by my reckoning volcanoes eject about 500,000 km3 of tephra every million years…. and to put this into perspective it would take 7.5 million years to fill the Mediterranean Sea with this tephra… or about 710 million years to completely fill the Atlantic Ocean with tephra.

    On the one hand this would go a long way to explaining an Expanding Earth… even if NASA says it is only expanding by 0.004 of an inch every year.

    On the other hand we have Plate Tectonics which tells us that the ocean floors are being subducted and that this subduction feeds the volcanoes… but we still have that 500,000 km3 of tephra every million years… it is just that this tephra is building large volcanoes that rise up in the mountains and from the ocean floors… but this is a big problem for Plate Tectonics because the equation must balance… so for every volcano that rises up there must be an offsetting subsidence… which basically means that the ocean floors are sinking while the volcanoes slowly rise. So the theory of Plate Tectonics disproves itself… Plate Tectonics, by definition, is an oxymoron… so welcome to the real world of Subsiding Plates and an Expanding Earth :-)

    @ adolfogiurfa
    I agree: If diameter increases then wavelength increases and frequency decreases…
    It is just like ME… as I get older I get a little fatter and a little slower…

    So I think the Earth is just suffering from asymmetrical Middle Age Spread…
    Which means the Earth will wobble just a little unpredictably…
    Just like me after a few Mojitos at the Malaga Feria :-)

  85. malagaview says:

    Now that 0.004 inch per year makes me wonder about the Moon…
    Does an Expanding Earth have any impact on the Moon as the Earth becomes less dense???
    Could this explain why the Moon’s distance increases by 38 mm per year???
    Could this move our common centre of mass which is located about 1,700 km beneath the surface of the Earth???

    Answers on a postcard please :-)

  86. P.G. Sharrow says:

    Gravity sucks! I guess it has to show up somewhere. ;-) pg

  87. Roger Andrews says:


    Volcanic eruptions won’t cause any significant long-term increase in the size of the earth because the material added at the surface will generate an offsetting isostatic adjustment (

  88. Zeke says:

    Mercury, Venus, Mars, and the Moon do not show any of the characteristics of an expanding globe. Earth’s puzzle piece continents and the fitting continental shelves are very unique among them. Mars does not fit in the least. Though on many of the moons and planets there are some incredible hemispheric differences in both composition and elevation.

  89. malagaview says:

    @ Roger Andrews
    So Isostasy is a confusing term that implies tectonic plates “float” at an elevation which depends on their thickness and density… except where they don’t – like the Himalayas. The cold rocks/earth is buoyed up with a force equal to the weight of the displaced hot liquid rock… mmmm… just like an iceberg… lets just hope that elevated rocks expand (and becomes less dense) as they cool down… lets just hope that volcanoes don’t act like seacocks that scuttle this theory… lets just hope that the volcanic Canary Islands aren’t sinking into the ocean floor… lets just hope that one of the three principal models of isostasy is correct.

    Basically, the Wikipedia article on Isostasy is a just a lot of hot air that explains nothing except that Isostasy is a broken concept that doesn’t work… it serves to confuse and obfuscate… buoyancy is still a valid concept… and what does Isostasy do for Plate Tectonics… nothing very positive I am afraid… Isostasy implies that a tectonic plate will sink as the associated volcanoes accumulate new material from deep within the earth… so I guess Isostasy doesn’t work for the Andes or the Rockies either.

  90. malagaview says:

    David Pratt is far more eloquent regarding Isostasy:

    On the basis of newtonian gravity, it might be expected that gravitational attraction over continents, and especially mountains, would be higher than over oceans. In reality, the gravity on top of large mountains is less than expected on the basis of their visible mass while over ocean surfaces it is unexpectedly high. To explain this, the concept of isostasy was developed: it was postulated that low-density rock exists 30 to 100 km beneath mountains, which buoys them up, while denser rock exists 30 to 100 km beneath the ocean bottom. However, this hypothesis is far from proven. Physicist Maurice Allais commented: ‘There is an excess of gravity over the ocean and a deficiency above the continents. The theory of isostasis provided only a pseudoexplanation of this.’
    The standard, simplistic theory of isostasy is contradicted by the fact that in regions of tectonic activity vertical movements often intensify gravity anomalies rather than acting to restore isostatic equilibrium. For example, the Greater Caucasus shows a positive gravity anomaly (usually interpreted to mean it is overloaded with excess mass), yet it is rising rather than subsiding.

    Isostasy is the theoretical balance of all large portions of the earth’s crust as though they were floating on a denser underlying layer, about 110 km (70 miles) below the surface. Theoretically, if a section of lithosphere is loaded, e.g. by ice, it will slowly subside to a new equilibrium position; and if a section of lithosphere is reduced in mass, e.g. by erosion, it will slowly rise to a new equilibrium position. It might be argued that without a superheated, viscous mantle below the Moho boundary, isostasy would not work. In actual fact, whether the traditional ‘mantle’ exists or not, the simplistic theory of isostasy has already been shown to have serious shortcomings.
    Much of the evidence to support isostasy has come from observations of the apparent rebound of the crust following the retreat of the late Pleistocene ice sheets from northwest Europe and Canada. However, while the north of Sweden appears to be in the process of uplift, as ideas on isostasy require, the southern parts of the country are sinking. Since scientists largely base their estimates of mantle viscosity on selective data on ‘postglacial rebound’, their estimates are unlikely to be correct.

    Antarctica is thought to have supported massive ice sheets for most of the past 15 million years. If the mantle were subject to deformation under such loading, even at a nominal rate of 1 mm/year, the crust there should have subsided by 15 km — which has obviously not happened. In fact, the Trans-Antarctic mountains, only several million years old, are elevated more than a kilometre above sea level, showing that the lithosphere/mantle is capable of lifting continental ice sheets, rather than being depressed by them. The most concentrated crustal loading of the earth’s lithosphere probably occurs beneath large seamounts, since the ocean crust is fairly thin. However, on the basis of the current earth model, Peter James has calculated that the bearing capacity at the Moho is an order of magnitude greater than the imposed loading of a seamount, so that isostasy cannot explain their subsidence [2].

    The theory of isostasy is tested by making gravity measurements over the earth’s surface. On the assumption that gravity is proportional to inert mass, positive or negative gravity anomalies are interpreted as indicating an excess or deficiency of mass, and therefore departures from isostatic equilibrium. Gravity measurements reveal many large-scale ‘isostatic’ anomalies. For instance, an enormous area of ‘negative mass’ covers part of India and most of the adjacent Arabian Sea, yet there is no evidence that the lithosphere there is being upwarped. Moreover, in regions of tectonic activity vertical crustal movements often intensify gravity anomalies rather than acting to restore isostatic equilibrium. For example, the Greater Caucasus shows a positive gravity anomaly (usually interpreted to mean it is overloaded), yet it is rising rather than subsiding. The greatest anomaly of all is the triaxial deformation of the earth. In addition to the rotation axis and the (43-km-longer) equatorial axis, the earth has a third axis, roughly through the equator; as a result, the equator is a little flattened, being oval rather than truly circular. The earth’s shape is distorted by protuberances of various shapes and sizes, equivalent to about 2000 feet of rock, or over a mile of ice, and the anomalies have spans of the order of thousands of miles.

    The fact that there is no empirical basis for the common assumption that gravity is proportional to mass casts doubt on the standard interpretation of gravity measurements; rather than being a direct function of the quantity of matter, the strength of the gravitational force may depend on the electrical and other properties of matter. The defective theory of isostasy can certainly not be used to lend weight to the orthodox picture of the ‘mantle’.

  91. Zeke says:

    Inre: Isostasy

    Without isostasy, you have all kinds of problems with the fossil record. The marine fossil bearing beds on the tops of many mountain ranges are supposed to have been deposited when the ice sheets lowered the land masses. Also, many of the most forbidding, high deserts on earth, such as Colorado Plateau and deserts in China, have large fossilized forests and enormous sauropod remains and footprints. It is interesting because there has very evidently been some episodes in earth’s history of massive uplift, far inland.

  92. malagaview says:

    @ Zeke: Without isostasy, you have all kinds of problems with the fossil record.

    And with isostasy you have all kinds of problems too…..

    Antarctica is thought to have supported massive ice sheets for most of the past 15 million years. If the mantle were subject to deformation under such loading, even at a nominal rate of 1 mm/year, the crust there should have subsided by 15 km — which has obviously not happened. In fact, the Trans-Antarctic mountains, only several million years old, are elevated more than a kilometre above sea level, showing that the lithosphere/mantle is capable of lifting continental ice sheets, rather than being depressed by them.

  93. Zeke says:

    @Malagaview –

    I am agreeing with you and your arguments about isostasy. I just wanted to point out that questioning isostasy also opens a Can o’ Worms for the paleontologists. Please proceed and open away (-:

    Other uplift could come from plate techtonics, but there are some difficulties with that; Antarctica has no subduction zones at all for example, so sea floor spreading at the south pole would badly deform the globe, in my opinion. There must be some other mechanisms for uplift. Lots of seas are raised and fossilized.

  94. Russell says:

    Dave Smith

    [snip, if you have a problem with Mr Smith take it directly to him where he can see who you are, not on a third party blog. co-mod]

  95. P.G. Sharrow says:

    Don’t forget local magnetic fields. Lines of force flow out (up) from south domains and in (down) over north domains. Warping the results of gravitation effects on the surface. The earth is an oblate spheroid (egg shaped) for a reason. pg

  96. Timmo says:

    TallBloke, this came by in the newsstream last weekend:
    40 year old Mariner 5 solar wind problem finds answer – turbulence doesn’t go with the flow

    What does it mean. Does it have consequences for the electric universe theory?
    regards, T.

  97. Doug Proctor says:

    Appears solar energy plants are less than environmentally friendly. Considering that US solar plants are moving production to China because they can’t compete financially, the question has to be raised about how economic solar energy is if environmental and labour practices have to be taken into consideration.

  98. malagaview says:

    El Hierro in the Canaries is really beginning to shake…

    The island of El Hierro has suffered a total of 48 earthquakes this weekend. One was last night [Saturday], around eleven o’clock at night, registered magnitude 3.4 and was felt in the whole island. Therefore, there is concern regarding the possibility of a volcanic eruption which has forced the Government of the Canaries, to raise the alert level to yellow – the first time in the recent history of the Archipelago.

    google translate

    El Hierro, nicknamed Isla del Meridiano (the “Meridian Island”), is the smallest and farthest south and west of the Canary Islands (an Autonomous Community of Spain), in the Atlantic Ocean off the coast of Africa, with a population of 10,162 (2003).

    Like the rest of the Canary Islands chain, El Hierro is sharply mountainous and volcanic, only one eruption has ever been recorded on the island from the Volcan de Lomo Negro vent in 1793. The eruption lasted a month.

    The Volcanological Institute of the Canary Islands and National Geografic Institute’s seismic monitoring station located in Valverde, detected increase seismic activity beginning noon 17 July 2011. The seismic monitoring network was increased in density from July 21 to allow better detection and location of the seismic events. There was an earthquake swarm with in excess of 400 minor tremors between 20 July and 24 July, by 27 July a further 320 earthquakes had been recorded.[14] On 25 August there were reports that some horizontal deformation had been detected, but that there was no unusual vertical deformation. At that time, the total number of tremors had exceeded 4000.

