Pielke Sr. The Westerlies Explain The Recent Extreme Winter Weather, Not “Global Warming”

File:Map prevailing winds on earth.png

The Westerlies are in blue - click to enlarge Image: Wikipedia

There have been a number of news articles that claim that a global average surface temperature trend (i.e. “global warming) explains the extreme cold weather and snow that has occurred recently; e.g. see

Comment On The CBS News Article “Is Extreme Weather a Result of Global Warming?”

NBC Global Warming Nonsense

In this post I want to illustrate why it is the location of the westerlies that determine areas that have extreme cold weather and snowstorms.

The first image below presents the heights of the 500mb pressure surface and the temperatures at 850mb from the ECMWF analysis for January 28 2011 at noon GMT.

The 500mb level is used as it is about halfway through the depth of the atmosphere. The distances between the lines of equal height are proportional to the speed of the winds at that level. Since, in the Northern Hemisphere, winds blow counterclockwise around regions of lower heights, the wind field (not shown) is predominately westerly. This is why the middle and higher latitudes are often referred to as the “westerlies”.  Winds at this spatial scale blow almost parallel to lines of constant height. When the height contours are close together, we refer to the higher winds that result as the “polar jet stream”.

Clearly evident in the example below is the progressively cooler 850mb temperatures and lower 500mb heights as one progresses to higher latitudes. Also, clearly seen are the regions of colder air (and corresponding lower heights) that extend towards lower latitudes. When these large equatorward excursions of the westerlies occur, extreme cold weather often happens. On the east side of these cold pockets, where there is a strong contrast with warmer air to the east, winter storms occur. If the temperatures are cold enough, precipitation can fall as heavy snow. These large excursions of the westerlies explains why there have been several extreme snowstorms in the eastern USA and western Europe in recent months.

To illustrate the dynamic character of the westerlies, I have presented below the ECMWF 500mb height and 850mb temperature forecast for next Friday [February 7 2010]. Compare the above figure with the one below. Note, for example, the large excursion of cold air and, therefore, westerlies southward to over the central USA. If this forecast verifies, it will be an extreme cold outbreak  with considerable snow (and ice storms) on the southeast flank of this cold region.

It is not scientifically accurate to attribute “global warming” of a few tenths of a degree to explain these extreme weather events.

Moreover, in the latest measurements,  the lower tropospheric temperatures are actually cooler than the long-term average! [e.g. see

UAH prelim – January temp may be below normal globally.

For other excellent discussions of the recent extreme winter weather, see the posts by Joe Daleo; e.g.

Another Eastern Snow – Brutal Winter Assault Continues

About these ads
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

93 Responses to Pielke Sr. The Westerlies Explain The Recent Extreme Winter Weather, Not “Global Warming”

  1. richard verney says:

    “Moreover, in the latest measurements, the lower tropospheric temperatures are actually cooler than the long-term average! [e.g. see”
    //////////////////////////////////////////////////////
    Precisely!!! I am glad that someone has pointed out this particular and important fact which seems to have been repeatedly overlooked when there have been discussions of extreme winter conditions this year.
    And further there was never any plausible explanation as to why and how a small increase in temps of fractions of a degree could be the cause of the widespread present disruption (as they like to call matters now). It is merely weather, not climate change.

  2. starzmom says:

    mods–check the date. Next Friday is Feb 11, 2011, not Feb 7, 2010. Not sure what dates he is talking about, but the image is dated Monday, Feb 7, 2011.

  3. Bruce Hall says:

    Starzmom: who has not used a prior year when writing a date in January? He was writing about a forecast so 99.9% of us understand the reason for the minor gaffe.

  4. Tim Folkerts says:

    “These large excursions of the westerlies explains why there have been several extreme snowstorms in the eastern USA and western Europe in recent months.”
    This seems a perfectly reasonable explanation (although I am no a meteorologist, so I don’t have any particular expertise in the field).

    The next question, of course, is “why are we experiencing large excursions of westerlies?” Weather events don’t just happen on their own with no cause. If (and this is a large “if”) the change in westerlies can be attributed to “a global average surface temperature trend”, then both of these could be called a cause of the the event:
    “A” causes “B” which causes “C”.

    “It is not scientifically accurate to attribute “global warming” of a few tenths of a degree to explain these extreme weather events.”
    From a purely logical (rather than scientific) point of view, this statement is too strong. Consider an analogy: when the front tires of my car turn to the right, the car will veer to the right. But something else might in turn be causing the tires to turn to the right (ie I turn the steering wheel to the right). No one would say “It is not scientifically accurate to attribute “hand movements” of a few inches to explain these extreme driving events.”

    I have no reason to say a priori that global warming IS the cause, but there is also no reason to say a priori that it is NOT the cause. It is certainly possible that temperature trends of a few tenths of a degree are “driving” the westerlies.

    Then comes the REAL challenge. Are the westerlies this year truly out of the ordinary? Is there a scientific explanation of why they might be unusual that does not involve recent temperature trends? Is there a better scientific explanation of why they might be unusual that DOES involve recent temperature trends?

    Saying “we have unusual storms because we are having large excursions of westerlies” is a lot like saying “we have unusual weather because we are having unusual weather”! I want to see the NEXT step — WHY are the arctic winds behaving unusually?

  5. Kevin G says:

    Anyone who has taken even a Meteorology for non-major’s class can understand the argument that Global Warming leads to a higher saturation vapor pressure and the increase in moisture in turn causes more powerful storms is flawed on every level. Do people like Kaku and Gulledge actually believe that the increased moisture (which they assume, but where is the timeseries showing increased water vapor as the global average saturation vapor pressure has increased) will lead to more powerful storms? Water vapor concentration is extremely dynamic, and ranges from what, slightly above 0% to 4% globally? So with a 0.5 C rise in global temperature, the dynamic range of water vapor might increase to slightly above 0% to 4.001%? Is all of this extra water vapor going to somehow concentrate itself into all of these disturbances to make them more powerful?

    This reasoning shows and extremely poor understanding of meteorology. Take the recent East Coast (US) snow storms. When the surface lows develop across Texas, they have VERY LITTLE moisture. As the move across the Gulf states and then redevelop along the East Coast, they are acquiring moisture from the ocean. THIS IS WEATHER and has NOTHING TO DO WITH CLIMATE. In case anyone cares, or bothers to look, Gulf and Atlantic SSTs off the eastern seaboard have been 2-3 C BELOW normal, so they cannot even argue that ocean temps have been higher and led to increased evaporation and moistening. So would they suggest there is some increase in the ambient water vapor as the lows intensify that somehow allow these storms to grow powerful? Would they have any idea how stupid that sounds? It’s as if these people are outright lying, to give the carbon control AGW freaks who know nothing about weather/climate, talking points to brag about at their next hippie elitist “farm to table” dinner. Gah!

  6. rpielke says:

    starzmon – Thanks! I corrected.

  7. John Marshall says:

    Considering the error bands on surface measured temperature, +/- 1C, then 0.1C is as read off a calculator not any accurate change of temperature. We can all get these high ‘accuracy’ levels without any thought.

  8. Theo Goodwin says:

    Tim Folkerts says:
    January 30, 2011 at 7:13 am

    “Saying “we have unusual storms because we are having large excursions of westerlies” is a lot like saying “we have unusual weather because we are having unusual weather”! I want to see the NEXT step — WHY are the arctic winds behaving unusually?”

    Wow! The trolls are really struggling these days. Grasping at the word ‘unusual’. What can be the cause? I believe he is using what I call “The Trenberth Gambit” in which one cleverly tries to reverse the burden of proof.

    To address the troll’s point, the claim that “we have unusual storms because we are having large excursions of westerlies” is to be understood as “ONCE AGAIN, we have unusual storms because we are having large excursions of westerlies.” In other words, large excursions of westerlies causing unusual storms is part of our past experience. In other words, any meteorologist who has been around a while will recognize this pattern as part of natural variation. In fact, ordinary folk such as myself recognize that the last four winters are entirely within normal range and would occasion no comment at all except for the fact that AGW propaganda has created expectations of mild winters with little snow.

    I really hope that we can keep the trolls under control on this website. This website is a delight and a valuable resource for science, but here I find myself taking the time to respond to yet another bit of AGW propaganda.

  9. Jimbo says:

    OT – but excellent round up of thermometer sighting and adjustment issues.
    ——————————–
    Is It Really The Warmest Ever?
    By Joseph D’Aleo – Jan. 28, 2011
    http://www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm/6440/Is-It-Really-The-Warmest-Ever

  10. mike g says:

    The trolls are starting to intensify their efforts. Just think how bad it’s going to be when this congress eliminates their government science jobs. I mean, why do we need several thousand scientists, with their minds already made up, pretending to study settled science.

  11. Theo Goodwin says:

    Tim Folkerts says:
    January 30, 2011 at 7:13 am
    “These large excursions of the westerlies explains why there have been several extreme snowstorms in the eastern USA and western Europe in recent months.”
    “This seems a perfectly reasonable explanation (although I am no a meteorologist, so I don’t have any particular expertise in the field).”

    “The next question, of course, is “why are we experiencing large excursions of westerlies?” Weather events don’t just happen on their own with no cause. If (and this is a large “if”) the change in westerlies can be attributed to “a global average surface temperature trend”, then both of these could be called a cause of the the event:
    “A” causes “B” which causes “C”.”

    This is an example of trying to reverse the burden of proof, aka “The Trenberth Gambit.” In science, the fact that some event B could be attributed to some cause A provides no reason for believing that A causes B. The reason is that science accepts only physical hypotheses in explanations and physical hypotheses must be reasonably well-confirmed through their use to predict events of the kind B. As is well known, there are no physical hypotheses about global average surface temperature trends that can be used to predict the large excursions of westerlies that we are now experiencing.

