# New Science 24: Is that one new Solar force, or two? The Force-ND Hypothesis

Is Force X two different forces? The Sun could influence Earths climate through magnetic fields, solar particle flows, or spectral changes. | Image: ESA

There are two key clues, almost contradicting each other, which we must solve to figure out what Force X is.
How do we explain that mysterious pattern — the little spike of extra sunlight each sunspot cycle doesn’t warm the Earth as it arrives — and it should. Instead, the warming appears greatly amplified 11 years later (or one sunspot cycle later). What’s going on? Logically the sunlight itself is not the direct cause, but only a signal, a leading indicator of something else going on — perhaps the solar wind, the magnetic fluxes, or the changes in the UV-Infra Red spectrum. Any one of these (or all of them) or maddeningly, even something else, could be influencing cloud cover on Earth — and some action on clouds is by far the most likely mechanism to amplify the solar effect. They blanket 60% of Earth, and small changes make large differences. We live on a Water-Planet.
So having looked at the reasons for Force X, we now split it into two different forces (N and D) to see if that fits the evidence better (I think it does). Perhaps the spectral changes cause the delay, but something about the magnetic flux causes the notching effect (where the energy spikes in extra sunlight seem to disappear). If there are two forces at work Force X won’t cut it. We need Force D and Force N. The timing of one force (X) is messy — at the peak of a cycle we are notching away the current spike, but amplifying the spike found in the cycle before? Instead there is a simplicity about saying that the notching force is immediate, but different to the delayed force. It’s even possible that they both act through clouds, but they could be acting on different kinds of clouds (or through different altitudes or latitudes). David calculates that to “notch” out the extra sunlight would only take an increase in clouds of 0.05%. It’s too small to detect.
As usual, electrical engineers will be most at home with David’s analysis. Force D works like a low pass filter and notching occurs in every Western electrical system, both of which are bread and butter stuff for electrical engineers. Come with us on another step towards figuring out the system…  — Jo

# 24. The Force-ND Hypothesis

Dr David Evans, 18 April 2016, Project home, Intro, Previous, Next.

In this post we consider an alternative hypothesis to the force X hypothesis of the last post. Let’s entertain the idea of two indirect warming influences: “force N” causes notching, while “force D” explains the delay, the indirect solar sensitivity (ISS), and the externally-driven albedo (EDA) finding.

### Discussion

The force X hypothesis is based on the assumption that the four strong influences listed near the beginning of the last post are all manifestations of the same influence, namely force X. There are (at least) two possible drawbacks to this.

The first is that the cloudiness fraction, available from 1983, shows no peaking during the TSI peaks of 1990 and 2001, and if anything shows a decrease in cloud fraction around 2001. Low-altitude cloud cover underwent a distinct trough around 1990, but there was no particular feature in 2001 (Fig. 2-12 of Lockwood et. al.’s Earthshine Mission case from 2004, and Climate and Clouds). But force X acts by albedo modulation and produces a cooling peak to counteract the TSI peak at the sunspot maxima, suggesting it creates an increase in cloud cover around sunspot maxima.

However the increase in cloud cover fraction required to counteract the extra TSI at a sunspot maximum is ~0.05%, too small to detect. (0.8 W m−2 of extra TSI at 1 AU is 0.8×(1–0.3)/4  or 0.14 W m−2 of extra absorbed solar radiation (ASR), which is countered by an increase in cloud fraction of 0.14/239 or 0.05% because the average ASR is 239 W m−2.)

So either force X is affecting albedo by something other than clouds, or the small countervailing increase in cloud fraction goes undetected among noise and larger moves.

The second potential drawback is that the increase in TSI during a sunspot maximum implies increased force X one sunspot cycle later, which may well be during the next sunspot maximum, just when force X decreases in order to counteract the direct heating by the extra TSI. This could be explained by the changes in TSI that foretell changes in force X ~11 years later needing to be changes in underlying or trend TSI, while the temporary changes in force X at sunspot maxima are likely due instead to the reversal of the Sun’s magnetic field. (Each step response in Fig. 1 of post 22 is slightly complicated; obviously there exists a step response corresponding to any empirical transfer function for the solar-only system, so a single force X explanation is possible.)

Another explanation is that there are two separate influences, one that manifests itself around sunspot maxima and causes notching, and another that changes in delayed response to changes in underlying TSI and is responsible for the delay, the ISS, and the EDA finding.

### Hypothesis ND

Let us go to the next simplest alternative after the one-influence assumption of force X, and assume there are two influences. We call them “force N”, which causes notching, and “force D”, the delayed force, which acts about one sunspot cycle after being signaled by a change in smoothed TSI and is the same as force X except not responsible for the notching. We assume both are warming influences. Schematically,

We often make statements that apply under either notch-delay hypothesis: “force X/D” means “force X or force D”.

### Force N and Force D

If there are indeed two separate significant influences on the climate, beyond those currently considered by the IPCC, then it makes the climate puzzle much harder to solve than if there was only one.

Force N doesn’t necessarily work through albedo modulation, though it could. It could even work by cloud modulation that is too small to be detected. It causes notching so it is synchronized to the Sun.

Force D is also synchronized to the Sun, because (a) the correlation between temperature and the length of the previous sunspot cycle (post 22) is synchronized to the Sun, and (b) it is not simply propagation of heat, as discussed in post 22. It works by externally-driven albedo modulation.

Interestingly, the force D transfer function (which is for the system whose input is TSI and output is surface warming), which is the transfer function of force X in the empirical transfer function (Fig. 2 of post 21) but without the notch, looks like the transfer function of a simple accumulator or first order low pass filter, shown in Fig. 1.

(An example of a first order low pass filter is a capacitor fed through a resistor, which charges or discharges depending on the voltage applied across the combination of resistor and capacitor and the charge in the capacitor.)

The fall-off in amplitude for frequencies above one cycle per 3 or 4 years suggested by the empirical transfer function implies a low pass filter with a break frequency of ~5 years, which indeed is what we get by curve fitting such a model to the data (in a later post).

Figure 1: Transfer function of a low pass filter. A low pass filter “passes” sinusoids with frequencies well below fB but “blocks” those well above fB (and the higher the frequency, the more it is attenuated).

Note that, as shown by the indirect solar sensitivity (ISS) in Post 21, force D operates with a large amplification factor over the direct heating effect of TSI, so while force D is proportional to the accumulation of TSI it is not due to the cumulative effect of the direct heating of TSI.

A simple integral of TSI over time is an accumulator of TSI, so the time-integral of TSI is similar to force D. The transfer function of an integrator depends on its details (no integrator goes back forever in time), but all are characterized by the downward sloping amplitude line on the right of Fig. 1. For example, a simple integrator circuit implemented with an op-amp is a low pass filter exactly as per Fig. 1. It has been widely observed that time-integrals of TSI roughly fit the shape of the surface warming over the last few centuries.

Researchers who have found a high sensitivity of temperature to TSI may have found a high sensitivity to force X/D. For example:

• Shaviv (2008, [1]) looked at three independent ocean records (net heat flux, sea level changes from tide gauges, and sea surface temperatures) and found forcings associated with solar cycle variations that are 5 to 7 times that associated with TSI variations in the current climate models.
• Douglass and Clader (2002, [2]) found that the sensitivity to TSI is twice that of the no-feedback Stefan-Boltzmann radiation model balance, from satellite observations of TSI and temperature.
• Scafetta & West (2009, [3]) argue for high sensitivity to TSI and cite paleolithic temperature reconstructions (Moberg 2005) and glacial epochs induced by Milankovitch astronomical cycles, in response to Duffy, Santer, and Wigley (2009, [4]) who argue that solar variability does not explain late-20th-century warming.

### References

[1^] Shaviv, N. J. (2008). Using the Oceans as a Calorimeter to Quantify the Solar Radiative Forcing. Journal of Geophysical Research, 113:A11.

[2^] Douglass, D. H., & Clader, D. B. (2002). Climate sensitivity of the Earth to solar irradiance. Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 29, No. 16, 10.1029.

[3^] Scafetta, N., & West, B. J. (2009). Interpretations of climate-change data. Physics Today, 62 (11), 8 (2009).

[4^] Duffy, P. B., Santer, B. D., & Wigley, T. W. (2009). Solar variability does not explain late-20th-century warming. Physics Today.

8.7 out of 10 based on 49 ratings

### 283 comments to New Science 24: Is that one new Solar force, or two? The Force-ND Hypothesis

• #
Mark D.

Thank you David for your perseverance and Joanne, for getting off of the AU political scene.

• #
Dennis

However the politics here are important in many areas including climate change agenda.

• #

Over the last few years I’ve noticed that many politically-oriented commentators in the skeptic world firmly believe that AGW will be defeated only by increased political understanding, through telling more people about the dubious practices and chicanery of the warmists — Climategate, attempts to paint dissidents as crazy, exposing their conspiracy theory about skeptics funded by big oil/coal, temperature skullduggery, the financial benefits flowing to warmists, the hypocrisy of some leading warmists over their personal carbon emissions, attempting to launch a nascent world government through UN control over all carbon emissions, etc etc.

Many of these politically oriented skeptics no longer make any attempt to follow the science, believing it a waste of time. They often believe that no science arguments will make the slightest difference.

Here is James Delingpole recently “Science is not going to win the global warming debate because it’s not about science; climate is not going to win the global warming debate because it’s not about observed reality. If conservatives want to stop the global warming problem in its tracks the solution is within their grasp: refuse any more to indulge the left’s fantasy games; start talking about the interests of real, living people.”

I beg to differ.

The warmists occupy the high moral ground in this debate because they are “saving the planet”. That trumps all their other foibles. While most people believe they are basically correct, that increasing carbon dioxide is dangerously warming the planet, they win. All the political gnashing of teeth amounts to nothing in the face of that belief. The political arguments hold them at bay, until we sort out the science.

As shown by the blog posts 1 to 19 of this series, they just made a simple modeling error. The whole AGW scare is due to using a simplistic sensitivity model, originating with Arrhenius in 1896, that omits the possibility of significant feedbacks in response to factors other than surface warming. In particular, all warmist models omit the rerouting feedback, a feedback to increasing carbon dioxide but not to surface warming. Heat trapped by increasing carbon dioxide is trapped in the upper troposphere, where it is simply emitted to space by water vapor instead. Add this to the forcing-feedback model that is the basis of climate science, and two things happens: you find the sensitivity to increasing carbon dioxide is about a fifth to a tenth of what the IPCC says it is, and the model finally fits with the observations that water vapor emissions layer did not rise in the last few decades (the missing hotspot). All solved, very neat. Simple, basic, ludicrously simple modeling error inherited from Arrhenius who didn’t even understand how the greenhouse effect works. Idiots.

So the counter meme to the warmist’s “we are saving the planet” is “no, you just made a stupid mistake in your models”. Which rather changes things, no?

I am writing a book on this at the moment, aimed at my arts graduate mother, and within the grasp of most politicians and journalists, with no equations and lots of pretty pictures.

UPDATE: Not that James isn’t supportive of our efforts on the science front. On the contrary, he wrote two rather nice articles on the Cool Futures Hedge Fund (see also here), which the head of the Lord Monckton Foundation set up to take financial advantage of the cluelessness of the warmists and the upcoming collapse of their intellectual and financial world, based on our efforts:
I’m putting my money where my mouth is and betting against climate change
World’s First Anti-Global-Warming Hedge Fund Sticks It To The Greenies

• #
StefanL

Typo: “… originating with Arrhenius in 1986”
[Fixed, thanks – David]

• #
Bill_W

Also “fifth to ta tenth”, although I kind of like the way it sounds. 🙂

[Fixed. Thanks – David]

• #
Yonniestone

A fifth to ta tenth?
Whale oil beef hooked begorrah!

• #
climateskeptic

Wow, not to be outdone [snip worthless comment]ED

• #
Bulldust

I am not convinced either approach will win the day, at least before countless billions more are wasted. The sheer monetary momentum will not stop on the proverbial dime. In the meanwhile it probably serves to tackle the travesty that is CAGW on multiple fronts. Ultimately the truth will out, and it is my fervent hope that not too many resources are tragically wasted in the process, but my head says otherwise…

Looking forward to the book 😀

• #

David,
I understand what you say about science being able to end the AGW scare. I wholeheartedly agree.

But here is where I solidly disagree. The “warming but far less than we thought” approach is politics by any other name. It won’t work. Watts, Monckton and others have tried it. It is a dead end. The main reason for this is that it is not true.

I do appreciate your work in your 12[?] part series. Most of it I am in full agreement with. You are correct in that you can’t model climate with a “partial derivatives” approach. You are correct that if one path of energy transport from the surface to space is delayed, the many others will accelerate.

But accepting 255K for “surface without radiative atmosphere” is a form of playing politics. Is it 255K being raised to 288K by our radiatively cooled atmosphere or 312K being lowered to 288K by our radiatively cooled atmosphere? Science or politics David? If we want to win on science, we can’t be playing politics. Yes, the correct answer is so big, bad and terrible that many will fight like cornered animals to maintain the hoax. But the correct answer is CO2 causes immeasurably slight cooling. Any other claim is political not scientific.

In avoiding the solid repeatable empirical experiments I have offered for “surface temperature without radiative atmosphere” are you not just playing the “partial derivatives” game you correctly criticise? Are you too not just playing politics?

Your 11 year notch is solid. My SW selective surface work is solid. This is not a hard one. Well, not unless you believe politics should trump science. David, if you want to play politics then the most plausible mechanism for the notch must remain unknown. Because 312K.

• #

Konrad, I am showing that the train of thoughts that led them to AGW in the first place is incorrect. Monckton , Watts, Christie, and others never figured out what is wrong with the feedback-forcing mechanism — they always accepted the conventional, inadequate architecture. For the first time we have figured out exactly where the warmists went wrong with it, while accepting all their physics. I reckon I can do this in terms an advanced journalist or politician can hardly fail to understand — also will be new.

• #

David,
love your work but you are wrong. If you won’t challenge “255K surface without radiative atmosphere” you have failed.

You are not challenging the critical (wrong) assumptions. You are agreeing to them.

If you fold to “fighting on their turf” you are no better than Watts or Monckton. You, like they are playing politics.

I have a permanent instantly accessibly Internet record of saying “Adding radiative gases to our radiatively cooled atmosphere will not reduce its radiative cooling ability nor its ability to cool the solar heated surface of our planet.
And you? The Internet remembers. Forever.

Just like the coming 2016 election. This is not about side. This is about principle.

• #
KinkyKeith

I feel very uncomfortable when I read that the scam modelers have simply made a tragicc error by using Arrhenius’s guidance of 1896.

Any real scientist would know that a model must be capable of being tested.

Even before making such a model any real scientist would have eliminated CO2 as a significant factor in world temperature fluctuations.

Orbital mechanics and attendant solar fluctuations over time scales of tens of thousands of years are hard to go past in the search for the significant causal factor in Global warming and cooling.

Just recently I have been subjected to extreme climate change of about 10 C degrees over a 24 hour period. Now that is real climate change.

KK

• #
climateskeptic

Monckton , Watts, Christie, and others never figured out what is wrong with the feedback-forcing mechanism

Have you considered [SNIP that you are a troll?]ED

• #
climateskeptic

Oh dear I’m sorry for hitting a sensitive nerve.I note though that nothing I said has been pointed out as being incorrect, just inconvenient

• #
• #

Please, please allow and assist David in doing his thing, his way! I respect, but not always agree with, your opinion, because it is clearly your opinion, not that of any other! The same with David!
I would like to help by trying to ween David from his periodic Fourier transform fixation, to a more appropriate effect of Laplace residue strictly from the tidal/inertial influence of all massive solar system bodies, each prevented (somehow) from having any harmonic destructive resonance with any other!
The amplitude, phase modulation of Earth’s temperatures seem to have beats and flanges that range from 12 hours (lunar tide) through two weeks (also lunar) to 100,000 years; the Sun, Neptune, Uranus, Earth beat interval! 🙂
All the best! -will-

• #

climateseptic, but warming stopped 19 years ago…

• #
climateskeptic

[You are deliberatly trying to be provocative. It doesn’t work here, we just see it as being childish. Saying to the author “you are wrong”, and then pointing to the material the author is seeking to refute, is a circular argument that gives us a good indication of your mental age. Lift your game] Fly

• #
AndyG55

“nothing I said has been pointed out as being incorrect”

That’s because you haven’t said anything except baseless garbage AGW rhetoric.

EMPTY, is all you have. Is all you are.

• #
AndyG55

Actually James,

Apart from the solar/wind forced El Ninos, there has been no warming whatsoever in the whole of the satellite measurement era.

There was no warming before the 1998 El Nino

http://s19.postimg.org/f3dhdpmlv/UAH_before_El_nino.png

and NO WARMING between the end of that El Nino in 2001 and the start of the current EL Nino

http://s19.postimg.org/nmwvbguyb/UAH_after_El_nino.png

Further more, The El Ninos have only really had an effect on the Northern Hemisphere.