  99. […] to malagaview who posted to Suggestions. Share this:ShareFacebookDiggTwitterStumbleUponPrintRedditEmailLike this:LikeBe the first to like […]

  100. malagaview says:

    In my wanderings around the internet I am always on the lookout for threads of information that may help me understand the evolution of the earth and its climate… perhaps it would be more accurate to say that there are many loose ends and unexplained phenomena in my understanding of life, the universe and everything.

    One of these loose ends is the evolution of the length of day for planet Earth… this is because (due to my understanding of the conservation of energy) a change in the length of day should be associated with a number of other interesting changes. For example: if our length of day is slowly increasing then our distance from the sun should also be slowly increasing. This has some very interesting implications (for me at least) such as: decreasing insolation levels and increased seasonality over time for planet Earth.

    Today I stumbled across one of these interesting loose ends internet sites: The page that particularly interests me is their Solair System page regarding the dynamic evolution of the orbital characteristics of the planets… I guess the web site has been translated into English so some extra effort is required when reading… The basics of their approach is very interesting… but what caught my eye most was the palaeontology data they quote to support their view that the rate of revolution (for the Earth) is deceleration.

    Period        Time    Year     Day      Relative
                  million duration duration day
                  years   days     hours    duration
    Present time      0   365.25   24       1
    Cretaceous       72   370.33   23.67    0.986
    Permian         270   384.10   22.82    0.951
    Carboniferous   298   387.50   22.62    0.943
    Devonian        380   398.75   21.98    0.916
    Silurian        440   407.10   21.53    0.897

    This is the first time I have found this data brought together… and I guess it has many implications regarding climate… and many implications regarding the calculation of the Barry Centre for the solar system because the planets are dynamic. So it would be very interesting to know: Has anyone else has stumbled across information supporting (or countering) this data?

    Their Solar System calculations are also very interesting because they support the view that Earth captured the Moon during its orbital evolution… a view which seems very sensible to me – but that is another story.


    Another very interesting page from this web site is These pages looks at the connection between strong earthquakes and the tidal deformation of the Earth’s crust… with a strong focus on the azimuth of the Sun and Moon… which is very interesting (again for me)… the site also offers many earthquake predictions so everyone can judge for themselves.

  101. Tenuc says:

    New paper out by Nasif S. Nahle, “Observations on “Backradiation” during Nighttime and Daytime”

    Abstract: Through a series of real time measurements of thermal radiation from the atmosphere and surface materials during nighttime and daytime, I demonstrate that warming backradiation emitted from Earth’s atmosphere back toward the earth’s surface and the idea that a cooler system can warm a warmer system are unphysical concepts.

    Some startling information from a real experiment which casts more doubt on the theoretical mechanism for CAGW.

  102. Orson Olson says:

    SORRY. Off topic note to the host, Rog~

    Tom Moriarty, a senior scientist at the US National Renewable Energy Labs in Colorado has a nice write-up on how the rate of sea-level change precedes Temp change from 2009

    This was new to me. But how does this insight connect to the LOWER sea-levels recorded since 2009?

    Next, meteorologist Joe D’Aleo connects sea temp changes (UNLESS I misread him) to the pending and predicted La Nina winter, in part using the JEMSTEC Frontier model
    (SCROLL DOWN to find his 29 September post “Evidence that the sun drives the oceans which control our weather and climate.”) AND (“La Nina’s Reprise has important implications globally” 19 September)
    (SEE projected ocean and land Temp graphs for 2012 there, in particular.)

    “Weatherbell sees the impact of this return La Nina will be again global in nature and significant. Another harsh winter is expected in China and at least the first half of the winter in North America and Western Europe. More heavy snow will accompany the cold as our outlook will show next week.”

    WetherBell “Meteorologists Joe Bastardi and Joe D’Aleo are predicting the global temperature, which has average near 0.2C above normal this year after being over 0.4C above normal last year, will drop to near -0.15C BELOW by March. This is similar to what we saw in 2008.  This will mean the yearly cooling trend, off the warm year of 2010, which is underway now, will continue in 2012, which is liable to be the coolest year since the late 1990s. Computer modeling is now starting to see this.”

    “The model shows cooling of the Atlantic to the cold mode, at least temporarily, is likely over the coming 6-9 months following the cooling of the Pacific.  The drop is already starting with September. It is likely to be 0.1 to 0.2C cooler than August, which read 0.33C above.”

    In light of previous discussions here, I believe there is enough evidence, graphs, and analysis in these posts to make a revisit these topics of interest, soon.

    OFF TOPIC post off. Thanks.
    [moved from specific article comment: Tim, co-mod]

  103. Orson Olson says:

    OFF TOPIC update. Frank Lanser’s coverage of the ENSO model battles may also prove useful.—part-3-238.php

    [moved from article, Tim]

  104. tchannon says:

    Malagaview, others, what we need is some form of Forum or threading so that discussions can be threaded in context but unfortunately there is no satisfactory solution with WordPress and other places lose the advantages of WordPress. This is not my blog so I must not change things.
    A limited degree of threading might be possible via Themes, such as used by Steve Mcintyre at
    Sometime will discuss this with Tallbloke.

  105. tchannon says:

    malagaview, I hadn’t seen the LoD put that that before either.

    However, try this book on google books which suggests this is an earth/moon spin coupling, not earth/sun, therefore I assume earth orbital distance is unconnected.

  106. malagaview says:

    Thanks Tim…
    The sun-earth-moon connections are very interesting…
    My guess is that the moon (as the junior partner) acts as a stabiliser or damper (like a quasi centrifugal governor) for the sun-earth connections which are NOT just limited to gravity.

  107. adolfogiurfa says:

    @malagaview says: If we consider the eccentricity of its orbit as caused by the EM field, or as proportional to it, then it is more than interesting.

  108. Roy Weiler says:

    An item that may be of interest to you. I have seen some discussion here about possible “magnetic” connections between various solar system (or even stellar) bodies. I would like to point you at something I have observed several times now depicted in these videos, I will try to find some of the older ones also.

    In both cases you are observing a comet plummet to it’s death into the sun followed by a CME. The simplest solution is coincidence and that may be the case, but after observing this at 5 or 6 different times it makes one wonder. The magnetic field of a comet should be miniscule as compared to the sun, so what other vehicle could be the cause of such a reaction? As far as I can tell no plausible explanation has been put forth, but I am interested in seeing some speculation :) Your denizens seem to be appropriately fluent in this type of subject, and I thought it might prove of interest. If not, I apologize for the bother.

    Roy Weiler

  109. Roy Weiler says:

    I have found several more on the SOHO site. Including a pair!!

    Even this one is suggestive:

    Likely coincidences. They do not show any videos of comets passing or plummeting without the CMEs, but there may be hundreds. Not really sure how to find out.

  110. tchannon says:

    I like.
    Tallbloke is away at the moment so we will have to see his reaction when he returns, meantime yes of course there is interest here, most things are on the agenda provided folks try to avoid smothering others by posting their pet ideas on all posts. Not everyone agrees with everything.

    So, a mass twacks into the sun, which burps in response. Seems sane. Moreover if this is correct it is a massive experimental research facility except God has the button.

    That said, it is NOT mass, not contact because the comet flyby tripped a heap of effects. This is a strong pointer to highly unstable solar atmosphere (I am choosing my words carefully).

    An electrostatic effect looks maybe but mass will be flowing under gravity unseen from the comet to the sun: low mass will accelerate faster then the body of the comet. I think time is critical on worthing (sic) out what might be going on.

    is this worth a blog article? Of course.

    Note: I have not seen the Adobe Flash video, totally banned content here, others work fine.
    On the others I can do frame by frame and much more. Maybe a mosaic of stills would make a good headline image for a post.

  111. Tenuc says:

    Thanks for posting the link between solar fares/CME’s when objects approach close to the surface of the sun. I read about this a couple of years back but promptly forgot to follow it up.

    First conjectures are that I think it unlikely that even large objects will ever impact the sun. Rather as they accelerate toward the surface they will fragment and ablate away due to mutual repulsion of the EM charge field and charged particles being propelled outwards by the solar wind. They will become a large ball of ionised plasma high above the photosphere and cause a breakdown (short-circuit) of the sun’s double layer producing a CME/flare. Depending on velocity and angle of approach, not all of the approaching mass will be totally destroyed. It may graze the sun’s outer layers and then ‘bounce’ off the charge field back out into space. However, it could still provide enough ionic material to cause the short-circuit.

    There are many bits of debris approach the sun, including those of the Kreutz sungrazer family, which were discovered by German astronomer in the late 1800’s. It is conjectured that Kreutz sungrazers are fragments from the breakup of a giant comet at least 1500 years ago. Several of these fragments pass by the sun and disintegrate every day, with most being too small to be observed, but occasionally big fragment can be seen.

    Here’s a picture, courtesy of SOHO, capturing the moment of approach…

    [Tim, I agree with you that this will make a great topic for a full post.]

  112. Tenuc says:

    After digging around a bit, just found this paper on the Kreutz sungrazer family by Michael Oates, an amateur SOHO comet spotter with 144 finds to his credit!

  113. Roy Weiler says:

    A very interesting paper, thanks for sharing it.

    I am glad both you and tchannon agree this would be an interesting post. It is my hope that Tallbloke agrees with you upon his return.

    “Note: I have not seen the Adobe Flash video, totally banned content here, others work fine.
    On the others I can do frame by frame and much more. Maybe a mosaic of stills would make a good headline image for a post.”

    I am not sure what is meant by this. Most of these videos I have found in other formats. If you can be specific as to which one is not in an approved format, I can try to find an alternate format.

    “That said, it is NOT mass, not contact because the comet flyby tripped a heap of effects. This is a strong pointer to highly unstable solar atmosphere (I am choosing my words carefully).”

    “They will become a large ball of ionized plasma high above the photosphere and cause a breakdown (short-circuit) of the sun’s double layer producing a CME/flare. ”

    These are both interesting ideas that probably deserves further exploration, certainly something I had never thought of. Honestly, I have very little background in this subject, other then as a hobby.

    My last thought. If there is a connection between these events (comet strike = CME), then this could prove invaluable for predicting CME events, leading to more preparation time for owners of satellites. Further, if CME size can be determined by factors such as: size of comet, angle of approach, composition of comet, etc. It may then be possible to predict and prepare for really large CME events similar to the 1859 event. Of course we do not know if 1859 was caused by a comet (or if that is even possible), but in the event it was then we have another piece of the puzzle in ‘predicting’ Space Weather. Also, not all CME events will be caused by comets of course, but even if 1% are, it could be helpful and lead to other discoveries concerning the (in)stability of the sun’s corona.

    Roy Weiler

  114. tchannon says:

    I am sure there are more than comets. It would be extremely interesting if say a rocky asteroid does a near pass, is there a reaction? Seem to be folks dedicated to sun grazing objects which would be ripe for checks of historic close passes or hits and cme.

    One of the videos deserves detail examination which I have done but I suspect most web users have no such facility. I whacked this from whatever actual frame rate is used to 2fps at 30fps display rate. This allows time to see the variety of events without excess death from boredom. Talk about weird stuff.
    I could do an article but this takes time, effort and inclination. I’m not very good at the social side, a little worrying in case I am driving people away.

    A problem is the blog has no subscription to video services so I cannot upload. I do have a low bandwidth server available but using it is risky.
    A trick will work however. Any of you brave, download this file to disk (such as saveas) and change the file suffix from .odt to .avi but is encoded mpeg4 so it might not work.(I have taken the actual file back and it works here)

    At the end of the big cme it does a specific direct hit on the comet. If this whole is not evidence of direct solar sensitivity, what is?