    There is another way to say the same thing. The claim that “These large excursions of the westerlies explains why there have been several extreme snowstorms in the eastern USA and western Europe in recent months” could be more clearly written as “ONCE AGAIN these large excursions of the westerlies explains why there have been several extreme snowstorms in the eastern USA and western Europe in recent months.” In other words, this behavior of the westerlies and the resulting cold winters are things that have occurred many times before and, for that reason, are part of natural variation. What can be explained by natural variation has no need of explanation by appeal to AGW.

  12. Hoser says:

    I remember being disgusted by people who would look at x-ray crystal structures of proteins and think these were absolutely rock-solid descriptions of reality. The truth was far different. Crystallographers would have to try to fit the main chain into murky electron density, with the help of some heavy-atom derivatives. The point is, they could make mistakes even at that level. Then you have the side chain positions. Furthermore a crystal structure is not necessarily the solution structure.

    The point is, people look at computer-generated images and seem to think it comes straight from God. Well, look at that! It came from the computer! It must be very accurate. The truth is, computers only do what they are told, and fallable people tell computers to do wrong things all the time.

    Models are just guesses. At least with some experimentation, we were able to correct some wrong crystal structures (and that was a huge scientific-political mess). With climate, you don’t get the chance to do many experiments. You have to wait for natural variations to discover the truth about your models. Meanwhile, on the political side, the rascals in charge are using poor science to justify their power-hungry scheming. And in the end, as always, we are forced to pay for it.

    Thanks to WUWT for sheding light on the dark places where the scientific and regulatory cockroaches run.

  13. mike g says:

    If you’re one of the trolls flooding this site (many while on the science payroll of the taxpayer), you should read the article at the link provided by Jimbo, and be ashamed.

    Jimbo says:
    January 30, 2011 at 8:15 am

    OT – but excellent round up of thermometer sighting and adjustment issues.
    ——————————–
    Is It Really The Warmest Ever?
    By Joseph D’Aleo – Jan. 28, 2011
    http://www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm/6440/Is-It-Really-The-Warmest-Ever

  14. Elizabeth says:

    Thanks for the sanity break.

  15. vukcevic says:

    It is not scientifically accurate to attribute “global warming” of a few tenths of a degree to explain these extreme weather events.

    I agree: the polar view maps above, showing the heights of the 500mb pressure surface, have more in common with the Earth’s magnetic field intensity distribution, as shown in here:
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC1.htm
    than with any of ‘clapped-out’ (falling to pieces) CO2 hypothesis.

  16. RAD says:

    mike g says…
    and jimbo says…
    ================
    OT but also appropriate here is E.M. Smith:
    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/03/05/mr-mcguire-would-not-approve/

  17. ShrNfr says:

    But it has long been known that the westerlies (inhabitants of Kalifornica with the exception of Tony) and the easterlies (inhabitants of Messachewsetts where I live) have long been responsible for most of the problems. This is nothing new.

  18. Paul H says:

    Tim Folkerts says:
    January 30, 2011 at 7:13 am

    “Consider an analogy: when the front tires of my car turn to the right, the car will veer to the right. But something else might in turn be causing the tires to turn to the right (ie I turn the steering wheel to the right). No one would say “It is not scientifically accurate to attribute “hand movements” of a few inches to explain these extreme driving events.””

    Under your analogy there is a clearly understood mechanism of how turning the tyres to the right makes the car go right.

    There is no such mechanism identified for linking global warming to these wind patterns.

  19. Doug in Seattle says:

    I’m rather glad the AGW folks have dropped the term climate change.

    In the 80’s and 90’s we encountered climate change as the planet warmed slightly. Now the climate is changing a few tenths of a degree colder.

    The folks who claimed skeptics to be deniers of climate change when they disagreed about the cause of the slight rise in temperatures, now deny the truth of the shift in the direction of climate change.

    Cyclical phenomena can such fun!

  20. maksimovich says:

    In the SH hemisphere the polar frontal jet has not contracted below 60s in the austral summer,bringing colder temperature excursions at height in dec and jan.As these excursions reduced the heat capacity of the atmosphere,heavy rains resulted,

  21. stephen richards says:

    Theo Goodwin says:
    January 30, 2011 at 7:59 am

    No, Theo M. Folkerts is right. I am a scientist donc skeptic and as such I MUST agree with the Monsieur because Joe has not gone to the source of the change, he has merely cited a symptom. ‘most volitile westerlys ‘. I find this form of science is rampant in climate technology (it’s not science). If this were an electrical circuit and there was a light in the circuit which was suddenly extinquished do you assume that the fault is the bulb or do you go to the source of power first and ensure that the circuit is connected with ample supply? Do you see what is meant?

  22. Paul Vaughan says:

    Before recently, I had never found a copy of the following:

    Leroux, Marcel (1993). The Mobile Polar High: a new concept explaining present mechanisms of meridional air-mass and energy exchanges and global propagation of palaeoclimatic changes. Global and Planetary Change 7, 69-93.
    http://ddata.over-blog.com/xxxyyy/2/32/25/79/Leroux-Global-and-Planetary-Change-1993.pdf

    Quite stimulating.

    It has been nearly 2 decades since the publication. Surely there has been some criticism? If anyone is aware of any major criticisms leveled at the paper (or even minor ones), please share! (This could be quite important.)

  23. stephen richards says:

    Skepticism means being skeptic of all science. Until someone comes up with a scientific quality proof for whatever then the hypothysis is invalid, ego AGW and Non-AGW. Global warming there has been ( maybe but temperature measurement is chaotic worlwide), globaling cooling there maybe ( we don’t have enough data to determine), climate change there is, that’s certain.

  24. Thomas W. McCord says:

    As a non scientist I am confused and concerned about something. Also, I live in North Alabama where we have had an exceptional winter season so far.

    Does the forecast above mean that for the week of February 6-12 we can expect another sever winter weather event here in North Alabama?

  25. INGSOC says:

    With all due respect Professor Pielke, I have difficulty with using “extreme” to describe relatively normal winter weather. Yes it is a bit colder this winter, and yes as a result we are seeing more snow, but it certainly isn’t extreme, is it? We have had cold winters like this many times before. -20 with regular snow falling in Los Angeles would be extreme. Maybe next year?

    But thanks for this informative and edifying essay!

  26. rbateman says:

    Then comes the REAL challenge. Are the westerlies this year truly out of the ordinary? Is there a scientific explanation of why they might be unusual that does not involve recent temperature trends? Is there a better scientific explanation of why they might be unusual that DOES involve recent temperature trends?

    Yes. NASA pointed out that the Jet Streams have moved equatorwards as a direct result of low to very low Solar Activity.
    That move leaves the unbuffeted space into which Arctic and Antarctic cold air masses can and do plunder.
    The severity of the cold air masses is mitigated only by the relative phases of the oceans upon which the Westerlies travel.
    This could get (and most likely will) get worse.
    Nothing to do with AGW, GISS, MET or any other computerized modeling hysteria.

  27. Tim Folkerts says:

    “This is an example of trying to reverse the burden of proof, aka “The Trenberth Gambit.” ”

    I’m not trying to reverse, the burden of proof. When making a claim, the burden of proof should always rest with the person making the claim.

    My point is that there was a claim made: “It is not scientifically accurate to attribute “global warming” of a few tenths of a degree to explain these extreme weather events.” This is, if you will, the “Reverse Trenberth Gambit”. (Or at least bordering very closely to the “Reverse Trenberth Gambit”.)

    From what I have seen, there has been a measurable increase in global temperature over the last 30 years (and also over the last 300 years since the end of the LIA). Is there disagreement here?

    It is a plausible hypothesis that significant changes in one important aspect of the atmosphere (global temperature) would lead to significant changes in some other specific aspect of the atmosphere (winter storms in the US).
    To defend this position, one would need to present evidence of a link (hopefully both experimental and theoretical). Anyone simply saying “The hypothesis is plausible, therefore it is right” is not being scientific.

    It is a plausible hypothesis that significant changes in one important aspect of the atmosphere (global temperature) would NOT lead to significant changes in some other specific aspect of the atmosphere (winter storms in the US).
    To defend this position, one would need to present evidence. Anyone simply saying “The hypothesis is plausible, therefore it is right” is not being scientific. And as I read it, “It is not scientifically accurate to attribute “global warming” of a few tenths of a degree to explain these extreme weather events” is claiming that global warming is NOT the cause in the shift of westerlies and hence NOT the cause of the weather events. This sort of claim should have evidence to support it.

    I’m saying it cuts both ways. I’d be perfectly happy with “I have not seen sufficient evidence (or even “any evidence”) to convince me that “global warming” of a few tenths of a degree is linked to these extreme weather events.” Then the burden of proof is shifted back to where it belongs — the scientists claiming that global warming IS connected.

    And I am saying I would enjoy seeing the next layer deeper; the arguments as to how changing temperatures and changing weather patterns might be related. Stating “it is the location of the westerlies that determine areas that have extreme cold weather and snowstorms” seems almost tautological. But then what determines the location of the westerlies? THAT is the interesting question in my book!

  28. Mike says:

    Whither uncertainty? Are you certain the human contribution to the greenhouse effect has not impacted recent extreme weather events? As Kaku noted these events likely have more than one cause. Several researchers have given evidence that high ocean temperatures may have contributed to the Arctic Oscillation shift and the stronger El Nina. There is not a consensus on this and only time will tell. But unless skepticism has become a code word for rigid dogmatism, you climate change skeptics should be open minded. Although the global mean surface air temperature increase has only been 0.7C, the ocean warming in some regions, like the Arctic, is quite large and it plausible that this could have impacted recent weather events. When people who deny this possibility fall into misusing logic (ignoring that complex events can have more than one cause or that A -> B -> C is not negated by B -> C ) than you really need to ask what the nature of their ‘skeptism’ is.