There has been no warming whatsoever in the south pole region in the whole of the satellite era.. slight cooling , probably.

http://s19.postimg.org/426syuecz/UAH_So_Pol_March.png

And no warming in the Southern Ex-tropics this century

http://s19.postimg.org/6i8mcowfn/UAH_So_Extropical.png

So.. absolutely ZERO CO2 warming signature in the global satellite data for the whole of the satellite era.

And the only surface warming is from UHI and “adjustments™”

• #
AndyG55

Oh, and COOLING has very much started in the Atlantic and through the EL Nino 3,4 zone

http://postimg.org/image/42xjnkptb/?_ga=1.150291894.1824729845.1454360996

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/wrap-up/archive/20160426.poama_nino34.png

The Southern oceans have been cooling for a few years

https://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/14-southern-ssta.png

• #
AndyG55

It should also be noted that Australia has also experience ZERO WARMING this century.

http://s19.postimg.org/l4v0qy6k3/Australia_April.png

• #
climateskeptic

Ah Noddy #1 is back with the same unattributed graph that someone made up as before. You have had weeks to find something more convincing but it looks like it doesn’t exist.
[Saying that the graph is ‘unattributed’ is no more than an implied Appeal to Authority, and is a logical fallacy. The data has been published, and Andy has plotted it, and reached a conclusion. The onus is on you to demonstrate where he has made an error. Just dismissing it, is no argument at all. You are trolling] Fly

• #
AndyG55

It is attributed.

It is UAH data up to date as of April 2016.

Find the data and verify the graphs yourself, if you are capable.

oops.. just joking.. you have proven time and time again that you are not capable.

• #
AndyG55

ps.. The last two charts in #1.1.3.10 only go to March.

I’ll let you update them with April’s data, when you can.

Waiting !

• #
climateskeptic

How you get these manipulated graphs from the UAH data no-one knows but here is reality, (but only if you live in the clouds that is)

If you live on planet Earth like the rest of us, then here is reality and don’t give me the world conspiracy BS again. 1.55 deg/century rise since 1960. Go stick your hand in the sand again if you like Noddy but it wont change the future.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global/globe/land_ocean/ytd/3/1965-2016?trend=true&trend_base=100&firsttrendyear=1960&lasttrendyear=2016

• #
AndyG55

Oh and here is RSS (run by warmists) south 60-70 also showing a very slight cooling trend over the whole satellite data to end of March.

Again.. I’ll leave you to download the data and graph it updated with April data.. if you are capable. 😉

• #
AndyG55

So HILARIOUS watching you squirm away from actually doing something yourself.

Every one of the graphs I posted come DIRECTLY from UAH or RSS data.

If you can’t figure it out, that’s YOUR INEPTITUDE, not mine.

Anyone with any BASIC COMPETENCY could verify them.. you obviously can’t.

You are very much making a ranting fool of yourself.

• #
climateskeptic

Hahaha you can get trend you like when you cherry pick [Snip – name calling – the onus in now on you to demonstrate how Andy cherry-picked the data] Fly

• #
AndyG55

“How you get these manipulated graphs from the UAH data no-one knows ”

Well, you never will, unless you learn enough to at least attempt to debunk my graphs.

The graphs use data direct from UAH and RSS, no alterations.

The Southern polar region graph, for example, can be seen in many forms by many people. Here’s two examples.

https://kenskingdom.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/nov-s-pol2.jpg?w=675

http://mclean.ch/climate/Trop_figs/South_pole.gif

So, until you have learnt how to a) find the data, and b) figure how to graph it, then you are just spitting straight into the wind.

• #
climateskeptic

Cherry picking the data by selecting time-frames that show cooling weather such as this.
http://s19.postimg.org/f3dhdpmlv/UAH_before_El_nino.png
Climate is a minimum of 30 years not an 18 year snip. Do I have to spell out the basics to you??
We are talking global climate change, not the weather in Rutherglenn.

This is climate,
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global/globe/land_ocean/ytd/3/1965-2016?trend=true&trend_base=100&firsttrendyear=1960&lasttrendyear=2016
not the nonsense weather pattern that Noddy keeps posting.

• #
AndyG55

Yawn.. !

• #
AndyG55

There are very good reasons for selecting the time frames.

Before the 1998 El Nino NO WARMING

, then Between the 1998 El Nino and the current El Nino, there was NO WARMING.

Those are FACTS BORN OUT BY DATA.

The ONLY warming in the whole satellite data is from the El Ninos..

You have to go across these transient step events to show any warming trend at all. As Roy’s graph shows.

And El Ninos are nothing to do with CO2…. therefore NO CO2 WARMING in the whole of the satellite record.

Unless you can show me some warming WITHOUT using the El Nino events from 1998-2001, and from the beginning of 2015…

….. YOU HAVE NOTHING.

• #
climateskeptic

So please tell us noddy how the El Ninos are causing all this warming all of a suddden. I can’t wait to hear this one.

• #
climateskeptic

Is it force X or now force N and D or is there something else about to magically appear so you can keep up the pretence its not CO2

• #
AndyG55

….. YOU HAVE NOTHING.

• #
climateskeptic

What’s going on Noddy, I’m getting all the green thumbs and you all the red ones?
[That happens from time to time – it means nothing] Fly

• #
AndyG55

Oh dear.. you really are getting pathetically desperate, aren’t you.

Still have produce NOTHING to show where my graphs are wrong.

Still haven’t been able to produce any satellite data graphs that show ANY warming without using the El Ninos.

• #
climateskeptic

I’ve linked you two “world climate graphs” and that’s all you are getting until you discuss those. All you have posted is a few UAH weather graphs that are useless to the discussion. So Noddy how about some answers, what is making the Elnino warm up the climate?

• #
AndyG55

You have yet to say where my graphs are incorrect.

Every point I have made is proven and indisputable from UAH, back by RSS data.

I repeat.. there NO CO2 WARMING SIGNAL in the whole of the satellite data.

You have not, because you CANNOT, show this to be wrong.

• #
climateskeptic

So whats causing the warming if its not CO2

• #
climateskeptic

CO2 doesn’t affect the weather from day to day Noddy. When are you going to post a graph thats related to climate?

• #
AndyG55

I repeat.. there NO CO2 WARMING SIGNAL in the whole of the satellite data.

Satellite record is 37 years.. .. according to AGWers.. that is Climate.

• #
climateskeptic

Then why don’t you give us a link to the 37 year global temperature record that you are quoting. What’s so difficult about that?

• #
AndyG55

Anyone who knows anything about climate, knows where to find it.

You don’t.

• #
climateskeptic

You will not link to it because you know it doesn’t exist. Been outsmarted by your shadow.

• #
climateskeptic

There is no satellite data that shows no warming for 37 years Noddy, it only exists in your imagination.

• #
AndyG55

Your lack of basic comprehension is astounding.

Seems you can’t even understand basic statements.

So I’ll re-iterate it for you.

“there is NO CO2 WARMING SIGNAL in the whole of the satellite data”

• #
AndyG55

I have shown solid proof that the ONLY warming is from NON-CO2 based El Ninos.

Or are you now going to squirm around and say El Ninos are caused by CO2…

That really would be funny, and even more anti-science than your other continued gabbering and squawking.

• #
AndyG55

You are welcome to do some research, find the data, then graph the warming trend in the periods before the 1998-2001 El Nino, and between the end of that El Nino and the start of the current EL Nino in 2015.

I’ve already done it for you, in case you aren’t capable.

Do you want me to post the graphs for you again.. or will you draw them yourself.?

• #
climateskeptic

I asked you about ten posts ago how the El-Ninos are causing warming. “ONLY warming is from NON-CO2 based El Ninos”, this is just no-sense. Why is it that its warmer after every El-Nino now when that didn’t happen for the last few hundred years. Where is the warming coming from? Why will you not answer the question?

• #
climateskeptic

So I’ll re-iterate it for you.

“there is NO CO2 WARMING SIGNAL in the whole of the satellite data”

Ill give you a hint, just because you say something and then Nod at it over and over again, doesn’t make it a fact.

• #
AndyG55

Then prove me wrong..

Draw some lines across an El Nino event or something, if you think will do it.

Don’t just blether and giggle like a little child.

• #
• #
climateskeptic

Join the dots yourself.

• #
• #
• #
climateskeptic

So you can see that what you are saying is just utter rubbish and a pure figment of your imagination

• #
AndyG55

You still haven’t produce one graph that dis-proves my statement.

“there is NO CO2 WARMING SIGNAL in the whole of the satellite data”

The ONLY warming in the satellite data is from El Nino events.

That is just how it is. Get over it.

• #
AndyG55

“Where is the warming coming from? ”

http://images.intellicast.com/App_Images/Article/130_3.png

• #
climateskeptic

Hahahahaha, that’s the funniest thing you have posted so far has been declining since the 1950s, how dense are you?

• #
climateskeptic

Hahahahaha, that’s the funniest thing you have posted so far solar output has been declining since the 1950s, how dense are you?

• #
• #
climateskeptic

Your head must be full of invented information that you convinced yourself is fact.

• #
el gordo

‘But the correct answer is CO2 causes immeasurably slight cooling. Any other claim is political not scientific.’

Agree, we can’t win this war of words carrying lukewarm baggage.

CO2 does not cause global warming, the plateau in temperatures over two decades means the AGW hypothesis is falsified.

• #
climateskeptic

Putting on a tinfoil hat, sticking your fingers into your ears and running around shouting ” Its not CO2, Its not CO2, Its not CO2,” is the real political disease verging on mental illness

• #
KinkyKeith

Quite perceptive for a warmer.
Are you, by any chance, looking in a mirror at the moment?

• #
climateskeptic

No, I’m looking at the science, you should try it.

• #
KinkyKeith

Climatseptic.

I have two degrees, one of which covers all the material left out of Climate science, sorry, that should be “climate science”.

Climate science is basically environmentalism dressed up to imitate real science but doesn’t quite get there.

How much effort have you put in to get a real understanding of the Science?

KK

• #
climateskeptic

Oh, “appeal to authority”. I thought that’s a no no. Why not use some science to back up your assertion?
BTW I’ve got a PhD. So there#

• #
AndyG55

lol.. must have been a funny PhD is you came out of it unable to do basic research or draw simple graphs.

Arts? Social Science?

• #
Rereke Whakaaro

climateskeptic; you say: “I’m looking at the science, you should try it.”

I would really like to do that. “Looking at the science’, I mean. I would like to have all of the science at my finger tips, as you obviously have. Can you give me a list of references to the underlying scientific papers, please? I don’t need the political ones, they come in the mail; it is a list of the definitive published scientific papers I would like to have.

Also, I would particularly like to read your PhD, so a reference to that would be very useful as well.

Oh, and BTW I’ve got a couple of PhD’s myself, although one is in military history, so it is not really relevant in a science discussion. But I would be interested in reading yours.

• #
climateseptic

You guys got me,

I can explain why I am desperately ignoring the fact that satellite data shows no warming for 37 years.

I can explain why I also ignore the fact that all our CO2 based models failed to hind cast with known data input.

I can explain why our climate models failed to predict subsequent observations including this 19 years pause despite CO2 rising to 400ppm.

The failure of our CO2 based models does prove that CO2 is not a cause of warming and that the most likely major ‘greenhouse’ gas is water vapour.

But how the hell do I convince people to stump up their hard earned coin to reduce water vapour emissions?

How do I try to explain that water vapour is toxic to the environment and harmful to all life?

How do I try to explain that water causes ocean acidity… sh!t that’s it… rain water does cause ocean acidity…

I’m on a winner, my Phd in Dramatic Arts and my Centrelink fueled imagination will just go and publish a peer reviewed paper: ‘Water is Actually Oxygen Di Hydride and is Toxic to the Environment and Causes Global Warming’.

Ta ta losers… I’m in the money, I’m in the money dah dah dah da dah dah dah dah da dah…

• #
climateskeptic

[Redacted – you are adding nothing to the conversation] Fly

• #
AndyG55

Still the ABSOLUTELY EMPTY posts. Coming from your brain, obviously.
[That is enough Andy – do not feed him] Fly

• #
climateskeptic

[Redacted – you are adding nothing to the conversation] Fly

• #
Rereke Whakaaro

How very odd.

Perhaps he is buying the wrong sort of “stuff”, or perhaps he is buying his “stuff” from the wrong dealer? Perhaps we will never know?

But probably, we will never care.
[That is enough Rereke – do not feed him] Fly

• #
climateskeptic

[Redacted – you are adding nothing to the conversation] Fly

• #
Mike

Here is the thing.

There is no point starting a new environmentalism hoping it will be better when the first kind failed to stop rampant ongoing extinction.

Try to save a whale, or a forest, then maybe it is possible to speak about adding new shades of green or carbon green to the environmental platform.

There is more to being a skeptic than ignoring the question of CO2.

If there is no collective movement to save what tiny amount of biological diversity that is left, then it is pretty damn optimistic bordering on pathological to pretend this kind of Carbon Green environmentalim will be any better

• #
climateskeptic

Interesting, bias at work in front of your eyes. So why do my post get deleted but theirs stay up?
[Because they have demonstrated that they can debate honestly – even with some joshing, but you have not yet achieved that level. You are not interested in the scientific debate. You only have a political agenda. The latter would be fine, if you were honest about it, but you are not. Instead, you seek to disrupt the conversation about David’s hypothisis. You must be very frightened about what he has to say.] Fly

• #
climateskeptic

What exactly is climateseptics post above adding to the co0nversation. If that is a goalpost to judging a post this site would be mostly empty space.
[So why are you wasting your time here? You cannot argue the science. You refuse to have, or are incapable of having, a reasoned debate. You challenged Andy’s graphs, which were based on the official temperature measurements, but were incapable of explaining why you were challenging them. Your responses to Andy, and some others, were based on the politics of climate science, and not on the science itself. The political science, and the atmospheric physics are two different things. We are over the political science, as most people are – it is a demonstrated crock. We are now focussed on building a better understanding of the atmospheric physics involved. That is the point of David’s post, and that is where the rest of us are focussed. If you do not have sufficent intellectual fire-power to contribute at that level, you would be better off saying nothing and being thought a fool, than trying to contribute, and removing all doubt.] Fly

• #
climateseptic

I add the truth that you seek to deny. [Oh how trite – you are a legend in your own lunch time – We deny nothing – we only seek to understand the underlying physics] Fly.

• #
climateseptic

Wrong one, Fly…
[I think not. The fact that you have chosen to use multiple proxy servers, does not mean that I am talking to a different person. And it I were, would I care? No. Because what I will say to a proxy is exactly the same as I would say to you, if you were not using a proxy. Silly childish games do not impress anybody here] Fly

• #
climateskeptic

I think you should read the post again. I have answered why I challenging them on four occasions. He just doesn’t like the answer. My first post was snipped when I pointed out that neither Monckton , Watts nor Christie had any scientific qualification. Why was it snipped, is it untrue or are you just embarrassed by the fact?
[I have checked your first post. It was snipped because it was an ad hominem logical fallacy – an attack against the person. What they know, and what they can deduce, and what they can discover, is controlled by their intellect, and not by a piece of paper hung on the wall. Issac Newton held no degree during his most productive period. Having a piece of paper is a political science concept, not a physical science one] Fly

• #
climateskeptic

Oh dear Fly, got caught out by one of your supporters masquerading as me. Hahahaha, I have never used the “D” word
[Yes you have, you just sent it via a proxy. It is an arguement that a child would use – “I didn’t say that, it was my invisible friend who said it”. At least we now have proof that your word can not be relied upon.] Fly

[I count 41 references to “climateskeptic” at this point, not including mine. And none of it contributed anything of value. It’s a shameful act and it’s time for climateskeptic to go silent for a while, a long while. We do not have to approve such nonsense. It can be made to disappear with one mouse click. A word to the wise should be enough.] AZ

• #

climateskeptic, this is just silly: “neither Monckton , Watts nor Christie had any scientific qualification”.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Christy
“He received a B.A. in Mathematics from California State University, Fresno in 1973, and an M.S. and Ph.D. in Atmospheric Sciences from the University of Illinois in 1984 and 1987.”

• #
Roy Hogue

David,

For years I’ve been saying that global warming is a political disease. Yes the science is important but only if we can get someone in the AGW camp to listen. Otherwise sciencey talk goes in one ear and right out the other, tickling nothing as it goes through. So do they listen? No, not noticeably. If I ask, when was the last time someone who could change the direction Australia/America/Europe is going, changed his/her mind about AGW, what would you answer? Who could you point to? Getting minds changed doesn’t happen.

The job therefore is to tackle the political problem, replacing those who’re dedicated to climate change with those who will listen to evidence and sound argument. It’s like a mechanic banging on the hood with his tools, hoping to fix whatever is wrong with the engine. The engine pays no attention. You have to open the hood first.

• #
Roy Hogue

What you’ve been working on is the first new, totally different theory of what drives the significant variations in climate that I know of. Is it getting attention in the right places?

