In The Land of El Nino

Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach

[UPDATE: When reading the comments, you’ll notice a number of nasty untrue personal attacks made on me by three commenters with the screen names “Lady Gaiagaia”, “Gloria Swansong”, and “Sturgishooper”. One of them makes an attack, another jumps in to agree, the third one says the first two are right … that kind of thing. Here’s the funny part … alert work by a moderator has revealed that all three are nothing but sock-puppets for some unknown scumball with an axe to grind. I see this as a testament to the desperation of the person involved, that they are willing to try these despicable ploys in a vain effort to discredit real science. Anyhow, keep that in mind when going through the comments.]

While I was involved in an interesting interchange with David Douglass here, I stumbled across an interesting discovery. Before I get to that, though, I have to give high marks to David and his co-author, Robert Knox, for showing up on WUWT to defend their paper. Most authors don’t have the albondigas to do that, so I definitely tip my hat to them, much appreciated.

The subject of the interchange was the area in the Pacific Ocean called the “Nino3.4 Region”, which goes from 5°N to 5°S and from 170°W to 120°W. It started with a look at the sea surface temperature (SST) in the area. When the Nino3.4 region is running hot, it means that there is an El Nino in progress. Here is that graph:

CERES decomp nino3.4 SSTFigure 1. Sea surface temperature (SST) in the Nino 3.4 region of the Pacific Ocean, decomposed into seasonal and residual components. Top panel shows the observations. Middle panel shows the seasonal component of the observations, that is to say, the average monthly changes in the data. Bottom panel shows the “residuals”, which is what’s left after we subtract the seasonal component from the observations. DATA SOURCE

In the bottom pane of Figure 1, we can see the various El Nino events over the period as clear peaks in the data, including the large El Ninos in 1983 and 1998.

In the process of the discussion I looked at something I’d never examined, which is how much solar radiation the surface actually receives in the Nino3.4 region. This is measured as what is left of the downwelling solar radiation after cloud reflections and atmospheric absorption, minus the amount that is reflected from the surface of the ocean. So we’re measuring how much solar energy is actually absorbed by the ocean surface. The data is from the CERES radiation-measuring satellite.

CERES decomp nino3.4 surfaceFigure 2. Absorbed solar energy in the Nino 3.4 region of the Pacific Ocean, decomposed into seasonal and residual components. Top panel shows the observations. Middle panel shows the seasonal component of the observations, that is to say, the average monthly changes in the data. Bottom panel shows the “residuals”, which is what’s left after we subtract the seasonal component from the observations. DATA SOURCE

I looked at that and said “Wow!” and ran to compare the two. Why? Because I realized I could see the 2003, 2007, and 2010 El Ninos in the absorbed solar data, and it was moving opposite to the surface temperature … which would be very strong observational support for my hypothesis that the tropical ocean temperature regulates the incoming sunlight. It does so inter alia via the following processes:

Warmer Ocean ==> Earlier-forming and More Daily Clouds ==> More Solar Reflection and Absorption ==> Less Available Solar Energy

and

Cooler Ocean ==> Later-Forming and Fewer Daily Clouds ==> Less Solar Reflection and Absorption ==> More Available Solar Energy

Obviously, this is a self-regulating system. When it is running cool it lets in more energy, and when it is running hot it lets in less energy. This is the heart of the system of emergent climate phenomena that has kept the planet from either frying or freezing into a snowball for millions of years.

In order to compare the two datasets, SST and absorbed solar, I used what is called a “cross-correlation” analysis. This calculates the correlation (a measure of similarity) between the two at a variety of lags. Let me first say what I hoped to find.

First, I hoped to find that there was a strong negative correlation between absorbed energy and sea surface temperature (SST). This would mean that as SST rises, absorbed solar energy goes down, and vice versa. Note that this is the opposite of what we’d expect—normally, as the absorbed solar energy increases the temperature increases.

Next, I hoped to find that there was a very short lag between the temperature and the downwelling solar. Normally, when the sun heats the ocean there’s about a 2-month plus lag between peak insolation and peak temperature, because of the thermal mass of the ocean. But if the temperature is controlling the clouds as my hypothesis states, the lag should be much shorter, one month or less.

Finally, I hoped to find that the cross-correlation analysis would be convincingly shaped, which means a clear peak at zero or short lags, and falling away quickly on both sides of the peak.

With that said, here are the results of the cross-correlation analysis:

ccf absorbed solar and sst nino3.4Figure 3. Cross-correlation analysis, absorbed solar energy and sea surface temperature in the Nino3.4 region. The climatology (monthly averages Jan-Dec) has been removed from both datasets.Positive lag indicates absorbed solar lagging the change in temperature.

I could not have been happier when I saw that result. It is crystal-clear evidence that the sea surface temperature is regulating the incoming sunlight as my hypothesis states.

Of course, I couldn’t leave it at that, I had to look to see how widespread this phenomenon might be. One can use the CERES satellite data for this, but there is a challenge. CERES has no surface temperature dataset … but it does have a surface upwelling radiation dataset, which can be converted using the Stefan-Boltzmann to temperature. How accurate is this CERES estimate of the SST? Very accurate everywhere I’ve tested it … but this gave me another chance to test it. Here is the NOAA sea surface temperature in the Nino3.4 region compared to the CERES estimate of the SST for the same region …

Nino 3.4 ceres and noaa sstFigure 4. The CERES satellite dataset estimated sea surface temperature in the Nino3.4 region (red) compared to the NOAA SST for the same region.

Dang … well done, CERES scientists.

Greatly encouraged by that, I took a look at the relationship between temperature and absorbed solar radiation worldwide. Figure 5 shows that result:

CERES correlation surface temperature and absorbed solarFigure 5. The correlation of surface temperature and the solar radiation absorbed by the surface. The mid-Pacific red rectangle shows the Nino3.4 region. DATA SOURCE

As you can see, over much of the surface of the planet, the absorbed solar energy is positively correlated with temperature, just as we’d expect.

But in the area of the inter-tropical convergence zone north and south of the equator, what’s sometimes called the deep wet topics, the reverse is true. There, the emergent climate phenomena of cumulus clouds, thunderstorms, and squall lines act to regulate the incoming sunlight. And as it turns out, the Nino3.4 zone is not even the area of the strongest negative correlation. The strongest is centered on the equator and the international date line at 180° West (or 180° East).

Finally, let me call attention to the size of the restorative force. During the 2010 El Nino, the absorbed solar in the region dropped by about 40W/m2. This gives us an idea of the strength of this part of the temperature regulation system.

Not much else I can say except that this is very strong support for my hypothesis that the climate is not a simple function of the forcing, but instead is regulated such that it varies only a very small amount (e.g. ± 0.3°C over the entire 20th century).

Regards to all on a lovely late summer’s day,

w.

My Usual Request: If you disagree with someone, please have the courtesy to quote the exact words that you disagree with. That way we can all understand both who you are addressing and exactly what it is that you object to.

Further Reading: Since the original publication in Energy and Environment of my hypothesis that emergent phenomena constrain the global surface temperature to a very narrow range, I’ve written the following posts on the subject:

The Thermostat Hypothesis 2009-06-14

Abstract: The Thermostat Hypothesis is that tropical clouds and thunderstorms actively regulate the temperature of the earth. This keeps the earth at an equilibrium temperature. …

Plankton Cause Hurricanes! Urgent Action Required! 2010-08-15

When people say that we understand the unbelievably complex climate system well enough to project scenarios out a hundred years, I point out that new things are being discovered every week. The latest scientific finding is that plankton cause hurricanes. I know it sounds like a headline in The Onion,…

Which way to the feedback? 2010-12-11

There is an interesting new study by Lauer et al. entitled “The Impact of Global Warming on Marine Boundary Layer Clouds over the Eastern Pacific—A Regional Model Study” [hereinafter Lauer10]. Anthony Watts has discussed some early issues with the paper here. The Lauer10 study has been controversial because it found that…

The Details Are In The Devil 2010-12-13

I love thought experiments. They allow us to understand complex systems that don’t fit into the laboratory. They have been an invaluable tool in the scientific inventory for centuries. Here’s my thought experiment for today. Imagine a room. In a room dirt collects, as you might imagine. In my household…

Further Evidence for my Thunderstorm Thermostat Hypothesis 2011-06-07

For some time now I’ve been wondering what kind of new evidence I could come up with to add support to my Thunderstorm Thermostat hypothesis (q.v.). This is the idea that cumulus clouds and thunderstorms combine to cap the rise of tropical temperatures. In particular, thunderstorms are able to drive…

It’s Not About Feedback 2011-08-14

The current climate paradigm believed by most scientists in the field can be likened to the movement of balls on a pool table. Figure 1. Pool balls on a level table. Response is directly proportional to applied force (double the force, double the distance). There are no “preferred” positions—every position…

A Demonstration of Negative Climate Sensitivity 2012-06-19

Well, after my brief digression to some other topics, I’ve finally been able to get back to the reason that I got the CERES albedo and radiation data in the first place. This was to look at the relationship between the top of atmosphere (TOA) radiation imbalance and the surface…

The Tao of El Nino 2013-01-28

I was wandering through the graphics section of the TAO buoy data this evening. I noted that they have an outstanding animation of the most recent sixty months of tropical sea temperatures and surface heights. Go to their graphics page, click on “Animation”. Then click on “Animate”. When the new…

Here there be Dragons 2013-02-04

I was reflecting tonight about emergent phenomena, and how one thing about emergent phenomena is their unpredictability. I’m in the process of writing up a post on emergent phenomena in climate, so they’ve been on my mind. I got to thinking about something I saw thirty-five years ago, a vision…

Emergent Climate Phenomena 2013-02-07

In a recent post, I described how the El Nino/La Nina alteration operates as a giant pump. Whenever the Pacific Ocean gets too warm across its surface, the Nino/Nina pump kicks in and removes the warm water from the Pacific, pumping it first west and thence poleward. I also wrote…

Slow Drift in Thermoregulated Emergent Systems 2013-02-08

In my last post, “Emergent Climate Phenomena“, I gave a different paradigm for the climate. The current paradigm is that climate is a system in which temperature slavishly follows the changes in inputs. Under my paradigm, on the other hand, natural thermoregulatory systems constrain the temperature to vary within a…

Air Conditioning Nairobi, Refrigerating The Planet 2013-03-11

I’ve mentioned before that a thunderstorm functions as a natural refrigeration system. I’d like to explain in a bit more detail what I mean by that. However, let me start by explaining my credentials as regards my knowledge of refrigeration. The simplest explanation of my refrigeration credentials is that I…

Dehumidifying the Tropics 2013-04-21

I once had the good fortune to fly over an amazing spectacle, where I saw all of the various stages of emergent phenomena involving thunderstorms. It happened on a flight over the Coral Sea from the Solomon Islands, which are near the Equator, south to Brisbane. Brisbane is at 27°…

Decadal Oscillations Of The Pacific Kind 2013-06-08

The recent post here on WUWT about the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) has a lot of folks claiming that the PDO is useful for predicting the future of the climate … I don’t think so myself, and this post is about why I don’t think the PDO predicts the climate…

Stalking the Rogue Hotspot 2013-08-21

[I’m making this excellent essay a top sticky post for a day or two, I urge sharing it far and wide. New stories will appear below this one. – Anthony] Dr. Kevin Trenberth is a mainstream climate scientist, best known for inadvertently telling the world the truth about the parlous…

The Magnificent Climate Heat Engine 2013-12-21

I’ve been reflecting over the last few days about how the climate system of the earth functions as a giant natural heat engine. A “heat engine”, whether natural or man-made, is a mechanism that converts heat into mechanical energy of some kind. In the case of the climate system, the…

The Thermostatic Throttle 2013-12-28

I have theorized that the reflective nature of the tropical clouds, in particular those of the inter-tropical convergence zone (ITCZ) just above the equator, functions as the “throttle” on the global climate engine. We’re all familiar with what a throttle does, because the gas pedal on your car controls the…

On The Stability and Symmetry Of The Climate System 2014-01-06

The CERES data has its problems, because the three datasets (incoming solar, outgoing longwave, and reflected shortwave) don’t add up to anything near zero. So the keepers of the keys adjusted them to an artificial imbalance of +0.85 W/m2 (warming). Despite that lack of accuracy, however, the CERES data is…

Dust In My Eyes 2014-02-13

I was thinking about “dust devils”, the little whirlwinds of dust that you see on a hot day, and they reminded me that we get dulled by familiarity with the wonders of our planet. Suppose, for example, you that “back in the olden days” your family lived for generations in…

The Power Stroke 2014-02-27

I got to thinking about the well-known correlation of El Ninos and global temperature. I knew that the Pacific temperatures lead the global temperatures, and the tropics lead the Pacific, but I’d never looked at the actual physical distribution of the correlation. So I went to the CERES dataset, and…

Arctic Albedo Variations 2014-12-17

Anthony has just posted the results from a “Press Session” at the AGU conference. In it the authors make two claims of interest. The first is that there has been a five percent decrease in the summer Arctic albedo since the year 2000: A decline in the region’s albedo –…

Albedic Meanderings 2015-06-03

I’ve been considering the nature of the relationship between the albedo and temperature. I have hypothesized elsewhere that variations in tropical cloud albedo are one of the main mechanisms that maintain the global surface temperature within a fairly narrow range (e.g. within ± 0.3°C during the entire 20th Century). To…

Advertisements

355 thoughts on “In The Land of El Nino

    • We are discussing complex interacting phenomena, and in a sufficiently complex situation there are always tendencies to act one way and also an opposite way. That said, I find it difficult to explain why heating a top layer of the ocean, making it lighter, would cause an upwelling of a denser cold water.

      Great job, Willis, thank you.

      • Heating the water increases rising warm warm air and lowers the pressure which in turn increases the trade winds entering the convergence zone. Stronger trade winds push warm water westward, causing the tropical cold tongue due to upwelling.

      • CG,

        Because he was a sailor.

        Dr. S,

        As you say, plus, solar flux also affects air pressure and winds, especially the UV component, which varies much more than TSI, but on Planet Willis, that fact is anathema.