  29. Mike says:

    rbatman, you said: “NASA pointed out that the Jet Streams have moved equatorwards as a direct result of low to very low Solar Activity.” Do you have a source for this claim?
    I did a quick search on the NASA site for jet stream and found that the jet stream in the sun itself is related to sun spot activity. See:

    http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2009/17jun_jetstream/

    But you may be right and I just haven’t found the reference.

  30. Oliver Ramsay says:

    stephen richards says:
    January 30, 2011 at 10:18 am

    Theo Goodwin says:
    January 30, 2011 at 7:59 am

    No, Theo M. Folkerts is right. I am a scientist donc skeptic and as such I MUST agree with the Monsieur because Joe has not gone to the source of the change, he has merely cited a symptom. ‘most volitile westerlys ‘. I find this form of science is rampant in climate technology (it’s not science). If this were an electrical circuit and there was a light in the circuit which was suddenly extinquished do you assume that the fault is the bulb or do you go to the source of power first and ensure that the circuit is connected with ample supply? Do you see what is meant?
    ——————————
    Stephen,
    You must be the most expensive janitor on the face of the earth. Every time you have a light bulb to change you have to drive to the dam to make sure the turbines are turning.
    Do you actually know where the dam is?

  31. I dare to predict that we will continue to observe indicators of global warming until sometime between 2040 and 209o when the long term trend will return to colder conditions. Arctic sea ice is expected to turn the corner first, followed by SSTs and finally CO2. We can expect the magnitude in weather changes to increase as long as global energy is accumulating. All these are natural processes that have nothing to do with anthropogenic CO2. The ever changing processes of evaporation/condensation and freeze/thaw are controlling the rates of energy accumulation/loss.

  32. Paul H says:

    Tim Folkerts says:
    January 30, 2011 at 10:48 am

    “My point is that there was a claim made: “It is not scientifically accurate to attribute “global warming” of a few tenths of a degree to explain these extreme weather events.” This is, if you will, the “Reverse Trenberth Gambit”. (Or at least bordering very closely to the “Reverse Trenberth Gambit”.) ”

    Until firm proof is found to attribute these events to global warming it cannot be regarded as “scientifically accurate” to say it is.

    To get this proof you first have to show a clear mechanism for how it would work ( and also show how in other years such warming led to a totally different set of warming patterns).

    Secondly you need to definitively prove that these events were not caused by other factors.

    Perhaps you are using the Reverse Reverse Trenberth Gambit!!

    I agree that it would be nice to know how all sorts of things work with the climate. However we should perhaps concentrate our resources on forecasting short term events ( i.e. a year or two ahead).

  33. R. Gates says:

    This is an interesting article, but speaks nothing to the larger issue of whether or not increased GH gases can affect the longer-term climate cycles such as the PDO and AMO, or the shorter term cycles such as ENSO, all of which are intimately connected to and reflected in immediate causes such as the westerlies. There can be no diffinitive statement about the extent to which anthropogenic GH gases have or have not affected recent extreme weather events, and any statements that attempt to be diffinitive either way, indicate more about the bias of those making the statement rather than anything founded in solid scientific verifiable fact.

  34. Stephen Wilde says:

    Of course the jets shift poleward and equatorward cyclically over centuries as part of the interplay between top down solar influences and bottom up oceanic influences.

    I have been pushing that very point here and elsewhere for over three years now.

    In effect ALL regional climate change is explicable as a consequence of a change in the latitudinal position of the air circulation systems above a particular region.

    A change in absolute global tropospheric temperature of a degree or two C is a complete irrelevance, barely discernible from day to day and wholly swamped by the perceived changes when the air circulation systems change their latitudinal positions.

  35. stephen richards says:

    Oliver Ramsay says:
    January 30, 2011 at 11:07 am
    stephen richards says:
    January 30, 2011 at 10:18 am

    Yes very funny, but no I would check the fuse if it were easily accessible or if I had a bulb to hand I would plug it in. But your were just being facetious were you not :)

  36. stephen richards says:

    Mike says:
    January 30, 2011 at 10:49 am
    Whither uncertainty? Are you certain the human contribution to the greenhouse effect has not impacted recent extreme weather events?

    Too many assumptions Mike. Human contribution of annual CO² is 3.27%. Is it possible that this contributes to global warming? yes. Is it possible that it makes more snow at lower latitudes? probably not. Is CO² more important than naturel cycles? Definitely NO. Why? temperatures have droped 0.6°C (REM satelite data) since August 2010. Would not be possible if CO² was the thermostat.

  37. Oliver Ramsay says:

    stephen richards says:
    January 30, 2011 at 11:37 am

    Oliver Ramsay says:
    January 30, 2011 at 11:07 am
    stephen richards says:
    January 30, 2011 at 10:18 am

    Yes very funny, but no I would check the fuse if it were easily accessible or if I had a bulb to hand I would plug it in. But your were just being facetious were you not :)
    ——————————-
    A bit flippant, I’ll grant you but my thought was that there isn’t a fool-proof protocol for trouble-shooting or reverse-engineering.
    We’re pretty confident that we have snowfall on one end and the sun on the other but the details in between are much less certain.
    Insisting that we always start at the sun and work forwards is urealistic.
    I don’t disagree with Tim Folkert’s point.

  38. TomRude says:

    Paul Vaughan, I have also read this one at amazon:
    Dynamic Analysis of Weather and Climate: Atmospheric circulation, Perturbations, Climatic evolution (Springer Praxis Books / Environmental Sciences)
    +++
    Marcel Leroux (1938-2008) was a French climatologist Emeritus Professor of Climatology at Lyon III. The 3rd French edition of « La Dynamique du Temps et du Climat : circulation atmosphérique, perturbations, évolution climatique » was completed in May 2008, and it is its faithful equivalent, the 2nd edition in English which was published in January 2010.

    Leroux demonstrated through analysis of satellite imagery, meteorological and paleo-environmental data over tropical Africa that the seasonal and paleoclimatic migration of the Meteorological Equator represent a reliable indicator of Earth’s climate evolution. He defines and explains how these phenomena result from continuous meridional exchanges in the denser, lower layers of the atmosphere. These exchanges are governed by the continual ballet of Mobile Polar Highs (MPH), cold lenticular air masses 1.5 km thick, up to 3000 kilometers in diameter, originating from the poles, which power and frequency depends directly on the polar thermal deficit. Cooling spurns an accelerated circulation while warming will slow the general circulation and exchanges.
    Based on direct observations, the scientific rigor of Leroux exposes the inconsistencies of previous general circulation models, indices of oscillations and various meteorological schools -frontologic, dynamic, reductionist and diagnostic (models)-. In doing so, Leroux rejects the artificial separation between meteorology and climatology and demonstrates that very little is owed to hazard or chaos: there is no “unruly climate” but intensity shifts of the sum of weather processes that constitute the climate.
    His research shows that the climatic shift observed since the 1970s corresponds to the setting of an accelerated mode of circulation, always associated with cooling during the late Quaternary palaeoclimatic evolution, and its meteorological consequences: contrasted weather, stronger mid-latitude storms, increase water vapour in the troposphere and impermanent anticyclonic stability over continents leading to vigorous cold snaps in winter and heatwaves in summer. His analysis of the European heatwave of 2003 and 2007 floods takes aim in biting style at the improbable explanations by weather services and IPCC alike!

    Marcel Leroux was a true Cartesian and his books are highly didactic. He offers more than a Master / Engineering school level textbook on Meteorology and Climatology: it is a masterly demonstration reminding us of the primacy of observed facts over models and thus should appeal to rational minds who want to form an educated opinion on Climate Change and the level of the present debate.

    Other available works by Marcel Leroux(in English):

    His updated doctoral dissertation contains the database of his African work on which he based his ideas on the general circulation [ "The weather and climate of tropical Africa, Springer Verlag, Springer-Praxis Books in Environmental Sciences, London, New York, 548 p. + CD: 300 p., 250 maps, 2001, ISBN: 978-3-540-42636-3].

    An unforgiving history of the global warming science [Global Warming: Myth or Reality? The Herring Ways of Climatology ", Springer-Praxis Books in Environmental Sciences, Berlin, Heidelberg, London, New York, 509p., 2005, ISBN: 978-3 -540-23909-3].

  39. R. Gates says:

    stephen richards says:
    January 30, 2011 at 11:43 am
    Mike says:
    January 30, 2011 at 10:49 am
    Whither uncertainty? Are you certain the human contribution to the greenhouse effect has not impacted recent extreme weather events?

    Too many assumptions Mike. Human contribution of annual CO² is 3.27%. Is it possible that this contributes to global warming? yes. Is it possible that it makes more snow at lower latitudes? probably not. Is CO² more important than naturel cycles? Definitely NO. Why? temperatures have droped 0.6°C (REM satelite data) since August 2010. Would not be possible if CO² was the thermostat.

    _____
    Your last sentence here relates to your misperception that a global temp/CO2 connection would be linear. Absolutely no GCM has ever shown that, especially in a chaotic system such as climate, so your attempt at a showing the lack of a short term linear correlation between temperatures and CO2 as proof that CO2 is not a thermostat is severely flawed. I suggest you read:

    http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2010/2010_Lacis_etal.pdf (scroll down a bit to start of article)

  40. rbateman says:

    Mike says:
    January 30, 2011 at 11:01 am

    I cannot find the reference either, but I do know that it has been discussed in here more than once. Also, both Jupiter and Saturn are currently displaying observable changes in thier Jet Streams. That makes one Star and 3 Planets.

  41. Stephen Wilde says:

    R Gates said:

    “There can be no definitive statement about the extent to which anthropogenic GH gases have or have not affected recent extreme weather events.”