• #

It will Roy. Some are noticing already. Most are waiting for papers, and for the knowledge to spread to the point where they can no longer ignore it. It takes time. Suddenly AGW will fall over, like the Soviet Union, but I’ve no real idea when. We just keep battling along on our shoe-string budget against the huge establishment, but we will win before too long. It’s good to have finally found the solution, instead of just spinning wheels and pointing to empirical evidence that disagrees with the models.

Perhaps you’d like to take another look at the intro to the series.

• #
OriginalSteve

My biggest concern is the use of the Big Lie to usurp democracy – as with all Leftists, they have no real morality, only hunger for power……

The Big Lie is the mechanism to drain countries under false pretences ( called fr**d ) of money into the UN to make it a fully functioning global govt.

It also uses the Big Lie to impose harsh eco-laws on countris to trash economies based on false science.

The science isnt the issue – its important to keep that bit correct, but your chasing a shadow, its a red herring to keep us diverted.

The win is exposing the political game AS WELL. This is why I have said time and time again its crucial that kids who are of the age who can comprehend politics, are taught what Communism is, what socialism is and what conservatism is – without a benchmark and understanding of the political game, a “community organizer” could be viewed as a well emaning being, rather than people knowing they atre leftists who employ wdge politics to divide communituies to seize power….

Kids need to know we are in a critical trench-warfare place for politics right now.

• #
Roy Hogue

David,

I have the entire 24 installment series neatly bookmarked on my computer. I can get to any part of it with 2 mouse clicks.

Keeping my own list of important things is a habit learned from years of software development where, once you’ve found the Microsoft article detailing what you need to know, you file it yourself under a title you will remember because searching again later, on Microsoft’s terms, means another long fight to get the right search key. There’s so much stuff you can’t possible remember it all.

So, with credit to you, it’s Evans 1 through Evans 24.

• #

Roy, you do know the posts in the series are all linked to and briefly described from
http://sciencespeak.com/climate-basic.html
http://sciencespeak.com/climate-nd-solar.html
?

• #
KinkyKeith

Roy, you’ve inspired me.

I’m not one for orderliness but I need to get on top of the pile of stuff.
Tomorrow.

• #
Roy Hogue

…you do know the posts in the series are all linked to and briefly described from…

David,

Yes I do. Keeping my own bookmarks of stuff I want to be able to go back to is just an old habit, learned out of necessity and I keep it up as much from habit as from any necessity.

• #

Roy, Skeptics have not addressed the reason that the warmists believe, until now (with honorable exceptions to Monckton and a few others who knew what to address, but didn’t happen to find the vital problem(s) with their model). The warmists believe because of the forcing feedback paradigm, or conventional basic climate model (same thing). No matter what skeptics have said, or the empirical evidence they pointed to, the warmists would review that model and check that all the parameter values were about right (I believe they are), and confirm they are correct, and ignore the skeptics. It simply doesn’t matter what empirical evidence you show them, so long as their parameter values are about correct they go to that model and insist they are correct.

The first part of this series (to post 19) is different. It finds the mistake in their reasoning. It addresses their reasoning directly.

If in addition the temperature drops (from post 21) as predicted by the ND solar theory, they are cooked (but the world is not).

The engine of AGW paid no attention to most skeptics because they were addressing the wrong car.

• #
Roy Hogue

David,

Fair point. But I think the utter failure of their predictions to come true would have done it by now if they were listening. So vested interests are involved and I think those have to be torn down.

Frankly I hope what you’ve been doing hits them like a ton of bricks and they can no longer sit smugly back and say, “Big oil money.”

I haven’t yet done more than scan the first part of this installment and looked over the comments. But I will go through it in detail — and hope I can understand it all.

• #
KinkyKeith

Hi David and Roy,

As mentioned before on previous posts on this topic I am in awe of David’s ability and strategy in dealing with the unscientific nonsense of CO2 induced “man made” Global Warming.

David says above:

“No matter what skeptics have said, or the empirical evidence they pointed to, the warmists would review that model and check that all the parameter values were about right (I believe they are), and confirm they are correct, and ignore the skeptics”.

That is the sad political reality of the situation.

David has explained that his strategy involves working through their model and finding errors which are then corrected to show that the “sensitivity” to CO2 increase is not as large as first claimed. A cunning start.

Further,being able to offer new and well reasoned causes for some of the variations in global temperatures not only illustrates the large number of significant “forcings” that have been left out of the “models” (deliberately?) used by the warmers and IPCCCC.

The end result should be a discredited model with real alternatives and evidence of a lengthy, considered demolition of the myth of CAGW.

As to the science of CAGW and the so called models any engineer will easily show that the models are NOT models but flawed pieces of political mischief. http://joannenova.com.au/2015/10/new-science-16-building-the-alternative-model-and-why-it-solves-so-many-major-problems/#comment-1760017

Well done David and Jo.

KK

• #
KinkyKeith

Omit: “not only”

• #
Roy Hogue

KK,

I’ve no doubt about David’s work. You’re more qualified than I am to make a judgment but clearly he’s a thinker who isn’t influenced by preconceived outcomes. That alone sets him apart from so many others. But I remain a skeptic about how it will be received in the opposing camp. We’ve seen very good opposing arguments simply put down out of hand without even mentioning a sound counter argument. Chris Monckton has made a career out of being disregarded by the other side.

I echo your, “Well done David and Jo.”

I might add that I’m finding david’s direction quite fascinating. He’s diverged radically from the general trend in climate research as far as I can tell and he seems quite comfortable in that role (the word heretic comes to mind). That’s something unique these days, possibly in any days. It’s not very many who’re able to stick their necks out and keep them stuck out. The risk of criticism from your peers is too great. But David weathered the criticism that came early on and when a real error was pointed out, he looked at it and agreed with his critic. Not only well done, but outstanding.

• #

The real political conundrum is that the scientific truth is so devastating to the side of the politics that supports CAGW that for them to abandon their position becomes something they can never do no matter what the science says. This is why science, politics and religion must never become co-dependent and why it will be so difficult to unwind the co-dependency between left politics, green religion and the broken science uniting them.

• #

Exactly CO2IsNotEvil. The irresistible political force of CAGW meets the immovable object of reality. Has to happen sometime.

• #
Mike

The reality is that preventing deforestation and extinction has not worked.

It is pathological to portray that preventing CO2 will stop the environmental carnage, or that suddenly, if the climate is perfect we can have our biological diversity back.

The destruction of the earth has presently very little to do with the weather or the climate, or if CO2 is evil or not..

• #
Mike

Not saying that it is not a good thing to address the science behind the CO2 belief system. Just saying that the environmental platform upon which global warming is on is the most amazingly bogus environmental platform i have ever witnessed in my life.

• #
Dave in the States

Recently I sent a letter to the editor of a local newspaper in response to their recent ramping up of climate change alarm propaganda pieces. I only presented the juxtaposition of the observed co2 climate sensitivity to that built into the basic models. I fully expected to be insulted, called names, degenerated, and otherwise disrespected, which I was. But I was hoping that some people would see these basic scientific evidence and put two and two together. The amount of damage controllers who came out of the woodwork told me my simple point was to some extent effective. Moreover, the newspaper published it online to reduce the amount of eyes that might see it, while publishing a nonsensical rebuttal in print.

• #

Good effort Dave. Typical of them, however.

• #
OriginalSteve

There is a F******x country newspaper that used to post a lot of CAGW nonsense, but eventually I found it and started posting rebuttals base don science, but also exposingthe political game as well.

I copped a flogging for a while, they trotted out some very slick operators, but I stuck to my “guns” and fought back with facts, and eventually won, but it was a hard slog.

They expect you to fold in the face of huge power display, but you need to be the dogged underdog and fight back just as hard but with facts. Eventually they relaize they cant win through intimidation and lies and go quiet as they know they cant win and they know someone is always watching…..its the only way to make sure the science and politcis is presnted correctly.

• #

Well done Steve. I think you are right about their behavior.

• #

Steve, please try at your local ‘welding shop’ where you can get done “all for free once”. A vast variety of skill there. Little or no BS, but no dummies. Demonstrate your honesty, personal integrity, and soon your skill at doing whatever you do best, even if that be banker, or lawyer. will be accepted! Especially if you are buying the next round!
All the best! -will-

• #
Roy Hogue

Daring to challenge what someone else thinks is correct behavior or thinking is likely to get you an angry response from someone no matter what the subject is. It seems to be human nature.

I’ve had it happen sitting around the family dining table during a discussion of no particular importance to anything. You give an opinion someone disagrees with and suddenly it’s as if you threw a punch instead of a few words. You can’t even tell what might be a sensitive remark until you’re suddenly a pariah for what you think.

• #
bobl

I beg to differ David, while it is very important to correct the science of AGW, delingpole is right, this is a selfrighteous VS pragmatist political argument, the collectivists demanding everyone being forced to pay more taxes VS individualists saying cut costs.

The way to win this argument is in fact to simply take the high ground from the warmists, to show the harm their policies do TO PEOPLE. Most useful idiots in this debate don’t see the harm carbon taxes do by thrusting people into energy poverty or maintaining the energy poverty of the already impoverished. They think, well a cleaner atmosphere “Couldn’t Hurt” ( despite the fact that CO2 isn’t dirty), I support protecting nature they think… very simplistically this is fine, except that of course we know that it’s not harmless anti CO2 policies actually hurt – and they burt BIG for every 2 PPM drop in CO2 we lose up to 1% of our food production.

The right point to make is that this argument is about whether nature should come before people. Most right minded people shown the damage to real people (dead pensioners) and the real benefits to humanity of abundant reliable energy come to understand that this energy tax – warmist movement is truly evil.

The science is a side show, the battle lines are moral questions, and the end game is a regime for the UN to tax citizens of sovereign nations through the operation of a treaty. Certain payments from Carbon taxes must be submitted to the UN. This is about tax by treaty, the UN sticking their grubby paws into your pocket.

• #

We can never win while they are “saving the planet”. We must win the science before we can win politically.

• #

How can we win the science when those dedicated to “saving the planet” believe their Noble Cause overwhelms all possible objections? In their way of thinking “saving the planet” is the ultimate of doing “good”: the doing for other than self without considering the consequences to self (see Kant for details).

Since “they” are doing the ultimate good, anyone who opposes them represents ultimate evil. Following that to its logical conclusion, they are justified in doing whatever it takes to counter that evil.

That this thinking leads to seriously negative consequences for themselves and others is irrelevant to them. They are doing “good” by definition and we skeptics are doing “evil” by definition: their definition.

Yes, we must do the best possible science and have the best possible validation for our scientific theories. However, we must understand that we skeptics and the CAGW collective think very differently in ways that are totally incompatible.

Our thinking is that reality is real, we can and must know it, and what we can and should do is based upon our knowledge of what is real. Their thinking starts with a “Noble Cause” larger than life itself as their end. Their end justifies any means necessary to achieve it. That permits them to do anything without respect to cost or consequence.

What the consequences of their actions are, are simply the price they are willing to pay to achieve their end. That others also pay is simply the cost of doing business for them. After all, they are doing the ultimate “good” thing. Nothing else matters.

Mere good science cannot impact such a system of thought because science and their cause are incompatible and incommensurate. The battle is philosophical, intellectual, moral, and emotional in which to win, the other side has to extinguish itself. THIS is “Politics” in all its demented glory.

To win, we must simply survive. We can hasten their demise by stopping feeding them. There is little else we can do.

• #

Best analysis of the situation that I have read.

• #
Rereke Whakaaro

Lionell,

I read your comment, and was immediately reminded of the various inquisitions that purged Europe of rational thought from the eleventh century onwards.

Most rational people would assume that the age of inquisitions has passed. But having read what you wrote, I have to conclude that most rational people would be mistaken. The age of inquisitions is still upon us.

That is a depressing thought.

• #

Rereke,

“I read your comment, and was immediately reminded of the various inquisitions that purged Europe of rational thought from the eleventh century onwards.”

That is exactly what I had in mind as I wrote what I did.

Yes it is a depressing thought. However, keep in mind that they are destroying themselves as they attempt to destroy us. Add to that the fact they are all but totally disconnected from reality while we are largely in touch with it. That makes them dependent upon us to create the weapons they expect to use to destroy us. They are largely incapable of doing it for themselves.

I suggest that we stop creating the weapons for them. That way, they have nothing with which to fight. It would be a big part of stopping feeding them.

• #
Dave in the States

Their thinking starts with a “Noble Cause” larger than life itself as their end. Their end justifies any means necessary to achieve it. That permits them to do anything without respect to cost or consequence.

This type of fever is much like the Crusades as well. In addition to the scientific and political aspects, CAGW is a new religion. I was told this by an astute bystander when discussing the problem a few years ago. He simply stated: “Global Warming has become the new religion of the left.” And he was right.

• #
PeterPetrum

Yes Mark D. Although Aussie politics may be of little interest to you, actually it is probably more critical to environmental, climate change, expenditure and other related issues than it has at any other election in the past. We cannot trust either party to understand why “climate change” should not be an issue, but clearly is. That is the problem we Aussies have.

• #
Mike

The Greeks recently proved it was not a political problem, it was a financial problem in the face of which politicians or the Greeks are currently quite powerless. We can learn from their recent history.

• #
Mark D.

Hi Peter, it isn’t that I have no interest, it’s that I cannot make sense of either the process or the outcomes of AU politics. It has the outward appearance of several teams of cats being herded unsuccessfully. Besides that, I have all I can do to keep track of our own (rather silly) US politics.

• #
Gee Aye

Get used to it. This is not a science site

• #
AndyG55

Not when you make comments, that’s for sure.

• #
KinkyKeith

Andy

GA doesn’t make comments,he assesses those placed on the blog by others.

• #

No No. I’m sure GA will explain where David’s scientific mistake is.

It’s not like him to do empty drive-by bluster…

• #

I’m enjoying this series but it does not change the fact that it is an advocacy site.

• #
AndyG55

Yep, an advocacy for decent science.

Stick around, maybe eventually you will learn some of it.

In the mean time… just keep the fool’s cap on.

• #
Raven

. . it does not change the fact that it is an advocacy site.

I beg to differ.
If there was no pro-AGW advocacy, then sites like this would not have emerged.
Sites like this are a response to that advocacy.

• #
Rereke Whakaaro

• #
Roy Hogue

…it’s that I cannot make sense of either the process or the outcomes of AU politics. It has the outward appearance of several teams of cats being herded unsuccessfully. Besides that, I have all I can do to keep track of our own (rather silly) US politics.

Hey Mark, is there room wherever you are for one more confused and frustrated politics watcher? I could really use someone to commiserate with. 😉

Sory, Jo. When I saw you saying this conversation would vanish soon I took that as consent to add my worthless 10 cents.

• #
Roy Hogue

I can’t help asking, is the thumb of approval for the first sentence or the last?

It’s not that it really matters but my curiosity has gotten the better of me. 😉

• #
Rereke Whakaaro

Mark (and Roy),

I can’t get my head around Australian politics either.

It looks to me like the Aussies want a US style of Government, rather than follow the Westminster tradition, but then can’t decide if the Prime Minister is President, or not, and how that relates to the Governor General who is the titular representative of the Monarch, in Australia.

It is like taking all of the political systems in the world, and putting them through a blender. What you get out might be good for you, but it will probably taste awful.

• #
Roy Hogue

RW,

I may catch some criticism for this but ever since I gained any understanding at all about how a parliamentary system works — I’m far from an expert — I’ve wondered why anyone thinks it’s a good idea — too much instability in the halls of government. Yet a Republic, one which has stood the test of over 200 years is still in the minority (of nearly 1) and is now under attack from within while nearly everyone else is either a dictatorship or a parliamentary system.

Go figure.

I think it’s already well proven that direct democracy doesn’t work well, many times not at all. When government is so easily subject to the whims of the governed that it can change as fast as Tony Abbott came and then went down, you can end up swapping one bad idea for another. You never even know who’s holding the reins while the wagon charges full speed down the road. Even here it’s hard to let something prove or disprove itself before changing it. And I haven’t even mentioned the smoke filled backroom deals that are so obvious in the case of Australia — even worse than here.

I believe I get it but I also gnash my teeth over it.

• #
Roy Hogue

You need not state your objections. I realize many of you will have them. So just take my honest observation for what it is, my point of view and not personal or national criticism.

• #
Roy Hogue

And hopefully Jo will do as she promised and make all this subthread as she put it, disappear because it’s probably not worthwhile.

• #
Ross

David
It will obviously take both the science and politically approach to win in the end. By the sounds of it, your book will go along way along that road after your tremendous effort here with the science. I hope the paper is not too far away from being published as we know that is a fundamental part of the science part for the warmists.

• #
TdeF

Do any of these forces explain why there is such a big difference between Northern and Southern Hemisphere temperatures at the same latitude? Most of the external forces are invariate between North and South unless affected by magnetism, so it must be the water vs land structure itself and the consequences of that such as currents, energy capture, the huge amount of land at one pole and none at the other, but I see nothing of this.