      • Jim, you are one of my minor gods. But today I can not follow your thoughts. First you write “As the trade winds weakened since late 2010, sea surface temperatures rose”, then you say that heating the water increases the trade winds.

      • Well Willis’s results do not surprise me at all.

        I have been posting here at WUWT for some years now, and have many times stated that cloud feedback regulates the earth’s Temperature, and in the process mentioning Wentz et al; “How much more Rain will Global Warming bring.” from their July 13th 2007 SCIENCE paper, as the observational evidence for that regulating feedback.

        Come to think of it, I don’t recall even a single comment from anyone, responding either in agreement, or in opposition to that suggestion; although I believe that Dr. Roy Spencer has alluded to cloud feedback in some of his comments on his site.

        Of course Wentz et al said nothing about clouds, in their paper which claimed a 7% per degree C rise in surface Temperature for total global evaporation, total global atmospheric water content, and total global precipitation, although the GCMs claim as much as a factor of seven discrepancy in some of that relationship (they under report the total atmospheric water I think. (long time since I re-read the paper). I added the seemingly obvious cloud increase with Temperature, based on the notion that precipitation and clouds sort of go together, in that there is not a lot of precipitation from clear cloudless skies.

        Now Steven Wilde, I recall did comment that the location of clouds could also move as one of the factors in global cloud variation.

        Now there is one aspect of Willis’s essay that I still wonder about.

        I have looked up at clouds from below, and down on clouds from above, and I usually can’t see much of what is above the clouds from below, or what is below the clouds from above; but that is at visible wavelengths.

        So I don’t see how you can reliably measure surface insolation at solar spectrum wavelengths by looking down from above. What you may be able to do at LWIR of Microwave wavelengths is another matter.

        But I would rather see surface insolation solar measurements from the surface below the clouds, than from above.

        But once again, Willis has put some graphical pictures to something which for me is just some casual arm waving. Well I don’t have either the time, or the interest, that Willis does.

        For me, negative cloud feedback regulation of earth’s surface is as obvious as the sun rising in the East and setting in the West.

        Thanx for the paper Willis.

        g >> G

      • Curious Gerorge you ask a good question. And I think the best way to answer your paradox is to suggest we must look at the problem locally as well as basin wide.

        Bob Tisadale has a nice post on the trade winds. https://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2014/02/22/el-nino-and-la-nina-basics-introduction-to-the-pacific-trade-winds/

        Due to the earth’s geometry any increase in insolation is felt most intensely at the equator, so that increased insolation will increase the north south temperature gradient and increase the trade winds converging at the equator. The strength of the trade winds is clearly observed to increase upwelling and the strength of the cold tongue that extends from Peru. The paradox you point out asks is why doesnt more cool upwelling cancel out warmer insolation at the local level?

        Here you need to add the positive feedback of the Walker Circulation. The stronger trades push more heated water into the western warm pool near Indonesia causing more rising air in the western Pacific, while the stronger upwelling creates cooler waters and higher pressure in the eastern Pacific and this strengthens the Walker Circulation,which amplifies the trade winds and maintains the cool upwelling. The increased east west temperature gradient appears to more than offset the cooling effect on the north west gradient.

        One reason climate models do not come to any consensus regards El Nino/ La NInas is due to this paradox. Some modelers think CO2 will warm the eastern Pacific and reduce the Walker Circulation and create more El Nino like conditions. Others model a warmer warm pool and a stronger Walker and less El Ninos. Of note, during the Little Ice Age and associated lower solar irradiance, proxy evidence suggests weaker trades and a more El Nino like pattern of surface temperatures. During the Medieval warm Period with proxy evidence of greater solar irradiance, the ocean proxies suggest stronger trades and more La Nina like conditions.

      • Jim,

        Well said.

        Might I add that the good evidence for El Niños of the past is yet more evidence supporting the global affect and indeed origin of the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age Cool Period. La Niña frequency, the same. Perhaps paradoxically.

      • Curious George,

        I think there are also cloud feed backs that are very important drivers of climate. My questions regards upwelling and trade winds is not meant to dismiss cloud feedbacks but to refine our understanding.

        I suspect stronger trades that induce more La NIna like conditions also create fewer clouds in the eastern Pacific. Small increases in solar insolation are amplified as the trades remove clouds and increase the solar heating of the oceans. Papers like Rosenthal’s 2014 showing about a one degree C warmer than today of the western warm pool during the Medieval Warm Period can not be explained by the small range of solar irradiance estimates. But if increased insolation increase the trade winds and reduces cloudiness in the eastern Pacific the added watts/m2 then offer a plausible explanation. Due to the Clausius-Clapeyron relation, cooler upwelled waters absorb and store more heat, relative to warner waters because the added heat is more likely to cause evaporation and less likely to be stored in the ocean. Thus La NIna like conditions store more heat than El Nino like conditions with warmer surface temperatures.

      • Jim,

        I’m with you, but factor in the effect of large fluctuations in the UV component of TSI, affecting O3, hence air pressure and winds, and of GCR modulation on CCNs, and we’re talking solar amplification on steroids. And more tropical than polar.

    • jim Steele September 26, 2015 at 2:25 pm

      Willis, How much of that negative correlation is due to upwelling of cold subsurface waters. Increased insolation could increase the trades and upwelling?

      Interesting question, Jim. While that might be part of what’s happening in the Nino3.4 region, the entire Indian Ocean shows negative correlation. This argues that it is a general, sustained, and widespread phenomenon.

      w.

  1. I wonder why the system breaks down with the onset of an ice age glaciation. what can interfere with this process, such that the thermostat control is overwhelmed. Process change (forcing) or setpoint movement?? GK

    • The control is more limiting on temperature rises. With cooling , the clouds can clear away to let more sun in but once they are gone there is no more ability prevent further cooling if other factors are causing the cooling. The system has shot it’s bolt so to speak?

      • Well you better rethink that because once all the clouds; which currently cover the earth about 60% according to NASA/NOAA, are gone, you wil have a 20-25% increase in the surface insolation from the sun, so you will have the grandmother of all solar forcings.

        Peter Humbug did an X-box experiment, where he removed all of the H2O from the atmosphere to demonstrate how ice ball earth would work; and he got all of the water back in about three months. His paper on that was in either SCIENCE or Maybe in Physics Today.

        Lack of clouds will not result in a heap of cooling.

        g

      • One thing about cloud feedback, that often goes in one ear and out the other, or is seldom mentioned, is that we are NOT talking about last night’s weather conditions, or today’s.

        We are talking about climate changes, so that means as regards clouds, a CHANGE either up or down, in GLOBAL cloud cover/density/persistence/geographical location, that that lasts for intervals of time that are climatically significant; such as for 30 years or so.

        While the obvious weather effects of changes in clouds can be observed on a minute by minute basis, (from down here anyway) and the net physical effect of that is registered promptly and integrated over time, as to resultant climate effect; the temperature regulating effect only becomes apparent over time.

        So if high clouds at night keep the surface warmer, (as the standard text books claim), and even higher clouds keep it even warmer (which I don’t understand at all), that is not the issue. Those same clouds, (if they persist) will block solar energy during daytime.

        Well of course it is always daytime on the planet I live on, and on a bit over half of the total spherical surface area. The earth subtends about 18 arc seconds at the sun (85 micro-radians), while the sun subtends about 30 arc minutes at the earth, to which atmospheric refraction adds at least as much extra illuminated surface. If the long term global cloud effect on solar insolation, is to increase the total surface energy received, then one would expect the Temperature to rise, which Wentz says increases atmospheric water, and the converse, if the clouds act to diminish total integrated surface insolation.

        What happens at some location over a 24 hour interval seems somewhat irrelevant.

        g

        By the way. I’m just putting MY words, to notions which I get from either the direct statements of others, who actually make these observations; or which I INFER from their works. In no way do I claim any original discoveries, relating to any of this. If there was any such discovery, it would only be MY recognition of what I presume others already know.

    • OK, I’ll bite.

      First, insolation at high latitudes drops due to orbital and rotational mechanics, such that earth switches into a new stable mode.

      Second, this effect is reinforced by changes in oceanic circulation, also from direct or modulated solar effect.

      Third, to have an ice age at all, the continents need to be in a particular configuration. This is why there were ice ages in the Ordovician, Carboniferous and Cenozoic, but not in the Mesozoic, when otherwise there should have been, given the 150 million year beat of ice houses.

      Earth is homeostatic, but its self regulation serves to maintain the state it is in, IMO. BTW, there appears to be a third state here in the Quaternary, that occurs at least as often as interglacial, which is cold super glacial, and lasts about as long as the warm interglacials.

      • “there appears to be a third state here in the Quaternary…”

        sturgis, could you please you elaborate on that?

      • Sure.

        The last glacial maximum lasted longer than the Holocene Interglacial has so far.

        Some earth scientists, among whom I count myself, are convinced that a prolonged cold interval during and perhaps always at the end of, glacial intervals constitute a third climatic state. The past interglacial and maybe prior ones also appear to have had another one previously.

        In this state, the North Atlantic freezes over in winter, much as does the Arctic Ocean in winter now.

        Thus the Quaternary has three basic states instead of just two, ie glacial and interglacial. It appears that the super glacial lasts at least as long as the typical interglacial.

      • ALL the glaciation events of the last million years are ten times longer than the very brief Interglacials. This is a key piece of the puzzle of the climate many ‘scientists’ studiously ignore. And statistically speaking, we are near the abrupt end of the present Interglacial which is why they lie about temperature statistics of the past pretending this is the Hottest year Evah when it is far, far from that.

        They deny the Minoan, Roman and Medieval Warm Periods now which is criminal.

      • Thanks sturgis “Thus the Quaternary has three basic states …”

        So if I understand you correctly, it’s; glacial, super glacial, then interglacial? Man that CO2 is some powerful Juju. Now I see why they want to impose limits.

    • The system Willis outlines has two bounds.

      a) The World is getting so little energy (for whatever reason) that the regulator never starts. It cannot go negative beyond not happening at all (zero).

      b) The world is so warm that ‘extra’ regulator makes no difference. It cannot go more positive than being permanent 24/7. Though it would spread North and South so the upper limit would be much harder to define than the lower limit.

      • Yes but the title would be followed by “don’t matter” at which point his grant would disappear and they would be working out how to include him on the RICO indictment sheet.

        Then again, from what I’ve seen, the ‘Stupid Sun’ crowd would want him in Court first.

  2. I like self-regulating systems. I think that CO2 comes equipped with its own one. If only Global Warmist/Climate Alarmists could be fitted with self-regulating systems, we would all be better off.

    • Thanks for the question, ralfellis. Figure 1 shows up to August 2015. I keep checking CERES periodically hoping for an update. In any case the next update of the CERES dataset will likely only go to February 2015.

      w.

      • Indeed, but the more important graph is figure 2, and that only goes up to 2014. I presume that 2015 must be another cloudy year in the tropics.

  3. i’ll say that this is not a true el-nino but more of a cold forcing the heat is being pushed or surrounded by cold from a melting lrg Antarctic .. this should collapse coming into the new yr as will the heat off Alaska followed by BAJA CALIFORNIA

    • That’s an interesting comment, given that the official experts are all predicting a big El Nino [my gut feel is that they’re wrong but I have no grounds]. Can you provide more information/evidence?

    • The Antarctic is not melting. Where did you get this idea?

      The EAIS, the largest depository of fresh water on the planet by far, is gaining mass.

      The comparatively tiny WAIS until recently was slightly losing mass, because of subglacial volcanism. How do these facts add up to “melting”.

      Also, please explain record Antarctic sea ice.

      Thanks!

      • Melting does not mean shrinking. The ice perimeter is very large now and more ice is exposed to the ocean which is warmer than the ice. It is melting faster but also accumulating faster. This is not a paradox.

      • it’s known the antarctic responds to el nino events almost immediately.

        That’s why the antarctic went from record high in May to a bit below normal now. Once El nino is gone the “melt” is gone too

    • Regardless of its merits or lack thereof, Willis should have learned long ago from you and others to quit calling this hoary old hypothesis “his”, as if he originated it.

      • As many have noted, this is because Willis has never systematically studied the relevant scientific disciplines, such as astronomy, physics, meteorology, oceanography or climatology, nor did he bother to conduct an elementary literature search before claiming his hypothesis as HIS.

        This is why the standard form for scientific papers includes a summary of what has already been discovered or at least published. Willis, the great polymathic genius, can’t be bothered to waste his valuable time on such procedures for the little people, ie those who have actually spent their lives in pursuit of a career in science. In one of his two (correct me if wrong) published papers, he fessed up to not wanting to follow this standard procedure. On this blog, he has proceeded as he began, by making claims without first exhaustively reviewing what has already been published.

        Non-professional number crunchers can serve a useful purpose, but formulating hypotheses in the absence of basic scientific education is not among them. Amateurs can make contributions, but first they must make the effort to find out what has already been published, so as not to reinvent the wheel (especially those already found to be square), and announce it as a great, earth-shattering discovery, as Willis has done.

        It would be rude to speculate as to the psychological motive behind this MO, but then, Willis is a psych major from Sonoma State, a licensed masseuse and an army deserter who avoided Leavenworth on a Section 8.

        Little wonder then that so many here are put off by his megalomanical posturing, whatever might be the merits of his statistical analysis. I suppose that even Sonoma State requires pysch majors to take a statistics course.

      • Sturgis,

        May I suggest you keep your criticism focused on the science. Right or wrong Willis always offers food for thought. When you add “It would be rude to speculate as to the psychological motive behind this MO, but then, Willis is a psych major from Sonoma State, a licensed masseuse and an army deserter who avoided Leavenworth on a Section 8.”

        It appears you have more of a personal vendetta than a scientific disagreement.

      • Jim,

        It’s not a personal vendetta, but a revulsion toward Willis’ attitude toward those hoi poloi who dare to question his obiter dicta, even when the questioners obviously know more and are smarter than the puffed up psych major himself.

        Respect to whom respect is due. When Willis accords his entirely justified critics the respect to which they are due, instead of attacking them ad hominem, then I’ll let up on him. Those who obviously know a lot more about statistical analysis and basic science than does Willis come in for reaming here from commenters who know even less than does Willis from his fan boys and girls deserve better than they receive here.