    Any effect from extra CO2 is clearly insignificant as compared to natural variability unless one can blame CO2 levels for changes in the global air circulation distributions.

    Before about 2005 the poleward shift of the jets was supposed to be a result of our emissions and permanent.

    Since 2000 and especially recently the jets have been swinging much more equatorward but CO2 continues to increase so it cannot be a major factor.

    I think that natural strong warming gives us zonal poleward jets (MWP), natural strong cooling gives us zonal equatorward jets (LIA) and periods of transition such as now give us meridional jets.

    As for more extreme events generally, see here:

    http://www.irishweatheronline.com/irishweather/climate/extreme-weather-and-climate-change.html

    and for how the whole system seems to work, see here:

    http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=6645

  42. Mike says:

    Mike says:
    January 30, 2011 at 10:49 am
    Whither uncertainty? Are you certain the human contribution to the greenhouse effect has not impacted recent extreme weather events?

    To which stephen richards says:
    January 30, 2011 at 11:43 am

    Too many assumptions Mike. Human contribution of annual CO² is 3.27%. Is it possible that this contributes to global warming? yes. Is it possible that it makes more snow at lower latitudes? probably not. Is CO² more important than naturel cycles? Definitely NO. Why? temperatures have droped 0.6°C (REM satelite data) since August 2010. Would not be possible if CO² was the thermostat.
    ———————————

    You have made a series of assumptions with no basis at all. Human generated CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere. The current CO2 in the atmosphere is about 26% human generated. (Not to mention CH4, NO2, & CFC.) So, while your first fact was correct it is misleading. After that you merely make unfounded speculations. So, go read the article R. Gates cited. Oh, and chemical formulas are usually written with subscripts not superscripts (which I know how to use in LaTeX but don’t bother with html). See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_formula .

  43. R. Gates says:

    Stephen Wilde says:
    January 30, 2011 at 12:46 pm
    R Gates said:

    “There can be no definitive statement about the extent to which anthropogenic GH gases have or have not affected recent extreme weather events.”

    Any effect from extra CO2 is clearly insignificant as compared to natural variability unless one can blame CO2 levels for changes in the global air circulation distributions
    ______

    I would not agree that any effect from extra CO2 is “clearly insignificant”, no more than I would agree that it is “clearly significant”, and certainly, no such conclusion is warranted based on any solid research. To state a “clearly insignificant” effect from CO2 reveals more of a personal presumption and indication of bias as opposed to solid science.

  44. Stephen Wilde says:

    R Gates:

    You ignored my qualifying comment as follows:

    “unless one can blame CO2 levels for changes in the global air circulation distributions”

    Given that it now appears that the circulation changes are substantially independent of CO2 levels when earlier a link was claimed then how can a reasonable person still claim that the CO2 influence is significant ?

  45. R. Helvey says:

    The 500mb level is used as it is about halfway through the depth of the atmosphere. The distances between the lines of equal height are proportional to the speed of the winds at that level….

    Should read:
    The 500mb level is used as it is about halfway through the depth of the atmosphere. The distances between the lines of equal height are INVERSELY proportional to the speed of the winds at that level.

  46. R. Gates says:

    Stephen Wilde says:
    January 30, 2011 at 1:07 pm
    R Gates:

    You ignored my qualifying comment as follows:

    “unless one can blame CO2 levels for changes in the global air circulation distributions”

    Given that it now appears that the circulation changes are substantially independent of CO2 levels….
    _____
    If you are going to make the claim that “it now appears that circulation changes are substantially independent of CO2 levels…” please cite the peer-reviewed research that draws this conclusion. In a much as our planet would return to a complete ice-house world without CO2, how can anyone make the claim that circulation changes are in any way independent of CO2 levels, given that it is global circulation (both ocean and atmosphere) that distributes that greenhouse induced heat that we all so much enjoy as living creatures on a non-icehouse planet. And before you raise the objection that water vapor, and not CO2, that creates much of the GH world we enjoy, I suggest you read this: http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2010/2010_Lacis_etal.pdf (scroll down a bit to start of article)

    Without CO2 our planet would become an ice house world, so why would one assume that it does not affect global circulation patterns?

  47. Stephen Wilde says:

    rbateman:

    Here you go:

    http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20011206/

    Unbelievably that paper is from Gavin Schmidt et al but they ignored it all in favour of recent GHG emissions overriding the natural processes.

    They noted the low solar activity of the LIA as a cooling effect (especially regionally) but then attached zero significance to the high solar activity of the late 20th century.

    Why would they have done that ?

    Now with a quieter sun the GHG option is going out of the window and we are back with solar as the primary influence.

    To sustain any suggestion that GHGs have a significant effect they have to find ‘missing energy’ somewhere hence Trenberth’s dismay.

    If the oceans start reducing their heat content despite more GHGs then the energy simply is not being retained as a result of more GHGs.

    Then the best explanation in my view is cloudiness and albedo changes as a result of jetstream shifts responding to a top down solar effect as I have explained here and elsewhere.

    Whatever thermal properties GHGs have they appear to be as nothing compared to variations in the natural energy fluxes imposed by solar and oceanic variability working together on the air circulation distribution.

  48. Smokey says:

    R Gates says:

    “If you are going to make the claim that ‘it now appears that circulation changes are substantially independent of CO2 levels…’ please cite the peer-reviewed research that draws this conclusion.”

    Got the scientific method backwards again. The conjecture is that CO2 will cause climate catastrophe [CO2=CAGW]. The onus is on those promoting that conjecture, not on those skeptical of it.

  49. Stephen Wilde says:

    R Gates said:

    “Without CO2 our planet would become an ice house world, so why would one assume that it does not affect global circulation patterns?”

    The operative word is ‘significant’. Natural solar and oceanic variability can now be readily seen to shift the jets 1000 miles or more latitudinally. Just compare the late 20th century patterns to those now prevailing and those prevailing in the LIA. No need for peer review, just observe.

    I’d guess that the effect of CO2 might be to shift the jets less than a mile latitudinally.

    It would have been quite different if we were still seeing the late 20th century pattern despite the quiet sun but we are not.

    As I pointed out above Schmidt et al in 2001 accepted that the sun caused all the features we are now seeing but back during the Maunder Minimum. However they proposed a permanent disruption of the solar effects by GHGs.

    But now we are hardly past the peak of the modern solar maximum yet we immediately see a shift in the air circulation systems away from that of the late 20th century and a good portion of the way back to LIA conditions.

    On that basis any effect from our GHGs is clearly negligible and most likely wholly unmeasurable in the face of natural variability.

  50. Stephen Wilde says:

    As regards the thermal effect of CO2 as compared to the thermal effects of the oceans I think it is a good time to remind readers of this:

    http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=1487&linkbox=true&position=4

    “The Hot Water Bottle Effect”

    and elsewhere I described the effects of human GHGs thus:

    “The atmospheric greenhouse effect is a flea on the back of an oceanic elephant and the influence of CO2 but a microbe on the back of the flea and the influence of anthropogenic CO2 but a molecule on the back of the microbe.”

    from here:

    http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=1562&linkbox=true&position=5

    “Greenhouse Confusion Resolved”

    There are portions of those articles that I would now amend but the substance is being adequately demonstrated to be true by ongoing climate changes.

  51. Mike says:

    Stephen Wilde says:
    January 30, 2011 at 1:45 pm

    rbateman:

    Here you go:

    http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20011206/
    —————————————

    Good find but you are reading into the results. They are not about current climate or weather. The article talks about low solar output a during the LIA. In the early 20th century increased solar activity is generally acknowledged to have contributed to warming. Now the sun is less active, but no where a close to as low as during the LIA, and the Earth is still warming. The paper does not support rbateman’s claims. They even state plainly:

    “The period of low solar activity in the middle ages led to atmospheric changes that seem to have brought on the Little Ice Age. However, we need to keep in mind that variations in solar output have had far less impact on the Earth’s recent climate than human actions,…The biggest catalyst for climate change today are greenhouse gases.”

    You cannot just pik as choose the results you like.

  52. Stephen Wilde said on Pielke Sr. The Westerlies Explain The Recent Extreme Winter Weather, Not “Global Warming”
    January 30, 2011 at 2:17 pm
    Stephen,
    I like your analogy as applied to the CAGW hypothesis. They think the molecule activates the microbe, that activates the flee to bite the elephant into a stampede. If we generously apply a 0.1 probability to each assumption, the overall probability is 0.1^3 or 0.001. The probability that we can control global climate by not burning fossil fuel is somewhere around 0.0000001.

  53. Hadyn Oriti says:

    I heard this morning that Pyong Yang has not had a maximum over -5C for the last month. The report said it was the coldest winter since records began in 1945. While this news is off topic, the news report made the point that the concern is planting spring time crops will be delayed and there is again the distinct possibility of famine in North Korea.

    A direct correlation between cold and human suffering.

  54. Mike says:

    Smokey says:
    January 30, 2011 at 1:51 pm

    R Gates says:

    “If you are going to make the claim that ‘it now appears that circulation changes are substantially independent of CO2 levels…’ please cite the peer-reviewed research that draws this conclusion.”

    Got the scientific method backwards again. The conjecture is that CO2 will cause climate catastrophe [CO2=CAGW]. The onus is on those promoting that conjecture, not on those skeptical of it.
    —————————————–

    Gates did not say anything about GAGW. Stephen Wilde made a specific claim and Gates is asking for a reference for the claim.

    As for the scientific method, it cuts both ways. If I say AGW is real and serious then the onus is on me to present evidence of this. If you say AGW is trivial if it exists at all, then the onus is on you to present evidence. If someone says, gosh I just don’t know, then they do not have to present evidence; they are off the hook. Now if I present evidence for my view and then someone does not agree they should be able to state why and back up any specific claims they make along the way.