Filtering light would be symmetrical, pole to pole, as are the air currents but the cross equator ocean currents may be major transporters of thermal energy just as the area of land in the Northern hemisphere is many times the size of that in the South, where the major land masses are Australia and Antarctica and not much else below the tropic of Capricorn.

Until there is a good understanding of the handling of energy in the mobile oceans which cover 2/3 of the planet and so received 2/3 of the radiation and have 340 x the mass of the atmosphere, how can there even be a single measure or prediction of a temperature for the planet? The energy to increase the oceans by 1C is hundreds of times more than required to heat the thin atmosphere. If nothing else, this would argue against a rapid or sizeable change of air temperature because of massive buffering. Water also is by far the greatest greenhouse gas with the widest spectrum and the major cooling agent in all weather. Its phase points correspond very neatly to surface temperatures from rain to mist to humidity to ice and snow with huge amounts of energy captured and released. Water tends to be ignored in these analysis mainly of light, air and energy capture and only recently have people even started to see the atmosphere as a byproduct of the ocean, a small outgassing which has allowed us to live on land.

CO2 level in particular is determined solely by water temperature by Henry’s law. Man’s contribution is demonstrably trivial by C14 measurement and very short term with a half life of 14 years. In the current ‘pause’ and with accelerating use of limited fossil fuels and despite fracking, we will run out of fuel before we see any change in temperature despite steadily rising CO2 levels. So it is all pretend science from the IPCC like the melting Hindu glaciers. That does not mean we cannot predict the climate in time, but at present the idea that it is simpler to predict long term climate than tomorrow’s weather has proven utterly wrong, no matter what the model. This is a very complex system. A model could be 95% right and still unable to predict El Nino or La Nina or tomorrow’s temperature to 0.1C.

• #

TdeF: No, nothing in this series of posts explains the differences between the hemispheres. The series is only concerned with global average surface air temperature.

• #
TdeF

So is a single temperature even a valid and meaningful concept, involving as it does averages from the North Pole to the South pole across day and night, summer and winter, storms and local events?

I am ignorant of how anyone currently weights regional area temperatures from the six months of nighttime temperature in one pole against the six months of day at the other or the tropics or even land against water and cope with the lack of measurement across most of the surface?

Or are you trying only to duplicate the radiation measurements by satellite, at a distance from this very complex system?

Are you trying to predict absolute temperature or just variations?

Or is it an attempt to more fully define and verify the mechanisms of energy transfer by radiation and so debunk the CO2 argument? Then what of buffering of temperatures by mechanisms known and perhaps unknown such as melting ice or other heat sinks? It seems to me that you are trying to model and analyse a system as complex as the human body and this simply by light filters on incoming and outgoing radiation? Is it possible/probable science will never get this model right?

Or are you just trying to prove a specific IPCC thesis wrong or incomplete? If so, which?

• #

Yes a single temperature is valid, for some purposes. Simple cases first, get them correct then move on to the more difficult and more complex cases.

The forcing-feedback paradigm, or conventional basic sensitivity model, is the basic understanding of how much surface warming is caused by increasing carbon dioxide, throughout the climate science community. It is responsible for AGW, and it is wrong. The GCMs just echo it.

• #
TdeF

Thanks but are all the elements in your entertaining and colourful graphic even relevant for this? Each of them is probably a story in its own right and not directly connected to your thesis.

• #

We’ll see 🙂

• #
ren

In the infrared is visible albedo of clouds.
http://en.sat24.com/en/wd/world

• #
John Watt

David,
In terms of impacts on economies, jobs and living standards isn’t it enough to show that CO2 is not a menace requiring the drastic measures that populist politicians are promoting? It would be great to know the real drivers of climate but the crunch issue is the harm that vocal, ill-informed tree-huggers are inflicting. What if they get control of the Senate?
When will your realistic analysis of the role of atmospheric CO2 be available for public consumption and enlightenment? Very soon I hope.

• #
ren

“There is no proof that the current warming is caused by the rise of greenhouse gases from human activity. Ice core records from the past 650,000 years show that temperature increases have preceded—not resulted from—increases in CO2 by hundreds of years, suggesting that the warming of the oceans is an important source of the rise in atmospheric CO2. As the dominant greenhouse gas, water vapor is far, far more important than CO2. Dire predictions of future warming are based almost entirely on computer climate models, yet these models do not accurately understand the role or water vapor—and, in any case, water vapor is not within our control. Plus, computer models cannot account for the observed cooling of much of the past century (1940–75), nor for the observed patterns of warming—what we call the ‘fingerprints.’ For example, the Antarctic is cooling while models predict warming. And where the models call for the middle atmosphere to warm faster than the surface, the observations show the exact opposite.
The best evidence supporting natural causes of temperature fluctuations are the changes in cloudiness, which correspond strongly with regular variations in solar activity. The current warming is likely part of a natural cycle of climate warming and cooling that’s been traced back almost a million years.”

• #

Ren, It is not only ice core history that shows CO2 lagging temperatures. In the work of W Kreutz 1941, who made many measurements daily over a period of one and a half years show CO2 lagging temperature on a daily, weekly and seasonal basis (note he also measured that daily temperature lags insolation (which should be obvious to any one who has watched a sun rise and/or sunset). However, there are others look at the second graph here http://www.biomind.de/realCO2/realCO2-1.htm (CO2 and SST-Kaplan)which shows a one year lag of CO2 to sea surface temperature. As CO2 lags temperature there can be no measurable indication that CO2 has any warming and measurement of sensitivity.
I hope that David recognises that in his publications.

• #

John, yes, to stop the carbon-emission-mitigation nonsense it suffices to show that increasing CO2 did not cause most of the recent global warming. For that, it suffices to show that the forcing-feedback paradigm is grievously in error and the repaired version of it, which fits the data (e.g. the missing hotspot), shows that the sensitivity to CO2 is much less than the IPCC estimates. And to point out that the GCMs merely echo the forcing-feedback paradigm.

As it happens, I also found what might be the real driver — the theory above. If the prediction of a sustained and significant cooling from about 2017 comes true, it will put the icing on the cake. If it proves wrong, well too bad, it was a plausible theory that fits the evidence at this stage.

The book will be ready in a few months. It’s well underway. The papers it is based upon look they are slowly nearing publication; I actually saw the proofs of one of them last week.

• #
Gee Aye

Proofs are pre publication mock ups which are only made once the editor has accepted that peer review is complete.

By the way if you are the lead author the. You not only “saw” the proofs but you should have examined them closely fo errors and given them your approval

• #
Gee Aye

“then you”

not

“the. You”

• #

“So is a single temperature even a valid and meaningful concept, involving as it does averages from the North Pole to the South pole across day and night, summer and winter, storms and local events?”

I will maintain that from a thermal EMR standpoint, that when temperature extremes are one third of the mean absolute, and exit flux tends to be proportional the fourth power of local absolute; some average temperature is not only an asinine concept, such is obscene! 🙂
David however, has chosen to use only the climatastrophists own claims to demonstrate the errors in those very same claims! A difficult task but truly worthy of encouragement and chocolate support from all visiting this site!
All the best! -will-

• #

“TdeF: No, nothing in this series of posts explains the differences between the hemispheres. The series is only concerned with global average surface air temperature.?”

Indeed David! Your insistence on using ‘their’ (the opponents claims) to attempt to defeat those same claims is admirable. I can support such effort!
Please, please! Can you please give a hint to us that you do understand that any claim to such aggregate spatio-temporal value of ‘temperature’ can have no physical nor statistical meaning whatsoever?
All the best! -will-

• #

Will, I’d prefer not to say. For now, I am fighting on their turf to show that the train of thoughts that led them to AGW in the first place is incorrect. Any equivocation will detract from that effort. (And by the way, looks like it’s the Sun, and the global surface temp as defined is likely to decrease soon.)

• #

David,
in case you missed it Will just “owned” you. Will would be one of the old grumpy guys that helped develop the basis for the MODTRAN code climastrologists so shamelessly abuse. My empirical experiments indicated a sudden increased in LWIR reflectivity from liquid water passing 55 degrees from zenith. Will’s pre internet experiments prove I was not in error. Surface of the planet can be considered a near blackbody? Forget that!

David, Will has more hands on LWIR experience than you, me or any climastrologist on this planet. Your linear 2D calculations are no match for my FEA, CFD or empirical experiments. But I am no match for Will. Are you starting to get it? If you want to win on “the science” you can’t ignore the bulk of it. If you won’t acknowledge that the net effect of radiative gases in our atmosphere is surface cooling, then you are playing politics not science.

• #

Geez, Konrad, for a smart bloke you sure are obtuse.

David is removing the keystone to the entire case put forward by global warming alarmists.

When it is removed then go your hardest – you and Will Janoscka can hook in and mop up, but at the moment David is taking point so do what every other good soldier does, keep behind, keep alert and keep quiet.

• #
KinkyKeith

A lot of good points made.

• #
KinkyKeith

Ref

# 3.1.1

• #
Bulldust

O/Topic – the latest in the world is going towards thermaggedon in a handcart:

Yes, 400ppm of nourishing CO2 will be in the atmosphere in Tasmania … coming soon! How will we cope with all the extra greening?

• #
PeterPetrum

Hey, Bulldust – I am going down to Tassie on Thursday for a few days. I’ll check it out. Does this mean I won’t need a warm jacket. Or should I take one, just in case. I do have a bottle of Glenfiddich, for emergencies.

• #
Analitik

Once we’re past the point of no return, can we just get on with things as before?
After all, if it’s too late, why bother trying anymore to stop getting to the “tipping point”?

• #
Yonniestone

We have at least another 6 tipping points before things start looking really good, let the Henny Penny’s of the world squark it’ll make them easier to find when the truth comes home to roost.

• #
Rob R

David,

I think you need to have a long detailed look at a long series of postings by Erl Happ at https://reality348.wordpress.com/ You will need to start from the beginning.

Erl is looking in great detail at the role of ozone (situated in the stratosphere and upper troposhpere) on global climate, including differences in its impact on the Northern and Southern Hemispheres. Stratispheric Ozone is modulated directly by the solar wind.

To a considerable extent the distribution of ozone, at all scales from day to day out to multi-decadal times spans, governs the global pattern of atmospheric pressure and consequently surface temperature. Ozone governs not only the pressure at the surface but also the pressure at altitude all the way to the top of the stratosphere. Ozone controls the position of the circum-antarctic westerly wind belt and the position of low pressure cells within it. It controls the north-south position of the westerkly wind belt as well. I could go on but Erl gives the detail much better.

• #

Rob, is this compatible with Steven Wilde’s hypothesis about the Sun driving ozone which drives surface temperature? Is the Sun driving ozone and changing the climate?

• #

There are significant differences between my hypothesis and the work from Erl. We have communicated about those differences and remain on good terms.

Erl is on the right track but IMHO he has missed a couple of critical observations that I do take account of.

• #

Currently my favoured scenario is that spectral changes affect ozone and thus global cloudiness relativel quickly but that oceanic inertia imposes a one solar cycle delay of about ten to 12 years before the thermal effect fully manifests itself in surface air temperatures.

It seems to take about that long for El Nino warmth to filter through the various ocean basins to the Arctic Ocean. The 2007 Arctic ice minimum was about 10 years after the powerful El Nino of 1997/8. The time taken for that process would vary depending on the interactions between ocean cycles in each ocean basin.

• #

From post #22

… the observed delay of ~11 years cannot be simply due to propagation of heat around the Earth because:

The delayed warming influence just mentioned is too large to be due to the direct heating effect of TSI.
The time constant of the low pass filter that mimics the thermal inertia of the Earth is ~1 to ~3 years (post 12) — so the global temperature reflects the new level of direct heating by the TSI much sooner than the ~11 years of the delay.

The delay is likely to be on the Sun. TSI could be a leading indicator of some other change that follows in the next solar cycle.

• #

Jo,
Interestingly, reduced global cloudiness would manifest itself via a change in the power of El Niño events within 1 to 3 years but the full effect of the enhanced El Niño would take up to 10 years or so to filter through all the ocean basins.
So you get both an early thermal response in the atmosphere plus a longer term response.
Would that fit?

• #
• #
ren

The question is whether the magnetic field of Jupiter and Saturn together during the conjunction can cause reaction in the magnetic field of the sun?

The stronger the magnetic field, the larger the magnetosphere. Some 20,000 times stronger than Earth’s magnetic field, Jupiter’s magnetic field creates a magnetosphere so large it begins to avert the solar wind almost 3 million kilometers before it reaches Jupiter. The magnetosphere extends so far past Jupiter it sweeps the solar wind as far as the orbit of Saturn.
Like Earth’s magnetosphere, many of the charged particles trapped in Jupiter’s magnetosphere come from the solar wind; however, Jupiter has an extra source of particles that other planets do not have. Jupiter’s volcanically active moon, Io, provides a substantial portion of charged particles to Jupiter’s magnetosphere.
The magnetosphere extends so far past Jupiter it sweeps the solar wind as far as the orbit of Saturn.

• #
ren

SOLAR CURRENT FEEDBACK
M.A. Vukcevic MSc
The Sun is the generator of the heliospheric current made of charged particles which extends to the
limits of the heliosphere, forming a closed circuit. It flows in three-dimensional plane (known as the
heliospheric current sheet. The Sun’s rotation has effect of warping of the heliospheric current sheet into
shape of a spiral. The electric current in the heliospheric current sheet is directed radially inward, the
circuit being closed by outward currents
aligned with the Sun’s magnetic field in the
solar polar regions. The total current in the
circuit is on the order of 3×10^9. This current
is polarised so the return leg splits into two
and closes the circuit above the Sun’s surface.
The heliospheric current interacts with
planetary magnetospheres. By definition a
planet’s magnetosphere should have same
orbital parameters as the planet itself. A
magnetosphere is not sphere at all, being
hugely distorted by the solar wind. Due to its
size, shape and position a magnetosphere
cannot directly influence the Sun’s magnetic
behavior, but there is a possibility of an
indirect influence through modulation of the
heliospheric current resulting in a feedback
The heliospheric current continuously
interacts with the planetary magnetospheres. It
could be ascertained that considerable amount
of energy is extracted from the current by the
impacted magnetosphere: through magnetic
reconnection or some other way, also
magnetosphere traps some of the charged
particles .
http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/solarcurrent.pdf

• #

Thanks Ren. That’s got to be up there as a suspect.

• #
• #
• #
Rob R

David,

I am not going to judge whether Erl and Stephen are exactly on the same track, except to say that there are some strong similarities. Erl is still laying out his description of atmospheric dynamics so perhaps it is too early to say. It is a rather different view when contrasted with that of “traditional” climate science. Could say the same for Stephen also.

I would note that in Erl’s view the Antarctic “ozone hole” is largely a natural feature and only affected by man-made aerosols to a minor extent.

Erl has most of his key points fairly well illustrated. The best way to form an opinion is to have a look. It would be well worth the time.

• #
Rob R

David,

Ozone is the dominant greenhouse gas through much of the thickness to the atmosphere. That is the part where water has been precipitated out by condensing to rain/snow/ice. It is not strongly influenced by shortwave radiation. It is heavily influenced by long wave(mostly upwards) radiation from the surface and from water vapour. Ozone content is created by ionising radiation and destroyed largely by natural oxides of nitrogen. So the effectiveness of ozone in warming the atmosphere is influenced strongly by fluctuations in both. These can be either short or long term.

• #

“Ozone is the dominant greenhouse gas through much of the thickness to the atmosphere. That is the part where water has been precipitated out by condensing to rain/snow/ice. It is not strongly influenced by shortwave radiation.”

“Greenhouse gas”……Meaningless

“thickness to the atmosphere”….Do you mean distance or total mass/sensible heat?

“water has been precipitated out by condensing to rain/snow/ice.”…..Airborne H2O condensate in the form of invisible of snow is a major component throughout the stratosphere, much more so than ozone. Such is not a gas!

“not strongly influenced by shortwave radiation.”….. Atmospheric ozone is created from O2 only by shortwave radiation. A very exothermic process!

“the effectiveness of ozone in warming the atmosphere is influenced strongly by fluctuations in both.”…. No indication of what may be meant by “warming”! The amount of energy required to increase sensible heat thus temperature of all of the atmospheric ozone by 30°C is less that the energy required to evaporate one liter of water, 2,500kJ !!!

Your claims for O3 have no scientific basis whatsoever, and are as fake as the claims made for atmospheric CO2, as made by other self appointed climatastrophists.