  115. Tenuc says:

    Cuadrilla Resources have found 200 trillion cubic feet of shale gas in NW England which is in a convenient location and easy to exploit – first commercial production could start in 2013. This could be a ball game changer for the UK economy and the future of ‘green energy’ projects in the UK.

    Also possible that this initial find could be just the tip of the iceberg as there are other large-scale shale deposits in other parts of the country and under the North Sea. Also gas power stations are quick to build and the technology is cheap !

  116. adolfogiurfa says:

    @Tenuc: H.Hesse predicted “green scam”:
    Among the favorite subjects of such essays were anecdotes taken from the lives or correspondence of famous men and women. They bore such titles as “Friedrich Nietzsche and Women’s Fashions of 1870,” or “The Composer Rossini’s Favorite Dishes,” or “The Role of the
    Lapdog in the Lives of Great Courtesans,” and so on. Another popular type of article was the historical background piece on what was currently being talked about among the well-to-do, such as “The Dream of Creating Gold Through the Centuries,” or “Physico-chemical Experiments in Influencing the Weather,” and hundreds of similar subjects

    Herman Hesse: “Magister Ludi”

  117. Tenuc says:

    Just came across this interesting article from NASA…

    NASA’s LRO Reveals ‘Incredible Shrinking Moon’

    Link here…

    Perhaps the water was too hot in the washing machine… :-)

  118. adolfogiurfa says:

    Dear “Magister Ludi” you will like this version:

  119. […] few days ago Roy Weiler raised the subject of CME and comets on the Suggestions page. A few comments suggest this is a good subject for a post. Putting together something more than a […]

  120. Tenuc says:

    Ever wonder why we get cold or warm winters, well the Met Office seems to have the answer – the sun done it…

    Ultraviolet light shone on cold winter conundrum.

    Be interesting to know what Leif thinks… ;-)

  121. Tenuc says:

    Following the CERN faster than light announcement, looks like the CYA continues with this piece in the Grauniad from Jon Butterworth, perhaps trying to prepare us for the worst…

    Perturbation theory: are we covering up new physics?

    I think this bit from the article hints that the standard model is starting to crumble, with results from the high energy LHC experiments not compatible with predictions from theory…

    “…Aspects of how quarks and gluons are distributed inside the protons we collide can’t be calculated from first principles. Neither can the way the quarks and gluons turn in to new hadrons in the end…”

    Perhaps the cost of the LHC will have been money well spent if the results stop physics continuing on, what I believe to be, the wrong path. Fingers crossed… :-)

  122. Tenuc says:

    Following on from my “Ultraviolet light shone on cold winter conundrum. post above, some good comments on the implications of this to global climate change here…

    “…But there are some scientists who believe that there are longer term cycles, such as the bi-centennial cycle and that on average over the coming decades solar activity will decline.

    If so, not only will cold European winters become more common, but global temperatures could fall, too, although the general consensus amongst most scientists at the moment is that any solar-forced decline would be dwarfed by man-made global warming…”

    I suspect that Leif will start foaming at the mouth if he reads this solar heresy… ;-)

  123. malagaview says:

    The latest issue if the New Concepts in Global Tectonics Newsletter at has a fascinating article written by V. G. Kolvankar looking at the connection between earthquakes and lateral tidal stresses.

    V. G. Kolvankar

    During a study conducted to find the effect of Earth tides on the occurrence of earthquakes, for small areas of high-seismicity regions, it was noticed that the Sun’s position in terms of universal time (GMT) shows links to the earthquake-lunar distance together with Sun-Earth-Moon angle. This paper provides the details of this relationship after studying earthquake data for over forty high-seismicity regions of the world. It was found that nearly 98% of the earthquakes for these different regions, examined for the period 1973-2008, show a direct relationship between the Sun’s position and the earthquake-moon distance together with the Sun-Earth-Moon angle. As the time changes from 00-24 hours, the sum of the earthquake-moon distance and the Sun-Earth-Moon angle changes through 360 0 , and plotting these two variables for different earthquakes reveals a simple 45 0 straight-line relationship between them.

    New Concepts in Global Tectonics Newsletter
    Issue: 60 – September 2011 – Page:50

    The paper analyses earthquake for high-seismicity regions during the period 1973-2008 based upon 42 grid boxes which are typically 10 degrees longitude wide by 10 degrees latitude high. For each earthquake the following data is established:

    SEM: Sun-Earth-Moon angle
    The angle between the Sun-Earth-Moon at the time of the earthquake – this is basically accurately establishing the phase of the moon in degrees.
    The SEM value changes by about 12 degrees every day.

    EMD: Earthquake-Moon Distance angle
    The Earthquake-Moon Distance angle is described as the longitude of the earthquake location minus the longitude of the moon when the earthquake occurred.
    The EMD value changes by 15 degrees every hour.

    SEM + EMD angle
    By adding together the Sun-Earth-Moon angle and the Earthquake-Moon Distance angle the paper establishes a composite index of the lunar tidal force that is in the range -180 to +180 for each earthquake.
    The SEM + EMD value changes by 15 degrees every hour.

    GMT: Solar angle
    The Solar Tidal Influence is simply represented by determining the time of the earthquake in GMT. This value also represents the longitude angle of the Sun because the Earth revolves through 360 degrees in just under 24 hours.

    Order out of Chaos [Page 53]
    The paper then proceeds to plot the lunar SEM + EMD angle versus the solar GMT angle and the resulting graphs clearly show that 98 percent of the plotted earthquakes are clustering into very orderly bands angled at 45 degrees… thus the angles calculated for the Sun and the Moon clearly provide an orderly rational for what otherwise appear to be a chaotic series of events.

    The paper also studies after shocks and bring order to apparently random / chaotic events:

    Fig. 13 [Page 62]
    The left figure provides a 24-hour plot for forty consecutive days including the main event (16:09:06 on 28.03.2005, Lat.+2.09 0 , Long. +97.11 0 , Mb 9.0, EQ count 998).
    The right figure provides an earthquake plot for (EMD+SEM) vs GMT timings for the same data. While most of the 998 events faithfully follow the straight-line curve, few earthquakes are seen at right angle to the plot line, which are probably caused by the vulnerable structure resulting from the main event. Such types of discrete events seen in other plots are mainly caused by this factor.

  124. Roger Andrews says:

    Interesting paper, probably worth a thread. However, it concludes (implies?) that earth tides trigger earthquakes only up to magnitude 5. It doesn’t say what triggers larger earthquakes.

    It would be instructive to see some plots for earthquakes >5. I assume the 45 degree relationship breaks down above this level, but maybe it doesn’t.

  125. tchannon says:

    I am wary of dramatic results in a widely studied subject and published in a little known place.

    I need a sanity check on the result. Probably needs some math where we can plug in data. I already have a fairly large ‘quake dataset.

    There are major implications to do with prediction which won’t be obvious to many.outside of signal processing. As I read it there are many most likely times for any location, conversely also times of less likely, therefore synchronous detection will raise signal to noise. What this might allow is open.
    Various novel ideas come to mind.

  126. Eilert says:

    Has anybody seen this and care to comment:

    Moon’s shadow creates a wake

    The article is about the GPS measurement of the total electron content (TEC) of the ionosphere during the 2009 lunar eclipse over Japan. They say the content changed during the eclipse and effected the atmospheric pressure, creating pockets of high pressure cells under the lunar shadow.

    The link for the lunar article is here:

  127. Eilert says:

    sorry the link for the lunar article is here:

  128. Joe Lalonde says:


    10 days ago, I finished a mapping on our planet on the velocity of rotation.
    Impressive numbers of speeds and how fast and how slow they drop on this planet.
    Sort of blows apart anyone pushing a single speed of our planet and the single strength of energy on any planet, including the sun and cores of planets.

  129. malagaview says:

    There have been a couple of entertaining articles over at WUWT regarding air bubbles that are trapped in ice… the second article entitled “Little Bubbles part 2 – Firn; The Great Equalizer” has prompted me to actually start digging into bubbles in ice so that I can better understand the validity [or not] of ice core data.


    According to Wikipedia new snow typically contains about 8 percent water and, therefore, 92 percent of new snow is simply air. Once the new snow starts accumulating the process of degassing [of the snow] begins due to the weight of the overlying new snow. The initial rate of degassing is quite fast because settled snow is reported to contain about 30 percent water and 70 percent air… and thus the transformation of snow into an ice core begins.

    As the overlying depth of snow increases the snow evolves into firn which is an intermediate stage between the original snow flakes and the resulting ice core. Firn looks like wet sugar because the snow has been compressed into granules. The density of glacial firn generally ranges between 550 and 830 kilograms per cubic meter. At this point the exact air-water mix in firn is not explicitly defined. However, based on these density figures, it appears than the degassing continues in glacial firn until it contains less than 20 percent air.

    The evolution of firn into an ice core continues as the weight of the overlying snow and firn accumulates over time. The transformation of firn into an ice core occurs at the trapping depth than ranges from several tens of meters for glaciers down to 150 meters for some ice cores from Antarctica. The amount of time required to trigger the trapping depth depends upon the rate at which snow and firn accumulates, as demonstrated by the ice cores extracted from the Law Dome in Antarctica.

    Core   Trapping Depth  Age of Ice
    ====   ==============  ==========
    DE08-2 72 meters       40 years
    DSS    66 meters       68 years

    Unfortunately, I have not been able to establish how much air is usually trapped in an ice core at the end of this evolutionally process. However, it is evident that the air from the firm eventually forms air bubbles in the resulting ice core. However, the most important point is that these air bubbles are deemed to be permanently trapped within the ice core once they are below the trapping depth.

    Before the air is finally trapped within an air bubble (within the ice core) it is assumed that the air within the firn can freely mix with the atmosphere as there are still air pathways that connects the atmosphere (through the snow and firn) down to the trapping depth. This general principle seems reasonable when you consider the overlying layer of snow. However, the air pathways will become smaller with depth as the firn is compressed and the trapped air is degassed into the atmosphere. Therefore, it seems reasonable to assume that any atmospheric mixing stops well before the firn finally evolves into an ice core.

    Looking at Wikipedia it became apparent that dating the air with respect to the ice it is trapped in is problematic. Their problems arise because you need to know when the atmosphere stopped mixing with the air trapped within the firn. The implication being that the age of the air in the air bubbles is not the same as the age of the ice they are trapped in. Originally, it was assumed that is age difference could vary between 2500 and 6000 years although more recent studies indicate that this age difference could be less than imagined. The use of the word imagined in the previous sentence indicates that you can only guess when any atmospheric mixing stopped.

    For example:
    The five different dating methods used on the Vostok ice cores have inconsistent results that vary by depth:

     Depth     Age Difference  
    (Metres)      (Years)
    ========   ==============
      100            300 
      200            600
      400          7,000 
      800          5,000 
    1,600          6,000 
    1,934          5,000

    My bottom line take aways from all of this is are:

    1) Everyone is guessing when they try to determine the age of the air within an air bubble trapped in an ice core.

    2) The air and water from an ice core sample are not contemporaneous.

    3) Published ice core chronologies have error margins that might be as large 7,000 years (although nobody really knows).

    At this juncture I am personally very interested in the concept of these air bubbles being effectively trapped in space within the ice core. Perhaps a better way of expressing this interest is by articulating the following question:

    Does Degassing Stop Below The Trapping Depth?
    The settled science implies that the air bubbles are trapped within the ice core.