    Debate is not a game of dodge ball.

  55. Stephen Wilde says:

    Mike,

    The reversal has only recently begun. If GHGs were in control the recent changes just should not have happened and with the jets approaching Western Europe diving to Gibraltar instead of Iceland, with cold in the South eastern USA we are a good way back towards what happened in the LIA.

    The only question is how long this phase will last. Either way GHGs are rapidly leaving the park.

    It just takes a while for ocean heat content to respond.

    Anyway, why would they assert that GHGs are in control when the observations were exactly what one would expect from a period of active sun in light of the LIA example of what happens with an inactive sun.

    What was the basis for their decision ? What made them ignore the modern solar maximum ?

  56. R. Gates says:

    Stephen Wilde says:
    January 30, 2011 at 2:00 pm
    R Gates said:

    “Without CO2 our planet would become an ice house world, so why would one assume that it does not affect global circulation patterns?”

    The operative word is ‘significant’. Natural solar and oceanic variability can now be readily seen to shift the jets 1000 miles or more latitudinally. Just compare the late 20th century patterns to those now prevailing and those prevailing in the LIA. No need for peer review, just observe.

    I’d guess that the effect of CO2 might be to shift the jets less than a mile latitudinally
    ______
    Interesting “guess”. So do you reject the notion that if we were to completely take away the CO2 from our atmosphere that we’d see a return to a ice-house world? (i.e. the fact that CO2 is a noncondensing GHG whereas water vapor isn’t). This assumption that the direct and indirect effects of CO2 are minor in terms of the dynamics of our atmosphere is a article of faith, not science. For you the ahere to the notion that the 40% rise in CO2 since the 1700’s, to levels not seen on our planet in hundreds of thousands of years could play such a minor role seems beyond illogical.

    Now, I am not denying in any way the role of other climate factors, but let’s look at them individually, and not en masse, so as to clarify their roles. The oceans don’t produce any heating on their own, but only essentially act as a buffer or large heat reservoir for heat, as it all comes from the sun, to be distributed around the planet through ocean currents and released back to the atmosphere through natural cycles such as ENSO through evaporation. I completely agree in the role of the sun as a significant driver of climate as it is the source of all energy on earth, and it stands to reason that solar cycles affect climate, both on the shorter term, medium term, and longer term. Exactly what to what level and through what means remains to be completely discovered. But all that aside, to categorically reject a signficant role for CO2 in climate dyanamics, both through and direct and indirect effects, can only be akin to a religious belief and not based on science.

  57. eadler says:

    #
    #
    Theo Goodwin says:
    January 30, 2011 at 8:28 am

    Tim Folkerts says:
    January 30, 2011 at 7:13 am
    “These large excursions of the westerlies explains why there have been several extreme snowstorms in the eastern USA and western Europe in recent months.”
    “This seems a perfectly reasonable explanation (although I am no a meteorologist, so I don’t have any particular expertise in the field).”

    “The next question, of course, is “why are we experiencing large excursions of westerlies?” Weather events don’t just happen on their own with no cause. If (and this is a large “if”) the change in westerlies can be attributed to “a global average surface temperature trend”, then both of these could be called a cause of the the event:
    “A” causes “B” which causes “C”.”

    This is an example of trying to reverse the burden of proof, aka “The Trenberth Gambit.” In science, the fact that some event B could be attributed to some cause A provides no reason for believing that A causes B. The reason is that science accepts only physical hypotheses in explanations and physical hypotheses must be reasonably well-confirmed through their use to predict events of the kind B. As is well known, there are no physical hypotheses about global average surface temperature trends that can be used to predict the large excursions of westerlies that we are now experiencing.

    There is another way to say the same thing. The claim that “These large excursions of the westerlies explains why there have been several extreme snowstorms in the eastern USA and western Europe in recent months” could be more clearly written as “ONCE AGAIN these large excursions of the westerlies explains why there have been several extreme snowstorms in the eastern USA and western Europe in recent months.” In other words, this behavior of the westerlies and the resulting cold winters are things that have occurred many times before and, for that reason, are part of natural variation. What can be explained by natural variation has no need of explanation by appeal to AGW.

    The shift in Westerlies has been shown by modeling to be a result of expanded cold air pockets in Siberia, which have warmed Canada and pushed polar air into the midwest of the US. This has shifted the prevailing Westerlies. This effect was predicted by Judah Cohen as a result of the warm water in the Arctic Ocean, which is thought to be an effect of Global Warming.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/26/opinion/26cohen.html

  58. Mike says:

    “The atmospheric greenhouse effect is a flea on the back of an oceanic elephant and the influence of CO2 but a microbe on the back of the flea and the influence of anthropogenic CO2 but a molecule on the back of the microbe.”

    A microbe can kill an elephant. They multiply.

    I read your essay. What you seem to miss is pretty basic. Small changes can add up over time. Small changes in CO2 add up. A small increase in energy stored each year adds up overtime. You gave no quantitative evidence to support your claim that, “In the unlikely event that it is still large enough to have any effect at all it may well take millennia for any warming of the oceans to become apparent by which time it would be dwarfed by natural changes anyway.”

    You also fail to understand that a small positive trend will overwhelm any oscillation over time. Mainstream scientists have presented a lot of quantitative evidence that we are seeing this now in the temperature trends (surface and ocean) and some evidence that this may be effecting certain extreme weather events. See any of IPCC, NAS, EPA or Skeptical Science websites. So, now the onus is on you to show their estimates are incorrect.

  59. Stephen Wilde says:

    R Gates said:

    “to categorically reject a signficant role for CO2 in climate dyanamics, both through and direct and indirect effects, can only be akin to a religious belief and not based on science.”

    And categorically assuming a significant role despite an observation that any pre 2000 effect on the air circulation has been reversed with ease by natural forces would not be akin to a religious belief ?

    I’m judging on the basis of real world events. What do you do ?

  60. Mike says:

    Stephen Wilde says:
    January 30, 2011 at 3:37 pm

    Mike,

    The reversal has only recently begun. If GHGs were in control the recent changes just should not have happened and with the jets approaching Western Europe diving to Gibraltar instead of Iceland, with cold in the South eastern USA we are a good way back towards what happened in the LIA.

    2010 was the warmest year on record. The Arctic is very warm. That did not happen during the LIA as far as I know.

    The only question is how long this phase will last. Either way GHGs are rapidly leaving the park.

    It may happen that the sun will cool down substantially and save us for awhile. It seems foolish to bet the farm on this. When the sun warms up and we have increased GHG’s we will be cooked.

    It just takes a while for ocean heat content to respond.

    True. The amount of energy being stored in the oceans is increased by the GE but then comes back to the atmosphere non-linearly. So, the oceans won’t save us either.

    Anyway, why would they assert that GHGs are in control when the observations were exactly what one would expect from a period of active sun in light of the LIA example of what happens with an inactive sun.

    They being the NASA article authors, Shindell el at? They say the sun was a major factor in the LIA but that it is not a major factor in the present climate changes. That’s what the evidence suggests. The sun has been cooling slightly and we are still warming. Some model studies – which should be taken with a grain of salt – show the GE warming will be large even if the sun stays cool – an event that seems unlikely but is possible. I apologize for not having a specific reference, but I want to go get dinner. Here however is something that people might find relevant:

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/03/more-on-sun-climate-relations/

    See especially the two links in the last paragraph.

    What was the basis for their decision ? What made them ignore the modern solar maximum ?

    It has not been ignored. The sun likely played a non-trivial role in early 20th century warming but has played no role since or may have slowed the warming a tiny bit.

  61. Stephen Wilde says:

    Mike said:

    “You also fail to understand that a small positive trend will overwhelm any oscillation over time. Mainstream scientists have presented a lot of quantitative evidence that we are seeing this now in the temperature trends (surface and ocean).”

    Like this ? :

    http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/01/10/research-issues-on-the-missing-heat/

    “Using only 2003–2008 data from Argo floats, we find by four different algorithms that the recent trend ranges from –0.010 to –0.160 W/m2″

    Another point is that if the changes are small enough not to be troublesome for a couple of hundred years then there is no emergency. The UN now expects an earlier global population peak than previously and then a decline. Japan’s age profile involves a loss of nearly a third of it’s population by 2055.

    Then our technology will start to catch up and before we have a significant anthropogenic climate problem we may well have developed suitable systems to achieve sustainability without regressive controls in the meantime.

    Furthermore if the oceans really are cooling then I would expect soon to see a decline in atmospheric CO2 anyway as the rate of oceanic absorption recovers. There is a hint of that already.

  62. JP says:

    The Alarmists are in a quandry. For 2 decades they’ve projected warming temperatures globally. Most predicted a amplified Hadely Cell, which would push well into the Mid Latitudes from the subtropics. They predicted that polar air mass source regions would warm, and thier air masses would no longer penetrate the deep mid-latitudes. Dr Vinter from HadCrut et als predicted in 2000 that within a decade snowy/cold winters would be a thing of the past. From a weather standpoint, they all agreed that the strength and breadth of the polar jetstreams would weaken; droughts and heat waves would be the new norm. Mild winters would stretch through out the mid-latitudes as a result. Yes, there would still be winter storms they argued. But those storms would be mainly rain, and would lack the punch of major winter storms of old.

    But, three of the last 4 winters in the NH (Northern Hemisphere) had copious amounts of snow fall. Larger sweeping areas of low pressure pulled cold air masses from the polar source regions, and even areas in the subtropics had below normal temps due to these outbreaks. The prevailing Westerlies in the NH of course are stronger due to cooler temps in the tropesphere. The PFH (polar front jet) is driven by differential heating between the poles and equator. And unlike the Subtropical Jet, the PFJ is determined more by global temp changes (a cooling globe leads to a stronger jet; a warming globe leads to a weaker one).