• #
AndyG55

OT, USCRN anomaly drops 3°F (1.67°C) from March to April

This value is pretty much the same as the drop in UAH USA48 and RSS US

Trend in all real US data since 2005 is still indistinguishable from ZERO.

https://i1.wp.com/s19.postimg.org/ps2geu8qb/USCRN_et_al.png

• #
AndyG55

gees 11 thumbs.. thanks.:-)

And red guys… truth hurts hey…

…. suck it up, little children 🙂

• #
ren

Product shows the average solar radiation absorbed (W/m2) in the earth-atmosphere system. It is derived from AVHRR Channels 1 and 2. The mean is displayed on a one degree equal area map on a seasonal basis. This product is also referred to as Shortwave Absorbed Radiation (SWAR). Absorbed solar radiation is the difference between the incoming solar radiation at the top of the atmosphere and the outgoing reflected flux at the top of the atmosphere.
Monthly Mean

• #

Your product clearly omits forward scattered shortwave that exits the atmosphere. Why?

• #
ren

Cycle 25 may be weaker than 24.
http://la.climatologie.free.fr/soleil/soleil2.htm#g-o

• #
Geoff Sherrington

The N and D remind me of family life. One day conception happens and 11 years later you have a teenager able to conceive and repeat.
Does a particular pulse of sunlight initiate a period of slow incubation that blossoms the next pulse, but only if the pulse has a particular like intensity of a part of the UV spectrum.
Photo induced polymerisation also comes to mind.
But, the mind is not reliable. I think.
I think you have to be careful about the 11 or 22 years elapsed. There are not too many lumps of 11 years in the reliable history of observation and chance happenings could still be intermittent rather than cyclic or diagnostic.
Geoff.

• #

David
Harrison and Stainforth say in: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/eost2009EO13/pdf
“Reductionism argues that deterministic approaches to science and positivist views of causation are the appropriate methodologies for exploring complex, multivariate systems … where the behavior of a complex system can be deduced from the fundamental reductionist understanding. Rather, large, complex systems may be better understood, and perhaps only understood, in terms of observed, emergent behavior. The practical implication is that there exist system behaviors and structures that are not amenable to explanation or prediction by reductionist methodologies … the GCM is the numerical solution of a complex but purely deterministic set of nonlinear partial differential equations over a defined spatiotemporal grid, and no attempt is made to introduce any quantification of uncertainty into its construction … [T]he reductionist argument that large scale behaviour can be represented by the aggregative effects of smaller scale process has never been validated in the context of natural environmental systems .”
The bottom up numerical modelling approach is inherently of no value for predicting future temperature with any calculable certainty because of the difficulty of specifying the initial conditions of a sufficiently fine grained spatio-temporal grid of a large number of variables with sufficient precision prior to multiple iterations. For a complete discussion of this see Essex:
and for a detailed discussion see Section 1 at
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2014/07/climate-forecasting-methods-and-cooling.html
Earth’s climate is the result of resonances and beats between various quasi-cyclic processes of varying wavelengths. It is not possible to forecast the future unless we have a good understanding of the relation of the climate of the present time to the current phases of these different interacting natural quasi-periodicities which fall into two main categories.
a) The orbital long wave Milankovitch eccentricity,obliquity and precessional cycles which are modulated by
b) Solar “activity” cycles with possibly multi-millennial, millennial, centennial and decadal time scales.
The convolution of the a and b drivers is mediated through the great oceanic current and atmospheric pressure systems to produce the earth’s climate and weather.
After establishing where we are relative to the long wave periodicities to help forecast decadal and annual changes, we can then look at where earth is in time relative to the periodicities of the PDO, AMO and NAO and ENSO indices and based on past patterns make reasonable forecasts for future decadal periods.
Following this approach, forecasting future climate trends with useful accuracy becomes reasonably straight forward using only the millennial and 60 year periodicities. See Fig 1 and the discussion and forecasts at
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2016/03/the-imminent-collapse-of-cagw-delusion.html
The key point in predicting the future is the recognition of the millennial temperature peak and change of trend from warming to cooling seen in the RSS and Hadcrut 4 data in Figs 5 an 5a.

• #

Agreed: The convolution of the a and b drivers is mediated through the great oceanic current and atmospheric pressure systems to produce the earth’s climate and weather.

Gordon Dobson measured the ozone content of the air with the spectrometer that he developed in the 1920s. Immediately, and following on the observations of others like deBort in Paris he discovered that total column ozone mapped surface pressure. In the 1950s it was thought that if we could understand the factors responsible for the higher ozone content of the air in low pressure cells that originate in high latitudes and have very cold (very dense heavy) air near the surface we might begin to understand the forces responsible for the daily weather as we see it represented in a ‘weather map’.

Dobson was succeeded at Oxford by Sir John Houghton. From Wikipedia: co-chair of the Nobel Peace Prize winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) scientific assessment working group. He was the lead editor of first three IPCC reports. He was professor in atmospheric physics at the University of Oxford, former Chief Executive at the Met Office and founder of the Hadley Centre.

Read the great work of Bernard Lewin here.

The rest, as they say, is history.

• #
sillyfilly

Conundrum resolved, Force X does not exist. Divergence of solar radiation and global temperature negates the lag theory on any or all statistical cycles.

• #

Added note.The delay between the solar activity millennial peak at about 1991 and the RSS temperature peak at about 2003 is 12 years. The delay varies according to the variable under discussion – compare Fig 5 and 5a.
As another example of interest the delay between the solar activity peak ( neutron count) Fig 8 and the Arctic ice volume minimum is about 21 years.

• #

Thank you Rob R for the introduction here.

Some miscellaneous observations

“But force X acts by albedo modulation and produces a cooling peak to counteract the TSI peak at the sunspot maxima, suggesting it creates an increase in cloud cover around sunspot maxima.”

Solar maximum is associated with La Nina in the Pacific. The notion is : ‘The cold event-like response is evident the year before and the year after the peaks in solar forcing. The response of the coupled dynamics operates on the timescales of El Niño, on the order of months, so the response is most evident near the peak when the system is being most strongly forced’ H Van Loon and GA Meehl http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/publications/vanloon_meehl_2008.pdf

How will the argument be won? Well, the fact is that the globe has not experienced a statistically significant increase in temperature since 1998. This has not affected the crusading zeal of the urban intelligentsia who have representative voice in Australia’s ABC, Robin Williams on the science program through to the breakfast program people, the morning show people and the ruminations of Philip Adams and the pseudo science of Catalyst. And then there are the Greens and the left wing of the ALP looking around for something to be aggrieved about.

This argument will not be won by rational argument or demonstrating that the IPCC science is wrong. There is no real interest in the science. It’s driven by something like the feeling that man is forever saddled with the albatross of original sin. It could be a gut response to overcrowding and the increasingly unequal distribution of wealth. A sort of cancerous growth on the body politic. It’s no accident that Malthusian ideas came from a cleric. Its what they used to call an ‘ennuie’ a feeling of utter weariness and discontent resulting from satiety or lack of interest …things are not going well. The mortgage is strangling me…..and I just have to possess an iPhone6 and lots of beer.

You might imagine that politicians are intelligent people who could take an interest in the science. But, their real interest is in sniffing the wind. When they need to make a decision they first of all take advice and then sniff the wind.

This does not mean to say that we should not get the science right. We need to understand the modes of climate change, whether man made or natural.

There are in fact very detectable modes of natural climate change that stick out like DB’s when you look closely. But you will never understand their origin or the mechanisms that drive them if you focus only on a single averaged global temperature statistic. The observations that are important are described here and here

The understanding of polar atmospheric processes in the academic climate community is abysmal. The interaction of the atmospheric column (yes, not just the stratosphere but all of it) with the mesosphere in winter is the key to understanding the evolution of the ozone content of the air. Ozone warms the air by absorbing long wave radiation from the Earth at 9-10um where peak in long wave energy emission occurs. Think. The Earth receives radiant energy from the sun in wave lengths that carry peak energy in the short wave spectrum through to very long waves. It’s absorbed and re-emitted in a tightly focussed array of wave lengths in the infra-red with the bulk of it close to the wave lengths that excite ozone. The energy supply is inexhaustible. It warms ozone wherever it is present. From the surface all the way to the limits of what we call the mesosphere. The ability of ozone to transfer that energy of excitation depends directly on surface pressure (closer to the surface there are more molecules within easy reach). So, it is estimated that there is as much energy absorbed and transferred to the surrounding atmosphere in what we call the ‘troposphere’ as there is in what we call the ‘stratosphere’. It can be observed that the temperature of the stratosphere is driven by the absorption of infrared energy leaving the Earth and its atmosphere more than the heating due to the process of short wave photolysis that is largely exhausted in the mesosphere.

It is a mantra of climate science that the temperature of the stratosphere is driven by the absorption of short wave energy from the sun. WRONG. There is obviously no short wave to be had in the ‘troposphere’ or in the middle of the polar night. It is in the polar night and adjacent latitudes that ozone proliferates and is responsible for the greatest differences in atmospheric density (closer isobars on the surface pressure maps). Particularly between 300hpa and 50hpa.

At the poles marked differences in air density due to the conjunction of cold mesospheric air low in ozone and warm air rich in ozone and therefore of low density results in uplift that begins and is driven by a remorseless continuation of the circumstances that give rise to the circulation located between 300hPa and 50hpa. This is where wind is very strong. We call it a jet stream and it marks the perimeter of what we call the polar vortex, in reality just a loosely linked chain of polar cyclones that have the intensity of a category 4 tropical cyclone 365 days a year but over a much more extensive area. The speed of the circulation falls away towards the surface but it increases aloft unto the limits of the atmospheric column where ozone rich air is lifted to 10hPa and beyond. Accordingly the variation in temperature at 10hPa is much greater than it is at all points beneath. Only 1% of the atmosphere is above 10 hPa, an elevation of just 30 km.

The ascent of ozone rich air surrounding the poles is balanced by descent over the pole itself (mixing with mesospheric air and heavily disguising its erosive NOx content) and in the mid latitudes where there are massive high pressure cells of low ozone content. That ozone is much diluted in the process because the surface area in the mid latitudes is much greater than in high latitudes. But, if the trace quantities of ozone that remain after the heavy dilution increase due to an increase in the partial pressure of ozone in relation to other gases then the descending air warms and clouds disappear. The variation in the temperature of the air in the upper troposphere is several times that at the surface.

It is observed that when surface pressure increases in the mid latitudes there is less cloud and the surface warms. Over the last 70 years pressure has fallen by 10 hpa over Antarctica and risen in the mid latitudes. This has resulted in the absorption of more solar energy in the oceans of the southern hemisphere.

The dynamics in the Arctic and the northern hemisphere are ultimately dependent on Antarctic processes. Quite different due to the very distribution of land and sea. Too complicated to describe in a post like this.

The difference between polar atmospheric processes determine that surface temperature evolves quite differently in the two hemispheres and in fact according to latitude. Surface temperature variation is driven from the winter pole. There is a link to what is called the ‘zonal wind’ that is basically the circulation that brings mesospheric air into the atmospheric column in winter where it is rapidly absorbed into the wider atmosphere per medium of the gigantic egg beaters that we call polar cyclones. Observe the circulation of the air and its relationship to surface pressure here. This circualtion varies in its intensity with geomagnetic activity driven by the interaction of the solar wind with the Earth’s magnetic field.

On average about 60 people a day visit the site where I describe these phenomena and on some days about half of them come from Poland…its that feller ren who clicks a lot. But he knows a lot more than most. He prefers to suggest with pictures rather than spell it out. You would think that more people would be interested in the science. But they aren’t. They mistakenly believe that its too complicated.

Thanks to Rob R again. He not only understands the process but he can explain it.

For those schooled in climate science: What I have been describing here is the origin of the well recognized ‘annular modes’ of inter-annual and inter-decadal change in climate. The cause is unknown to climate science. Earlier the northern hemisphere manifestation of this mode was called the ‘Arctic Oscillation’. It has long been known that variations in the AO in winter is well correlated with variations in geomagnetic activity. A few months ago this appeared. So, the connection between the solar wind and the infinitely more influential processes that drive the ozone content in the global atmosphere that emanates from the Antarctic is now established.

• #
• #
el gordo

Could the position of the Subtropical Ridge be influenced by SAM transitioning from negative to positive mode?

• #

If by ‘subtropical ridge’ you mean the chain of high pressure anticyclones that travel west to east at between 30-40° of latitude yes and no. It’s not the position per se. It’s the intensity (volume of descending air and its velocity depending on the pressure differential between high and low pressure cells) and spread (area) that varies. Surface pressure has fallen at 60-70° south for 70 years and risen at 30-40° south.
Result:
1 Increased velocity in the north westerlies travelling south to meet polar cyclones.
2 Fronts and associated cloud cover forced southwards.
3 Cooling in high latitudes
4 Warming in the mid latitudes
5 Less frontal rainfall in winter across southern Australia and WA in particular. (but more vegetative growth due to enhanced CO2 and and water use efficiency.)
6 Higher temperature of the waters entering the west to east flow near the Galapagos Islands.
7 A distinctly warmer Indian Ocean.

The abruptness of the shift in the late 1970s is seen in the temperature of the air at 200hPa as seen here.

There is a glimpse of what the future holds here.

• #
el gordo

Thanks Erl

The band of high pressure is intensifying according to Bertrand Timbal (BoM) and its all our fault apparently.

Over the past few years the STR has been tracking well south of its normal latitude in winter but couldn’t have anything to do with the increase in CO2.

I like the graph of the 1976 Great Climate Shift.

• #

There is a reciprocal relationship between surface pressure at 60-70° latitude where polar cyclones form and 20-40° south latitude. The engine for change is on the margins of Antarctica and to some extent at a similar latitude in the northern hemisphere but specifically over the north Pacific and the north Atlantic oceans where low pressure systems form due to the high levels of total column ozone in the upper half of the atmospheric column.

Surface temperature in low latitudes rises strictly with surface pressure.

CO2 is uniformly distributed in the lower atmosphere and has no part to play in generating differences in air density in the horizontal domain. Due to the way in which the atmosphere is mixed by polar cyclones in high altitudes streamers of ozone rich air are left behind by the circulation of the air that rotates faster than the earth and in the same direction as the Earth, i.e. west to east. These streamers propagate towards low latitudes in the upper air, in particular at 300-50hPa and they are both ozone and water vapour rich. How much air density reduction is due to ozone and how much to the presence of H20 and the localized absorption of infrared by water vapour would be an interesting thing to find out. But the ozone and the water vapour are working together to drive local atmospheric heating that gives rise to wind. It is at this level that the winds are strongest, not at the surface.

Weather systems propagate near what we call the ‘tropopause’. The upper tropopause contains ozone that gives rise to this phenomenon

The tropopause is warmer in winter than it is in summer due to the increase in ozone partial pressure in winter.

• #

See 11.1 above!!

• #

11.1 is ill mannered in the extreme. What joy do you derive from venting your spleen

There are none so blind as those who will not see: https://reality348.wordpress.com/2016/03/26/17-why-is-the-stratosphere-warm/

• #
KinkyKeith

Erl

Commiserations.

On your personal blog there seems to be a lot of interesting material but have not gone through it in detail.

One thing I did note was the apparent focus on the poles as opposed to habitable Earth zones.

Question is can a gas with such a small presence overall do anything much? Even that dangerous gas CO2 is 100 times more prevalent.

🙂 KK

p.s. the initial response was in regard to another post, not yours, but unfortunately have been “linked” to that unfortunate technical term “greenhouse” gas.

I am sure that all who visit your blog will find something of interest.

• #

KinkyKeith Re. One thing I did note was the apparent focus on the poles as opposed to habitable Earth zones.

Correct. When one examines the variability in surface temperature at all latitudes from pole to pole according to the month of the year a tell-tale signal appears. Variability is strongest in the month of January (mid winter) between the North Pole and 30° south latitude. South of that latitude variability is most extreme in July (midwinter). It is in mid winter that the interaction between the mesosphere and the atmosphere over the pole is most active and most variable. Despite the apparent importance of the Arctic it is the Antarctic that drives the 200 year cycle in the ozone content of the air. I am not talking small amounts of variability but unmistakably large. You don’t need statistical tests of significance to see the difference that manifests according to the month of the year.

RE: Question is can a gas with such a small presence overall do anything much?
Yes, because it is most unequally distributed.
Yes, because the density differences that manifest aloft at 300 to 50hPa are responsible for the existence of polar cyclones and the jet stream aka the polar front.
Yes, because the flux in polar surface pressure due to polar cyclone activity determines the distribution of atmospheric mass and therefore the planetary winds.
Yes, because winds that come from the poles are cold and winds from the equator are warm.
Yes, because cloud cover varies with geopotential height and upper atmosphere geopotential height is a function of the ozone content of the air.
Yes, because the distribution of atmospheric mass documented as the ‘annular modes’ is the major mode of climate variation observed on both weather and climate time scales.

Summing up. The presence of ozone in the atmosphere in high latitudes in variable amounts over time accounts for the variations in the global circulation. When you are looking at a weather map you are looking at the influence of ozone in the upper half of the atmospheric column.

• #

Erl Happ May 11, 2016 at 10:02 am

“11.1 is ill mannered in the extreme. What joy do you derive from venting your spleen”

Indeed! only contempt for ignorant academic meteorology that blessed us all with CAGW!!!