        IMHO. If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

      • Sorry, Dr. Steele, but I have to go with Sturgis on this question.

        Almost every post by Willis is challenged by experts whose livelihoods depend on statistical analysis, as his never has. Same goes for the science behind the analysis. He’s a rank amateur, at best, but maybe less so for analysis than science.

        Private sector geologists and other professionals who flourish or fail on the basis of their work should be granted pride of place over an amateur like Willis, who has never put his reputation on the line and the money of investors, as has Steve McIntyre, for instance, or Willis’ professional critics here. That he disparages them instead of trying to learn from his betters to me says all I need to know about him.

        I’m sorry, but Willis’ analyses just don’t cut it, or wouldn’t in the real world, where he has never competed. Which is a separate issue from his exempting himself from the academic norm of doing a literature search before announcing great new discoveries that have already been shown false decades ago.

        To Willis’ credit, however, I will say that he made a useful contribution in finding the offshore buoy data for central CA, and analyzing them adequately, at least to my non-expert satisfaction.

      • Dr. Steele,

        With all due respect, I think that Willis’ critics are focused on the science, in which Willis is sorely lacking.

        Experts in statistical analysis, with whom thank God this blog is blessed, have repeatedly shown that Willis is clueless. This is only to be expected, since for the critics getting the analysis right is a matter of livelihood, if not life and death, while for Willis it is only a matter of ego.

        But it goes far deeper than that. Willis has shown himself ignorant of even the most elementary principles of the sciences upon which he has anointed himself competent to pontificate. Maybe this wouldn’t matter if others here were as woefully ignorant of these sciences as he, but we’re not.

        Willis looks only at data, which can always be manipulated, rather than physical reality. There are well established mechanisms by which solar variations affect the climate of earth, all of which Willis willfully ignores considering. Whether this is because of his lack of education in basic physical science or because of his anti-solar faith, I cannot say. Yet it is a fact.

      • Why bother?

        Nothing that Willis posts will have any affect on anything.

        He’s not a footnote pimple on the posterior of anti-CAGW, which is a totally manipulated construct, which will be a huge embarrassment to science in future decades.

      • sturgis

        I was laughing as I read your attack on the ‘worthiness’ of an opinion from Willis. The validity of an idea is not dependent on its genealogy. From your extensive reading, can you remember who said that?

        Your argument in essence is that only certain people (the anointed) can generate new or useful or valid ideas. That is priestcraft. You are attempting to gate-keep. Tossing a congratulatory bone you had to do in order to avoid seeming to be presenting the out-of-line argument you do.

        I reject your argument. It is contradicted by the finest logicians of the 20th century. Truth does not have a mortar board on top, whereas a great deal of perfidy and misdirection does.

        You claim (without reference) that the thunderstorm hypothesis (which he proved to my satisfaction – it is a theory, no longer a hypothesis) was first (shown? proven? claimed?) by someone else. Perhaps you will say ‘someone thought of it’ but hypothesizing is not the same as offering the proofs and supporting arguments Willis put in his peer-reviewed journal article demonstrating that there is a strong cooling effect created by water evaporating from the ocean, the timing of which varies according to the temperatures of the air and water.

        I don’t care how many papers someone publishes. Einstein didn’t publish many before he got quite a major observation into the discussion on physics, agreed?

        At the end, you have not disproven anything claimed in the article, you have only complained about who wrote it and who might have proposed it earlier. I take it that you agree with his overall thesis and further, agree that the earth is a strongly temperature self-regulating body that cannot ‘overheat’, cannot reach tipping points of temperature, as demonstrated by billions of years of proxy data provided the orbit of the earth does not change significantly.

    • CG,

      Some are mentioned in Dr. Spencer’s link, from decades ago.

      This old hypothesis is familiar to undergrads in earth and atmospheric sciences. Now it’s considered incomplete, at best, if not, as Dr. S. suggest, just plain wrong.

      Dr. S. pointed this out to Willis in an exchange some time ago, which got unnecessarily bitter. Good Christian that he is, Dr. S has let bygones be bygones.

      • And while I try to respect everyone’s opinions, Willis does raise some interesting points (Tonopah comes to mind ). Being a licensed Professional Chemical Engineer I’ve made an avocation to study the climate “science” while defending the 1st & 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics ( not an easy task ).
        I have to ask if anyone remembers Immanuel Velikovsky?
        A non-scientist genius that advanced the planet Venus’s polarizing theories, which ultimately were vindicated. Way before Lady G’s time of course!!

      • On this blog Dr S is usually referring to Dr Leif Svalgaard. Perhaps we should refer Dr Spencer in a different manner to prevent confusion of from whom you are quoting.

    • I would guess that the clouds forming over high SST’s would be more likely to form large cumulonimbus than clouds forming over lower SST’s. This then may contribute to Lindzen’s “Iris” effect.

      The SST’s (28-30C)that Willis associates with the “governor” (that is a limiting as opposed to regulating governor) are about the same the the NWS says are needed to support tropical cyclone intensification (26C). If my reading of steam tables and math is anywhere near correct, this is the temperature for sea level pressure and 100% RH, the reduction in air density due to an increase in temperature is due more to the increased water vapor fraction than due to simple constant pressure thermal expansion.

      • IMO, sir, you are on the right track.

        But, also IMO, there are other significant factors which modify the straight physics of the situation.

        But in the end, it all comes down, IMO, to the time integral of insolation, stored in the oceans and released in pulses.

    • There might well be data sets which Willis has analyzed correctly. I just haven’t seen any.

      Thank God that this blog is blessed with so many competent commenters that a few of them can call BS on the laughably lame “analysis” that is typical of the statistical stupe, arithmetic a$$ and mathematical moron Willis.

      Which is not to say that he might not have accidentally have been close to right in a few instances of egregious statistical errors by the Team. But in this regard he is so far behind the great Canadians as not even to be a pimple on their posteriors. If they will forgive me the comparison.

      But this is AW’s blog and if he wants to sponsor Willis, that is his choice, however detrimental to the “cause” of skepticism.

  4. Willis how much of the warming (HAD 4 since 1850) of about 0.8 c do you attribute to nature and how much to Co2 increases? And how do you calculate 0.3 c of warming over the 20th century.

    • HadCRUT4 is plainly bogus.

      In 1995, the estimate was only 0.55 degrees C gain in GASTA since 1860. Even then, the “data” has already been “adjusted” upwards, but not as much as during the past 20 years.

      http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/95GL03093/abstract

      As there has been very little warming since 1995 and wasn’t much from 1850-60, the present cooked book figure of 0.8 is surely wrong.

      But in any case, the average per decade is clearly falling, given the idiotically named “pause”.

      • Abstract of Lean, et al, Geophysical Research Letters, 1995, linked above for GASTA increase estimate:

        Reconstruction of solar irradiance since 1610: Implications for climate change

        Solar total and ultraviolet (UV) irradiances are reconstructed annually from 1610 to the present. This epoch includes the Maunder Minimum of anomalously low solar activity (circa 1645–1715) and the subsequent increase to the high levels of the present Modern Maximum. In this reconstruction, the Schwabe (11-year) irradiance cycle and a longer term variability component are determined separately, based on contemporary solar and stellar monitoring. The correlation of reconstructed solar irradiance and Northern Hemisphere (NH) surface temperature is 0.86 in the pre-industrial period from 1610 to 1800, implying a predominant solar influence. Extending this correlation to the present suggests that solar forcing may have contributed about half of the observed 0.55°C surface warming since 1860 and one third of the warming since 1970.

      • But does she no longer consider the amount of warming to be accurate?

        It wasn’t her number, but the best estimate then available. It’s just one more evidence for the cooked books of consensus “climate science”.

        Even more convincing is to look at what scientists thought was the temperature record in 1975, which led them to worry about impending catastrophic global cooling.

      • Solar records have since been removed of spurious weighting applied in the past by just a few observers (who thought it was the right thing to do at the time). The temperature record is far more difficult to reconstruct due to far more multiple observers, methods, and proxies, not to mention the political arena. While the recent solar record reconstruction, a very transparent process for those of you who mistakenly consider it to be part of the dark side, has provided the research community with a far more accurate and cleaned up record, the temperature record is another thing altogether.

        In this temperature record mess, excellent researchers get smeared in public opinion by less than excellent researchers. What is uplifting about the solar record reconstruction effort is that just the opposite happened. Why? Because of the open process. Did they argue, fuss and fight? Very likely. To get it right, sometimes feathers must be ruffled. But the difference boils down to wanting to get IT right versus wanting to BE right.

        From what I have read from her pen, Judith Lean struggles with the temperature record I am sure, and has alluded to that here as well as on her own blog. I don’t see or read of her struggling with the excellent and open results of the solar reconstruction team. However, because of that improved reconstruction, her older papers that use previous solar reconstructions are what they are. Educational and well done at the time and will stay in the research literature as all good research must. Improved reconstructions do not make previous papers using older solar reconstructions unworthy of continuing to be in the literature. That’s not how it works. This is how it works: It is up to individual researchers and the reading public, such as you LGG, to be discerning when new research overtakes out-dated research. And I don’t see you LGG as someone who is currently willing to perform at that level of discernment. For your own edification, I give you this advice. Continue at your present level of performance and you will soon be dismissed with prejudice by more readers than just the few who have already publicly done so.

  5. Phytoplankton are also an important feedback modulating climate.

    Lovelock on the contribution of phytoplankton to CCNs:

    http://www.jameslovelock.org/page35.html

    The affect of ENSO swings on phytoplankton:

    http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Phytoplankton/page4.php

    The biggest influence on year-to-year differences in global phytoplankton productivity is the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) climate pattern. ENSO cycles are significant changes from typical sea surface temperatures, wind patterns, and rainfall in the Pacific Ocean along the equator.

    During EL Niño events, phytoplankton productivity in the equatorial Pacific declines dramatically as the easterly trade winds that normally drive upwelling grow still or even reverse direction. The transition between El Niño and its counterpart, La Niña, is sometimes accompanied by a dramatic surge in phytoplankton productivity as upwelling of nutrient-rich deep water is suddenly renewed.

    El Niño events influence weather patterns beyond the Pacific; in the eastern Indian Ocean around Indonesia, for example, phytoplankton productivity increases during El Niño. Productivity in the Gulf of Mexico and the western sub-tropical Atlantic has increased during El Niño events in the past decade, probably because increased rainfall and runoff delivered more nutrients than usual.

  6. Willis: having followed your musings on this subject for several years, I must commend you on the clarity of your presentations (understandable to those with little or no background in the area), your patient pursuit of evidence for this mechanism and the absence of grandstand claims. Together it sets an example for the way science ought to be done and presented.

    • hmmm …presentations!! mod can you fix that? …although the word ‘presetations’ would be a good one for much of what is called “climate studies” [Fixed – mod]

  7. Nice work! I expected good stuff from Willis and this is GOOD stuff.
    We cannot yet draw conclusions about the idea but at least we can begin to formulate tests for it.
    Climate is complex. Complexity is largely a word signifying that there are many variables and often that the variables react to multiple stimuli.
    The more we know, the more more we can discover. I like this idea and think it may lead to progress even if it is not quite right. Few things are, you know.

  8. A self-regulating temperature system for our planet?

    That’s a new heresy for our Climate Inquisition.

    Right now, we seem to be heading headlong into a super El Niño. My greatest fear is that the associated spike in global temperature could occur before or during the Paris-ites meeting in November/December. A comforting thought is that the spike in global temperatures in the 1997/98 El Niño occurred during the first few months of 1998.

    Assuming history repeats itself, then this time around the spike will occur in February to April next year, too late for any Paris-ite hysteria.

  9. Good find Willis, I would like to say that you are looking at the feed back mechanism for control of our weather, no doubt. It seems apparent that the TSI from the sun does not vary much, so some other measure of something else must vary to cause MWP and LIA,s. Plus of course the big ice ages.

    That it was observed that the sun was spotless during the last LIA should give science some clue.

    • Yet “science” remains blind, just as it did when looking at South America and Africa and concluding that continents don’t split and move.

      TSI doesn’t vary much, true, but its UV component does, as does its magnetic flux. Mechanisms to amplify these variations have been abundantly demonstrated, but still the Warmunistas and their running dogs like Willis refuse to see.

      • Lady Gaiagaia
        September 26, 2015 at 5:16 pm

        TSI doesn’t vary much, true, but its UV component does, as does its magnetic flux. Mechanisms to amplify these variations have been abundantly demonstrated, but still the Warmunistas and their running dogs like Willis refuse to see.
        ————-
        Hello Lady

        One problem I have with the ‘Sun is doing “science”‘ is that actually it remains a blind science.
        Is a kind of approach that ignores one of the most fundamental steps in science, the experimental science.

        I am not a scientist but does not take much for one to know the most basic steps in science, the theoretical science, the experimental science and the reality check step in science.

        As far as I can tell, no any experimental science in the climate issue, like climate modeling, does validate the “Sun is doing it”, actually in contrary the GCMs give a clear 0% to the Sun forcing on climate.

        Even the efficacy of the last step (reality check) contributing towards the bettering of knowledge and science depends mostly on how good and efficient the implementation of the other two previous steps could have being.

        My question to you is, do you know of any experimental science in the climate issue that somehow validates to some degree the “Sun is doing it” theoretical(s)?

        cheers

  10. Does the comparison in figure 4 of NOAA sourced sea surface temperature with Ceres derived sea surface temperature show any evidence of NOAA manipulation of SST’s ?

  11. How does this compare to the Pacific Thermostat Hypothesis of Mark Cane, which Mann has suggested as a reason why the Medieval Warm Period was not global?

    • Every kind of evidence shows his garbage in to be garbage out.

      Look no further than the ENSO proxy data discussed in this comment section.

      “Consensus” climate science is at best an echo chamber, at worst a criminal conspiracy.

  12. “high marks to David and his co-author, Robert Knox, for showing up on WUWT to defend their paper.”

    That sort of thing could give climate science a good name.

  13. “cross-correlation”

    Again with the quotes. These are NOT aliens from another planet that no one has never seen nor heard. They are standard tools of the trade.