    However, it becomes hard to imagine that ice and the trapped air bubbles have remained stationary at the bottom on the Vostok ice cores for 420,000 years as the pressure slowly increased towards 350 atmospheres. The ice core is known to have fluid properties because below about 300 meters the ice core hole will deform and close unless back pressure is applied during the extraction process.

    Additionally, underneath Vostok there is a body of water called Lake Vostok which is 250 km long, 50 km wide and 344 metres deep on average. Lake Vostok is similar in area to Lake Ontario except that it contains over three times the volume of water. The water is assumed to be at −3 °C and remains in a liquid state (below the normal freezing point) because of the high pressure from above and geothermal heat from below.

    The waters of Lake Vostok are expected to be supersaturated with nitrogen and oxygen in the form of clathrates.
    Hence, the trapped air bubbles are no longer bubbles below the ice cores depths extracted from Vostok.

    Research by Robin Bell and Michael Studinger from the Lamont–Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University suggested that the water of the lake is continually freezing and being carried away by the motion of the Antarctic ice sheet, while being replaced by water melting from other parts of the ice sheet in these high pressure conditions. This resulted in an estimate that the entire volume of the lake is frozen and removed every 13,300 years—its effective mean residence time

    The Fizzy Slush Puppy Ice Core Model
    Based upon these observations it is possible to develop a Fizzy Slush Puppy Ice Core Model where the bottom of a degassing ice core starts to transform into slush before finally melting to form a geothermal heated lake underneath the ice core. The water in this lake will either continually drain away to sea level or by the natural movement of the ice sheet under the force of gravity.

    To establish the possibility that ice is being lost I looked at data associated with five cores taken from Antarctica.

    Core       Length m  Maximum Age mm/year
    ========== ========  =========== =======
    WAISDivide   300.00  40,000      7.50
    TALDICE    1,620.00  250,000     6.48
    Dome F     2,503.00  320,000     7.82
    Dome F     3,035.22  720,000     4.22
    EPICA/Dome 3,190.00  802,000     3.98

    I have two coupled observations:

    1) The age of the ice increases exponentially with depth.

    2) The average annual layer depth in the ice core decrease exponentially with depth.

    Plotting the Length m against the Maximum Age in Excel I get an exponential trend line of y = 34428e0.001x with a R squared = 0.9608.

    a) The ice in the ice cores can be compressed vertically very significantly
    e.g At TALDICE the annual snow equivalent of 80 mm is compressed down to 6.48 mm


    b) The ice in the ice core is continually flowing and / or melting away and the published ice cores chronologies are based upon slushy science.

  130. malagaview says:

    Just for fun I thought I would do some digging into the Greenland ice cores
    Unfortunately, Wikipedia is not so detailed when it comes to Greenland…
    However, the University of Copenhagen has some interesting statements and graphics.

    The Greenland ice sheet is a dynamic body of flowing and deforming ice. Snow is deposited on the central parts of the ice sheet and is gradually compressed to ice that slowly flows towards the ice margin. At the margin, the ice is removed by melting or by discharge of icebergs into the ocean. When the amount of snow fall or the temperature changes, the Greenland ice sheet reacts and changes both its extent and thickness.

    The above quotation is supported by a diagram of flowing ice in Greenland ice sheet which is about 1,000 km wide and 3 km deep.

    Taking a close look at this diagram I wonder (in no particular order)

    1) There is no water / rivers / lakes underneath the Greenland ice sheet.
    1a) Does this mean that any water is draining away into the sea?
    1b) Does this mean pressure plus geothermal heat is insufficient to melt ice on the bedrock?

    2) The curved ice flow arrows seem rather selective / beneficial.
    2a) Doesn’t the ice flow in the centre of the ice sheet?
    2b) Doesn’t the ice flow at the bottom of the ice flow?
    2c) Is the ice static below the rim of the containing land ridges?
    2d) Can the ice flow up over the containing land ridges?
    2e) Given the unequal ice flows wont the ice layers be curved?

    3) The left hand land ridge is below sea level.
    3a) Does this imply there are unknown ice flows beneath sea level?
    3b) Does this imply there are unknown water flows beneath sea level?

    However, when I go to there Stratigraphy and Dating page I know I am back in the land of Settled Science and are my questions immediately evaporate.

    Annual layers in the ice can be counted like annual rings in a tree. The layers of the ice core get older and older as you go from top to bottom. The layers are identified from measured variations in ice composition and impurity content. More than 60,000 annual layers have been counted in Greenland ice cores, resulting in the new GICC05 time scale that makes high-resolution studies of past climate change possible.

    Now I am back on sound ground: tree ring dating… wonderful settled science… until I read more details…

    Each depositional event (e.g. a snow storm) is clearly seen as a distinct layer. Summer and winter snow can often be distinguished by a hard surface, or even sometimes a melt layer, at the top of each summer layer. This is very handy, as the layers in this way can be used for dating purposes, counting from the top how many summer and winter layers there are above a given depth. However, more sophisticated methods are needed in order to get accurate dating, especially because the visible stratification is less clear when the snow has been compressed into glacial ice. To distinguish the layers, analysis of the core is needed.

    So I guess (when they run out of fingers) they fall back to dating objects that are trapped in the non-flowing, non-melting ice… great… but it gets even better… when all else fails there are always the computer models :-)

    Computer models can be used to estimate the age along an ice core, e.g. when the annual layers are too thin to be counted or to give a quick estimate of the depth-age relationship of an ice core. The models describe the flow of the ice, taking into account the amount of annual snow fall and how the layers are being compressed and deformed by the burden of the snow and ice above.

    It’s those wonderful computer models again… all you need to know for this one is:
    a) The net snow accumulation for each year in the last 60,000 years…
    b) How the entire ice sheet has deformed and flowed each year during the last 60,000 years…

    However, as you dig deeper into the computer models you discover they can forward model… this is particularly useful if you have any pesky gaps in your chronology… predicting the future based upon the past is always a very reliable Settled Science technique :-)

    As a further complication, it can be very hard to provide good estimates of the model parameters upon which the forward model is based, for example because especially the basal mass balance (the melt-off from underneath the ice sheet) is very hard to measure. This implies that a direct (forward) determination of a timescale is not always possible. However, often some other information on the depth-age relationship is available, e.g. because the age of certain layers are known from other dated records, or because annual layers can be counted in a part of the ice core. In this case, it is necessary to solve the inverse problem, where the objective is to determine the timescale as well as the unknown model parameters (e.g. surface and basal mass balance) from the known information. This is known as inverse modelling. The idea behind inverse modelling is to estimate which values the unknown model parameters are likely to have when we require that the timescale resulting from these parameters matches the data that we do have. One can say that we know parts of the result and want to construct a model that matches these results and then can be used to predict what we do not know.

    But buried in that quote is the information I was looking for:

    the basal mass balance (the melt-off from underneath the ice sheet) is very hard to measure

    So the ice is melting at the bottom of the ice cap… and my guess that very hard really means impossible… and that implies they do not know what is going on at depth within the ice sheet… but, thankfully, the compute model does… that is a relief – NOT!


  131. malagaview says:

    One of their quotes got me thinking:

    Summer and winter snow can often be distinguished by a hard surface, or even sometimes a melt layer, at the top of each summer layer.

    So the ice sheet has embedded melt layers… and the melting stopped at the end of the summer… which leaves a few questions hanging:

    Couldn’t the melt layer cover more than a single year? The melt layer means there is missing ice [i.e. melted ice]… but how much ice is actually missing? one summer? one decade? one Medieval Warm Period? who knows?

    If there is a long melt period then it seems possible that some of the snow accumulated in previous years could also melt… so now the problem is compounded… first: unknown length of the melt period… second: unknown amount of melted ice from previous years… seems like a double whammy to me… no wonder they have to fallback to their computer models to construct the past according to their rules.

  132. adolfogiurfa says:

    @malagaview The question behind is: Is there any trustful dating method about past events on earth? The more we dig in proxies, from Biffra´s “lonesome tree” to uranium decay, nothing has survived deep analysis.

  133. malagaview says:

    @ adolfogiurfa: Is there any trustful dating method about past events on earth?

    Agreed – that is a bottom line question. Dating underpins so much Settled Knowledge that slipstreams behind Lyell’s Doctrine of Uniformity. The tragedy for me is that I only encountered the writings of Immanuel Velikovsky in 2011… but better late than never.

  134. malagaview says:

    @ adolfogiurfa: Is there any trustful dating method about past events on earth?

    Agreed – that is a bottom line question… Dating underpins so much Settled Knowledge that slipstreams behind Lyell’s Doctrine of Uniformity… the tragedy for me is that I only encountered the writings of Immanuel Velikovsky in 2011… but better late than never.

  135. malagaview says:

    @ adolfogiurfa: Is there any trustful dating method about past events on earth?

    Agreed – that is a bottom line question… Dating underpins so much Settled Knowledge that slipstreams behind Lyell’s Doctrine of Uniformity… the tragedy for me is that I only encountered the writings of Immanuel Velikovsky in 2011… but better late than never.

  136. DaveR says:
    A shared frequency set between the historical mid-latitude aurora records
    and the global surface temperature
    60 year cycle

  137. malagaview says:

    From the 2 + 2 = 5 department….

    STRANGE: Two high-profile Fukushima studies ‘edited’ by global warming advocate James Hansen — Wrote article “Why America Needs Nuclear Energy”

  138. adolfogiurfa says:

    Did you all know that the first ANTIGRAVITY machine WAS invented by Montgoflier, in the 18th. century: A hot air baloon?
    Think it over: A plasma device, a burner, charging air and changing its molecular arrangement, the same as the thousand of tons of ionized water (hydrogen hydroxide) which float over our heads, defying Saint Newton´s Holy Law of Gravity; when that water loses its charge fall down inmediately as Hydrogen Oxide. :-)
    It´s just describing phenomena not as our Dad and Mommy told us, but seeing them as they are. Tags do not clear up anything, thinking does.

  139. Ninderthana says:

    Dear Roger,

    Just venting a little angst against Dr. Scafetta at my blog about a result that he claims that is his. I do not have the original email but I am dead certain that I emailed him these results some time in late 2008 or in 2009. He has copied these results and published them as his own without referencing me as a source.

    The graphs that I sent him were generated in late 2006 according to the time stamps

    [Reply] I’ve replied on your blog Ian.

  140. Ninderthana says:

    I submitted my blog post in March 2010 because of my anger that Nicola had published my results in his May 2010 paper without citing me. See figure 2 of Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 72(2010)951–970. This paper was received at JASTP in October 2009 and published in May 2010. Obviously, I was privy to drafts (as a referee) in January and February of 2010 and so all I could do was to express my silent rage at Nicola by posting a blog entry at my site in March. I did not mention his plagiarism in my referee comments because I did not want the editors to use it as an excuse to block his publication.

    I suppressed the fact that he had claimed my work as his own for the simple reason that I did not want to jeopardize getting the message out about the possibility that the Earth’s temperatures were externally driven.

    I will have nothing to do with the man now. I know that this might sound bitter but I am still a few years ahead of him in my research even though I do not have the luxury of time to get my results out as quick as he can.

    [Reply sent by email]

  141. Roger Andrews says:

    Reading through the RealClimate discussion of the recent Schmittner et al. paper on ice age climate sensitivity ( I came across the following claim:

    “without the role of CO2 as a greenhouse gas, i.e. the cooling effect of the lower glacial CO2 concentration, the ice age climate cannot be explained.”