I have no joy from this attempted meteorological scandal Please point out even one technical error in my spleen.

“there are none so blind as those who will not see: https://reality348.wordpress.com/2016/03/26/17-why-is-the-stratosphere-warm/

Absolutely no definition of ‘warm’!
The stratosphere has higher temperature than the tropopause because it has little or no mass with sensible heat. The stratosphere like space itself can be claimed to have any temperature whatsoever by the scammers.

• #

Will, take your objections to my blog and I will answer you there. And be specific if you really want an answer.

• #
Don B

David, do you have an estimate of the book’s completion date?

• #

A few months. Not more.

• #

Can we pre buy? Or is chocolate better? 🙂

• #
Ruairi

To warmists, the effect of the sun,
On Earth’s climate is practically none,
Where a rational mind,
Of the skeptical kind,
Sees an obvious smoking gun.

• #

The X Factor reduces upper atmosphere cloud (albedo), which increases terrestrial temperatures. At the same time other albedo effects,(eg volcanism and wind-blown dust,) increases albedo and therefore cools temperatures.
Thus, we have a decrease in precipitation and an increase in temperatures caused by the Solar-induced orbital ‘Dry’ Cycles, (X Factor) – but a decrease in temperatures caused by various lower level ‘albedo ‘ effects.
Less precipitation (snow) – but lower temperatures equals more sea-ice.
When the over-all albedo ‘balance’ tips in favour of cooling factors,(eg, increased volcanism,) we have the scenario for increasing ice.
Eventually you will have to recognise the existence of the Orbital ‘Dry’ Cycles David.

• #
Jim

I remember tube circuits, and playing with fire.
A. Early boy scouts, taught SW radio way back when. Everyone should remember the magnet next to a tube for tuning the circuit, up,down,in out, and the waveformation changes. Even the inputs changed with the movements oh the magnet. Are we part of a tuned circuit, plus and minus, tuned by sunspots?
B. I did appreciate, the water world. Immediate heat to water increases the atmospheric loading of water to restart a cycle. After the water you need a substrate for the drop to form. The homestar sheds charged ions, and more. Remember they date ice rings with berillium. There are clouds of dust in space. It also gets battered by our passage thru the aether. Seeds for water. I don’t remember the factor for the water cycle but it’s more then incidential.
But, it’s still better to investigate the matter prior to setting a tax on what it’s supposed to control. After all, what are they trying to control?

• #
pat

Dr. Simon Albert, senior research fellow at the University of Queensland, scolds the MSM, kind of!

10 May: Guardian: Karl Mathiesen: Headlines ‘exaggerated’ climate link to sinking of Pacific islands
Report’s author says many media outlets have misinterpreted the science by conflating sea-level rise with climate change
Many media outlets, including the Guardian, jumped to the conclusion that the islands were lost to climate change. But this largely misinterprets the science, according to the study’s author, Dr Simon Albert…
It appears that in some cases journalists did not contact the researchers and instead quoted from a comment piece the authors wrote on The Conversation website…

MSM still at it, even tho the headline isn’t borne out in the text:

10 May: news.com.au: Climate change: Rising sea levels mean five Solomon Islands now underwater
by Debra Killalea and AFP
An alarming new study, published in Environmental Research Letters, reveals rising sea levels and coastal erosion are to blame for the predicament…
The research, conducted from 2012-2015, was based on historical imagery dating back to 1947.
Led by The University of Queensland with support from CSIRO, University of Wollongong and Solomon Islands Government, researchers also relied on traditional knowledge of the local community members in Solomon Islands…
Sea levels have been rising by an average of 7mm per year over the last 20 years, due to global warning and stronger trade winds, New Scientist has revealed.
Dr Albert said it was a perfect storm…
http://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/climate-change/climate-change-rising-sea-levels-mean-five-solomon-islands-now-underwater/news-story/f005f80f696f2abe13c15dd9334bbd2e

• #
ren

Above the current sheet, the higher speed solar wind typically has a dominant magnetic polarity in one direction and below the current sheet, the polarity is in the opposite direction. As the Earth moves through this evolving ballerina skirt, it is sometimes within the heliospheric current sheet, sometimes above it and sometime below it. When the magnetic field of the solar wind switches polarity, it is a strong indication that Earth has crossed the current sheet. The location of the Earth with respect to the current sheet is important because space weather impacts are highly dependent on the solar wind speed, the solar wind density, and the direction of the magnetic field embedded in the solar wind.

Each of the elements mentioned above play a role in space weather. High speed winds bring geomagnetic storms while slow speed winds bring calm space weather. Corotating interaction regions and to a lesser extent, current sheet crossings, can also cause geomagnetic disturbances. Thus specifying and forecasting the solar wind is critical to developing forecasts of space weather and its impacts at Earth.
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/phenomena/solar-wind
Radiation galactic solar wind are closely related.
http://neutronm.bartol.udel.edu/realtime/southpole.html
Our star’s output varies on many time scales: from explosive reconnection and convective turnover, to the 27-day solar rotation, to the 22-year solar magnetic cycle, and to even longer, irregular fluctuations, such as the 17th-century Maunder minimum. The variability is linked to the emergence of magnetic field from below the photosphere, its transport and destruction on the solar surface, and the eruption into the heliosphere of energy stored in the solar atmosphere as flares, shocks, and coronal mass ejections. Longer-term changes that can affect Earth’s climate include solar total and spectral irradiance. Like terrestrial weather, it is not yet clear how long in advance solar activity is predictable. Continuous observations of the solar vector magnetic field and high-resolution observations of the atmosphere will be as critical for resolving this question as helioseismology will be for revealing the subsurface conditions.
http://science.nasa.gov/heliophysics/focus-areas/space-environment/

• #

Ren,
The more you look into it the greater are the complexities involved. Is it any wonder that its hard to find simple correlations between solar activity and some aspect of atmospheric behaviour.

• #
ren

Geopotential anomalies in 2015 show that the polar vortex in the south was strong (lack of strong anomalies). Solar magnetic activity in 2015 increased.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_HGT_ANOM_ALL_SH_2015.png
http://services.swpc.noaa.gov/images/solar-cycle-planetary-a-index.gif
For comparison anomalies in 2009.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_HGT_ANOM_ALL_SH_2009.gif

• #

el gordo at 19.1.1.1.1 asks Could you give me a critique of this abstract?

With pleasure.

The authors examine the question as to whether climate models can be relied on to predict the surface pressure intensity and position of the Sub Tropical Ridge…..the travelling zone of high pressure systems between 20 to 40° south altitude. They are well aware of the historical decline in winter rainfall that has occurred in the last 100 years in southern Australia.

Their mode of reasoning involves a ‘warming of the climate’ (from you know what) producing an expansion of the Hadley cell and a notion that the Antarctic Ozone hole is somehow playing a role but ‘the how of it’ is not a matter they enter into.

After a protracted examination of model performance (about 30 models) they conclude that:

1. There is no systematic difference or improvement between Earth System Models (ESMs) and Coupled General Circulation Models (CGCMs). Also, there is no consistently better simulation in models with high spatial resolution.

2. Trend in STR-I in April-October is underestimated compared to observations in all models. This is the winter rainfall season that is of concern in southern Australia where there is little rainfall in summer.

3. The consistent underestimation of STR-I trend in all models therefore suggests that is it is a systematic model bias in this response. Also, the CMIP5 models generally simulate the correlation between the STR and southeast Australian rainfall weaker than observations, in some cases with the opposite sign. This raises doubts about the overall magnitude of rainfall change in southeast Australia in response to changes in the STR, and also the spatial pattern of rainfall response.

Their guess is that the trend of the past 100 years is likely to continue with a further marked loss in southern Australian rainfall of a magnitude that is well in excess of what the models suggest. This is based on extrapolation from past trends. Its qualified with an IF.

In this they are mistaken. In fact as Antarctic surface pressure recovers, a process already under way, the STR will weaken allowing a reversal of the rainfall trend of the last 100 years.

The ozone hole plays no role in this at all. Nor does CO2. The expansion of the Hadley cell is due to an increase in the volume of air descending in the mid latitudes driven by increased ascent driven by ozone warming in high latitudes.

In any case the greening of southern Australia due to increased plant water efficiency due to increased CO2 means that the productivity of the land has increased.

Useless expenditure of public funds to support people when their training has ill equipped them to make a useful contribution. They appear to be hampered in their performance by a belief system that precludes deduction based on observation.

• #
el gordo

Thanks again Erl, this is good news.

‘In fact as Antarctic surface pressure recovers, a process already under way, the STR will weaken allowing a reversal of the rainfall trend of the last 100 years.’

• #

“Useless expenditure of public funds to support people when their training has ill equipped them to make a useful contribution. They appear to be hampered in their performance by a belief system that precludes deduction based on observation.”

Interesting Erl ! I try to understand. Your writings of surface pressure seem sound, but the actual pressures with mean static 101,325 Pa±34 PA. and lowest hurricane wall pressure 101,100Pa cannot provide any reason for the vast radially outward atmospheric equatorial mass momentum from low local surface pressure. This must be combined with the measurable downward atmospheric mass momentum at 30° latitude to a higher surface pressure. What the [snip] are you meteorological [[snip] types] trying to pull? All is easily explained by the Earth’s centrifuge, fluid dynamics, and continuum mechanics. Never by occult meteorology.
All the best! -will-

[Editorial discretion applied.] AZ

• #

To my blog Will if you are wanting a considered answer.

• #
Neville

David, will it be an e book as well as hard copy? How many pages and about how much will it cost?

• #

To be determined Neville. I am thinking of making it pretty much as short as possible, with no or very little politics, and focusing very narrowly only on critical empirical evidence. Instead of putting block diagrams with a few simple equations (oh, scary) in the Appendices, putting them on a website instead. There has to be a couple of intermediate levels between Gore-simple (“co2 acts like a blanket”) and the papers, some on the book and some on a website.

• #
bobl

David,
You seem to have forgotten that a delay of a half cycle is equivalent to a 180 degree phase shift (inversion) the notch delay may not be due to a delay, notches can also be caused by antiphase cancellation, in the same way a noise cancelling microphone works.

Essentially you hypothesise that something gets delayed from the suncycle min into the max to cause cacellation, but it could just be as simple as something counteracting TSI that is a force with the same timing as TSI but with inverted phase. For example, UV producing more ozone which causes more reflection of the ozone layer.

• #
AndyG55

…. or changes in UV frequency spectrum allowing deeper ocean penetration/warming

• #
el gordo

Sun’s magnetic field during grand minimum is in fact at its maximum.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/05/160509085758.htm

• #

Any magnetic field force is likely to be UN-understandible without clear understanding of 13 dimensional space-time. How jew do dat?

• #
Roy Hogue

13 dimensional??? Will, is that a typo? I would be prepared for 3 or 4 dimensions, 4 if you’re really talking about space-time. But…???

I can’t hold even a smoldering match up to your background, much less a burning candle. But some things stand out just begging to be questioned.

Roy

• #

“13 dimensional??? Will, is that a typo?”
Perhaps a slight exaggeration for this thread! 🙂 Like with string theory dimensions quickly pile up if you have to continuously juggle all of them.
Consider a non-accelerating missile intercept geometry. that is called a 6-DOF (degree of freedom) or a 6 dimensional problem 3 to locate the target another 3 to locate the missile at any instant of time even with constant but independent velocity of each. The solution is for the missile to adjust its own velocity vector so as to maintain the angle to the target line of sight a constant (dish dot = zero). Either intercept is assured or your own velocity vector is NOT closing. If linear or angular accelerations are allowed things quickly get out of hand.
The electric, the magnetic, the electromagnetic and gravitational field forces between bodies are both moving and accelerating continuously. Snapshot lower dimensional projections can help with eventual understanding but are useless for getting out of the way of what must happen. Questions are easy! Timely answers are a bitch.
We have 8 major planets in addition to the Sun and many satellites each doing mainly their own thing but always affecting the ongoing opera of each and every other! I just hate it when academic meteorologists spout their warmed over superstitions to stop the questions, when a simple I do not know would be much more informative!! 🙂
All the best! -will-

• #
Roy Hogue

Degrees of freedom I would recognize — simplified, just the variables to juggle to get something to work right. But I wouldn’t call them dimensions, though now that you’ve said what you did I can see how they might be considered dimensions of the problem.

Trouble is, we spent careers in very different technical arenas. But 13… 🙂

• #

Roy,
OK To have a new dimension to the “is”, such must be orthogonal (independent) of all others. However with us earthling ‘plodders’ the next one would be either ‘temperature’ or ‘brightness’, ‘luminence’, ‘radiance’, or whatever else is next, to normalize ‘energy’ with all of fourspace. Such cannot be done in general as most folk lack the math skill to make change for a buck, let alone ‘calculate’ the ‘price’ of an egg @ \$1.57/dz!. Which egg does the carton go with? Unlike symbolic algebra with any number of rote dimensions. My dimensionality is the number of partial differentials you can keep afloat with only two hands, else get run over by the cement mixing truck. Folk seem to accept time, or its conjugate … -frequency. However ‘timeliness’ or even ‘simultaneous’,must again be additional dimensions. 13 to me was ok, as would be 11 or 7. Octonion matrix algebra works for any of these, if you can shoot those damn cement mixing trucks.
Are I rambling sufficiently?
All the best! -will-

• #
Roy Hogue

Are I rambling sufficiently?

And do you happen to have a couple of aspirin?

• #

The reason for the delay is glaringly obvious. It varies according to the parameter under consideration and is due to the thermal inertia of the oceans – no great mystery here. For example as noted in an earlier comment above there are 12 years between the solar activity peak at about 1991 and the RSS temperature peak at 2003. The delay is slightly longer cf the Hadcrut 4 data. See Figs 8, 5,and 5a at http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2016/03/the-imminent-collapse-of-cagw-delusion.html
There is an interval of 21 years between the solar peak and the minimum in arctic sea ice volume in 2012.

• #

El gordo. Total nonsense – the reverse is clearly the case .The 10Be count was at a maximum during the Maunder minimum.

• #
el gordo

Thanks Norman, I’ll accept your advice unless further evidence comes to hand.

• #
Roy Hogue

David,

I have tried to open each of the 4 references you list since yesterday and they continue to lead right back to this page. Surely this isn’t what you intend.

After going over the whole of your post more thoroughly I find it to be straightforward and easy to understand — your usual well written presentation. But I found myself wanting more meet than is there. How soon will the next installment be coming along?

• #

Sorry Roy, the links on the references just move between article and endnotes. Google to get the papers.

Encourage Joanne to publish the next four installments. They are all written and almost ready to go.

• #

When we look out into space, most of the stars we observe are variables where the rate and magnitude varies over a very wide range. Clearly there is some set of conditions that causes stars to vary in output and that these conditions are very common. So common and so widely varied that we can not preclude our Sun being variable at a variety of different scales.

The most likely influence with enough dynamic range to cause such a wide range of effects is the gravitational tidal influence of nearby bodies modulating the shape of the fusion core, thus modifying its energy output profile. Given the large amount of time it takes for the energy of a photon to travel from the core to the surface, its quite possible that standing waves can develop which change shape and over time can add to or subtract from each other to modulate the output at the surface both above and below the average output of the core.

I don’t think its a coincidence that the primary sunspot cycle is so close to the orbital period of Jupiter, which of all the planets will have the largest tidal effect on the fusion core of the Sun, which acts instantly even as it takes 100’s of thousands of years for the effects to ultimately reach the surface.

• #
Roy Hogue

Fascinating! Thank you. It’s one more thing I’ve learned from someone on Jo Nova that I can remember and maybe use in the future to evaluate something. It’ an intuitively sensible idea and I would never have thought of it myself.

Now if we had a way to know if it’s correct or not…

• #
• #
Wayne Job

David it is with a little trepidation i share with you some of my findings, some time ago I contacted Jo and she dismissed me as some kind of crank. Recently we have the Melb U X-ray department trying to figure out our strange findings and the science dept of the U of Aukland starting to try and work out our findings, that said, I will give you my take for what it is worth on your mysterious forces.

The recent finding that 95% of the universe is missing gives a clue, the missing bit is energy of a different kind that science has as yet to find, this is the energy we are finding in our experiments. This energy cycles through the entire universe it enters the poles of the sun and is released mainly through or close to the equator. It cycles into the poles of the planets including the Earth and it mainly comes out near the equator 30 north and 30 south giving us out tropic zone it heats to centre of earth and tends to warm our planet from the inside. Some small proof of this emanation from the equator can be seen on the moon as the side facing us is severely ablated and the dark side is not.

The large gas giants as they are so large effect the earth by their positions and are most likely the caused of the solar cycle and its variations, the very long term variations in the amount of energy we receive is due to our position in our galaxy and would be the result of ice ages.