  14. Self regulating — During my work in Brazil, to estimate solar radiation and net radiation, as don’t have the data on sunshine hours or cloud cover for the north east Brazil, using the available data — rainfall — I tried to build an equation. I was successful. Rainfall — cloud cover — solar radiation. After estimating the solar radiation and evaporation — this is the main input in to the soil water balance studies — compared with measured data found it gives least error over traditional existing equations.

    Annual march of Indian rainfall and temperature showed opposite peaks — in drought years the temperature rising and in flood years the temperature falling.

    This is basic science.

    Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy

      • Before making observations, why don’t you read, what is posted. It seems you are only interested in abusing others and show you are enlightened one!!!

        I said : Rainfall – cloud cover — solar radiation; rainfall and temperature and finally I said this is basic science. Yes this is the basic science; as Sun emits energy and this is reduced by cloud cover [if they are present]; and rain comes through clouds and increases the humidity/moisture condition in the atmosphere and thus reduces the radiation reaching the Earth surface while Sunlight passes through it. When rainfall is there automatically the temperature goes down — see thermograph of any rainy day. When the sky is clear the temperature goes up. Generally we talk of average temperature, is an average condition of wet and dry periods. Over this average we say warm or cold.

        I don’t know whether you have a knowledge to understand the simple basics.

        Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy

      • I would like to present few more points see three articles of mine published in the Indian Journal of Radio & Space Physics, Vol. 6, March 1977, pp. 44-50, 51-59 & 60-66. All the three papers were presented the International Symposium on “Near Space Environment” held at National Physical Laboratories, New Delhi on 18-21 February 1975. The first paper was reported as one of the 15 papers of unusual interest by the Committee on Solar Terrestrial Physics [SCOSTEP] of American Academy of Sciences – they published volumes presenting abstract published in national and international Journals on Solar Terrestrial Physics in 1977. The title of my article is “Effect of Solar flares on lower tropospheric temperature & pressure” — The effect of solar flares on pressure is more pronounced compared to that on temperature. The third paper relates “Power spectral analysis of total and net radiation”. – The total and net radiation intensities show sunspot cycle [10.5 years].

        Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy

      • Yes, Gloria is simply insulting everyone. But then, this is what the entire Climate Science has devolved into: insults and deception which means we are at a key moment in history when everything will crash into this wall (the wall being obvious to me since the sun has decided this future series of sunspot cycles is going to be weak, not strong) of a definitely colder planet due to lower warmth from our dear, local star.

      • “””””….. @ Dr SJ Reddy

        When rainfall is there automatically the temperature goes down …..””””

        While generally agreeing with your points; I see here that you seem to have fallen into the trap that a lot of posters also get caught in.

        While your words above are likely to be true, the message is likely mistaken.

        Most physicists understand that at higher Temperatures, the atmosphere holds more water in vapor form. Clouds tend to form at higher altitudes, because for a given surface relative humidity the dew point will be met at higher altitudes if the surface Temperatures are higher.

        The formation of clouds requires condensation which usually means a lowering of Temperature, in addition to the pesky preference for some substrate to nucleate water droplets.

        So it would be more correct to say that when the Temperature goes down there can be rainfall (if there’s enough density of water in those clouds).

        Rainfall and other precipitations usually follow a cold front of some sort, it is not the rain which starts the process; although I will agree that when a cold front moves into a warm air mass, and we get rainfall, it is likely that some of that rain will re-evaporate while falling, and in the process reduce the Temperature of the originally resident warmer air.

        High clouds at night do not make the surface warmer; it is the much warmer humidity during the day that results in cloud formation once night time cooling sets in, and the hotter it was during the day the high will be the dew point altitude, and thus the clouds, but the Temperature will still fall with the onset of sunset and twilight (actually it starts before sunset.

        The hot (moist) daytime conditions cause the clouds; not the other way round.

        g

  15. For Nino3.4 or any other “box” on planet Earth, “correlation is not causation”.

    All arguments and disputes, moot.

    No need to send out Confederate and Union troops to slaughter and violate herds of cows, crows, geese or men and moose this day.

    Ha

    • That was the Geophysical Year, however, and the biggest solar flare year since the Civil War a century earlier. It’s the sun, stupid!

  16. Many things can affect SST’s in Nino data regions. Nino 1+2 is the most excitable and prone to extreme warming, and it captures the “strong” Ninos of 1972, 1982, and 1997 very well.

    1972 and 1997 show extraordinary phase alignment of the proxies.

    Whatever the dampening effect of clouds these SST’s manage to heat up impressively.

  17. Roy Spencer September 26, 2015 at 3:39 pm

    tropical cloudiness tends to organize over warmer waters, as part of the Hadley and Walker circulation systems…it has nothing to do with feedbacks, and even occurs in climate models that have strongly positive cloud feedback: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/08/on-the-cloud-thermostat-hypothesis/

    Thanks, Dr. Roy. The effect of earlier daily cumulus cloud formation is to reduce the incoming solar energy. It’s not clear to me how this is not a feedback, since the clouds are acting as a throttle on the incoming energy. As the graph shows, during the 2010 El Nino the clouds reduced absorbed solar by 40W/m2 … why is that large change in forcing not a feedback in your terms?

    Lady Gaiagaia September 26, 2015 at 4:21 pm

    Regardless of its merits or lack thereof, Willis should have learned long ago from you and others to quit calling this hoary old hypothesis “his”, as if he originated it.

    It’s not clear what others you are referring to when you say Dr. Roy “and others”. So let me discuss Dr. Roy and I.

    Dr. Roy has been one of my scientific heroes for many years. So I was surprised a couple years ago when he claimed that I had not properly acknowledged Ramanathan, who Dr. Roy said had originated what I’ll call the thunderstorm thermostat hypothesis for short. This is my hypothesis that the global temperature is closely regulated to a narrow range by the timing and strength of a host of emergent climate phenomena, from dust devils at the small end through cumulus clouds and thunderstorms and squall lines to things like cyclones and the El Nino/La Nina pump.

    However, there were two problems with Dr. Roy’s claim. First, Ramanathan’s theory was totally unlike mine in both subject and mechanism … and I had indeed acknowledged Ramanathan in my work.

    First, Ramanathan’s theory had nothing to do with the global temperature, or with thunderstorms. His theory was that there was what he called a “super-greenhouse” effect operating in the Pacific Warm Pool. He said this super-greenhouse kept the Pacific Warm Pool from ever getting much warmer than 30°C … no dust devils in sight, no global application, a local explanation for a local phenomenon. Nothing to do with my theory.

    Second, I had previously acknowledged Ramanathan when I discussed what Ramanathan had discussed—the 30° open ocean temperature limit in the Pacific Warm Pool. I did not acknowledge him regarding my hypothesis, for a simple reason—his hypothesis is totally unlike mine. However, it seems Dr. Roy’s searches hadn’t turned up my acknowledgement of Ramanathan … it happens.

    Now, Dr. Roy is still one of my scientific heroes, and he is assuredly one of the good guys in the story that we are all living out. And we’ve made our peace, or at least I have, I wish him only well.

    So let me now make you the same offer I made to Dr. Roy back when this happened.

    Show me the link to the paper that you say predates my publication of my ideas in 2010. You claim it’s not mine? Fine. Put your money (metaphorically of course) where your mouth is. Produce the prior art, and I’m happy to acknowledge it.

    Because what I can tell you is while other folks have claimed that my ideas aren’t new, not one person (including Dr. Roy) has come up with prior work that anticipates my ideas. I’m not saying such work is not out there, the world is a big place, but I can assure you I haven’t seen it. The ideas I present are my own.

    In any case, “Lady”, the ball is now in your court. You can either produce the evidence to back up your claim that the thunderstorm thermostat hypothesis is not my own work … or your true nature will be clear to everyone reading this interchange.

    w.

    • This is so typical of your MO. Not only do you want your betters to do the elementary literature search which you should have done, but you are so ignorant of basic climatology that you don’t know that your jejune “hypothesis” was already been shown false about a quarter century ago.

      Roy tried to lead you to the water, but like an obstinate mule, you refuse to drink: Hartmann and Michelsen (1993 J. of Climate) and Lau et al. (1994 Geophys Res. Lett., 21, 1157-1160).

      Yet still you have fan boys on this blog who don’t know what a bloviating impostor you so obviously are. For the same reason that you imagine yourself a genius, ie never having studied the science upon which you so impudently imagine yourself competent to comment.

      • I looked up the two papers, the first being http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0442%281993%29006%3C2049%3ALSEOTR%3E2.0.CO%3B2 , and the second is http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/94GL00222/full . I also noticed, based on the copy and paste, that you pulled those references from Dr. Spencer’s site at this page http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/08/on-the-cloud-thermostat-hypothesis/ . There is also this follow up paper that caps more of the context of the previous ones, it seems http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2005GL022359/pdf .

        Now, you’ll notice that the second reference in particular makes it plain that the discussion is about Ramanathan’s cirrus-thermostat hypothesis published in 1991. It is conceptually similar, but not identical to Willis’, as Willis is focused on the thunderclouds and the cooling effect of their dynamics rather than cirrus reflections. As far as I gather, at any rate. Additionally, both the papers you mention focus more on evaporative cooling, with a small look at cloud shortwave/longwave estimates (reflections), but nothing exactly like Willis’ particular branch of analysis.

        So, while the vein of intellectual investigation is indeed similar in that its cloud dynamics more or less, it seems to me that Willis comes to a different conclusion using different datasets with a different hypothesis driving different predictions–arriving to a more generally applicable view rather than a narrow banded reductionist approach (as his figure in this post shows). Thus, I must disagree with your view. It may be a nuanced matter, but it is pretty clear to me. Willis’ hypothesis explains the tropical phenomenon as well as the higher latitudes using a different mechanism, which the other papers I linked do not as far as I can see. But, I am not as steeped in it all as he or you seem to be.

        Clearly though, this is the very definition of feedback, so Dr. Spencer is incorrect in his claim it has nothing to do with that, which he posted above.

      • You are welcome to your interpretation, but perhaps you’re not familiar with the extensive discussion between Willis and Dr. Spencer on this topic, nor the contributions of many other actual scientists, as opposed to Willis’ assertions.

        It seems to be important to Willis’ sense of self late in life, but to me that’s not enough reason to go along with his pathetic claim of discovery, which no one else who is actually practicing science and familiar with the history of climatology appears ready to do.

        But by all means please back the great atuodidact genius Willis if that makes you feel better.

        For those of us who have actually studied the relevant disciplines, it is to laugh.

      • Thanks, Ged. Clearly “Lady” pulled those reference from Dr Roy, as they are the same ones he tried on me without success.

        And you are correct. Ramanathan’s hypothesis is quite different from mine His is about a “super-greenhouse” effect involving cirrus clouds … there is no mention of either of those in my hypothesis.

        And the other paper is also a local hypothesis about just the tropical SSTs. There is no mention of any global temperature control mechanism.

        And in neither of them is there any recognition of the other emergent phenomena (dust devils, cloud streets, etc.) which work in conjunction with the clouds and thunderstorms.

        Finally, none of their theories discuss the importance of the timing of the daily emergence of the cumulus and thunderstorm regimes, which from my first publication I have highlighted as a major control mechanism. Neither of those theories say one word about emergence timing.

        So “Lady” is just recycling tired accusations and has not noticed that the papers she refers to have nothing to do with my hypothesis. As you say, and as I pointed out to Dr. Roy at the time,

        Willis’ hypothesis explains the tropical phenomenon as well as the higher latitudes using a different mechanism, which the other papers I linked do not as far as I can see.

        So I’m not sorry to say that “Lady” is wrong. Those papers were what Dr. Roy tried to claim were prior descriptions of my hypothesis. It wasn’t true when he put them forwards, and her tired recycling of the same papers doesn’t make it true now.

        w.

      • You say without success, but any disinterested observer would conclude that Dr. Spencer is right and you, as usual, are wrong.

        But please, by all means, bask in the glow of the admiration of your fans here, who are even less familiar with science and statistics than you.

      • Hmmm, whom am I going to trust here, NASA rocket scientist Roy Spencer, or blog poster and home repair guy Willis Eschenbach? Call me crazy, but I’m going with door number one.

        I’m not down with appeal to authority, but I am for demonstrated competence over gaff-prone amateurism, at best.

      • Your Excellency Lady Gaiagaia, thank you for a lesson familiar to undergrads in earth and atmospheric sciences:

        “Hmmm, whom am I going to trust here, NASA rocket scientist Roy Spencer, or blog poster and home repair guy Willis Eschenbach?”

    • I think the reason it isn’t a feedback is that it doesn’t operate on the right time or spatial scale. Roy’s post from 2013 had a diagram that I don’t think made this clear enough but the distinction is I think clearer in a diagram I’ve seen Lindzen use (actually, this is from one of his grad student’s dissertations, but I’ve seen him use a very similar diagram, this one is just nicer):

      The point of which being that you cannot generalize from the behavior of clouds locally in response to seasonal or other short term sea surface temperature variations to a global climate feedback-or, you can’t, without accounting for certain other factors.

      • Paste the URL on a line all by itself with no HTML tags, like this:

        At least, that worked last time I tried it. More info in the Test link at the top of this page.

  18. Lordy. You can lead a horse to water. We now have direct observation of the change in w/m2 during equatorial La Nina and El Nino cloudy conditions, a change that reaches 40w/m2. Compare the Sun’s TOA change which results in about a 1w/m2 change. Even a first grade student knows that 40 is a lot bigger than 1.

    • Pamela Gray
      September 26, 2015 at 9:35 pm

      the Sun’s TOA change
      ———————–

      What is “the Sun’s TOA change”?
      I do not know what that is or stands for, can you tell me or point me in some direction where I can learn more about it!?

      thanks.

      cheers

      • It means top of the atmosphere before the spectrum is acted upon by Earth’s atmosphere. Search “Solar irradiance measured at the top of the atmosphere” and you should get lots of reading material. Recently satellites have actually measured this phenomenon from solar maximum to solar minimum.

      • Pamela Gray
        September 27, 2015 at 10:07 am

        Thank you Pamela, I understand clearly now the point you made in the previous comment.

        cheers

  19. thank you Willis, I enjoy your work and writing.