    Thought this might be worth a thread.

  142. Ninderthana says:

    My two cents on the impact of natural climate change (aka the ENSO phenomenon) upon the world’s mean temperature.

  143. Ninderthana says:


    Here is an interesting plot confirming that their is a transition in the nature of solar activity going on in cycle 24.

  144. tchannon says:

    Wow, well spotted. Things are afoot but what?

  145. Doug Cotton says:

    I have updated to feature Prof Nahle’s new paper on his experiment that debunks the hypothesis that radiation from a cooler atmsophere can add further thermal energy to a warmer surface.

    This at last provides a repeatable experiment, supported by sound argument based on recognised physics, which debunks the greenhouse effect hypothesis.

    PS There is also a serious problem measuring back radiation as explained here

  146. P.G. Sharrow says:

    @ Tallbloke; I think it is time to call an end to recess and herd the children back to class.
    Lose of the use your laptop must be a real bitch. my condolences. pg

    [Reply] Good call PG. I’m hoping I can find an old CD with a backup of my research work on it. I’ll try to rewire the phone socket the police ripped out today.

  147. Zeke says:

    Ski Lodges, Chairlifts, and Leer Jets: Some Scientists Have All the Luck (While Skeptics Have Their Laptops Seized)

  148. Zeke says:

    Tallbloke, I had a misspelling in that, which was corrected. Thanks

    [Reply] Hi Zeke your pingback needs tuning, it looks like this:

    […] GA_googleAddAttr(“AdOpt”, “1”); GA_googleAddAttr(“Origin”, “other”); GA_googleAddAttr(“theme_bg”, “111111”); GA_googleAddAttr(“theme_border”, “515151”); GA_googleAddAttr(“theme_text”, “eeeeee”); GA_googleAddAttr(“theme_link”, “428ce7”); GA_googleAddAttr(“theme_url”, “428ce7”); GA_googleAddAttr(“LangId”, “1”); GA_googleAddAttr(“Autotag”, “science”); GA_googleFillSlot(“wpcom_sharethrough”); Like this:LikeBe the first to like this post. […]

  149. PGI_FL says:

    I just donated to the cause and it might be worthwhile considering using any excess donations to set up an ongoing legal fund for just such circumstances as this. I would bet that your Solicitor would agree.

  150. Greg says:

    I’d like to DONATE but don’t use PayPal … is there another way?

    [Reply] From Aus, quickest and cheapest would be to find a mate who does use paypal.
    Thanks for your support and determination. – Rog

  151. ccdeditor says:

    Hi Tallbloke,
    Just asked my reader’s to consider donating to your legal fund. I also reproduced your request for help and lawyer’s letter. Hope this helps and happy Holidays!

    [Reply] Fantastic! Pass on my thanks to your readers for their consideration. = Rog

  152. adolfogiurfa says:

    @Zeke: Beautiful page!

  153. Zeke says:

    Thank you Adolfo. (:
    Tallbloke has gone about studying the cloud albedo feedback of global climate models all wrong. From this PhysOrg article you can see that what he really needed to do is perform tests at “four different elevations” on a ski slope. For best results, he should release weather balloons several times a day at the base of the mountain, and then head up to the ski lodge to make further observations of the cirrus clouds from there. Better luck next time to him.

  154. Russell C says:

    Regarding the plea for help within your “Greg Laden: Libellous article” blog entry for a UK lawyer who is willing to assist you, allow me to widen the concept in order to illustrate how AGW believers must resort to libel/slander to maintain the very idea of AGW and their own standing within it: Laden said what he said in order to remove as much attention from the ClimateGate II emails as possible, and no less than IPCC Vice Chair Jean-Pascal van Ypersele made the following statement about Dr S Fred Singer in order to divert all attention away from what Singer was saying: “…Mr. Fred Singer is a person whose scientific integrity leaves much to be desired. [His] activities are financed disinformation by the lobbies of fossil fuels…”

    I’ve dug deeply into that – as it turns out – literally unsupported accusation, and just one of my articles describing the accusation’s myriad faults is here: “The Great Global Warming Ponzi Scheme – how the mainstream media keeps it alive”

    In keeping Dr Singer up-to-date on what I’ve found, he told me, “If I can find a multi-millionaire willing to underwrite the legal expenses, I would sue them all: desmog, Gelbspan, [Newsweek’s Sharon] Begley etc” — and on a separate occasion regarding his organization — “SEPP and I personally, are not supported by oil or coal companies (or any industry) and have had no connection, financial or otherwise, with the Global Climate Coalition, ICE, or any tobacco-industry front group. Any claims to the contrary (by Gelbspan and others) are simply untrue and deserve to be met with libel suits.”

    This accusation spreads into the IPCC. It is found in one of Michael Mann’s ClimateGate emails, and a central figure behind the accusation is seen in other ClimateGate emails. So, if you happen to find a lawyer who understands why Laden would say what he did against you, please also refer that lawyer and others in his firm to the far larger accusation that’s been repeated around the world in order to marginalize skeptic scientists in the eyes of the public.

    ClimateGate exposes what appears to be a fraud among IPCC scientists. Their own efforts to marginalize skeptic scientists by any means possible suggests they KNOW IPCC assessments are a fraud, and any critic who isn’t suppressed – whether it is you or Fred Singer – is eventually fatal to the idea of AGW, and thus also fatal to any financial position or public reputation AGW believers gain from supporting it.

    (Please move this to the “Greg Laden: Libellous article” blog, if it is better suited there)

  155. J Martin says:

    I have a question and it seems there are people here with the technical skill to shed some light on this for me.

    Since the Maunder minimum some 400 years ago, planet Earth’s obliquity has increased by about 2% I figure. A complete cycle is 41,000 years, so from warmest to coldest is 20,500 years and ~400 years have elapsed since the Maunder minimum, ie. about 2%

    So my question is what impact would that have on insolation, presumably it’s not a linear 2% reduction but a logarithmic one as Earth is a sphere which from the perspective of the Northern hemisphere has rolled back further from the sun, steadily lengthening and deepening our winters and shortening and cooling our summers.

    We have been shielded from the effect of this (if any) by the unusually active sun of the last umpteen (not a very scientific term I know !) years.

    My guess is the effective reduction in insolation is logarithmic and therefore greater than 2%, but how much greater ?

    What are the implications of this ? might they be significant or too trivial to be of any consequence.

    Are we now in for a quadruple whammy ? PDO negative, AMO negative (in a few years), removal of the historic solar high and a drop into a prolonged solar sleep.

    I think I’ll look on Amazon for a book on “How to Build an Igloo”, just in case.

  156. Pål Brekke says:

    Since many of your readers are interested in the Sun… I hope this is OK even if it promotes a book…

    For those interested in the Sun and the Sun-Earth connection (+ Northern lights) my new popular science book has been released.

    “Our Explosive Sun – A Visual Feast of Our Source of Light and Life”.

    Our Explosive Sun includes 143 color illustrations and photos of the Sun, several of which were made especially for the book and have never been published before. Additional material, available via Springer Extras, includes a large number of animations and video material. A PowerPoint presentation of the book is a useful resource for teachers.”

    More info, electronic version and sample pages:

    Best regards


  157. Roger Andrews says:

    What happened to the “most commented” thread? I’ve been trying to post a comment but all I get is error messages.

  158. tallbloke says:

    Pulled it. It was just an awareness raiser.

  159. CanadianGeer says:

    Hello Roger. Thought you might be interested in this.

    “An Ethical Analysis of the Climate Change Disinformation Campaign: Is This A New Kind of Assault on Humanity?”. Article on PennState website, authored by a Donald Brown.

  160. Ellin Sabio says:

    Your NYT chat is making waves in the US. Newsbusters has a big following and carries some weight:

    [Reply] Good spot Ellin, thanks!

  161. Zeke says:

    Ellin Sabio says:
    NYT Eagerly Printed Wikileaks Military Secrets, But Takes Side of Government in Climategate

    Thank you Ellin, that was an excellent reality check on the commitments of these news outlets.

  162. mkelly says:

    Natural Science, Vol.3 No.12, December 2011

    Scrutinizing the atmospheric greenhouse effect and its climatic impact

    by Gerhard Kramm, Ralph Dlugi

    Tallbloke, you might want to look over this paper. I found it at Greenie Watch blog. It is a free access papar. A good read.

    [comment by Tim, paper is at 8.8M, slow server

    Abstract final line “Because of this lack of tangible evidence it is time to acknowledge that the atmospheric greenhouse effect and especially its climatic impact are based on meritless conjectures.”

    [I’m getting a chinese 404 at that address – Rog]

    [ sorry about that, new link above, indirect, grr… ghastly dynamic web sites tangled with script and hashing — Tim

  163. Scute says:

    Hi Tallbloke

    Can you do a glossary of the more obscure acronyms? It would speed up my reading of posts and comments and attract potential readers/subscribers. Thanks.

    [Reply] Good suggestion. Please could you make a start by listing the ones which have given you trouble – thanks.

  164. Tenuc says:

    Hi, Rog. Just came across this at Clive Best’s blog…

    The real cause of Ice Ages ? – Resonant dust clouds ?
    Posted on December 16, 2011 by Clive Best
    “This post proposes that regular variations in interplanetary dust between the Earth and the Sun is the primary cause of recent ice ages whose oscillations have been parameterised here. The Milankowitz theory of insolation is able to well explain the continuous 41,000y climate oscillation but it cannot explain why a 100,000y cycle became prevalent during the last million years, even though it is in phase with orbital eccentricity of the Earth’s orbit around the sun. A different origin for the emergence of the 100,000y cycle of major ice ages is proposed. This is based on the hypothesis that a large comet broke up close to Earth’s orbit about 3.3 million years ago, leading to an increase in inter-planetary dust whose density eventually phase locked to variations in Earth’s eccentricity.”

    Might make a good re-post as it is an easy to read piece making some interesting arguments – and predictions!!!

  165. J Martin says:

    Have you seen this post on Lubos Motl ?

    It leads to a pdf from Roe wherein he use a time derivative of ice volume rather than volume itself and gets an improved match between model and observation that Motl describes as “beautiful”.

    He then mentions that he doesn’t have the tools and or data to project this work forward in time to see what it says about when the next glaciation, will occur.

    As the model appears pretty good, that projection would be rather interesting.

  166. Willis Eschenbach says:

    If you are going to ban Joel Shore, Tallbloke, then you better ban me as well. I find the work of Nikolov and Jelbring to be laughable. I cannot even understand Nikolov. I invited him to state the core of his theory in a few sentences, since his writing is unintelligible. He did not reply.

    So I asked everyone if anyone out there could explain Nikolov’s theory. I’ve had no takers, not even you, Roger. No one can explain to me in clear scientific terms what his theory is. He talks about atmospheric sponges and bowls, I can’t make sense of it.

    As a result, I can’t tell if Nikolov’s theory violates the laws of thermodynamics. But Jelbring’s hypothesis definitely violates them. I’ve discussed the theory with Hans (Jelbring), and I said the same thing to his face—his theory breaks the laws of thermodynamics. So I’m even worse than Joel Shore, who just said on some random blog that they violate the laws of thermodynamics. I said the same thing to Jelbring directly, and no, I’m not going to apologize for telling Hans that as you wish Joel to do. Why on earth would I apologize for stating what I believe to be scientifically true?