My best guess at what dark matter is is a de- spun photon add a spin to a photon it becomes an electron and so on up the chain.
The variation in energy input to the sun gives us the sun spots etc I’m thinking your notch and your mysterious energies are tied in the to the music of the spheres and the resultant changes. Wayne

• #
Gary Meyers

David, I read yesterday that the magnetic poles are swapping polarity, with the magnetic field pulsating. Could this have any effect on cloud formation?

• #

No idea Gary, sorry.

• #

David, it seems to me that pursuing the direct role of the Sun maybe the wrong approach. Have you considered a model where the TSI is variable at the ocean surface depending on changes in cloud cover the the position of the Hadley cell leading to variable heat uptake by the oceans. How this heat emerges and its effect on atmospheric temperature with the timing of ENSO events and ocean cycles like PDO and NAO is influenced by the Saros cycle and its effect on heat release by ocean overturning and distribution by current flows, but also on atmospheric tides. There is a link between the Saros cycles and the orbit of Venus that also shows a link to the 11 year solar cycle. So is your Notch effect a planetary resonance effect that is acting indirectly through the Saros cycle to give the delay. Just a thought!

• #

Peter, that is compatible with this series of posts. It is a possibility.

The evidence that the Sun is involved is the synchronization with the Sun, and that surface temperature follows an integral of TSI (which btw suggests an indirect solar sensitivity an order of magnitude higher than the direct effect of TSI, which is one reason we know that the delay is not just a propagation delay of heat around the earth, see post 22). Solar events may in turn may be synchronized to other heavenly bodies, and yes resonance (particularly in the Sun) may be involved. Crawl before walking — first have to establish that it’s not CO2, then that it is integral TSI with a delay.

• #

“Crawl before walking — first have to establish that it’s not CO2, then that it is integral TSI with a delay.”

Not CO2, interesting! Earth’s EMR exitance to space in the 14-16 micron band is dominated by CO2 temperature and outward emissivity in that band. The concentration of atmospheric CO2 changes neither emission temperature or emissivity between 100 ppmv and 2000ppmv CO2. The emission temperature remains that of the tropopause. and the emissivity remains that of the optical depth of the tropopause. Insolation and conversion of H2O latent can change that temperature, but again, such a change in temperature remains independent of any change in atmospheric CO2 concentration, for any theorem under consideration.
While I applaud your detail of obvious incorrect application of partial differential equations. Even more obvious is that there is none of the so called forcing, as all of such is predicated on some superstition of actual thermal EMR flux in a direction of higher temperature. There has not been, and cannot be, any demonstration of even the theoretically possible generation of such flux.
This deliberate scam must remain some vain attempt at contradicting all of Maxwell’s equations. Violating the 2nd Law of thermodynamics remains much more likely.
This miscarriage of science is equivalent to claiming thermal conductivity is some combination of a heat flux to absolute zero from upper temperature and an opposing heat flux from absolute zero in the opposing direction toward the lower temperature. This also, has not been falsified as no one can envision such a superstitious claim.
Thank you! All the best! -will-

• #
Bob Weber

The high temps in 2015/6 did not originate from the SC23 TSI peak in 2002 – they resulted from the SC24 TSI peak.

There is some accumulation from the prior solar cycle(s) only if TSI was high enough long enough during the preceding cycle(s). For instance there was no net OHC accumulation during SC20, as it produced insufficient net energy for a net temp increase.

What appears to be an 11 year delay is actually the real-time AND slightly lagged temperature response(s) to current and mostly very recent TSI [mostly within one year – except for after a very strong cycle], and it only appears to be a delay because the average solar cycle is nearly 11 years long!

The ‘delay’ is a function of former and current TSI, not just TSI from 11 years ago.

The ‘notches’ are the usual solar minimum temp drops, such as in 2007/08.

Look at the two solar cycles that overlapped the onset of the Dalton minimum. Cycles 3 &4 were high magnitude SSN cycles, like the most recent past high cycles, then came SC5, which was about the same size as SC24. Plot the years 1755-1817 from these data and then try to apply the 11 year delay idea.

The plot will show energy accumulating as solar activity rises from cycle to cycle, evident from the increasing temps during successive solar minimums, from SC1 until after SC5, after which the temperature dropped precipitously because of the then-current lower TSI solar cycle #5.

You can actually see the SST ‘notches’ at the solar minimums in the BEST/SSN plot, except after the last highest cycle #4, when the temperature during the solar minimum in the late 1790s floated higher, just as it did post-SC22, a high TSI solar cycle.

Temps spiked higher in 1804 after the SC5 second SSN peak, as it did again in 2015/6, and now, just like then, we can expect a major temp drop for the same reason it occurred during the Dalton – low current TSI, and expected future low TSI for many years to come.

The 1755-1800 run-up to the Dalton minimum situation is very similar to the post-1960 period. In terms of analog years, we are currently at a similar point in terms of SSTs/SSNs just like before the big temp drop that followed the peak of SC5, when temps dropped almost 2 degrees C from 1804-1811, through the year with no sunspots, 1810, before solar activity picked up again.

Current temperatures resulted from ‘high enough’ ‘long enough’ TSI increases during the modern maximum in solar activity, from 1935-2004, when annual SSNs were 65% higher for 70 years than the previous 70 years.

We saw how TSI from a low SS cycle can spike temps up to record levels for one month in February this year. The SST temperature ‘delay’ happened one year after the SC24 TSI peak. That has all changed too as low TSI is now insufficiently high to drive further major warming.

Otherwise, nothing really changes much without changes in solar output.

• #

Bob,

What appears to be an 11 year delay is actually the real-time AND slightly lagged temperature response(s) to current and mostly very recent TSI [mostly within one year – except for after a very strong cycle], and it only appears to be a delay because the average solar cycle is nearly 11 years long!

No. The TSI moves are associated with surface temperature moves an order of magnitude (best fit: 14 times) greater than is possible due to the direct heating effect of TSI. Integral-TSI strongly correlates with temp after a delay, but the size of the temp movements indicates they are not due to direct heating changes in TSI — so propagation delays of heat moving around the Earth are irrelevant. There is another mechanism at work that greatly amplifies the effect of TSI changes. See
— The empirical transfer function implies an indirect solar sensitivity (ISS). Post 21.
— The delay implies an influence that lags TSI by ~11 years. Post 22.

• #
Bob Weber

It’s hard to make friends with people when you have to tell them where they went wrong. No one likes that.

“The TSI moves are associated with surface temperature moves an order of magnitude (best fit: 14 times) greater than is possible due to the direct heating effect of TSI.”

Based on what? Have you actually investigated the direct heating effect of TSI on a daily basis?

“There is another mechanism at work that greatly amplifies the effect of TSI changes. …so propagation delays of heat moving around the Earth are irrelevant.”

No there isn’t, unless your 14X TSI effect is from the ocean’s thermal capacity and response to former TSI, which is extremely relevant (heat moving around the Earth).

There is no other mechanism than TSI. Do you watch TSI and the SST response to it every day? If not, how do you know whether what you are proposing is applicable at all times scales or even IN THE BALLPARK? SSTs respond daily to daily TSI, not TSI from 11 years ago.

I use the climate and solar data to flesh out what makes sense. Have you gone through the solar record and evaluated your method, testing it against every set of cycles for consistency?

Comment #39 was an attempt to get you to see how TSI driven OHC accumulation is evident in the temperature series through to the Dalton, and how the 11-year delay idea is problematic… if you plotted and looked at it.

Your work will be cited as supporting my research, mainly the ‘notch’ part, but not your 11 year delay interpretation. You get the same answers I do, but your method ignores the accumulation of energy as it happens, right up to today, as your language implies 11 year old TSI is more important than recent TSI. That is the biggest issue here. You might consider changing how you say it.

TSI accumulates energy into the system down to the daily level, right up to today, easily seen in readily available data product images where everyone can follow and see for themselves both the immediate and annual effects of TSI changes. There’s going to be about 7 billion people whose eyes will be opened for the first time to the truth of the intimate daily relationship between TSI and temps, when I demonstrate it this summer.

It’s also been my fate to have to point out to Dr. Svalgaard the errors in his cheesy SSN-TSI model that has huge errors in the most recent solar cycles, yet he insists that it’s right, and he applies it all the way back to the Maunder, and the expects everyone to buy it. He resists feedback too.

If you keep on claiming that 11 yo TSI is more important to temps today than today’s TSI, you are setting yourself up for a partial failure.
I want you to be 100% successful!

So, as a solution to this issue, I propose you state it this way, or words to that effect:

‘The TSI influence on surface temperatures is a combination of current and former TSI, where former TSI energy from primarily up to 11 years ago is held in OHC storage until released, affecting surface temperatures along with the effect of current TSI.’

In other words, solar warming/cooling effects are layered and time dependent.

• #

• #
Ian Wilson

David said:

“How do we explain that mysterious pattern — the little spike of extra sunlight each sunspot cycle doesn’t warm the Earth as it arrives — and it should. Instead, the warming appears greatly amplified 11 years later (or one sunspot cycle later). What’s going on? Logically the sunlight itself is not the direct cause, but only a signal, a leading indicator of something else going on — perhaps the solar wind, the magnetic fluxes, or the changes in the UV-Infra Red spectrum.”

How about the 31/62 year Perigee-Syzygy cycle in peak seasonal tides?

The 31/62 year Perigee-Syzygy lunar tidal cycle is produced by the synchronization of the slow precession of the lunar line-of-apse with the lunar Synodic cycle (i.e the Moon’s phases) and the Earth’s seasons.

A detailed investigation of the precise alignments between the lunar synodic [lunar phase] cycle and the 31/62 year Perigee-Syzygy cycle over the period between 1865 and 2025 shows that they naturally breaks up six 31 year New Moon and Full Moon tidal epochs.

N.B. The New Moon tidal epochs have peak seasonal tides that are dominated by new moons that are predominately in the northern hemisphere, while the Full Moon epochs have peak seasonal tides that are dominated by full moons that are predominately in the southern hemisphere.

The six tidal epochs of the 31/62 year Perigee-Syzygy lunar tidal cycles between 1865 and 2025.

Epoch 1 – Prior to 15th April 1870 ___________________New Moon Epoch
Epoch 2 – 15th April 1870 to 18th April 1901____________Full Moon Epoch
Epoch 3 – 8th April 1901 to 20th April 1932_____________New Moon Epoch
Epoch 4 – 20th April 1932 to 23rd April 1963____________Full Moon Epoch
Epoch 5 – 23rd April 1963 to 25th April 1994____________New Moon Epoch
Epoch 6 – 25th April 1994 to 27th April 2025____________Full Moon Epoch

If you look at figure 5 of Bob Tisdale’s post at:

https://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2016/05/12/does-ed-hawkinss-spirally-global-temperature-animation-defeat-its-purpose/

that shows the world mean temperature times series, you find that there are five noticeable increases or decreases in the World’s mean temperature between 1865 and 2015, with all except the last one spanning a period of ~ 30 year.

Period__________World mean temperatures

1880 – 1912___________ Cooling
1912 – 1943 ___________Warming
1943 – 1975___________Cooling
1975 – 2005___________Warming
2005 – 2015___________Cooling (= first 10 years of 30 year epoch?)

What is remarkable is that the transitions between a cooling and warming in the World’s mean temperatures almost precisely match up with dates that are 10 years after the transitions of the 31/62 Perigee-Syzygy tidal cycles from Full Moon to New Moon epochs.

Period________________Epoch

1880 – 1911___________Full Moon Epoch 2 + 10 years
1911 – 1942 ___________New Moon Epoch 3 + 10 years
1942 – 1973___________Full Moon Epoch 4 + 10 years
1973 – 2004___________New Moon Epoch 5 + 10 years
2004 – 2035___________Full Moon Epoch 6 + 10 years.

If this explanation is correct then the current cooling period in the World’s mean temperatures should last until about 2035.

• #

We really do not have to understand the details to make perfectly usable forecasts. Climate cannot be forecast from the basic physics from the bottom up.
The modelling approach is inherently of no value for predicting future temperature with any calculable certainty because of the difficulty of specifying the initial conditions of a sufficiently fine grained spatio-temporal grid of a large number of variables with sufficient precision prior to multiple iterations. For a complete discussion of this see Essex:
and for a detailed discussion see Section 1 at
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2014/07/climate-forecasting-methods-and-cooling.html
The millennial temperature cycle peaked in about 2003 to 05 .This is the inflexion point between the warming and cooling trends. See Figs 1,5,and 5a at
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2016/03/the-imminent-collapse-of-cagw-delusion.html
Climate prediction is reasonably obvious and straight forward on the basis of the millennial and 60 year temperature cycles and the solar “activity” as measured by the neutron count and 10 Be data Figs 7 and 8.There is a 12 year delay between the solar activity peak and the RSS peak in Fig 5. There is a 21 year delay between the solar peak and the Arctic ice volume minimum in 2012.We do not need to completely understand the mechanisms involved in order to make useful predictions
For a more complete discussion see :
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2014/07/climate-forecasting-methods-and-cooling.html
“NOTE!! The connection between solar “activity” and climate is poorly understood and highly controversial. Solar “activity” encompasses changes in solar magnetic field strength, IMF, CRF, TSI, EUV, solar wind density and velocity, CMEs, proton events etc. The idea of using the neutron count and the 10Be record as the most useful proxy for changing solar activity and temperature forecasting is agnostic as to the physical mechanisms involved.

Having said that, however, it is reasonable to suggest that the three main solar activity related climate drivers are:
a) the changing GCR flux – via the changes in cloud cover and natural aerosols (optical depth)

b) the changing EUV radiation – top down effects via the Ozone layer
c) the changing TSI – especially on millennial and centennial scales.

The effect on climate of the combination of these solar drivers will vary non-linearly depending on the particular phases of the eccentricity, obliquity and precession orbital cycles at any particular time.

Of particular interest is whether the perihelion of the precession falls in the northern or southern summer at times of higher or lower obliquity.”

• #
Bob Weber

“The connection between solar “activity” and climate is poorly understood and highly controversial.”

That is going to change for the better.

You’re right on the money with the temperatures peaking (until the recent solar max)in 2003-5, which is at the end of the modern maximum in solar activity. PMOD TSI peaked in 2002. 4 of the top ten years in the 39 year PMOD TSI record were from 1999-2002, and three of the top five years were from 2000-2002.

But that solar modern maximum period was only 70 years long. There were many periodic 50-70 year upswings and downturns in solar activity going back through to the Maunder Minimum, and who knows how many solar ups and downs there were in the last 1000 years.

Everything you mentioned here ” IMF, CRF, TSI, EUV, solar wind density and velocity, CMEs, proton events” is part of my climate research and development project.

TSI is the only ‘warming’ mechanism. Cooling can happen from several of the other solar inputs besides low TSI.

Temporary weather effects that spread cold polar air around to lower latitudes, ie polar vortex outbreaks, are direct responses to solar wind hits, as ren has mentioned many times for years, from the electrically charged particles, protons and electrons, that comprise the solar wind and cosmic ‘rays’ (besides neutrons/neutrals). Earl has also amply discussed the ozone factor.

The cosmic ray cloud connection, weak though it is, contributes as a cooling effect.

The CMEs and proton events when geo-effective also create temporary weather havoc.

There is a better explanation for the 2012 arctic meltdown, than attributing it to 21yo solar activity. The TSI peak was in 2002, not in the early 1980’s or early 1990’s when the sunspot number peaks were registered.

The 2012 arctic meltdown in that summer was greatly influenced by the ‘great arctic cyclone of 2012’ that happened in August that summer. SORCE TSI then was high for one week, nearly as high as it was at the end of 2011 for almost two months, which was the highest and longest TSI period, short as it was, than any prior time in the SORCE record back to Feb 2003. I’m not at all surprised the arctic melted down some then.

I remember August 2012 well because we took a trip to Mackinac City, Michigan, and on the way back south, there was a very intense hail storm – something we don’t see often here this far north. A solar blast off the tropics from that high TSI spike had evaporated and sent a wave of tropical moisture northward, dropping hail when it hit the cold northern air. The cold air was driven south by the summer polar cyclone. The summer polar cyclone was initiated by the interaction of solar flares in our atmosphere.

From July 27 2012 to Aug 8, 2012 there were 99 C-flares, 5 M-flares, and 166 S-flares – and those geo-effective flares ionized the high atmosphere, driving the polar electrodynamics that provided the power and momentum to the weather then. It was the winds that broke up the arctic ice as much as the warmth, from a high TSI spike and flares from within that period, not from TSI 11 or 21 years prior.

That’s just one example of solar supersensitivity. There are literally thousands of various solar driven extreme events in the records.