    I am saddened to see some detractors mention your lack of credentials. apparently the elitists like the poor will always be with us.

    • I should like to add that when someone uses credentials/college or university degrees as their argument (usually their only argument) then it is obvious they are not to be taken seriously. They are just snobs.

      • If that were the sum total, maybe. But in Willis’ case, his demonstrable lack of basic science and statistics reinforces the case.

      • How is it that lady’s posts dont have the reply facility. Is that an option for those who dont like contrary opinion. To be engaged by someone with an hypothesis is stimulating and personally I couldnt give a damn who said what first.

        If Willis by concentrating on tropical rainclouds and their formation as a opposed to cooling by evaporation and cirrus cloud albedo comes up with correlations that are not widely publicised and are from uncontested data sources, then surely that is what a blog site is all about. Pointing out Willis’s colourful side (boy I’d like to meet him) is pointless, spiteful and construed to detract from the fact that you have not come up with a quoted prior hypothesis on the daily formation of rainclouds and for how long they form due to the sst.

        To attack Willis personally like this shows a rather hysterical tendancy and entirely misses the point of sites like Anthony’s (IMHO before I get into trouble).

    • Whatever others might say, for me the issue is basic competency.

      Willis has the statistical capability which I would expect of a BA psych grad. It is simply far too inadequate for the analyses which he presumes to undertake, as commenters here have pointed out. Those critics are from the private sector, where correct statistical analysis means money and often even lives. So I’m going with them, such as “Dinostratus” over Willis, who has never been required to conduct analysis with any such consequences.

      Besides which, he has repeatedly shown himself ignorant of the most elementary grasp of the physical basis of the essential atmospheric, oceanic or terrestrial sciences. In this sense, his lack of credentials matters. It’s not snobbery, but lack of basic understanding of climatic processes.

      That doesn’t mean that his number crunching is necessarily to be rejected. It just means that his grand hypotheses should be rejected with laughter because they are recycled guesses which have long ago been shown false. He doesn’t know that because he has never studied any of the relevant sciences.

      A psych major can no more divine climate than the computer modelers who have so corrupted the field.

      • Willis argues from the data and its analysis. That I can respect. Any other arguments, such as yours about “credentials”, which is a subjective and uninformative measurement, is not an argument from data and thus not respectable in that regard.

        You also sound nigh identical in speech and approach as Lady Gaiagaia and sturgishooper, which is kinda tripping me out. So my statement stands for both of them as well.

      • You can add a lot of other names on other of Willis’ bloviating blog posts, who are experts, as he is, to say the least, not.

      • And claiming an hypothesis as his own which isn’t, you’re OK with that?

        How about when a real expert like Dr. Spencer concludes that it’s not only not original with Willis but long ago shown false?

        Will nothing make you question your unquestionable attraction to Willis?

      • Speaking of other names, here is one, who knows what he’s talking about, unlike Willis. These two have had many such exchanges, which always crack me up. From WUWT blog post:

        Problems With Analyzing Governed Systems
        Willis Eschenbach / August 2, 2015

        Willis Eschenbach
        August 2, 2015 at 10:25 pm

        Gerald, the problem is that the ocean is chaotic in the sense that if you go out into the ocean and drop two floats, one on each side of the boat, most of the time they’ll end up in very, very different locations … not good.

        w.

        Dinostratus
        August 3, 2015 at 4:51 pm

        Are you sure it’s chaotic and not random? Why/why not? Use math. Thanks.
        Dinostratus
        August 4, 2015 at 8:21 pm

        Still waiting for math. Tell us the difference between chaotic and random. Double dog dare you.
        Willis Eschenbach
        August 4, 2015 at 10:46 pm

        Dinostratus August 3, 2015 at 4:51 pm Edit

        Are you sure it’s chaotic and not random? Why/why not? Use math. Thanks.

        Dinostratus August 4, 2015 at 8:21 pm Edit

        Still waiting for math. Tell us the difference between chaotic and random. Double dog dare you.

        Thanks for the question, Dinostratus, but I fear that your manner of trying to get your way doesn’t work with me. I don’t respond well to that kind of ragging.

        However, your luck is amazing. As it happens I’ve been looking at that very question for a couple of months now. I have the post half written. However, you’ll have to wait, because I plan to finish it on my schedule, not yours.

        All the best,

        w.
        Dinostratus
        August 5, 2015 at 4:06 pm

        ‘I don’t respond well to that kind of ragging.”
        Or poorly for that matter.

        “As it happens I’ve been looking at that very question for a couple of months now. I have the post half written. However, you’ll have to wait, because I plan to finish it on my schedule, not yours.”

        It’s a fairly simple answer. It has a lot to do with f(t+tau) but nothing to do with auto correlations….. be warned.
        Willis Eschenbach
        August 5, 2015 at 7:50 pm

        Dinostratus August 5, 2015 at 4:06 pm

        “As it happens I’ve been looking at that very question for a couple of months now. I have the post half written. However, you’ll have to wait, because I plan to finish it on my schedule, not yours.”

        It’s a fairly simple answer. It has a lot to do with f(t+tau) but nothing to do with auto correlations….. be warned.

        So you know the answer? That’s great! Are you going to tell us?

        Or are you going to be a prince among men and dance around the subject and play games and withhold your supposed knowledge for personal aggrandizement?

        If you know the answer then why on earth are you asking me? If you think the issue is important then stop playing silly buggers and give us the damn answer. If it’s all that important, I’m sure that I’m not the only one that’s interested, so how about you give us your explanation?

        w.
        Dinostratus
        August 5, 2015 at 9:02 pm

        I’m withholding my supposed knowledge for personal aggrandizement. That and chicks. Never forget the ladies.

        Okay, new question….. What’s the difference between linear feedback and nonlinear feedback? The answer doesn’t take more than once sentence.

      • Well, I taught statistics to undergrads for years, and while Willis may not have a degree in statistics, his analyses typically are more advanced than that of someone with a Ba in Psych.
        Really, if you had any real knowledge of statistics, and had perhaps taught it at a college level, you would be aware of this fact; that you aren’t calls into question all of your assertions.
        Now, on to your “name”: why should anyone take anything some poster using an anonymous BS nom de net writes about anything?
        Youre no effing Publius; why dont you put your name under your comments, if you are so self assured?
        Only a coward would hide behind an anonymous name like “Glloria Swanson”.
        Youre a poseur, a despicable coward.

      • Gloria… I analyzed your commentary with that of LadyGaiaGaia and sturgiscooper with language diplomatics software I’ve been developing for a few years. The narrative and structural style comparison with LadyGaiaGaia was 90% and with sturgiscooper 85% with a +or- 5% error. Not that this little exercise was of any relevant consequence, I was however compelled to do so by the paradox your own and that of the related pseudonymous narratives, presented. That is, whilst calling into question Willis’ academic and financial ‘skin in the game’ you fail to present any indication of your own identity and relevant credentials and personal investment. Of particular narrative note is the observation that you and the related pseudonymous characters have used an “skeptic” statement in conclusion, i.e. “A psych major can no more divine climate than the computer modelers who have so corrupted the field”, to garner credibility for a quite personal attack. And, using reference to Dr. Roy Spencer to justify your narrative is disingenuous and disrespectful.
        Sounds a lot like a Hot Whopper to me!

      • It just means that his grand hypotheses should be rejected with laughter because they are recycled guesses which have long ago been shown false.

        Well, you say that, but I’ve no idea of your credentials. And even if I were wowed and weighed by people with fancy hats and statements of authority written — is cursive! — by other authorities it would hardly matter at this late stage in our pseudonymous game.

        Even without any established credibility of your own bonafides to get into parties with real NASA scientists that wear button downs festooned with pin-up girls, you could certainly, minimally, present any minor compendium of references to your hypothesis that the cloud hypothesis that belongs to people other than Eschenbach is laughably in error.

        Mind, given that Climatologists don’t understand the basics of Climatology either, I’m not really sure what sort of collegiate bloviating suffices for this.

  20. Dear Anthony, there are a few (way-too-) frequent (anonymous) posters in the comments here who are insulting and add no value to the discussion. I suggest they be placed on moderation as per blog policy. Nobody should be allowed to make such insults anonymously.

    Respect is given to those with manners, those without manners that insult others or begin starting flame wars may find their posts deleted.

    • Well, I was offline for about 16 hours, I needed a recharge. The fake posters/sockpuppets have been dealt with.

  21. I do love how this works. I post some interesting science. I’m immediately subjected to a host of personal attacks from anonymous internet popups who are self-styled experts. They’re all on about how they’re so brilliant and I’m incompetent and foolish and not worth listening to and generally a jerk and a fool and ignorant … but you notice one thing?

    None of these good people can find a single fault with my science. Not only that, but none of them are adding anything to the scientific discussion. It’s just endless ankle-biting about my credentials and abilities, as if that made any difference. It’s simple.

    Either my claims are valid or they are not. Nothing else matters. Not my age. Not my race. Not my sex. Not my education. Not my abilities. Not my tone or my style. The only valid scientific question is whether my claims are valid or not. Period.

    And if you think my claims are not valid, the only way to establish that is to attack my claims. Not me. My claims.

    And since these charming folks are either unwilling or incapable of demonstrating any problems with my science, they yammer on endlessly in personal attack mode, whining about things like where I put my quotation marks … really? That’s your idea of scientific discourse? Endless meaningless personal attacks, no science of any kind, and you want to dispute quotation marks and whether I worked as a masseur? I did. And I also worked as the CFO of a company with $40 million in annual sales … so what?

    Do you truly think any of that is relevant in the slightest to whether my scientific claims are valid or not?

    Really?

    For shame …

    w.

      • “Lady”, thank you for the demonstration of exactly what I just finished saying … people like you who are unable to find even one fault or flaw in my actual work instead start slinging mud and declaiming loudly that I’m not ept.

        My eptness is not the question. My ideas and claims are either valid or they are not. Even if you could prove that I was not ept in the slightest, it would make no difference to the validity of my ideas.

        Well done, that was a marvelous demonstration of meaningless malice in action.

        w.

      • “Lady” Gaiagaia September 26, 2015 at 11:29 pm

        Do you really think that people respect you when you claim superiority over Dr. Spencer?

        I do not claim superiority over Dr. Roy, and I never have. That is merely your sick fantasy. As I said before and you apparently didn’t understand, he was a scientific hero of mine then, and he is a scientific hero of mine to this day. And no, I don’t feel superior to my heroes … do you?

        I do think that in this one instance, Dr. Roy misunderstood the issues regarding Ramanathan’s hypothesis and how it differs from mine. And he certainly missed my acknowledgement of Dr. Ramanathan when he incorrectly claimed I hadn’t acknowledged Ramanathan.

        But that’s just how things work, nobody’s perfect, and it absolutely doesn’t make me “superior” to him.

        And again, this is all just a diversion. You still haven’t found one single problem with my analysis … so you attack me instead.

        You’ve got personal problems, “Lady” …

        w.

      • Moderator:
        Do we really have to wade through these types of comments from people who dont even have the courage or decency to post under their real names?
        Like a tag team of transvestite midget wresters “Lady Gaiagaia” and “Gloria Swansong” pollute threads with their unreasoning ad hominem attacks.

        [Reply: You are correct. This is getting out of hand. More such ad hominem attacks will be deleted. Please just cocomment on the science, not on the individuals. Thanks. ~mod.]

    • The Climate Inquisition takes many forms, it likes to be anonymous, abusive and denigrating. It never does anything useful or objective, as has been clearly shown here. The Climate Inquisition thrives in an atmosphere of fear and ignorance, while trying to silence all those who question its rationale.

      The point is that our climate has to have some kind of self-regulating system, which has allowed hundreds of millions of years of evolution to occur to eventually achieve us. In some ways, it is like the stock market, where occasional short lived extremes occur, which are usually quickly corrected.

      The comments here of ‘Lady Gaigaia’ and ‘Gloria Swansong’ are tedious, dull and uninformative; I do not know if they are part of the official Climate Inquisition, but they certainly act like it.

    • Willis – they really dont matter do they – My scant knowledge in this field is from my farming qualifications and my brief flirt with military flying and the Royal Navy. My reading and knowledge are greatly enhanced by your writing. Having been at sea for 8 years I can see exactly how the formation of clouds fascinates you – me too.

      Please dont rise to the bait, perhaps ignoring the blathering of idiots will eventually have them go back to the intense navel gazing they are so good at!

    • Well said!

      I see this a lot on Facebook,where they spend so much time with their funding canard,while they say little or nothing to what the person talks about,whether it is Dr. Spenser,Dr. Ball and many others. I point this out over and over in thread after thread,to show they have no cogent counterpoint to offer.

    • Willis: “None of these good people can find a single fault with my science”

      That is correct. Nothing at all. And no one has shown up with prior art. I came back to the topic and re-read everything coming down the page. Very interesting. I agree with the guess above that it is Hot Whopper who can’t resist showing off, has nothing to contribute and resents people who make her look the fool.

      The crafted ‘skeptic’ arguments were obvious from the start. The structure of the presentations (from the three fake names) is similar, the bone tossing and the personal invective that had no point: Hot Whopper traits again. Unmasked by an algorithm. Isn’t the internet wonderful?

  22. The Figure 5 map seems to me to show a thermostat mechanism that is specific to the tropical oceans. And I think this thermostat is not so much a regulator of absolute temperature of the tropical oceans, but the temperature differential between the tropical oceans and something else, such as a level or levels of the tropical atmosphere. If the output of the sun should have a major change, I think the whole world including the tropical oceans will have a temperature change in the same direction, although the tropical oceans may change less. Increase of clouds caused by warming of a particular location seems to me to mean that the trigger is warmth in comparison to someplace else.

    • Thanks, Donald. Assuming that the generally accepted theories of solar evolution are correct, we’ve already tested this question. Calculations show that the sun is about 5% more luminous now than it was half a billion years ago during the Cambrian Explosion of life.

      This means that at that time, instead of 340 W/m2 TOA average TSI, it was only about 324 W/m2. This is a change of +16 W/m2 over the period.