    Here’s the short proof, by contradiction. Jelbring proposes that a perfectly transparent, GHG-free atmosphere will raise the temperature of a planet’s surface well above the S-B temperature obtained from the average impinging solar radiation. (This is the situation of the Earth, for example.)

    But if that is so, and the surface is somehow warmed above the S-B temperature, and the atmosphere is transparent, then the surface must radiate more energy to space than it is receiving, which is clearly impossible. Q. E. D.

    Tallbloke, I find your actions in banning Joel Shore, for standing up for what he believes in, to be totally reprehensible. I do not post at either Tamino’s or at RC because they do what you have done—they ban people because of their scientific beliefs, claims, and questions. Heck, Tamino banned my sorry okole for asking too many pesky questions, I think I might have the distinction of being the first person he banned after he started his blog.

    Nor will I ever post here again unless you rescind the ban on Joel. It is childish and immature, but more importantly, it means that you can no longer claim that you have a scientific blog. Why would I want to post on such a forum?

    Here’s the thing, Tallbloke. You have banned someone because they think a man’s hypothesis violates the Laws of Thermodynamics. In other words, you banned Joel because you don’t like his scientific claims.

    How you square that with your claim that this is a scientific blog is beyond me. I truly thought better of you, Roger, and I greatly hope that you come to your senses so that I can post here again. You are ruining your reputation by this unseemly action, and it reflects badly on all skeptical websites.

    Don’t get me wrong. Joel Shore is an AGW supporter, and he and I hold different views on a whole host of subjects. But he has always been courteous, he has persevered in presenting his position, and his science-fu is strong.

    And when Joel and I both agree on something, I would say it ups the odds that the something is true. We differ on a whole lot of things, which make areas of agreement significant.

    Finally, Joel is one of the few AGW supporting scientists who is willing to post on skeptical sites. You are mad to ban him, he represents the best of the AGW movement. If skeptical sites ban serious scientists such as Joel from posting because they strongly support their scientific ideas, all skeptics lose credibility.

    Again, I ask you to rescind the ban on Joel, because a) I like posting here, and b) the ban is anti-scientific, parochial, and counter-productive.

    All the best, in hopes that you reconsider,


    [Reply] Hi Willis. Joel fails to accurately read, interpret and report what other people have said. This leads to misrepresentation of their positions. You hate it when people do that to you; as you have said many times “quote me”. I didn’t see your request for an explanation because I already left the thread in disgust at the accusations Joel made against N&Z which went uncorrected.

    I won’t have that kind of behaviour here at the moment because it stirs up a sh1tstorm of confusion and angry rhetoric and we are trying to quietly work on some pretty intricate stuff – see the Loschmidt thread. We have people from both ‘sides’ of the debte here at the talkshop and what they have in common is the ability to discuss and debate without rancour. It’s a precious oasis of calm and I’m not allowing it to be disturbed at this stage.

    You and Joel (and Roy and others) have totally misunderstood both Jelbring and N&Z. They are not claiming energy is added to the system by pressure, they are demonstrating that the distribution of that portion of solar energy which manifests as sensible heat is affected by gravity acting on atmospheric mass (regardless of composition).

    Energy is conserved in accordance with the first law and is evenly distributed at equilibrium in accordance to the second. The temperature however, in a gravitational field, tends to follow a gradient proportional to the pressure exerted on the atmosphere by gravitational force, which is higher at the surface and lower at high altitude.

    You do realise that a packet of air at a higher altitude has more of it’s energy locked up as gravitational potential energy don’t you? Therefore less of the total energy is available to be thermalised, hence the gradient. You do understand that energy is not heat which can have a measured temperature unless work is done – right? You do realise there are empirical experimental results which confirm this gradient – yes?

    It may well be that those empirical results need replication by an independent and well equipped lab. So help us by persuading some suitable organisation to do that, instead of trying to twist my arm, ok?

    By the way, I haven’t banned Joel, I just didn’t give him admittance to the Talkshop in the first place. If I see his behaviour improve, I’ll reconsider. Until then, I’m sure he is enjoying being in favour with the important people at the biggest climate site in the world and having a nice big platform for his rhetoric, for that is what it is. He utterly failed to address the substantive points I raised on Roy’s site and instead gave me the usual AGW blarney whilst accusing me of being blinded by ideology. He’s not getting away with it here.


    Rog Tallbloke

  167. Willis Eschenbach says:

    Roger, first, matters of science. You say:

    … You and Joel (and Roy and others) have totally misunderstood both Jelbring and N&Z. They are not claiming energy is added to the system by pressure, they are demonstrating that the distribution of that portion of solar energy which manifests as sensible heat is affected by gravity acting on atmospheric mass (regardless of composition).

    Energy is conserved in accordance with the first law and is evenly distributed at equilibrium in accordance to the second. The temperature however, in a gravitational field, tends to follow a gradient proportional to the pressure exerted on the atmosphere by gravitational force, which is higher at the surface and lower at high altitude.

    You do realise that a packet of air at a higher altitude has more of it’s energy locked up as gravitational potential energy don’t you? Therefore less of the total energy is available to be thermalised, hence the gradient. You do understand that energy is not heat which can have a measured temperature unless work is done – right? You do realise there are empirical experimental results which confirm this gradient – yes?

    Roger, unless I misunderstand you, I agree with you. And so far what you have described is the dry adiabatic lapse rate, the drop in temperature with altitude. Is that truly what Jelbring and N&Z are saying? That’s been known for decades. It’s the reason that the formula for the lapse rate contains the gravity term. The lapse rate is g / Cp, where g is gravity and Cp is atmospheric specific heat at constant pressure.

    If that’s all Jelbring is saying, then he has said nothing new. So where is the radical and revolutionary part of his theory?

    You see the problem, I hope. Your explanation has added nothing at all to the other “explanations” of Jelbring that I’ve gotten. All you have done is tell me about the dry adiabatic lapse rate. Where is the rest of the explanation, the part that makes them so daring and innovative?

    By the way, I haven’t banned Joel, I just didn’t give him admittance to the Talkshop in the first place.

    Perhaps in England that gets some traction … in the US we look on that as pedantry. You banned him. The curious part is, you quoted long sections from a post of his on WUWT and responded to them here on the Talkshop, section by section … then you won’t let him answer your criticisms of his statements, but somehow he’s not banned?

    [Update] Willis now agrees via email this is incorrect and says:
    “You are right, I totally misunderstood the order of the call and response. Feel free to post my apology to you at the talkshop for my misunderstanding at the talkshop.”
    Thanks Willis, it’s a good man who admits his mistakes.

    Finally, you say:

    I won’t have that kind of behaviour here at the moment because it stirs up a sh1tstorm of confusion and angry rhetoric and we are trying to quietly work on some pretty intricate stuff – see the Loschmidt thread. We have people from both ‘sides’ of the debte here at the talkshop and what they have in common is the ability to discuss and debate without rancour. It’s a precious oasis of calm and I’m not allowing it to be disturbed at this stage.

    Well, I certainly won’t ever disturb you again, Roger, it seems your mind is made up regarding banning Joel. Not much left for me here, I asked for an explanation of Nikolov or Jelbrings work. Your explanation was as pathetic as everyone else’s has been. Beam me up, Scotty, there’s no science on this planet … unless of course you want to take another crack at explaining the Jelbring or N&K hypothesis. Your place or mine, I’ll discuss that any time, so that you can see that Joel is correct in this case.



    Hi Willis.
    In your first comment you inform us you told Hans Jelbring to his face that he was breaking the laws of thermodynamics with his theory (nice!). Now you agree with me he isn’t, and tell me the gravito-thermal effect has been recognized for years (except maybe by those on planet AGW?). And you seek to refute him by contradiction? Seems to me you’re doing a pretty good job of that on yourself. Anyway, I tried at your request to provide a few sentences to explain a hypothesis which the authors can’t reduce to less than four pages. There you go.

    I’ll remove the comment in the ‘Nailing the solar activity temperature divergence lie’ thread to reduce the number of sticks you are beating me with. *Update* I just checked this and it’s a repaste of Joel’s reply to me on WUWT not the other way round. So nothing has been added Joel didn’t an opportunity get a reply to.

    So let me get this straight. Your ultimatum is that if I don’t give in to your bullying about how I should organise the running of my own website, you’ll never come here and attempt to bully me again. Gee,,, tough one Willis….

    I accept,



  168. P.G. Sharrow says:

    Damn! Willis is good at verbal bullying, I think he just talked himself out the door,pity. 8-) pg

  169. Tenuc says:

    I think what Jelbring and N&Z are saying makes perfect sense to me. However, it certainly seems to have hit a raw nerve with Willis and others, as it makes their belief that CO2 causes an increase in temperature redundant. However, this has been known for some time temperature increases lead to CO2 increase, not the other way round…

    Plot of Recent Temperature (CRUtem3vgl) and CO2 (ESRL-co2)

    Decide cause and effect yourself!

  170. Rog
    Just to let you know I’m working on the wiki stuff again but it will take a while. Would have let you know by email but I cannot see yours on this website.

  171. […] that the N&Z theory violates conservation of energy. So I went to the Talkshop and asked, even implored, Roger not to do such a foolish and anti-scientific thing as banning someone for their scientific […]

  172. malagaview says:

    it makes their belief that CO2 causes an increase in temperature redundant

    Does relentless belief promotion and bullying amount to trolling?

  173. […] major plank in Willis’ post was a blast diected at me, and the way I run the Talkshop. He was righteously angrified by the fact that I had decided to deny comment access to Joel Shore, a person well known in the […]

  174. Scute says:

    Tallbloke, regarding my glossary suggestion, I should outline where I stand in relation to the knowledge required and what I therefore need but I also think that there might be some potential readers who are on the first rung and get put off even by things like ‘IPCC’ and ‘hockey stick’.

    I realize that most of these egs below aren’t acronyms according to the narrow definition but it’s what I’ll call them for now. I’ve focussed on acronyms because they are what happened to stump me but words would need to be included, eg. lapse rate; latent heat; tropopause

    Acronyms specific to global warming could, conceptually speaking, be broken down into say, three difficulty levels or depth-of-knowledge levels. I personally would be conversant with the easy ones in level one (IPCC etc.), shaky on those in level 2 and at a complete loss with level three (except I’m learning these as I read, hence the egs below). I’m not saying that the glossary should be divided into 3 levels but I’m just showing the sort of things a moderately well-read climate change reader with good physics grounding would need. It’s a question of how deep do you go? Can you search the posts and see how often the various terms crop up? If the glossary is interactive then people more knowledgeable than I could gradually add to it maybe. Otherwise, if everyone adds a few in the suggestions you can paste them to the glossary maybe? I’m trying to think of a way in which it can be in place quickly with everyone adding half a dozen each- quick and easy.

    Level 1: IPCC

    Level 2:all the global temp data sets eg HadCRU;NOAA;also things like ENSO, SST, AGW.


    Many people would benefit from a physics and maths glossary too- they may be mathematically minded and able to follow ideas but might get stuck on terms like RMS, exponential, second derivative ( of which I suspect there are a few somewhere in all these feedback mechanisms!).

    Posted by Scute

  175. Roger,

    I just added a blog comment (David Socrates says: January 16, 2012 at 10:20 am) at the Massacre at Cowboy Corral blog. Although I read your blog fairly regularly, I think this is the first time I have commented on your site (I am now a permanent refugee from the massacre) .