• #
ren

Seppal¨ a et al. ¨ (2009) used reanalysis data to show that winter
surface air temperatures divided up in years of low and high
geomagnetic activity show significant temperature anomalies
similar to NAM patterns found at high latitudes. Here, we
have shown that this effect is also found in a 44-year transient
simulation that used the Ap index to parametrise geomagnetic
activity and associated NOx production in the middle
and upper atmosphere through particle precipitation. In
order to avoid aliasing from sea surface temperatures (SST)
and other boundary conditions present in the transient simulation,
two additional nine-year simulations were performed,
where the boundary conditions were repeated on a yearly basis.
The only difference between the two simulations was that
geomagnetic activity related NOx production was switched
on in one simulation, thus allowing us to identify purely NOx
induced effects. Again, similar surface temperature patterns
were found. This indicates that these patterns are indeed related
to NOx production due to geomagnetic activity. The
following mechanism was hypothesised from the model results:
The geomagnetic activity/Energetic Particle Precipitation
related NOx production leads to ozone depletion in
the stratosphere. Changes in the radiative budget and subsequently
of the mean meridional circulation cool the lower
stratosphere and strengthen the polar vortex. Associated positive
NAM anomalies propagate into the troposphere, where
typical positive NAM surface pressure and temperature patterns
occur. Therefore, enhanced geomagnetic activity and
NOx production appear to trigger positive NAM phases at
the surface level in the model. Further studies are required
to confirm these results and the proposed mechanism as the
findings indicate a stronger link of surface climate to space
weather than has previously been assumed.
http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/11/4521/2011/acp-11-4521-2011.pdf

This is important:
The geomagnetic activity/Energetic Particle Precipitation
related NOx production leads to ozone depletion in
the stratosphere. Changes in the radiative budget and subsequently
of the mean meridional circulation cool the lower
stratosphere and strengthen the polar vortex.

• #

“This is important:
The geomagnetic activity/Energetic Particle Precipitation
related NOx production leads to ozone depletion in
the stratosphere.”

This may be something to consider, but its import, and interpretation are but climatastropcal superstition.
NOx production, polar O3 concentration, like temperature, are never causes of anything!! Each may well be an indicator of power or flux currently unrecognized by earthling low level science!

“Changes in the radiative budget and subsequently of the mean meridional circulation cool the lower stratosphere and strengthen the polar vortex.”

“radiative budget” is another invention by purveyors of climatastropy. interpret: “intent to deceive”!

“and subsequently of the mean meridional circulation cool the lower stratosphere and strengthen the polar vortex.”
Can anyone translate this computer generated nonsense into some current or ancient understandable language? Again interpret: “intent to deceive”! WHAT IS MEANT BY THE WORD “COOL” in this context?
Earth’s stratosphere has such little thermal mass that ‘temperature has no meaning’! The noise power of each stratospheric molecule is low but the same. A H2 molecule can easily have 24 times the velocity of its buddy O3 molecule. What are their temperatures, between collisions? Does this have any meaning?
interpret: “intent to deceive”!
All the best! -will-

• #

“A H2 molecule can easily have 24 times the velocity of its buddy O3 molecule.”
For those that work for a living, Henny Penny H2 molecule screams in high soprano “Oh this is awful, this is awful”!. Rudy rooster O3 molecule in baritone replies “see what I can do, see what I can do! What are their temperatures? What is the temperature of the egg?

• #
ren

“The geomagnetic activity/Energetic Particle Precipitation
related NOx production leads to ozone depletion in
the stratosphere.”
It is cooling. Ionization relates H2, O2 and N2. It is more free of atoms which reduce ozone.

• #

ren May 15, 2016 at 12:22 am · Reply

“The geomagnetic activity/Energetic Particle Precipitation related NOx production leads to ozone depletion in the stratosphere.” It is cooling. Ionization relates H2, O2 and N2. It is more free of atoms which reduce ozone.
Thank you Ren. Finally a definition of the verb ‘cooling’. As you state the verb ‘cooling’ means the very exothermic oxidation (burning) of H2 to H2O and O3 reducing to O2. or exothermic oxidation of atmospheric N2 to NOx and reduction O3 to O2.
Can you please explain how your exothermic reduction processes can possibly be called “cooling” without deliberate intent to deceive?
I continue to struggle for understanding of your language!
All the best! -will-

• #
ren

Erl wrote:
“The profile of Earth emitted outgoing long wave radiation as measured by satellites reveals a deficit at 9-10 um reflecting infra-red energy lost to ozone in heating the stratosphere. The deficit in outgoing radiation at 9-10 um represents a hole in the energy emitted that is close to the peak of the spectrum carrying the bulk of the energy emitted by the Earth. The energy at these wave lengths is abundant. That energy is absorbed by ozone in the troposphere (contains about 10% of total ozone) and the stratosphere. There is no shortage of energy in the infra-red wavelengths to enable atmospheric warming whereas the energy available in the ultraviolet spectrum is but a tiny portion of the entirety of incoming radiation.”
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_ALL_SH_2015.png

• #

“Erl wrote:
“The profile of Earth emitted outgoing long wave radiation as measured by satellites reveals a deficit at 9-10 um reflecting infra-red energy lost to ozone in heating the stratosphere.”

I could care less of any nonsense that Erl may spout. There is no deficit at 9.6 microns as that exitance originates from atmospheric O3, just as the 15 micron exitance originates from tropopause CO2, and most other IR exitance originates from atmospheric H2O. Earth’s surface exitance is less than 35W/m^2 by measurement. The Earth’s surface remains 63% covered by cloud formation.

On the other hand; You are the one that claimed Ozone reduction is some sort of cooling! Can you please explain how your exothermic reduction processes can possibly be called “cooling” without deliberate intent to deceive?
All the best! -will-

• #
ren

Will Janoschka always I maintained that the stratosphere under the influence of the sun. Tropopause is the boundary. The temperature in the the stratosphere only shows the infrared radiation ozone. You’re right that the warming or cooling in the stratosphere is a matter of convention. This can be seen below. The temperature in the the troposphere due to the expanding of gas in each zone and tends to balance. Much larger variability in the stratosphere due to the presence of ozone, which radiates in the infrared.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_ALL_EQ_2015.png
On this graphic there is a lack of ozone in the tropopause. You can also see that in July and August, due to more of solar energy troposphere lifts slightly, according with the laws of gas, while expanding the stratosphere, due to greater access of UV radiation.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/

• #

“On this graphic there is a lack of ozone in the tropopause. You can also see that in July and August, due to more of solar energy troposphere lifts slightly, according with the laws of gas, while expanding the stratosphere, due to greater access of UV radiation.”

There is a lack of ozone wherever temperature and other matter are sufficient to promote exothermic oxidization of that other matter. Why oh why do you insist on claiming this process is called cooling?
All of the isobaric levels higher than the surface increase in altitude on the sunside of this planet. Most of your graphics conventionally (for the scammers) hide that vast revelation of atmospheric operation (expansion). This expansion is what most meteorologists call ‘convection’. The continual expansion of airborne water condensate to WV greatly enhances this ‘expansion’ and provides the removal of solar induced latent heat from that limited insolation location. The UV production of O3 from O2 also is exothermic but actually reduces the volume of the stratosphere if pressure and temperature remain constant

• #
ren

Very mistaken, because the temperature of the ozone affects the wind speed in the polar vortex.
http://acdb-ext.gsfc.nasa.gov/Data_services/Current/antarctic/plots/T_2016051400_F18_30.png

• #
• #

Notice that is the Ozone absorption in the SOLAR 5700K spectrum. This absorption of SOLAR flux is one of the few ways we know that Ozone is even present in Earth’s atmosphere.

• #
ren

Dobson spectrophotometers can be used to measure both total column ozone and profiles of ozone in the atmosphere.[4][5] Ozone is tri-atomic oxygen, O3; ozone molecules absorb harmful UV light in the atmosphere before it reaches the surface of the earth. No UVC radiation penetrates to the ground as it is absorbed in the ozone-oxygen cycle. However some longer-wave and less harmful UVB and most of the UVA is not absorbed as ozone is less opaque to these frequencies, so they penetrate to the ground level of Earth in higher quantities. The sources of light used may vary. Beside the direct sun light, the light from the clear sky, moon or stars may be used.

The Dobson Spectrometer measures the total ozone by measuring the relative intensity of the UVB radiation that reaches the Earth and comparing it to that of UVA radiation at ground level. If all of the ozone were removed from the atmosphere, the amount of UVB radiation would equal the amount of UVA radiation on the ground. As ozone does exist in the atmosphere, the Dobson Spectrometer can use the ratio between UVA and UVB radiation on the ground to determine how much ozone is present in the upper atmosphere to absorb the UVC radiation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dobson_ozone_spectrophotometer

• #
ren

Will the most important is the distribution of ozone in the stratosphere. The observations show that this affects the pressure in the troposphere.

• #

“Will the most important is the distribution of ozone in the stratosphere. The observations show that this affects the pressure in the troposphere.”

What can be the source of this conjecture? Just what, pray tell, is being observed to be able to make such an open ended implication of causality?
To me it is the distribution of atmospheric pressure, density, and temperature; as a result of measured mechanical convection and gravitational compression; that determine the distribution of ozone. It seems that the role of O3 in atmospheric effects is being overplayed as much as that of CO2!
All the best! -will-

• #
ren

Will look at the pressure distribution in March to the north. The highest radiation shows the low pressure in the stratosphere. Where there is more ozone radiation is lower.
http://oi68.tinypic.com/5ybuv9.jpg

• #
ren

Ozone (O3), or trioxygen, is a triatomic molecule consisting of three oxygen atoms. It is an allotrope of oxygen that is much less stable than the diatomic allotrope (O2), breaking down with a half life of about half an hour in the lower atmosphere to O2. Ozone is diamagnetic, which means that its electrons are all paired. In contrast, O2 is paramagnetic, containing two unpaired electrons.

Source: Boundless. “Ozone.” Boundless Chemistry. Boundless, 21 Jul. 2015. Retrieved 15 May. 2016 from https://www.boundless.com/chemistry/textbooks/boundless-chemistry-textbook/nonmetallic-elements-21/oxygen-153/ozone-594-3612/

Diamagnetic:
Materials that create an induced magnetic field in a direction opposite to an externally applied magnetic field and are therefore repelled by the applied magnetic field.

• #
ren

For example, now south of Australia you will see the excess ozone. This affects the pressure in the troposphere.
http://oi67.tinypic.com/2mnhnxw.jpg
http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/10hPa/overlay=mean_sea_level_pressure/orthographic=-222.99,-47.73,425

• #

“Will look at the pressure distribution in March to the north. The highest radiation shows the low pressure in the stratosphere. Where there is more ozone radiation is lower.”
That cartoon only shows microSIeverts/hr at an altitude of 15km. Max cmulative ionising radiation at the north pole. Is that suprising? Cartoon shows nothing of O3 nothing of pressure at that altitude.
Where is any evidence of causality of anything?

“For example, now south of Australia you will see the excess ozone. This affects the pressure in the troposphere.”

Antarctic O3 tending toward AU, coincident with a gravitationaly induced polar vortex. So what? What would you expect?
Where is any evidence of causality?
Where is any evidence that O3 oxidation of N2 can produce a reduction in sensible heat?

All you post is endless superstition, Just like Erl Happ and Stephen Wilde!

• #
• #
ren

“The evolution of the vortex is known to be determined by dynamic coupling between the troposphere
and stratosphere via planetary wave propagation, as well as by radiation processes in the stratosphere. So, we
can suggest that the mechanism of SA/GCR influence on the troposphere circulation involves changes of the
Proceedings of the 9th Intl Conf. “Problems of Geocosmos” (Oct 8-12, 2012, St. Petersburg, Russia) 420
vortex strength associated with changes of the heat-radiation balance in the stratosphere. These changes may
be caused by variations of atmosphere transparency in visible and infrared range associated with the effects
of ionization and atmospheric electricity variations on cloudy and aerosol particle characteristics [Tinsley,
2008]”
http://geo.phys.spbu.ru/materials_of_a_conference_2012/STP2012/Veretenenko_%20et_all_Geocosmos2012proceedings.pdf
4. Conclusions
This study showed that SPEs with energies 90 MeV and above may influence the development of
extratropical cyclonic activity both in the Northern and Southern hemispheres. Cyclone intensification
associated with these events was found to be most pronounced in the regions characterized by low
geomagnetic cutoff rigidities and a favourable structure of the thermo-baric field. The results obtained
suggest an important contribution of cosmic ray variations in the mechanism of solar activity influence on
the lower atmosphere circulation.
http://geo.phys.spbu.ru/materials_of_a_conference_2012/Geocosmos2012proceedings.pdf

• #
ren

5. Conclusions

[83] This new model of the global electric circuit has improved accuracy of the galactic cosmic ray ion pair production, the near surface ion production by radioactivity, and the concentrations and size distribution of aerosols. The effect on the circuit parameters of the variability with solar activity, volcanic activity, and seasonal changes has been evaluated.

[84] A treatment has been introduced for a layer of ultrafine aerosol particles in the high-latitude, high-altitude stratosphere, following large, explosive volcanic eruptions. This has the capability of providing a regional stratospheric column resistance comparable with the tropospheric value, so that the total column resistance and the ionosphere-Earth current density Jz become sensitive to ionization by energetic particle fluxes that only penetrated to midstratospheric levels. While ionization from the influx of relativistic electrons from the radiation belts would cancel this volcanic stratospheric column resistance most of the time, observations indicate that in periods of low solar wind velocity near heliospheric current sheet crossings the influx is reduced sufficiently so that cancellation no longer occurs.

[85] On Milankovich timescales the variations in tropical and near tropical insolation will affect thunderstorm output, and the changes in Jz and apparent effects on cloud cover may be a forcing agent for Milankovich-type climate change.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2005JD006988/full

• #
ren

The atmospheric conductivity away from the regions dominated by ion production due to land surface radioactive sources is dominated in the troposphere by ion production from the flux of galactic cosmic rays (GCR), which is larger and more variable at mid to high geomagnetic latitude (gm-lat). In the stratosphere the ion production is mainly due to GCR, but there are additional charged particle fluxes, that appear intermittently, that do not penetrate into the troposphere. Thus the stratospheric ion pair sources include (1) the GCR, of which the lowest-energy particles (<1 GeV protons and helium nuclei) are the ones most strongly modulated by the magnetic fields embedded in the solar wind, and are also those more confined to high gm-lat by the Earth's magnetic field [Bazilevskaya, 2000]; (2) the flux of relativistic electrons (of a few MeV energy) precipitated from the radiation belts, and peaking at subauroral latitudes, and strongly dependent on solar wind velocity [Li et al., 2001a, 2001b]; and (3) solar energetic particle events (mainly protons) that have particle energy generally <100 MeV and a flux that is confined by the gm-field to within 20° or so of the gm-pole [Holzworth et al., 1987].

• #
ren

Conclusions
In this work we carried out the investigation of the response of atmospheric pressure at the level
1000 hPa to Forbush-decreases of galactic cosmic rays in both hemispheres. A significant pressure growth
with the maximum on the 3rd-4th days was revealed over Northern Europe and Western Siberia in the
Northern hemisphere. In the Southern hemisphere two regions of a pronounced pressure growth with the
maximum on the 4th-5th days were found. The first region is located between South Africa and Antarctica,
and the second one is between Australia and Antarctica. In both hemispheres the pressure growth was
observed at middle latitudes, ~40-70°N and ~40-70°S, correspondingly. It was shown that most prominent
pressure deviations are associated with the climatic atmospheric fronts, Arctic and Polar, which are the
regions of most intensive cyclonic activity. At the same time the significant pressure growth is observed in
the regions of low geomagnetic cutoff rigidities that allows precipitation of particles with minimum energies
from ~ 0,1 to 2-3 GeV. The obtained results suggest that the variations of low-energy component of galactic
cosmic rays strongly modulated by solar activity may influence dynamic processes at middle latitudes, so
these variations may be considered as an important link between solar activity and the lower atmosphere.
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/03/07/atmospheric-pressure-variations-at-extratropical-latitudes-associated-with-forbush-decreases-of-galactic-cosmic-rays/

• #
ren

Will Janoschka how to you explain that the distribution of ozone, particularly in high latitude so unevenly?
http://es-ee.tor.ec.gc.ca/e/ozone/Curr_allmap_g.htm
Moreover, there are significant periodic anomalies.

• #
ren

Clearly visible that decomposition of ozone has an effect on pressure in the stratosphere.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_a_f/gif_files/gfs_z10_sh_f00.png

• #

Ren, Will Janoschka is not actually interested in the science. He is only interested in giving you a hard time. It’s his favourite sport. He knows just enough of the language to make an impression but not enough to make any sense. The more he writes the worse it gets.

• #
ren

Erl, this anomaly is visible in the upper stratosphere. You can to observe on an ongoing basis.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_a_f/gif_files/gfs_z05_sh_f00.png

• #
• #

The correlation shown in ozone and low pressure systems is interesting. Erl/Ren do you have any references in the literature that show this trend over longer periods along with a possible mechanism if so?

I have been watching the pressure systems over Australia every day for 45 years. My observations detect a big increase in low pressure systems AND low pressure troughs over the past 6 years, the data is easy to retrieve via the BoM SLP maps but it would be quite a job to put it into a research paper. Maybe I will give it a crack one day.

• #

Was looking for something more substantial Earl?