      IF the generally accepted climate sensitivity of 3°C for a doubling of CO2 is correct, then the earth should have warmed by 0.8°C per watt times 16 watts = 12.8°C over that period. This would imply that the temperature in the Cambrian would have been about two or three degrees C …

      But we have no evidence of any such twelve degree warming over that period. We have no evidence that the Cambrian was anywhere near that cold. If anything, the earlier times were somewhat warmer, despite the cooler sun.

      This argues strongly that the change in temperature is NOT a linear function of the change in forcing. I hold that this is because the temperature is regulated by the emergent phenomena.

      w.

      • I think the 3 degrees C per 2xCO2 is higher than reality in today’s situation and most times when the world is warmer than it is now, although it may have been realistic at times in the past back when CO2 was a feedback for climate change initiated by something else. Some of the feedbacks seem to vary significantly with temperature. I seem to think 1.25, maybe as high as 1.45 degrees C per 2xCO2 is about right nowadays, and it would decrease as the world gets warmer. The surface albedo feedback would decrease with the decrease of variability of reflection of sunlight by ice and snow as the variable portion decreases in area and retreats towards the poles. I expect the lapse rate feedback to increase its negativity as the world gets warmer. I think the cloud albedo feedback is slightly positive, but less so than expected by IPCC. And the water vapor feedback has to be less than if relative humidity is constant in order for the cloud albedo feedback to be positive.

        When the world was a few degrees C cooler than it is today, the net feedback was more positive than it is now, and the ice age glaciations had times of unstable climate. When CO2 was thousands of PPMV, global temperature seems to have been largely capped at 22-23 degrees C.

      • Willis, if you haven’t yet, I would recommend looking up Geocarb III. That is regarded as the gold standard for estimating free CO2 over the Phanerozoic. There is no work showing any correlation that I have seen of planetary temperature across that span (ca. 600 My) and the planet would have been much warmer despite lower insolation if CO2 were any kind of serious factor in climate except as a fertilizing agent. However, estimated planetary temperatures with the exception of one brief spike as I recall, are consistent – they drop, but never rise above about 25 C (e.g. http://www.scotese.com/Default.htm). The lower limit looks to be about 10 C, which is mighty cool for a good piece of the planet. The geological evidence seems to support your concept of a governor system that limits the range of what is called “global climate.”

      • Clarification of the lapse rate feedback changing with temperature: I meant to say it becomes stronger (more negative) when surface albedo decreases (surface is warmed, increasing lapse rate), and when greenhouse gases increase (they warm the surface and cool the tropopause). The reverse happens when surface albedo increases or GHGs decrease.

    • Donald,

      I suspect that the “thermostat” mechanism is a regulator (limiter) of absolute temperature as opposed to temperature differential. My reasoning is that the vapor pressure of water follows an approximate exponential around “room temperature”, roughly doubling for every 20F (11C) increase in temperature. Since water vapor is slightly less than 2/3rds the density of air, there will be a point where water vapor will be the dominant driver of convection and this crossover point is when the dew point approaches 30C. For what it is worth, I did a bit of back of the envelope calc’s with steam tables after reading one of Willis’s earlier posts.

      For dry areas, temperature differentials would make more sense.

      One of the most common complaints about the global circulation models is their inability to do fine scale modeling of clouds. Willis’s observations further support those complaints.

      • Dewpoint of tropical air at the surface in tropical cyclones seems to usually be around 24 degrees C in my experience, or typically around 4 degrees C cooler than the water surface. (IIRC conditions in hurricanes bearing down on USA while over water warm enough to sustain them – not many of them lately.) Vigorous convection seems to bring down enough dry air for dewpoint to be a few degrees C cooler than the water surface.

        Meanwhile, suppose maritime air with dewpoint of 30 C (and temperature at least a few degrees C higher) is the main feed for a full-blown tropical maritime thunderstorm. For the sake of argument, suppose the temperature of the air is maximum a few or several meters above the surface at 33 C. And the air up from there has temperature and dewpoint corresponding to uplifting of air whose temperature was 33 C and whose dewpoint was 30 C when it was 10 meters above the surface. This results in a cloud base around 375 meters above the surface, with temperature and dewpoint equal to each other at about 29.5 C. And going up from there, the temperature and dewpoint cool at the wet adiabatic lapse rate, which will be significantly lower than the average It seems to me that the wet adiabatic lapse rate from such temperature and dewpoint and pressure of 1000 mb is about 4.75 degrees C per kilometer, and increasing slightly and gradually as the air goes up from there. At 2 km above the cloud base, 2375 meters above the surface, the temperature and dewpoint would be equal to each other and 20 C or slightly less. The wet adiabatic lapse rate is increasing slightly with altitude, and the dewpoint and temperature would be 0 C not much higher than 6 km above sea level, and the pressure would be very close to 500 mb. And this is only about 1/3 of the way to the tropical tropopause. So I think any special effect of dewpoint of 30 degrees C is only going to go a little way.

  23. Gloria Swansong September 26, 2015 at 11:27 pm

    Speaking of other names, here is one, who knows what he’s talking about, unlike Willis. These two have had many such exchanges, which always crack me up. From WUWT blog post:

    Problems With Analyzing Governed Systems
    Willis Eschenbach / August 2, 2015

    Willis Eschenbach
    August 2, 2015 at 10:25 pm

    Gerald, the problem is that the ocean is chaotic in the sense that if you go out into the ocean and drop two floats, one on each side of the boat, most of the time they’ll end up in very, very different locations … not good.

    w.

    Dinostratus
    August 3, 2015 at 4:51 pm

    Are you sure it’s chaotic and not random? Why/why not? Use math. Thanks.
    Dinostratus

    … etc., etc., etc. …

    Dinostratus August 4, 2015 at 8:21 pm

    Still waiting for math. Tell us the difference between chaotic and random. Double dog dare you.

    Thanks for the question, Dinostratus, but I fear that your manner of trying to get your way doesn’t work with me. I don’t respond well to that kind of ragging.

    However, your luck is amazing. As it happens I’ve been looking at that very question for a couple of months now. I have the post half written. However, you’ll have to wait, because I plan to finish it on my schedule, not yours.

    All the best,

    w.

    Gloria, I’m not sure what you think this all means. I’ve been working with Dan Hughes, looking into the question of distinguishing random and chaotic datasets. Dan has been on vacation, so the project (among many that I’m involved in at any moment) is on the back burner right now. You don’t like it? So sue me.

    I told Dino I would do in on my own time, not his. I tell you the same thing. I don’t dance to your tune, I dance to my own.

    So … what’s your point? That Dino wants me to talk about something, and I am unwilling to do so because I have a post partly written on the subject and still have more research to do?

    Sorry, but that’s how it is. So what?

    And again I say, you are either incapable or unwilling to discuss anything about absorbed solar energy in the Nino3.4 region, and you are clearly unable to find a single error in my analysis above … so just like “Lady” Googoo, you sink to personal attacks.

    Boooring …

    w.

    PS—As a teaser, i just grabbed the first couple of paragraphs of my post on random vs. chaotic … gonna have to wait for the rest, though …

    Is The Climate Lorenz Chaotic?
    Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach

    After I’d published my previous post on the Hurst Exponent entitled “A Way To Calculate Effective N”, I got an email from Dan Hughes which contained a most interesting idea. He thought that it would be productive to compare the Hurst analysis of the records of weather phenomena such as temperatures and the like, with the Hurst analysis of the corresponding climate model outputs. He proposed that we both take a look at the question and discuss and share our findings. Hey, what’s not to like?

    Along the way, as such things happen, the topic of our discussion and investigation turned to a larger question—which of the various natural datasets (temperatures, rainfall, eruptions, pressures, etc) and/or the global climate models are actually chaotic? …

    • A chaotic system is deterministic, while a random system is probabilistic. It may be impossible without a priori knowledge of the system to separate the two, e.g., are the results from a pseudo random number generator or are the results based upon the decay of Cesium 137 atoms?

      The Lyapunov exponent may be used to distinguish random from chaotic behaviors. See What is the Difference Between Random and Chaotic Sequences.

    • Of course, whether the system is random or chaotic can be the result of a mirage. A system may only appear to be chaotic or random until the details of the system are uncovered.

      Mistakenly replaced a multiply operator with an addition operator and ended up with a three dimensional equation having six global minimums rather than one. The equation appeared chaotic, with wildly fluctuating exponents and strange manifolds, but of course it was really only continuous. Once the data set was auto-rotated, it was easily solved. Much more useful for testing than what I originally had in mind. Named it mirage.cpp.

  24. Willis,

    Gloria Swansong, Lady Gaiagaia, and Sturgishooper are all the same person.

    This is prohibited sock puppet behavior, in addition to his/her idiocy and personal vendetta. Thanks to the person upstream who noted identical language. I hadn’t thought to check IP addresses as I’m not very active these days.

    Normal recourse is to delete every single comment of his/her’s on the thread, but that may look weird with all the back and forth. I leave it to you to decide what we should do. You can discuss with Anthony if you wish. I will email him a link to this comment.

    All subsequent comments of his/hers will be deleted on this thread going forward.

    • thank you Charles…I had noted the similarities in the two “women’s” comments, as well as the temporal proximity of “their” posts.

    • Charles, that’s absolutely hilarious. They are so desperate to attack me they pretend to be three people who all agree with each other … pathetic.

      Not only that, but Dinostratus just lost his three best friends! It’s a glorious morning, the sun is shining, life is good. Can’t thank you enough.

      Let me say in addition that the work of the moderators, which goes on 24/7 with unpaid volunteer moderators from all around the globe, is one of the unseen things that keeps this website great. My thanks to all of you for your unceasing efforts, and to you in particular, Charles, for all that you have done.

      w.

      • Willis, congrats. You’ve spawned sock puppet triplets.

        Anthony, I’m surprised that WordPress doesn’t have a filter that prevents one person with multiple names, from one IP address, from talking to him- or herself.

        CTM, great catch.

    • Many thanks CTM! An otherwise interesting thread was being hijacked by a foul-mouthed child. Thanks for enforcing a little civility.

      • Anthony, I suggest when this type thing happens, write it up into a short article to post on the site. It’s great fodder for a story highlighting how far some people will go in attempting to trash someone’s credibility.

      • …..whatever the reason I don’t think its good to say “a person with no life” or you’ve got personal problems as Willis did among other things – particularly if you are taking the moral high ground.

    • I would suggest keeping these diatribes and perhaps flagging this thread as a reference exemplar of the extraordinary masquerade of misdirection, corruption, and intellectual dishonesty to which some of the “opposition” are willing to foist on this site, its contributors, and readers.

    • Thank you Charles for looking more closely at this individual.

      I don’t mind somebody criticising Willis, he can look after himself as well as any.

      What the sock puppet has been doing though is ruining (for me) potentially interesting threads. What happens is that I start skipping entire sections where the puppet appears and potentially missing actual interesting and relevant comments.

      With Ga-Ga (idem) poisoning the thread I simply skip dozens of potentially interesting comments. Defeating, for me, the the whole point of Willis creating a post.

      Just to clarify a little, I don’t much care for “salvatore” either but would never call for him to be banned. He’s a different league of annoying. (I’m thinking ‘Iron Sun’ man (can’t remember his screen name)). He doesn’t have me skipping 2/3rds of the comments (just his comments).

      • I have to agree 3 x 2 – I was banned from a climate website for daring to question the ‘settled’ science. I hope the ‘three in one’ calms down re-enters his single entity and comes back with comment rather than spitefulness as at the end of the day there is some good comment in amongst the invective and I am sure the mods have better things to do (keep up the good work)

  25. The greens used Frankenstein science and Willis is the perfect reply. You can’t blind him with science, show him computer models and he drags you back to the raw data with his own explanation which always fits the facts. He is entertaining and readable, he doesn’t care who you are and nobody out ranks him. Sometimes his attacks may seem excessive, but like Margaret Thatcher sinking the General Belgrano while it was outside her Falklands exclusion zone, never forget, they started it.

    • Seems to me as I recall, that PM Margaret Thatcher, already had a licence in her pocket, from no greater authority, than the United Nations itself, long before she found it necessary to enforce that matter militarily.

      The Argentine submarine, was also outside the Falkland Islands zone; but it was bloody cheeky of them to boldly charge into a sovereign British port on the very morning of ANZAC day. (April 25th) So they got what they deserved.

    • Robin Hewett and George E. Smith,

      Correct me if my memory isn’t what it used to be. But the Belgrano was actually well outside of Britian’s Total Exclusion Zone [TEZ] of 200 miles around the Falklands. But word came from Whitehall to sink her anyway. So she was torpedoed. Sank in a few minutes with hudreds of Argentine sailors lost.

      How do I recall that, after so many years?

      I remember it because of the really memorable headline (I can’t recall the UK newspaper that printed it): BRITANNIA WAIVES THE RULES!

      A very clever play on the marching tune, “Britannia Rules The Waves”.

      BTW, another useless factoid: the capitan of the Belgrano was Capitan Bonzo. This incident occurred when Reagan was President…

      • as I was in the Navy at the time I think you are being economical with what happened. If you are at war with some one and they sail in to an exclusion zone then they absolutely will be attacked however that doesnt mean that if you are outside the exclusion zone but threatening the military units being deployed then in international waters you will still be attacked. By your understanding had the Belgrano sailed up the English channel and in an international shipping lane (well outside the exclusion zone) we couldnt do anything about it until they actually started shelling Portsmouth or Plymouth – dont be daft.

        The Belgrano was quite deliberately trying to split the Bristish Task Force and after the invasion of the Falklands by Argentina disputed or not, was a legitimate target. Britain didnt waive any rules they did what they had to do to save British lives. What was the Belgrano doing there if there was no intent. We most definitely do not rule the waves nor do we think so – even then have you any idea how tiny our Navy was compared to the USA, Russia and China for instance. We dont rule anymore but we still protect our own and I am proud to live in a country with that does.

        I am sorry to be off topic but it needed a correction.

      • mwh,

        It may surprise you, but I’m not arguing with anything you wrote. The only quibble wasn’t with you, it was that the Belgrano was outside the TEZ. That’s the reason for the clever newspaper headline at the time.