    I noticed in your left hand “Recent Comments” column a link to my piece. On clicking on it, I was confronted with a message from an organisation called

    “This is the public, global profile of thetruthaboutclimatechnage.Gravatar allows you to manage all of your online identities in one place on the web. You should sign up and create your own profile, or log in if you already have an account.”

    It is true that I do have a small private website called (note that Gravatar spelt the name incorrectly!) which I do occasionally refer to in blog comments that I make on other sites such as WUWT, so there is no secret about that site. However, I do find it disconcerting to get this message.

    Firstly, I hope and trust that when other people click in your recent comments column, they do not get the same message but do successfully display my comment. But in any case, it is surely wrong for Gravatar to hijack your website in this way so that I cannot read my own comment.

    Secondly, I have no wish to use Gravatar and resent their intrusion.

    I would appreciate your take on the above.

    I must make clear that this is in no way intended as a complaint against you, your site, or its superb contents – just a cry for help really!


    [Reply] David, there are two links. Your name links to your gravatar, and the thread title links to the thread. Just be sure to click more to the right hand side and you’ll get it. I’ve fixed your web address too.- Rog

  176. Zeke says:

    Paul Dreissen is not happy about wind turbines in his latest: (;

  177. Hi Tallbloke: Drink a pint of Bitter for me would ya!! Anyway, maybe this is old hat, maybe this was discussed and I had no idea what anyone was talking about. But anyway….here goes:

    NASA has identified an area in the South Atlantic as the South Atlantic Anomaly. When Hubble drifts through this area, they switch off some of it’s instruments. The magnetic field is particularly
    weak in this area. (see clip…fast forward to 00.45)

    Why i found this interesting is that it is in the vicinity of the Iguazu River whose flow rate tracks Sun spots so it is claimed (see Brian Cox ‘Wonders of the Solar System’). (paper cited here)


    also see:

  178. Oi: Gizz Me back my Computers !!!

  179. Bob Fernley-Jones says:

    I noticed you have said something about “misapplication of the S-B law”, or something like that.

    Somewhat related: Last October I presented an article over at WUWT, suggesting just that in the Trenberth/IPCC “Earth’s Energy Budget Cartoon”. It attracted 639 comments before being closed, I guess because latterly the commenter Myrrh took it off-topic with some giant rather incredible posts. However, I maintain that there were no invalidating comments to my hypothesis, although Tim Folkerts, a physicist, tried rather hard. It was also interesting that several of the usual suspects did NOT participate:

    • R. Gates (he alone) did draw my attention to a minor oversight and said something like “there is a lot to chew-on there” but then, disappointingly, disappeared! (BTW, I actually value his fertile contributions)
    • Joel Shore did not appear, noddinks!
    • Willis E. did not appear, despite that he had a vested interest because he had recently spruiked his own 2008 “improved version” of the cartoon, and I asked the moderator to draw his attention to the thread! (not that it seems conceivable that he was unaware of it)

    My WUWT posting link follows, if you would like to wade through over 600 comments, but on my computer anyway, it is infuriatingly slow.
    A quicker download of the proposition, with a minor edit, per R. gates, is on my drafting website next:

    I did invite Bob Carter and/or his colleagues to pick it up and compose a publishable paper, but whilst Bob expressed enthusiasm and encouragement to proceed at the time, (October…. As to quality), he explained that he was already swimming in alligators, or something like that.
    Sorry for the long preamble, but might you be interested in posting an article based on that last link?
    I had thought of updating it in line with some of the 600+ comments, and offering it to WUWT, but WUWT is a bit on-the-nose with me at the moment.

    Regards, Bob_FJ

  180. adolfogiurfa says:

    We should need a new kind of internet if control measures are enforced: Like the “whales´internet”: Whales communicate among them using VLF, al what it would be needed is private transmitters (made after Nikola Tesla design) and an USB VLF receiver, and, of course, computers running under Linux from a CD drive.

  181. I’m not sure if this is okay to do..but…i’m facebook friends with Garrett Lisi who has, or is in the process of, publishing his thoughts.

    It’s a commentary on the status of the Standard Model and where String theory is, has, and isn’t and hasn’t touched reality.

  182. adolfogiurfa says:

    Was it not, according to Al Gore, that all andean glaciers were going to disappear?, Watch this snow storm (SH summertime) at 11º41´53″S, 76º12´17″W (Central Highway, Ticlio, Peru, 4950 meters above sea level):

  183. Tallbloke, I’ve done (and formatted) a piece that you might like to use as a post. It’s about the N&Z paper and some key responses which inspired me, and is IMO rather too long for a comment. It’s still not the wiki article – the whole ghg/gravity gerfuffle has strengthened my interest in developing the use of wiki as a tool for the advancement of good science and I’m considering whether the ghg / gravity question could be used as an experimental project for this. Hence my many comments so far.

    But I don’t have your email address, cannot see it on this site, so if you are interested, please email me!

  184. Green Sand says:

    “Single Model” Met Office has spoken:-

    “Decline in solar output unlikely to offset global warming”

    23 January 2012 – “New research has found that solar output is likely to reduce over the next 90 years but that will not substantially delay expected increases in global temperatures caused by greenhouse gases.”

    “It found that the most likely outcome was that the Sun’s output would decrease up to 2100, but this would only cause a reduction in global temperatures of 0.08 °C.”

    Read it all, lots of interest, might just explain the thinking behind the latest MO Decadal Forecast. Seems to be at odds to what the “Solar Jockeys” are saying, next few years will be interesting watch.

  185. malagaview says:

    I thought I would take a look at some Wikipedia articles…
    Mainly about the Earth’s atmosphere… just in case they get updated soon :-)

    And I stumbled across a real gem :-)

    Remember the settled science about why atmospheric depressions spin?

    The Coriolis force caused by the Earth’s rotation is what gives winds within low-pressure systems their counterclockwise circulation in the northern hemisphere (as the wind moves inward and is deflected right from the center of high pressure) and clockwise circulation in the southern hemisphere (as the wind moves inward and is deflected left from the center of high pressure).

    Now the interesting thing about the Coriolis Effect is that is is not a force…

    The Coriolis Effect is about the apparent deflection of moving objects when they are viewed in a rotating reference frame. In plain speak: The Coriolis Effect is an observational artifact.

    If you want some “fun” then compare and contrast Wikipedia: and then read how
    Miles Mathis takes it apart:

    However, I think we can agree that there is NO mention of electro-magnetic forces in the Wikipedia explanation. So imagine my surprise when I found this diagram in Wikipedia :-)

    Schematic diagram of the electric-current pattern in the ionosphere driven by diurnal heating from the Sun.
    Note that the current is concentrated on the day side, consisting of two oppositely oriented circuits.

    Just take a look at those electric current patterns :-)
    counterclockwise circulation in the northern hemisphere
    clockwise circulation in the southern hemisphere

    Now could that possibly have any connection with spinning air :-)

  186. A. C. Osborn says:

    I thought you might be interested in this item posted on WUWT Tips & Notes, it looks to be right up your street.
    AVERT quakes-volcanic winter says:
    January 26, 2012 at 2:17 am

    Solar flares tigger earthquakes
    Jain, R., Physical Research Laboratory.
    Each of the 682, >4.0 earthquakes under study was preceded by a solar flare of GOES importance B to X class by 10-100 hrs.

    Explosive volcanic eruptions triggered by cosmic rays
    Toshikazu Ebisuzaki, Hiroko Miyahara, Ryuho Kataoka, Tatsuhiko Sato, Yasuhiro Ishimine

    Lightning-rod NETs around Earth faults and volcanoes =
    anti-quake = anti-eruptive = anti-volcanic winter = anti-ice-age.

  187. Johnm says:

    Look at this, SOPA on steroids and here:

    [Reply] Thanks John, I’ll post it.

  188. Donald Mitchell says:

    While I am reasonably comfortable with black body and and grey body radiation and adsorption, I have reached my level of incompetence when the adsorption deviates as much as water vapor and carbon dioxide. While I would assume that the radiation would have the same spectrum as adsorption, I have not found anything that would allow me to calculate the emissions as a function of temperature. My initial thought is that the emission function would be the S-B radiation spectra for that temperature multiplied by the adsorption spectra for the gas. However, I have seen suggestions that an adsorbed photon may either be re-emitted very quickly or may lose energy through collision with another molecule if the mean time between collisions is short enough. Another problem is that I have not found the adsorption spectra in other than graphical form as opposed to a tabular form that would actually allow computation.

    What I would really like is a tutorial that would take a simplified case (a thin layer of one gas of a known temperature and pressure bounded by mirror surfaces on the edges so that all radiation can be considered to be vertical) which would allow calculation of the transmission and radiation for a given input spectra. Of course, if this is so complex that it cannot be readily modeled, I would like to be able to get some idea of the problems involved in modeling it.

    [ co-mod writes inline here: I have come across the math for emission, includes decisions such as Lambert or not. Not my kind of math, very different field.
    Search, this might give you some clues on words to use in a web trawl
    Also consider looking at the world of raytracing, the modellers –Tim]

  189. RayC says:

    Hello Tallbloke, The Unified Theory of Climate.
    Mr Nikolov said this;-
    “On a planetary scale the force of pressure is INDEPENDENT of solar heating, atmospheric volume, or temperature, because we have on average an isobaric thermodynamic process at the surface.
    So, changing the mass of the atmosphere will change the FORCE generated by gravity at the surface, therefore, changing the temperature.”
    I am trying to interpret the real world situations for these processes, to get a better handle on the effect.
    I realise that evaporation from oceans is the main way that water vapour adds mass to the atmosphere but could this effect, of an increasing soil moisture deficit, have any discernable effect on weather patterns due to a reduction in atmospheric mass from reduced water vapour amounts over large land areas. Like! could it cause cooling after a period of heating, a natural response if you see what I mean?
    From this;-
    Recent decline in the global land evapotranspiration trend due to limited moisture supply
    From 1982 to 1997;- there was a 7mm increase in the evapotranspiration rate per year per decade.
    After that from 1998 onwards, the evapotransiration rate of increase ceased ( probably due to increased soil moisture deficit ) to 2008
    So is this an example of the isobaric response ( I’m assuming more chance of blocking high pressure systems and so widening/less pressure isobars )to the changing atmospheric mass (and therefore giving rise to a reduced pressure induced thermal response) and haven’t we had cooling recently, since about 1998?
    Not an expert! Just asking! It seems like a response/effect of changing mass levels to me, maybe making it cooler and dryer and so dustier. (which would probably make it warmer and wetter in some other area!)
    Oh! And then there’s this;
    The amount of coarse dust driven into the atmosphere by wind is at least double and may be eight time as much as previously thought.
    From here;
    There is a greater occurrence of large silt, which favours heating
    From here;

    Does this mean there is a lot more atmospheric mass now, (because it has been getting dustier over the last hundred years) and a lot of it is large heat absorbing silt (dark) aerosol, THAT GCM ‘s DON’T TAKE INTO ACCOUNT, (not forgetting black carbon, too), that the denser atmosphere is getting an enhanced thermodynamic effect and it has sweet nothing to do with co2. (aerosols could be running the show!)
    I realise/think the solar radiation energy gain in the solid material in the atmosphere is additional to the increased mass , gravity force thing, but doesn’t it just exacerbate the situation, like direct (photon excitement of solid stuff)heat plus increased mass, concentrated by gravity, thermodynamic enhancement effect, added together.
    It’s all down to sustainable management of soil and vegetation, and we ain’t doing either very well!!!!
    So I guess what I’m asking is, Are these a couple of examples of the way the mass of the atmosphere could be influenced and so bring about changes to the force generated by gravity to alter temperature and therefore drive the isobaric thermodynamic processes? Increased dust levels and changing rates of water vapour?