    Something is afoot, alright. And it is not AGW. The Alarmists could be right. But the weather of recent years say something different.

  63. Smokey says:

    Mike says:

    “If I say AGW is real and serious then the onus is on me to present evidence of this. If you say AGW is trivial if it exists at all, then the onus is on you to present evidence.”

    That’s not correct. The CO2=CAGW hypothesis is the basis for all climate alarmism. If I say it’s trivial or non-existent, the reason is that the null hypothesis remains un-falsified – which means that the alternative hypothesis must be discarded.

    There is no measurable difference between the null and the alternative, which acts like a placebo in this instance.

  64. Stephen Wilde says:

    Mike said:

    “The sun has been cooling slightly and we are still warming.”

    Someone has set up a bet on how long that will continue. I suggest you participate.

    “The sun likely played a non-trivial role in early 20th century warming but has played no role since.”

    Despite historically high solar cycles 17 through 23 ? The usual obfuscation is that the cycles peaked with 18 and 19 but eased off a bit afterwards. Still the jets went zonally poleward so there was obviously a significant solar role going by the reverse effect during the LIA.

    With zonal poleward jets lots more energy penetrated the oceans with reduced global cloudiness and albedo so we then had a run of El Nino dominance warming the troposphere.

    And you put all that down to human CO2 ?

    Well that would have been fine up to 2000. I went along with it up to then. However around 2000 I started to see the process go into reverse and now it is apparent to all.

    The quiet sun has sent the jets equatorward again just as accepted by Shindell et al so clearly it was the sun that sent them poleward in the late 20th century and not CO2.

    It is you chaps who are cherry picking.

  65. R. Gates says:
    January 30, 2011 at 3:40 pm

    Please R. G., give me a “peer review” of these presentations. http://www.kidswincom.net/climate.pdf, http://www.kidswincom.net/CO2OLR.pdf, and http://www.kidswincom.net/arcticseaice.pdf. If you wish to contact me directly, you can find that information on my website http://www.kidswincom.net.

  66. ferd berple says:

    Just got back from Puerto Vallarta. The overnight lows were 12 C / 53 F !! It was cold. Everyone was wearing coats in the restaurants while having dinner. When the wind was blowing it was brutal.

  67. Geoff Sharp says:

    Stephen Wilde says:
    January 30, 2011 at 1:45 pm

    rbateman:

    Here you go:

    http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20011206/

    Thanks Stephen and Robert for highlighting a mechanism recognized by NASA (and by those that might support AGW) that links AO/NAO changes with low solar output.

    The authors (through their model) suggest a higher content of ozone in the stratosphere during a quiet Sun as being a possible cause. The current condition of solar output is below the first cycle of the Dalton Minimum along with modern EUV levels showing a dramatic drop over previous cycles that have also coincided with a very reduced thermosphere height.

    A link to the NASA paper HERE.

    We should be discussing the viability of the mechanisms proposed in this paper instead of wasting time on Co2.

  68. Kefuddle says:

    I agree with some of the other posts in that one obviously can’t just blame the wind and leave the matter at that. Clearly the big weather event at the moment is La Nina. Clearly that large area of cool water is going to have some affect, skewing or shifting the Hadley Cells and jet streams.

    I am an airline pilot operating in South East Asia. It was certainly suprsing to see an Easterly jet stream over Indonesia. Also, the usual Easterly jet that descends into Northen Vietnam never really materialised, instead staying further north that it usually does.

    FWIW the temperatures in the region have been unusually cool and the dry season unusually short, starting very late and seems to be ending sooner too.

  69. AusieDan says:

    Children!
    All go and sit in seperate corners and keep very quiet.
    When you are quiet, please got to your desks and write out 100 times:

    “All the wild weather we have had recently;
    the highs and the lows,
    be that temperature or moisture in its different forms;
    by that I mean as rain or snow;
    are but part of the natural cycle,
    that has been observed many times before.”

    When you have finished, please clear up your desks and go home in an orderly fashion.
    Thank you.
    Good night.

  70. Paul Vaughan says:

    Re: TomRude

    Thanks sincerely for sharing notes on Leroux.
    Do you have any links to free online versions of his papers?

    I was delighted to discover during the past week that a number of his ideas in the paper to which I linked here dovetail remarkably with the article I shared in December 2010:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/23/confirmation-of-solar-forcing-of-the-semi-annual-variation-of-length-of-day/

    E.M. Smith, if you are around, have you read Leroux (1993)? (I remember your past comments; this is the piece of the puzzle you were craving.)

  71. TomRude says:

    Paul, it looks as if most of his papers are in French. From the amazon review I gather three books have been translated into English. I have read all three and suggest the latest is a good overview of his work. Pity indeed that we have not heard of this author earlier…

  72. rbateman says:

    Stephen Wilde says:
    January 30, 2011 at 1:45 pm

    Thank you for finding that priceless gem. I owe you.

    Geoff Sharp says:
    January 30, 2011 at 5:09 pm

    I also have my eyes glued to the Neutron Monitor counts, as they remain elevated even higher than the 70’s run.
    While it’s nice weather out here in N. Calif. the past month, it’s also been because of the storms riding up over the High Pressure Cell parked here and raining down icy cold and heaping snow from the Rockies to the East Coast.
    Same thing happened in 76/77 (after an equal amount of time spent in High Neutron counts) before the solar cycle got going and brought the Neutron Counts down.
    Check it out.

  73. Stephen Wilde says:

    I’ve already taken the issue several steps further in my own work.

    The problem for that old 2001 paper by Shindell et al is that they propose the cause of the LIA cooling to be a result of cooling in the stratosphere due to less uv effects on stratospheric ozone. Similarly they would then expect to see stratospheric warming when the sun is more active but of course we did not.

    In fact the stratosphere actually cooled when the sun was more active and I expect that that was why they plumped for the proposition that human influences were overriding the natural processes.

    What they failed to realise was that LIA type (equatorward/meridional) jetstream shifts require stratospheric warming towards the poles and not cooling so they should have realised that something was amiss with the basic assumption about the atmospheric response to changes in solar activity.

    I first became aware of the problem some years ago and have been trying to resolve it.

    Hence this article:

    http://www.irishweatheronline.com/irishweather/how-the-sun-could-control-earths-temperature.html

    which is an updated version of one first published at climaterealists.com.

    The recent findings that when the sun was quiet between 2004 and 2007 ozone levels above 45km actually rose is exactly what I would have expected yet it potentially reverses the established views as regards the solar effects on the atmosphere. Jo Haigh and Gavin Schmidt have admitted as much.

    If the stratosphere has continued to warm even if only a little since 2007 then my propositions are home and dry in principle even if some refinement of detail is required.

    What seems to have been lacking from climate theory until now is any appreciation of just how much the jets can shift from natural multidecadal (and longer) influences and of course that equatorward/meridional jets require a warming stratosphere whilst poleward/zonal jets require a cooling stratosphere.

    Nor does there seem to have been adequate thought given as to what that jetstream shifting actually achieves. Clearly it is an energy budget balancing mechanism between solar effects from above and oceanic effects from below.

    NASA was on the verge of getting it right in 2001 but threw it all in the bin by simply assuming that the observational discrepancy regarding stratospheric temperature trends was all our fault.

    The same principles apply to the ozone hole. It seems to grow naturally when the sun is more active and shrink naturally when the sun is less active.

  74. eadler says:

    Stephen Wilde says:
    January 30, 2011 at 4:14 pm

    “Mike said:

    “You also fail to understand that a small positive trend will overwhelm any oscillation over time. Mainstream scientists have presented a lot of quantitative evidence that we are seeing this now in the temperature trends (surface and ocean).”

    Like this ? :

    http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/01/10/research-issues-on-the-missing-heat/

    “Using only 2003–2008 data from Argo floats, we find by four different algorithms that the recent trend ranges from –0.010 to –0.160 W/m2″

    Another point is that if the changes are small enough not to be troublesome for a couple of hundred years then there is no emergency. The UN now expects an earlier global population peak than previously and then a decline. Japan’s age profile involves a loss of nearly a third of it’s population by 2055.

    Then our technology will start to catch up and before we have a significant anthropogenic climate problem we may well have developed suitable systems to achieve sustainability without regressive controls in the meantime.

    Furthermore if the oceans really are cooling then I would expect soon to see a decline in atmospheric CO2 anyway as the rate of oceanic absorption recovers. There is a hint of that already.>/i>

    Referring to Pielke Sr. and claiming this is mainstream is cherry picking. Pielke Sr is looking at one paper from NODC , which looks at some recent data, which is in the process of being studied and corrected, and points out that it sayconcludes the oceans have cooled slightly since 2003.
    This is not the only paper on this subject; and looking at a collection of papers on this subject, it is clear that one should conclude that the oceans have been warming at an accelerating rate over the past 40 years.
    Check out the graph in the following post which contains the results of 3 different studies on this subject.

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/05/ocean-heat-content-increases-update/

    The main problem has been that over time the network of XBT probes and CTD casts has been replaced by the Argo float network which has a much greater coverage and more homogeneous instrumentation. However, connecting up the old and new networks, and dealing with specific biases in the XBT probes is difficult. An XBT (eXpendable Bathy-Thermograph) is a probe that is thrown off the ship and whose temperature readings as a function of time are transferred to a profile in depth from knowledge of how fast the probe falls. Unfortunately, this function is a complicated one that depends on the temperature of the water, the depth, the manufacturer of the probe etc. Various groups – working with the same basic data – have shown that there were biases in the XBT associated with incorrect calibrations and have attempted to make better corrections.

  75. Stephen Wilde says:

    eadler,

    I’m sure you would not be so negative about the accuracy of the probes if the result had been different.