        You say:

        We most definitely do not rule the waves nor do we think so

        But at one time, you surely did. Remember Trafalgar, Nelson, and the Spanish Armada? Thus, the marching song. ‘Ruling the waves’ is something to be proud of, not something to defend.

        You should be proud of your history. Too many Americans are critical of our own country because they’re ignorant of history. Everything has to be seen through a lens of political correctness, and if it doesn’t fit the P.C. narrative, it is to be attacked.

        Personally, I was proud of what the UK did in protecting its territory and citizens, and I was proud of both Margaret Thatcher and “Bonzo” Reagan — who was a better President than the current ‘community organizer — doubled and squared. With exponents.

        (I should add that the Argentine soldiers, sailors and airmen were used as pawns by the Argentine generals, who were promoting the confiscation of the “Malvinas” in order to distract from their disastrous domestic policies back home. I recall their air force pilots making a very good accounting of themselves with their French Exocet missiles, breaking through air defenses at great personal risk to sink or disable British ships. They were much more brave than the generals who sent them pretty much unprepared into battle.)

      • Thanks for that dbs much relieved my patriotism coming to the fore I’m afraid hence the non sequiters in the response! But you obviously got my drift. I too felt very sorry for the professional and conscript personnel on the Argentinian side – cannon fodder and political distraction. I seem to remember a few years later the captain of the attacking submarine committed suicide because of the loss of life he initiated with his boats attack.

  26. Willis –
    I’m relatively new to your work but I applaud your attitude and discipline. You don’t always need to be 100% right to make a big contribution, and I’m very disappointed that an interesting discussion should have been hijacked by a lot of personal attacks that have absolutely no place here. Let this stand or fall upon the merits of your post, and that alone.

    For many years I’ve discounted the CAGW meme on the grounds that there MUST be feedbacks to control runaway warming, and the establishment case seems to me to concede this, by its evocation of a water vapour multiplier for basic CO2 warming, needed to take AGW into the ‘catastrophic’ zone. Has always seemed to me that if this was the case, then water vapour ought to potentiate its own greenhouse effect, with or without CO2. I’ve never been able to rely on a mechanism, however, and therefore I appreciate your investigations in this area immensely. Many others have postulated cloud effects – which we know to be enormous but whose net effect is disputed -and there may be plenty of prior work, but I do thank you for the way you have set out.

    The logical next step to saying that tropical clouds are the feedback controller, however, is to infer that they control ANY warming, including the original CO2 warming. So it is possible that Climate Sensitivity to CO2 doubling is not just small, but somewhere around zero. What is your view of this?
    Of course, we do have to consider the fact that CO2 is distributed much more evenly, in latitude and in altitude, than water vapour, and that means we’d have to consider effects well outside the tropics. So we might need to explore what the models say about it.. Do you have comments on this?

    • mothcatcher
      September 27, 2015 at 3:06 am

      Hello mothcatcher.

      I am replying to you simply because your comment seems to be a well enough reasonable argument on the issue, even when I personally may disagree with some of your conclusions and approaches to the Willis hypothesis.

      Let me tell you first that I truly do appreciate any Willis’s Posts and articles I have read at WUWT, as I have learned too in any of such occasions, or at least so I think.

      Second, I hope Willis does read my reply to you and hopefully understands that any critique I may have towards his hypothesis is simply in the direction of allowing me to have more chances in furthering my knowledge and that in no any way means to offend or upset.

      From my point of view his hypothesis clearly goes in the direction of debunking the Solar forcing as of any significance in climate change…..that is how and why so many here are upset about it and getting to the point of provoking and offending Willis,,,,,,,,,,always provided that I have clearly understood Willis hypothesis,,,,,,, an if statement here.

      But one thing, (maybe because I do not understand well the overall connection in this hypothesis), is that when there is a tendency and a kind of harmony of self regulating in the mechanism described in the hypothesis still in the overall outcome that mechanism propagates a positive feedback, or an accumulation of energy, warming, with a possibility of a runway warming in nature, towards “frying”,……the opposite of what it actually claims in the first place .
      According to the mechanism described the TOA energy imbalance will be always tending to be positive, especially if considered in the long term.
      While it may be considered in a very short term as efficient enough in self regulating, in the long term that is not the case.
      In the long term, moving between less and more available energy does not necessary mean cooling, but may very well be considered as moving towards a runaway warming……..
      The very thing, the very problem that Albedo, the Sun and the Mil.Cycles face when TOA energy imbalance considered to go in a positive imbalance. None of the above including also the Willis mechanism described in this hypothesis can turn TOA imbalance from positive to negative.
      TOA imbalance going positive for any reason needs that at some point TOA energy imbalance should turn negative, otherwise in only matter of time the climate goes towards a runway warming with no any prospect of a glacial period to ever happen again.
      With only a CS ~0.7C, after 4 interglacial optimums there is no chance of any glacial periods after that, according to the scientific projections and assessment of climate and climate change.
      But even with a hypothetical CS=0C, as you suggest, still the mechanism described by Willis here will lead to an ever accumulation of energy in the system and towards a runaway warming at some point.

      Now when it comes to the question of the models, one thing clear is that RF, CO2 concentration variation has an impact and changes TOA energy imbalance, either for positive or negative.
      No any thing else in GCMs as far as I can tell can cause a negative TOA energy imbalance, that is why Albedo, the Sun and Mil. Cycles get a 0% as forcing in climate and climate change.

      This hypothesis of Willis has a lot of value and merit. It shows how robust and balanced the natural systems can be and are generally, and how such systems can self regulate and balance out in the prospect of energy circulation and energy budget, especially in short term.
      And that helps a lot, I think, in the better understanding and knowledge about climate, but the only think I disagree is with the conclusion about the forcing that such a mechanism as described can have in climate and climate change.

      For once it depends in the SST variation,,,,,,, and the SST for the tropics is quasi constant with no any significant change in the climate term, medium to long term. The tropics are the climate power house so to speak.

      If this mechanism works as described than the only thing sure is that we should abandon the stubborn approach that the Sun is and must have a considerable forcing in climate and climate change.
      Because the conclusion is simple, either the Sun or this natural internal mechanism could be working as described, not both.

      Looking forward for any correction towards my understanding in this particular point.

      cheers

  27. Lady Gaiagaia aka Sturgishooper aka Gloria Swansong is a climate skeptic and an amateur student of philosophy from Arizona, probably Phoenix. She pretends to be female to extract feminine sympathy, but writes, fights and brags like a man. He-she may well be active in academia, which is why he-she hides behind multiple avatars.

    He-she is also quite shy and inadequate, one of life’s losers, which is why he-she has to over compensate by needless aggression when hiding behind his-her avatar. If met in real life, he-she would be the cowering shadow at the back of the room, unable to interact socially or converse in person. A sad figure of fun, seething with resentment.

    R

    • Absolutely. It was increasingly obvious that the posters were a multi-personality disorder individual who should see a doctor.

    • I have noted that this 3-in-1 personality, who claims to be a scientific academic repeatedly misuses the words “affect” and “effect”. When I see this, I am inclined to immediately disregard any further comments on science from that poster. As these words are two of the most commonly used words in scientific discourse and publications, anyone who doesn’t know the difference is of questionable scientific competence.

      • Then color me even less than a one-hit wonder. I have spent more cogitation energy on those two words than any other two words in the &%#*)^ dictionary. I wait hoping that our fluid, supple, and every changing English language will come up with replacements before I am too old to type. Which is coming on fast.

      • Seems like one is a verb and the other is a noun. But what do I know, I think my last English grammar lesson was at about age 10. After that education in “English” was just reading literature; and literally 100% of that ” literature ” was fiction.
        But then, Americans don’t discriminate between ” license ” (verb) and ” licence ” (noun).

        In America, ” I’ll be with you momentarily ” means, ” I will be with you IN a moment. ”

        Elsewhere it means ” I will be with you FOR a moment. ”

        Why not say ” soon ” instead of momentarily (in America) ??

        g

      • who doesn’t know the difference is of questionable scientific competence.

        Count me in then. A dictionary tells there is a difference between to effect and to affect. It is just that I mix cause and effect, because instead of saying ‘new policies have effected major changes in government’ I’d say ‘new policies have caused major changes in government’.

        I find this whole thing embarrassing. But I’ve learned you can’t learn the use of these words by language users, because many of them will make the mistake and just lead you wrong.

      • In South Africa, they would say “I’ll be with you just now” – very confusing for those UK-educated English speakers who think “just now” refers to the recent past – not the near future.

        If “just now” is perceived as being not soon enough, then a measure of urgency can be implied by saying “now now”

  28. “Here is the NOAA sea surface temperature in the Nino3.4 region compared to the CERES estimate of the SST for the same region …”

    Wait I thought NOAA were fraudulantly altering data…

    • That really is a sad comment. This is the year of Paris; it was blatantly obvious there was going to be yet another set of GISS temperature manipulations to cool the past and warm the present.

      And, of course, that is exactly what happened – Obama needed the ‘proof’ for his legacy and GISS was there to do its duty. Even the great Mann might have been embarrassed to use such obvious opportunism.

    • Apparently not in that one small region of ocean; maybe since it is so important for other analyses (e.g. El Nino/La nina); that says nothing of the broader global dataset they present however. I’d love to see the CERES dataset be used to map out the global temperatures, and see how that compares to the other datasets. Probably not very easy though, and highly computationally intensive with all those radiation to temp conversions.

    • How about you start by distinguishing between Willis and some anonymous ‘handle’ that you remotely recollect from some unspecified thread on some unspecified site some unspecified time ago.

      Seriously, this “‘sceptics’ say…” makes you sound no different than some idiot child in mom’s basement.

      Who is this mythical ‘sceptic’ that believes xyz? Point them out to us all.

      Sometimes you have something interesting and valid to contribute and sometimes you babble on about some mythical ‘sceptic’ that nobody recognises. Please tell me that somebody has been hi-jacking your account on every other weekday.

  29. ” It’s just endless ankle-biting about my credentials and abilities, as if that made any difference. It’s simple.

    Either my claims are valid or they are not. Nothing else matters. Not my age. Not my race. Not my sex. Not my education. Not my abilities. Not my tone or my style. The only valid scientific question is whether my claims are valid or not. Period.”

    agreed 100%

    • So…i suppose the use of multiple sock puppet identities to endlessly trash Willis’ work irritates you as well?
      Was there anything of merit included in the barrage of comments that one sock puppetteer dumped on this thread?
      You probably know that the father of modern analysis of variance who published under the pseudonym “Student” was a brew master for guiness?
      a true amateur…
      Callender was a steam engineer. (on the other hand, so was Patchuri, so theres that)
      And there are countless examples of foolishness published in “peer reviewed” journal;s from the likes of peaople who hold PhDs like Oreskes, or Lewandowsky…
      Even guys who majored in English, and had a career in marketing, can make substantial contributions, not the least of which can be helping a ton of people learn R.
      Thats not too shabby of an accomplishment; I remind myself of this whenever your “pissyness” gets annoying.
      If I haven’t thanked you recently, let me thank you again now…
      Your website, although now not updated for some time, was quite helpful; you were generous in mind and spirit to put that much effort into it.
      Thanks Mosh.

  30. ironic

    “davideisenstadt September 27, 2015 at 1:33 am
    Well, I taught statistics to undergrads for years, and while Willis may not have a degree in statistics, his analyses typically are more advanced than that of someone with a Ba in Psych.”

    • But true…a Ba in Psych typically requires but two classes in statistics, descriptive statistics and a cursory class in analysis of variance…techniques that Willis “uses” like fourier transforms, and the like, typically aren’t covered by people getting BAs.
      Of course,If you had taught statistics, you would know this…in fact if you got a degree in a social science you would know this, in fact Mosh, if you were anything other than an English major, you would know this.
      Its really not any kind of secret.
      You have, however, mastered equivocation, which, I suppose is appropriate for a student of english….

  31. Willis – Thanks for a very interesting article complete with data and logic (and therefore falsifiable). Thanks for responding factually and coolly to your fact-free three-named critic. Two queries :
    (1) Your observations are I think of the tropics only. Obviously that is likely to have effect globally, but are you able to establish the global connection? [in a later comment, you say ” … what I’ll call the thunderstorm thermostat hypothesis for short. This is my hypothesis that the global temperature is closely regulated to a narrow range … “].
    (2) You show a stunning correlation between CERES and SST. Is it possible that the CERES data is used in the calculation of SST? IOW that the correlation is to be expected?
    TIA.

    • Mike Jonas September 27, 2015 at 3:57 am

      Willis – Thanks for a very interesting article complete with data and logic (and therefore falsifiable). Thanks for responding factually and coolly to your fact-free three-named critic. Two queries :
      (1) Your observations are I think of the tropics only. Obviously that is likely to have effect globally, but are you able to establish the global connection? [in a later comment, you say ” … what I’ll call the thunderstorm thermostat hypothesis for short. This is my hypothesis that the global temperature is closely regulated to a narrow range … “].

      Mike, thanks for the interesting questions. I discuss this in the papers linked at the end of the head post.

      Regarding the globe, first, I’ve seen the same effect (timing of cumulus and thunderstorms regulating temperature) in places as far apart as Montana and London. Second, a number of the emergent temperature regulating phenomena (dust devils, tornadoes, El Nino pump, PDO) operate far from the equator. Third, the tropics is where the majority of the energy enters the system. So when you control the energy entering at the tropics, you are controlling the total energy entering the system.

      (2) You show a stunning correlation between CERES and SST. Is it possible that the CERES data is used in the calculation of SST? IOW that the correlation is to be expected?
      TIA.

      It seems doubtful, because there are two separate systems and two separate organizations involved in calculating the ocean temperatures in that area. However, there could indeed be some overlap in the underlying data sources. My tests of the CERES data in other areas on land also have been surprisingly accurate, and that is comparing CERES to yet another surface dataset.

      What I’ve come away with is increased respect for the scientists involved in all of the data gathering and analysis … well, most of them at least.

      w.