  190. JohnM says:

    This is interesting:

    [ co-mod, yes interesting. CSIRO involvement going on record says it is flawed. There are a lot of candidate topics for articles at the moment, which often take some time to prepare (can’t just copy). Given the N&Z issue I don’t want to deluge, most would get lost anyway in other traffic. Really this is where blog software intended for personal use is inadequate.
    Things will change in time.

  191. mpf says:

    This is a very interesting thread over at Jo Novas.

  192. Markus Fitzhenry says:

    My apologies to davidmhoffer.
    I plagiarised his work here:

  193. JohnM says:

    Following-on from SOPA etc, I enclose a URL which should be read and thought about.
    Purely for personal consideration, and states-based, but mission creep is not a sole US phenomenon !

    Keep an eye on the current state-of-play vis-a-vis the shenanigans going-on in the middle east reference Iran/Israel/US….that may go pear-shaped very fast.

  194. neil swallow says:

    hi here,s an interesting post by ed caryl about the BEST temperature data.surprised its not been picked up at WUWT given anthony,s involvement. By the way thanks for this wonderful site tallbloke im a constant lurker cheers neil

    [Reply] Good catch – thanks, and keep calling by. Rog

  195. tchannon says:

    Vast collection of items here, needs picking over.

  196. tchannon says:

    If you haven’t heard the Blogs are twittering muchly over revelations in Germany.
    Popcorn time.

    Maybe this is a place to watch.

  197. tchannon says:

    “UK cops set up new £30m bases to nail cybercrooks”

    “The new hubs, in Yorkshire and the Humber, the Northwest and in East Midlands, will each get their own three-officer team. Each will work alongside the Metropolitan Police Central e-crime Unit….”

  198. wayne says:

    tallbloke, hope you don’t mind a little test here… does WordPress finally understand LaTeX?
    Inlined: \rho\;T=constant, hmm…
    \large T_{gb}=\frac{2}{5}\sqrt[4]{\frac{(S_{0}+C_{S})(1-\alpha )}{\sigma\varepsilon}}

  199. wayne says:

    Maybe blocked:
    \large T_{gb}=\frac{2}{5}\sqrt[4]{\frac{(S_{0}+C_{S})(1-\alpha )}{\sigma\varepsilon}}

    [Reply] You were nearly there. Just needed a space between dollars-latex and your formula

  200. wayne says:

    Thanks… I guess not 100%.

  201. wayne says:

    Alright! I’m just going to assume you meant just to add a space after the ‘x’ in latex. This is going to make it a WHOLE lot easier when really needing to just show the darn equation and so much clearer to boot!

  202. tallbloke says:

    Wayne: yep. That simple.

  203. davidmhoffer says:


    I don’t have an email address for you. could you please contact me directly?


  204. John says:

    The font that your site defaults to is very small. The effect will vary according to what size screen people have and what resolution it is set to, but I suspect that many people like me will find it hard to read and decide that it is not worth the effort, particularly when it comes to the comments.
    I suggest that you do something to improve readability.

    [Reply] Hi John, try the ‘View’ menu on your browser for zoom options. I garee it’s small by default. It was the best compromise theme I could find.

  205. J Martin says:

    This could make an interesting post. A 150 year repeat of the Maunder minimum.

  206. Markus Fitzhenry says:


    How to somebody why you don’t believe in AGW.

    Pherifical matters have always been a distraction to the main issue;

    Science, won the day for scepticism, the scientific method when properly applied won the day. It is the solid foundation that sceptics are able to base their argument upon.
    Science can’t be politicised, truth of fact can’t be denied, a syntax of logic will always destroy beliefs that are without truth.

    The Science says:

    Pressure is the required variable only if one compares Atmosheric Thermal Enhancement across planets. For any individual planet, it is the atmospheric mass that effectively controls tremal enhancement. There is no confusion with the pressure-controlled lapse rate with the atmosphere of a given planet.

    Why Now? It’s the science;

    • The climate of Earths’ atmosphere results from a formation of a climate machine by combining solar isolation and force of pressure. Coupled with spatio-temporal chaotic systems of irradiation and radiation of surface and atmosphere, dynamic heat distributions of oceans, a multiple pole thermodynamic atmosphere, with a gravitational velocity and planetary harmonics, spinning on an uneven axis around a Sun, with fluctuation of solar isolation, immersed in a space that has galactic electromagnetic winds
    • The physical construct of a planet, with or without an atmosphere, retains ancient energy by the force of gavitational pressure on its mass. Otherwise planets could not exist.

    • Planets attract cold by the density of its mass and distribute heat by the dynamics of mass. Space attracts heat by the sparsest of its mass.

    • Heat rises, cool sinks. Atmosphere cannot back radiate heat to a warmer surface than the atmosphere which, cools with height. Thermodynamic gas laws describe the mechanisms of weather in the troposphere.

    Where NASA got the science wrong:

    Arrhenious in 1897 screwed up about the conservation of energy in gaseous mass , he flipped out about the relationship of carbon to life in a stupid greenhouse.

    Dopey Hansen in the early 80’s flipped out about Arrhenious’ mistake and caused all his stupid mates to believe in an invalid scientific principle.

    They spent billions in chasing argumentum ad populum. When, if they had followed a correct method of science, by applying scepticism, they would have found the answer that has been there, right under their noses.

    Climate is a multidisciplinary field of science, and cannot be treated as a pseudoscience, necessary of propitiation. Science will correct this fatal mistake.

    The force of pressure encloses our atmosphere not a greenhouse.

    So, when somebody asks why you don’t believe in AGW you can say;

    “It’s the science, stupid.”

  207. John says:

    Thank you for the reply to my message about the small font size.

    You say “try the ‘View’ menu on your browser for zoom options. I garee it’s small by default. It was the best compromise theme I could find.”

    My original message said that the apparent font size “will vary according to what size screen people have and what resolution it is set to”. I should also have said that it depends on whether the page (or css) specifies an absolute or relative font size, and if it specifies a relative font size, then what is the default font size that is set in the browser on the viewer’s PC (mine is set to Arial 14, I suspect that yours is set to something larger).

    Your pages (probably in the css) seem to specify a relative font size, and for most of the content it seems to be specifying it as a proportion which is smaller than the default.

    As you say, someone could zoom in, (or change the default font size in their browser), but very few people would be bothered to do that and most people probably would not know that you could.

    It is your website and I know next to nothing about WordPress or its themes, but I suggest that somehow you either change the relative font size to something which is not smaller than the default in people’s browsers OR you switch to using absolute font sizes. Most websites, including Watts Up, mainly use absolute font sizes.

    [Reply] Hi John. I can, for a relatively small annual fee, gain control over the CSS for the site, so I may well take you up on your suggestion. Thanks for the feedback. Rog.

  208. Gray says:

    Interesting article on how loss of artic sea ice causes a colder Europe.

    ScienceDaily (Feb. 1, 2012) — Even if the current weather situation may seem to speak against it, the probability of cold winters with much snow in Central Europe rises when the Arctic is covered by less sea ice in summer. Scientists of the Research Unit Potsdam of the Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research in the Helmholtz Association have decrypted a mechanism in which a shrinking summertime sea ice cover changes the air pressure zones in the Arctic atmosphere and impacts our European winter weather.


  209. Tenuc says:

    Gray says:
    February 11, 2012 at 1:15 pm
    “Interesting article on how loss of artic sea ice causes a colder Europe.

    ScienceDaily (Feb. 1, 2012) — Even if the current weather situation may seem to speak against it, the probability of cold winters with much snow in Central Europe rises when the Arctic is covered by less sea ice in summer. Scientists of the Research Unit Potsdam of the Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research in the Helmholtz Association have decrypted a mechanism in which a shrinking summertime sea ice cover changes the air pressure zones in the Arctic atmosphere and impacts our European winter weather…”

    Good find, Gray! Now it looks like atmospheric pressure can be an important factor in the control of weather as well as climate… :-)

    [Reply] Channeling Erl Happ!

  210. Gray says:

    Hi Tenuk, given the current cold across Europe and Russia I should think so!!!

    It seems possible that the article while showing sea ice loss can cause cold could also have isolated part of a major cooling mechanism. If the sea ice is replaced by widespread snow cover far greater than the sea ice loss then we have very cold continents surrounded by warm seas a recipe for further icy precipitation.

    Backed up by an inactive Sun we could have runaway global cooling.

  211. Tenuc says:

    Theory of the Origin, Evolution, and Nature of Life
    Erik D. Andrulis
    Department of Molecular Biology and Microbiology, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine – Published Life Magazine: 23 December 2011

    Abstract: “Life is an inordinately complex unsolved puzzle. Despite significant theoretical progress, experimental anomalies, paradoxes, and enigmas have revealed paradigmatic limitations. Thus, the advancement of scientific understanding requires new models that resolve fundamental problems. Here, I present a theoretical framework that economically fits evidence accumulated from examinations of life.

    This theory is based upon a straightforward and non-mathematical core model and proposes unique yet empirically consistent explanations for major phenomena including, but not limited to, quantum gravity, phase transitions of water, why living systems are predominantly CHNOPS(carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus, and sulfur), homochirality of sugars andamino acids, homeoviscous adaptation, triplet code, and DNA mutations. The theoretical framework unifies the macrocosmic and microcosmic realms, validates predicted laws of nature, and solves the puzzle of the origin and evolution of cellular life in the universe.”

    Hi Rog, this could form the basis of an interesting post as it covers many areas of physics whwere little real progress has been made for the last few decades… :-)

    Full paper here, I think, please test link…
    PDF here
    [seems to work –Tim]

  212. Doug Proctor says:

    Hi, Roger,

    Back in August you posted a blog on variations in Central UK maximum temperatures and bright sunshine hours. I worked it up into a paper by December, but then had to create a website to get it out there (as I never figured out how to send stuff to your or other websites). All this computer stuff is frustrating as I say I am a man of the ’90s: the 1890s, that is. But I have done this now, and have a website called Nothing Settled Nothing Certain. It has only the one file as described above.

    The paper shows that almost all of the maximum temperature variation in the Central UK from 1930 to 2010 can be attributed to changes in bright sunshine hours and synergistic temperature variations aligned to the PDO and AMO temperature cycles. The only part not so attributable is a 0.1C/decade linear rise which could as well be due to land use changes as CO2.

    I have predicted prior temperature changes and post-2010 temperature changes without access to the data that you apparently have. As I intimated, the computer stuff leaves my head reeling (though through my work I know I can learn whatever I need to know). I back-checked my predictions with GISTemp public temperature profiles, though, and am confident that I have done the job right.

    I checked with associates that I hadn’t erred in some simple way. You and your readers will know for sure.

    I hope you/yours will check the paper out. Each of us has the ability to cross-check within his or her abilities, and the responsibility in a democratic society to do so. The powerful do not necessarily share the interests of the non-powerful, and can only be checked in their personal agendas if the rest pay attention to what is going on.


    Doug Proctor

    [Reply] Doug, you have email.Rog

  213. tchannon says:

    Comments on this thread are closed, please use the current Suggestions page.

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