    Anyway time should soon resolve the issue now that less solar energy is getting into the oceans.

  76. Well if we are going to play bridge, I’m going to lay my hand on the table, if any of you can find things of value in the pile of accumulated ideas I remember from every thing I have seen and read over the past 50 years. First an over draft of how I think the picture on the puzzle box looks like.

    All of the universe affects the rest of it, it all sits in a bowl of gravitational and magnetically driven mass of ions and regular atoms, that respond to the basic physics detailing the “normal rules or laws”. To think that there are voltages or ions that move with out magnetic fields attached violates first principals. The magnetically permeable inductive components of planetary bodies are susceptible to Ohms laws, and power equations apply to the full spectrum of from DC to most energetic particle seen.

    So we should be able to figure forces at work when planets have synod conjunctions, by determining the shifts of flux of the magnetic fields, with the shifting density and speed of the solar wind. When the Ulysses satellite was on polar orbit of the sun “they were amazed that the patterns usually seen in the solar wind were still there, but also much stronger than they expected by several orders of magnitude.” To me this means that the main crux of magnetic connections between the planets is in the normal distribution of concentrations at the poles/apexes of lab magnets and the large sweeping fields are weakest along the circumference, neutral current sheet, or equatorial regions, and also not only flowing with the neutral sheet of the solar wind but focus concentrations down onto the poles of the planets, as evidenced by the polar Auroral displays from the much larger loops further off of the ecliptic plane.

    The galactic magnet fields are also influenced by basic rules of action as well, which leads me to the conclusion that the interactions of the composite system from the rotation of the Galaxy, and the declinational movement of the solar system in that larger frame of reference, as well as the density waves that propagate around driving the spiral arm flux variances give rise to the longer cyclic term climatology of the Earth. Some have been found, other underlying cycles that as yet we do not have their specific drivers identified. (back to this point later)

    The heliopause seems to have auroral knotted bands (recently spotted ribbons of ion activity) on its leading side as it progresses through the interstellar gases and dust clouds, the solar system passes through in its travels. I think that this is due to the conductance of the galactic fields into or through the heliopause, coupling through the polar regions of the sun and planets, at near equilibrium, or the balance felt as steering currents in the slow transition of the orbital slowing and swaying of the solar system as it winds its way through the gravitational and radiation gauntlet, shoved around ever so slowly by the rest of the individual stars.

    So then as a result the makeup of the planetary interaction periods have become some what stable, and have formed harmonic coupled interactions between themselves, and the non-random long term slower periods. Not much is said about the tilt of the magnetic poles, of most of the planets and the sun from their spin axes. I think even this has something to add about long term climate effects. In the common hospital use of MRI scanners, the magnetic induction pulses are used to flip atomic spin axes in line with the dense fields momentarily formed with pulse current on, and watching the return to ambient spin axes when current goes off. (back to this point later) If people have learned to control the effects would not they also occur in nature if they are so predictable? If you apply the calculations with the right power increase needed to satisfy the balance of the equation, the same effects should occur with reference to stars and planets.

    If all of the planets and the sun are running along, in near balance with changes in outlying fluxes upon the solar system, disruptions in the periodic patterns should be minimal, with much greater stability being found in the harmonic patterns in the interactions between the planets of the solar system, as a result milder climate with less wild extremes would dominate at times of stability.

    Currently the magnetic poles of the sun are running ~12 degrees off of its vertical axes of rotation, with a period of rotation of 27.32 days, as a result the Earth and Moon themselves move above and below the ecliptic plane alternately, while the system barycenter scribes a smooth ellipse responding to the gravitational and tidal tugs of the outer planets as we pass them almost every 12 months plus a few days. The resultant periodic 27.32 day flux of the polarity of the solar wind as it passes the Earth creates and drives the declinational swings North and South in the two bodies, as a giant pulsed oscillator circuit, dampened by the tidal drag of the fluidity of the various parts of the Earth, small solid core, outer liquid core, fluid mantel, and fragmented floating crust, that is itself creeping along tectonically in response to the dance of the combination of the additions of the other planetary tidal, gravitational, and electromagnetic induction fluxes that keep the inner fluids warm.

    The further off of vertical, and/or the stronger the total magnetic flux of the sun’s magnetic poles, the more energy available to be driven into the lunar declinational cycle balanced by the tidal dampening into the Earth, hence the greater the solar magnetic impulse input the greater the resultant tectonic turmoil, the more extreme the weather and climate. The weaker the magnetic fields of the sun relative to the near DC fields of the galactic background levels, and the more vertical the magnetic fields of the sun the less energy gets driven into the lunar declinational movement and resultant tidal dampening energy into the Earth.

    As the spin axes and magnetic axes of the sun approach straight on alignment, the whole declinational drive component of the Moon orbital dynamic decreases, to maybe as little as a degrees either side of the ecliptic plane, changing to a more synergistic combination of the solar and lunar tidal effects at an angle of 23.5 +/_.5 referenced to the equator, keeping the atmospheric global circulation in the kind of high turbulence blocking pattern, sort of weather we have been having the past two years and the next two as well. When continued past the normal length of time (about 3 years on the down and up side) in the 18.6 year variation of the mechanism of transport of equatorial heat towards the poles, stalled in the most active section of atmospheric lunar tidal effects, coupled in sync to the solar tides as well, the long term trend then becomes a constant la nina, and an ice age sets in.

    Just as in MRI scanning the initial pulsed spin flip is nearly instantaneous, and does not seem to affect the covalent bonds the atoms are part of, so maybe the solar magnetic orientation to polar axes of rotation, flip is hardly noticeable over 100 years or less, just as the wandering of the Earth’s magnetic field pole positions are hardly noticed by the public. The ongoing dampening of the tidal movement of the lunar declinational extent at culmination would regulate the dropping rate due to actual amount of tidal dampening load transferred to the Earth. As the declination off of the ecliptic plane drive energy lessens and becomes slowly coupled out by tidal inter action, and the Lunar orbital diameter expanded to compensate slightly. This would explain the rapid onset of ice ages, and then the re-flip to off axes solar magnetic polar alignment, renew the declinational driver system again and cause the pulsation type exit usually seen from ice ages.

    The short term inter ice age, realistic application of these ideas is in the much more recent history (due to short instrument records) of the past three to five maybe (Ulric Lyons says 10 cycles works best because it = the 179.5 year cycle period.) Can be assembled in composite maps that use the 6558 day period of 240 declinational periods that shows analog synchronization of the inner planet harmonic effects on the weather, from just the past three cycles as seen on the daily maps here.

    http://www.aerology.com/national.aspx

    The problem left is that the outer planet have a set of harmonics of their own that induce the 179.5 years envelope on the 18.6 year mn cycle pattern that have in turn a finer 27.32 day oscillation imposed, so the complete long period of compounded modulation is as Ulric Lyons suggests 179.5 years long as the effects of the outer planetary returns driving the solar sunspot cycles due to SS Barycenter displacement due to Uranus Neptune synod conjunctions. The available data base gets extremely thin out ~180 year ago. Due to data limitations, I have so far stayed with just the last three cycles of 6558 days or ~17.95 years.

    Tallbloke and several others on this blog are more concerned with the effects of the tidal and gravitational and maybe magnetic effects of the outer planets having an effect upon the sun via the displacement of the sun around the SS barycenter, which the inner planets seem to be bound to follow. I will leave that part to him to explain, I am more concerned with the inner planet harmonics. Below is but one illustration of how the Null hypothesis can be further defined.

    On April 20th of 1993 we had the most recent synod conjunction of Neptune and Uranus, which the Earth passed on July 12th of 1993, presenting as an epic precipitation surge globally with heavy rains through the summer and massive flooding of several river system around the world. It is my contention that the increase in magnetic couplings through the polar magnetic field connections induces a homopolar generator charge increase at these times and a quick global discharge just after synod conjunction. The results of these increases in pole to equator charge increases drives positive ions off of the sea surface along the ITCZ, where by mutual static repulsion of the condensation nuclei inhibits cloud formation and precipitation, and at the same time allows more SW radiation to reach the tropical sea and land surfaces promoting rapid warming driving ENSO extremes, with the rapid precipitation that results on the global discharge side, post synod conjunction, also leaving clearer skies for additional warming after the flooding subsides.

    The lunar declination phase of the 18.6 year mn cycle was in an increasing through 23.5 degree culmination angle at the same time, being in phase with the temperature increases. By early 2005 the declinational angle at culminations was at its peak extreme, and the distance between Uranus and Neptune was separating again to about 29 days apart August 8th of 2005 for synod of Earth and Neptune and September 1st of 2005 for synod conjunction of Earth and Uranus. The Southeast gulf coast was ravaged by Katrina and Rita as a direct result of these influences. Combining with the 27.32 day period lunar declinational tides culminations they rode in on, to produce the storm intensity that resulted.

    As the outer planets Neptune and Uranus continued to separate and the declinational angle shifted past peak angle at culmination the resultant peak warming period shifted further into the late Summer and now is in the Fall in 2010. The reason I think the last season 2010 was so active but not as powerful in ACE production as 2005 was due to the addition of Jupiter in Synod conjunction on April 3rd in 2005 kicking things off, and on the 21st of September 2010 with Uranus on the same day, creating a late fast finish in 2010. But having a half hearted start of a season in 2010 as a result of the difference.

    Over all the whole period of the close Neptune and Uranus synods in the mid to late summer allowed the extra clearing of clouds and resultant heating the last 15 years of the SST and ENSO intensity periods, CO2 just was in the air along for the ride. This is all part of the 60 year patterns in the weather cycles, and can be explained as such. Now that the outer planet synod conjunctions of the Earth with Neptune and Uranus are moving into the fall and early winter, we can expect them to produce the increased snowfall events and cold polar blasts being seen in both hemispheres.

    Trying an experiment by using this natural periodicity of the repeating patterns of the composite effects of the inner planets and the Earth/Lunar/Solar 27.32 day harmonics as a natural analog showing a base length of the 6558 days repeated three times as an ongoing day to day forecast gives enough weight to the promise that natural variability is actually driving about 85% of the short term variability of the weather.

    The longer cycles already identified with the progression of the Milankovitch Ice Ages orbital interactions, give me encouragement that the midterm length cycles associated with the outer planet Synod periods and possible effects on solar cycles will be fruitful as well. With all of the public grant funds going to the CO2 boondoggle, it is necessary that some funding be made available for the parts of the climate research endeavor that have been fruitful already, and form the basis of most of the accepted body of knowledge of how the null hypothesis works.

    With the investigation of these methods of predicting the extreme effects of the weather patterns they produce, long range forecasts for both weather and climate will become possible. I am betting my life saving and the rest of the creative efforts of my life time on it.

    The changes in the jet stream positions from the past three cycles in reference to this one, have shifted towards the equator about 200 miles as a result of the lower solar and geo-magnetic strength due to the current solar minimum, along with an additional 3 to 6 degrees of cooling bringing the freeze line down into the past precipitation patterns. Which has been resulting in the increased amount of snow in the Southern USA, for the past three years as well as the rest of the NH, that I do not have data for so cannot forecast at this time.

  77. Stephen Wilde says:

    Crikey, Richard. I don’t think we could ever get many readers to go with that.

    What is wrong with just accepting that the jets primarily respond to the two largest factors namely solar and oceanic variability ?

    There could of course be a place for other factors in so far as they might in turn affect the behaviour of the sun and oceans but we are a long way from disentangling that in view of the internal variability of the Earth’s climate system.

  78. TomRude says:

    Eadler: “The shift in Westerlies has been shown by modeling to be a result of expanded cold air pockets in Siberia, which have warmed Canada and pushed polar air into the midwest of the US. This has shifted the prevailing Westerlies. This effect was predicted by Judah Cohen as a result of the warm water in the Arctic Ocean, which is thought to be an effect of Global Warming.”

    Really you should learn about atmospheric circulation before quoting this claptrap…

  79. sky says:

    TomRude says:
    January 30, 2011 at 12:25 pm

    I admire Leroux’s insights. They pan out vis a vis dynamic analyses and field measurements. It’s poetic how much can be learned from studying the cradle of mankind: Africa. Sadly, there are no century-long temperature records to be found at its equatorial heart. They would tell quite a story.

  80. Stephen Wilde says:
    January 31, 2011 at 9:57 am

    Reply; The natural ocean basin periods of oscillation are driven by the lunar tidal effects coupled with the outer planet synod passing modulations to develop the ENSO, SOI, PDO, NAO, etc. effects that everyone is so enamored with, as the internal forcings.

    As long as the original drivers of the weather and climate are ignored and the focus is on their secondary effects, you/they will never get a good solution to the forecasting of the climate problem.

    Please do not project the map that others are following onto my path, so far I am the only one to consistently forecast daily weather out YEARS in advance with a simple analog, beta testing has been profitable, and it is time for me to begin producing an improved model.

    Richard Holle

  81. Stephen Wilde says:

    Richard Holle says:
    January 31, 2011 at 1:46 pm

    Thanks for the clarification and good luck with the improved model.

  82. TomRude says:

    sky, well Leroux’s patient work started with getting the African database. Hence the reason why the WMO at the time published his PhD and distributed it to all its members.

  83. Geoff Sharp says:

    Richard Holle says:
    January 31, 2011 at 9:44 am

    With such an inventive imagination perhaps your investments should be directed towards science fiction novels.

  84. eadler says:

    TomRude says:
    January 31, 2011 at 10:22 am

    Eadler: “The shift in Westerlies has been shown by modeling to be a result of expanded cold air pockets in Siberia, which have warmed Canada and pushed polar air into the midwest of the US. This has shifted the prevailing Westerlies. This effect was predicted by Judah Cohen as a result of the warm water in the Arctic Ocean, which is thought to be an effect of Global Warming.”

    Really you should learn about atmospheric circulation before quoting this claptrap…

    Mr Rude, what are your qualifications versus Judah Cohen’s?
    He got his results using a weather model. He is a respected forecaster. He even predicted the results in advance, showing the location of the cold spot in Minnesota.

    Can you supply any scientific information which contradicts his simulation and explanation of the results? If you can’t do this, you are talking through your hat.

  85. TomRude says:

    eadler, “He even predicted the results in advance,”
    Amazing!
    Start with the link provided by Paul Vaughan.

  86. Carla says:

    Geoff Sharp says:
    January 31, 2011 at 4:06 pm
    Richard Holle says:
    January 31, 2011 at 9:44 am

    With such an inventive imagination perhaps your investments should be directed towards science fiction novels.
    ~
    Me thinks Neptune and Urunas are busy enough. Their dipole position, tells us about the boundary layer, they are bound with. As you propagate outwards from the solar disk, layers of influence are produced.
    We call Neptune and Urunas outerplanets for a good reason as the are more influenced by interstellar changes and influences.
    Watch the video and read the NASA articles on what they have learned about outer planets and another similar system.

    Dust Models Paint Alien’s View of Solar System
    ..Through gravitational effects called resonances, Neptune wrangles nearby particles into preferred orbits. This is what creates the clear zone near the planet as well as dust enhancements that precede and follow it around the sun.
    http://www.nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem/features/dust-model.html

    Warped Debris Disks Around Stars Are Blowin’ in the Wind08.28.09
    http://www.nasa.gov/topics/universe/features/interstellar_wind.html

    Hey Vuks got a holy grail, looks like a battering ram or focusing cone. HOw and where the cone is stoked dictates the reconnection mechanism with the sun. Models for dipolar reconnection one even showing a northern hemisphereic harmonic config showing the loss of reconnection in the southern hemisphere. I thought that last one pretty interesting. Also equatorial config model as well.
    I can see an influence on solar cycle within this..Accretion, gains and losses, how it affects the layers of a solar system and the planets that orbit their particular layer.

  87. Carla says:

    Vuks, rbateman and the Doc.
    Did a tour of “Star-Disk interactions in young stars.” IAU Symposium 243
    Invited and contributed abstracts
    http://www.iaus243.org/article204c.html?id_article=36

    After going through the above abstracts on the subject of accretion in other star systems, I started looking at at and for a commonality to the “Accretion – Reconnection Mechanism.”
    Knowing most here wont plow through all the abstracts presented at this symposium I selected the models they now propose after researching some 1100 other star systems that were part of this symposium.

    The pdf is a slide presentation of different accretion reconnection mechanisms for solar type systems. Vuks the layer and closer proximity and dipole of Jupiter seems to say he has a larger role within the inner layer hierarchy. But have a look quite informative and you may see something else and Doc where is .. ah the horizontal components in this ..whewwwwwwww

    MHD SIMULATIONS OF THE
    DISK DISK-STAR INTERACTION
    http://www.iaus243.org/IMG/pdf/Romanova.pdf

    pg.37 might be of some interest due to a current solar similarity.
    Accretion to a Star with Non Non-dipole Field
    Depicts how reconnection in the accretion regime occurs with the sperical harmonics of the Northern Hemisphere DISK. Not surface but DISK region. Might even look somewhat familiar to some of us here.

  88. Carla says:

    If you scroll a bit further down in the pdf slides,
    MHD SIMULATIONS OF THE
    DISK DISK-STAR INTERACTION
    http://www.iaus243.org/IMG/pdf/Romanova.pdf

    We find another very interesting magnetic configuration of a star system reconnection – accretion model on page 43 called “Misaligned Dipole + Quadrupole.” This looks all to eerily familiar..

  89. Carla says:

    That’s one hell of a piston driving solar disk reconnection to ISMF/Medium. No wonder there is such a big dent in the heliospheres bubble. And so squashed in the dipolar regions in this minium, with source surface fields dominating, polar fields on the current solar disk. Seems to have a northern hemispheric harmonic preference Ol’ Sol..lately…

  90. Carla says:

    We know from the Voyagers that the heliopause near the dent region is moving in and out. Is that a horizontal piston, moving in and out out there. Might even be warping the whole HCS. Might even be a more warped response if your boundary layer is that of Neptune and Urunas on the shape of yur model.

  91. Carla says:

    Geoff, one thing more for your planetary theory.
    The trefoil pattern always bothered me. I was girl scout, it was our emblem.

    Huh.. so we have this huge gravitation focusing cone plowing through the solar system. . (might even form and X line at boundary location 16-18 solar radii) In which all planets in the system orbit through in their trek around the sun.
    This cone responsible for the warp in the Helio Current Sheet HCS. And the dent in the at the edge of the heliospheric boundary to interstellar space.

    But the position of this gravitational focusing piston at the heliospheric magnetopause changes.

    Now here comes that trefoil pattern. The angle of the piston and it’s northern, southern or equatorial or any position in the forward apex direction, is positioned by the suns orbital pattern. That trefoil pattern should be displayed as a coil and not all spread out like that. Would seem that the solar system is coiling around something of magnetic values here hmmm….

    Now vary the temp, speed and density of the background VLISM, very local interstellar medium.
    One varying solar cycle coming up.

  92. Carla says:

    One more thing for Vuks and Geoff, in the accretion-reconnection regime of layers and boundaries.

    In the inner bounday layer of Saturn and Jupiter, tidal affects on layers propagating inwards to the inner reconnection solar layer above the corona and in the solar higher ionospheric like region of the solar disk.

  93. Carla says:

    My cranky must be stuck in auto play..lol

    Accretion-reconnection occurs in in young and old stars in varing but similar degrees.
    What is common ..?

Comments are closed.