      • Willis – Thanks. Now, re the global cloud effect, is there any possibility that you could develop your theory into a peer-reviewed paper showing that cloud feedback is negative? One of the most important flaws in the CAGW case is that the “cloud feedback” guesswork has the wrong sign. [And of course “peer-reviewed”, no matter how suspect, in their world trumps observation and logic.].

        I and others (see other comments) think that the extraordinary reaction to your post indicates that you have hit an important weak spot. Now you can drive home the advantage if you can add “peer-reviewed”, ie. get around the gate-keepers.

  32. @ Willis Eschenbach

    Because I realized I could see the 2003, 2007, and 2010 El Ninos in the absorbed solar data, and it was moving opposite to the surface temperature … which would be very strong observational support for my hypothesis that the tropical ocean temperature regulates the incoming sunlight.

    Your observation of the data you presented seems reasonable to me.

    Of course I am slightly biased to agree with your observational results of the data simply because your data appears to also provide strong observational support for my hypothesis that the tropical and/or Southern Hemisphere ocean temperatures play a major role in regulating both the quantity and the bi-yearly cycling (ingassing/outgassing) of atmospheric CO2, as per the following data implies, to wit:

    —-– mth – CO2 ppm — ytd increse
    1997 _ 5 _ 366.69 …. +1.53
    1998 _ 5 _ 369.49 …. +2.80 El Niño
    1999 _ 4 _ 370.96 …. +1.47
    2000 _ 4 _ 371.82 …. +0.86
    2001 _ 5 _ 373.82 …. +2.00
    2002 _ 5 _ 375.65 …. +1.83
    2003 _ 5 _ 378.50 …. +2.85
    2004 _ 5 _ 380.63 …. +2.13
    2005 _ 5 _ 382.47 …. +1.84
    2006 _ 5 _ 384.98 …. +2.51
    2007 _ 5 _ 386.58 …. +1.60
    2008 _ 5 _ 388.50 …. +1.92
    2009 _ 5 _ 390.19 …. +1.65
    2010 _ 5 _ 393.04 …. +2.85
    2011 _ 5 _ 394.21 …. +1.17
    2012 _ 5 _ 396.78 …. +2.58
    2013 _ 5 _ 399.76 …. +2.98
    Data excerpted from: ftp://aftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/products/trends/co2/co2_mm_mlo.txt

  33. The formation of clouds is also the mechanism which allows the ENSO to temporarily warm or cool other parts of the planet.

    Willis has shown the large increase in convection storms over the Nino 4 region and the International Dateline area during an El Niño reduces the amount of solar radiation reaching the surface,…

    … But the large increase in tropical convection clouds also reduce the outgoing long wave radiation from all that warm water. The clouds actually hold the heat in.

    It takes time for the cloud systems to build up in terms of strength and it takes time for the atmosphere to slowly warm up as less OLR is getting out and then it takes even more time for the prevailing weather systems shift that extra warmth north, south and west. This is why there is a lag with respect to the ENSO and its impact of the world’s weather.

    So there is reduced solar radiation but there is also reduced OLR and these numbers are essentially the biggest variability of any area on the planet. It can be +/- 50 watts/m2 which makes the ENSO the biggest weather phenomenon on the planet.

    • Bill, from what I understand this is a daily effect – during the day clouds build and reflect sunlight as the heat of the day dies off so do the clouds and therefore there is little reflective effect at night. Over warmer water th e length of time that cloud forms in to rainclouds is extended, increasing albedo but not significantly inceasing reflection of long wave radiation.

    • mwh, the cloud formation is not daily when it comes to the ENSO-impacted regions. These clouds are almost continuous over a 24 hour period. Obviously, there is some build-up and decay throughout the day but it is more general than daily.

      This is the last 30 days OLR anomaly map from the NOAA. The International Dateline area and the Intertropical Convergence Zones are the most important for the ENSO. International Dateline area is -35 W/m2 and it has been close to this high of a negative value for the past 6 months. Yes, since March, 2015.

      Notice Indonesia and Australia which are now high positive OLR values as the clouds and rain do not reach this region anymore during an El Nino. This is also a feature of an El Nino.

      • My head was referring back to Willis’s post earlier in the year where I thought he was alluding to daily fluctuations changing enough to make a marked difference. The evidence above I assumed is the smoothed data over a month. To my mind this shows very clearly the reduced OLR in the regions 4 right through 3 but doesnt explain the mechanics of the increase even if increased cloud is the reason for it.

        I liked the tropical storm formation becoming longer during the day, it sort of made a lot of sense to me. Hey ho perhaps its back to the drawing board for me then

    • … But the large increase in tropical convection clouds also reduce the outgoing long wave radiation from all that warm water. The clouds actually hold the heat in.“. It may look symmetrical (a cloud blocks incoming and outgoing equally), but there is an asymmetry : the incoming solar has a substantial SW component, whereas when the clouds hold in the heat they do it with IR only. Do SW and IR heat the ocean equally efficiently?

  34. The covergence zone receives more energy from solar absorbed outside the zone and transported into the zone as latent heat than from solar absorbed inside the covergence zone.

  35. I enjoy watching Willis thrash about in a cabbage patch that has been carefully tended for decades by trained cabbage professionals. Occasionally, he hauls out a watermelon and says, “Look what I found! A watermelon in the cabbage patch!”. Some of the professionals respond, “Oh, we found that years ago. If you’d bothered to read our reports, you’d know that.” Then you read those reports and find reference to “a giant cabbage”….but it isn’t a giant cabbage…it’s a watermelon!

  36. This interesting post has been thoroughly sullied and reduced to a juvenile level. Professional pride and conceit have spoiled interest. As far as “sock puppetry” goes, my only question is: WHY?? What reward is expected from such tactics to self justify using cheats. I hope some explanation will be proffered other than rampaging egotism. Some serious self examination is required, by more than a few. Another reason to discourage anonymous comment, especially when they consist of purely ad hominem. One should use their real names for the privilege of insulting or attacking other persons.

    Sad, as these are intelligent and thoughtful people, whose ideas and comments I very much want to read – Including the ill-advised sock puppets. Just be honest in commenting and everything else can be forgiven. /rant off. GK

  37. Now that we are back to our regularly scheduled programming, here is the best damn set of powerpoints I have ever seen that provides a great fat-free, reduced sodium (aka sans solar and CO2 debates) menu of educational opportunities on the background physics necessary to engage in intelligent conversation. Delightful in every way and well worth taking time to digest it.

    http://users.clas.ufl.edu/prwaylen/Kojo/rey95166_ch06_180-211.pdf

    • Here at this fine website in the past we have had the discussion about the North and South Poles switching from warm phase to cold phase with each taking a roughly 25-30 year cycle to do this. The entire premise for ‘global warming’ is that CO2 alone causes this to stop and everything to heat up forever and ever which is impossible since even with a thousand times more CO2 this never happened.

      This hijacking of basic science and the history of our planet is purely for power and financial gain and fears that the peasants of the planet (you and me and all of us) are going to consume the previous oils and coals and etc. the very rich want to hog for themselves.

    • That IS an interesting and comprehensive page. I look forward to reading and digesting it over the next few days. Harvest demands may make that a little difficult but will give me something to think about during long tractor communion induced Zen. Thank-you GK

      • As a once and future Buddhist, I greatly enjoyed your description of “tractor communion induced Zen”.

        w.

      • Nothing better than to field harrow. Love it love it. And the harrow also does a great job of snagging errant barbed wire and wood planks so that I could have a field free of debris.

      • Old chain harrow. Came in sections. You can drag two connected to make a long one, or side by side to make a wide one.

    • Very good, thanks.

      “6.
      Air moves horizontally across the ocean surface to replace the unstable rising equatorial air, bringing water
      vapor evaporated from the subtropical regions, where evaporation exceeds precipitation. Once in the tropics, the air rises, condenses, and releases latent heat, which was derived from the subtropics. The tropics therefore accumulate excess energy, to be released in this restricted area of rising air and instability. The ocean warms, forming a warm pool.”

    • Agreed. Thanks for posting this reference. Who is(are) the author(s), are the other chapters available, and what is the title of the book?

    • I emailed the professor thanking him for such a great set of powerpoints. It would be of great value to discover that he is the author of the book/powerpoint he is using. A book well worth the price I would think.

    • I emailed Dr. Waylen and received a gracious response the next day. Please credit the following for the powerpoints:

      Introductory Physical Geography text, “Exploring Physical Geography”, by Reynolds, Rohli, Johnson, Waylen and Francek (2014).

      He also recommended the sister book: “Exploring Geology”. So I am off to search for these books because they sound like a must have for my nerdy library.

    • The book these powerpoints come from is published by McGraw Hill. Please use them for your personal instruction only. I am going to buy the book. From its description at Amazon, these are not the only pages worth reading about physical geography. I love having this kind of work in my library, which is already filled with textbooks on many different subjects. Great reads. This one is written in a unique style that asks questions of the reader. Way cool.

    • While the author I have conversed with, Dr. Waylen, leans towards anthropogenic drivers, I have found him to be a gracious and humble published researcher apparently at ease with those that lean towards natural drivers (he has collaborated with both sides). Who knows, he may show up here to take a look at our musings, fights, and insights.

    • Pamela:

      Thanks for the very positive feedback on the figures. They were first drafts for a text several of us prepared for McGraw-Hill. Once you stumbled upon them, I had to remove the, but if anyone wants to learn more try tracking down a copy of “Exploring Physical Geography” by Reynolds, Rohli, Johnson, Waylen and Francek. The first 7 chapters will be of particular interest to readers of this blog. Pamela got to see some of the figures used in chapter 6 on Atmosphere-Ocean interactions.

      • I am getting a copy for our school district (it’s a small district) so that teachers will have a solid background in order to teach required science standards in the area of weather and climate as well as other areas of geography that are in the standards.

  38. Gloria Swansong
    Lady Gaiagaia
    Sturgishooper

    Willis
    What is happening here is much more pernicious than that. All three of the above posters are bona-fide skeptical posters. Sturgishooper for example regularly posts will knowledgeable geological-palaeontological information which soundly refutes anti-science CAGW propaganda which, like 6day creationism, rejects geology.

    No – what has happened here is a very sophisticated hack, quite likely with US government assistance. The names of these genuine skeptical posters have been hijacked by extreme ecofasc1sts, smearing the names of those posters in the process.

    “Gloria Swansong”
    “Lady Gaiagaia”
    “Sturgishooper”

    Tell your fuehrer John Holdren to go fist himself.

      • Probably, but both Willis and I have replied to it. The best way to combat these things is to show everyone else how ridiculous such comments are.

    • I’m sorry, Phlogiston, I fear I find the idea that the government has hijacked the identities of three otherwise wonderful posters to be hilarious. If someone has hijacked Sturgishooper’s online identity, why hasn’t he just gone to the local Starbucks, logged on, and disclaimed and disowned the comments?

      Plus which, I doubt greatly that my posts are considered that important by the Department of Injustice … I mean, I flatter myself that I’m making a difference in this small arena of climate change, but I know it’s not worth loosing a secret black-hat hacker disinformation program on my sorry corpus delecti …

      A much more logical explanation is that the sick individual behind the sock puppets is an actual climate skeptic, but for their own reasons they feel the need to attack me. Hey, I might have dissed them in the past and this is their idea of revenge, I don’t know.

      In any case, I invite whoever the sock puppeteer is to stand up, declare your identity, and start posting under your own real name. Here’s the thing. If you declare your identity, you’re done with the deception, done with the lies, done with having to guard your tongue, done with the fear of being discovered.

      And if you post under your own name, you’ll automatically move up a step in the world of commenters, because you’ll have to stand behind your own words. One of your sock puppets pulled up a discussion I had with Dinostratus a while back. I have to stand behind what I said then, and so I explained just why I said what I said. Dinostratus, on the other hand, can walk away from his online persona any time … so he never needs to take responsibility for his words. Having to stand behind my words is very strong encouragement to keep them as true and defensible as I can.

      Finally, if you post under your name, you get to claim ownership of your own ideas.

      All of that in part is why I pay attention to folks like Steven Mosher and Joel Shore. Like myself, they have to stand behind their words … and as a result, I give their words more weight. (The other part is that both are smart men who think about their words … well, except for mosh’s intermittent cryptic drive-by postings that drive me nuts, but I digress …

      That’s the good news, Mr. Sock Puppeteer. You can get out of the hole you’ve dug for yourself. Yeah, folks will say bad things about you if you stand up and declare your identity … but nowhere near as bad as they’re saying now …

      The bad news for you is that if you don’t stand up and declare yourself, you have to live with your sick deception for the rest of your life. My advice to you in that case is to grow a beard … because looking yourself in the eye in the mirror to shave every day will become an intolerable ordeal. So I truly hope you make a clean breast of it, if not here then to your priest, your pastor, your rabbi, your significant someone, or somewhere … and that you then abjure the practice and post under your own name.

      Because I wouldn’t wish that kind of beard on my worst enemy.

      w.

      • willis:
        the answer is simple: if one isn comfortable putting one’s name on a comment, it shouldn’t be posted.that all.
        Names…thats all.
        Really?
        Sturgis Hopper?
        Gloria Swansong?
        some idiot who chooses “lady gaiagaia” as its nom de net?
        No, its simple.
        put your name on it.
        those people are lower that whale excsretia at low tide.

      • Sturgis Hooper is a “chair” in the Geology Department at Harvard that was endowed by one Samuel Hooper, and thus there have been a number of “Sturgis Hooper professors of Geology” in the Hooper School of Mining at Harvard.

    • For the record, based on the internal data and logs I have access to, the claim by “phlogiston” is not just untrue, but wildly and irrationally so.

    • If their accounts have been hacked, they can reach out to Anthony and try to set the record straight. I do think that Willis, in the update at the top of his posting, misconstrues the motivation of who[(m)ever is behind these attacks on Willis when he alludes to “climate alarmists.” Without going back to find it, at some point in one of these posts I got the distinct impression that the beef with Willis is over not giving the sun credit for dominating climate, or some such. So yes, may “skeptic,” but one who is so ideological on the other side that they would resort to such inappropriate conduct and behavior. We do not need their kind.

      • Thanks, blcjr, you are right. That was a bridge too far on my part, my bad. I’ll change the update … ok, done.

        w.

    • Seriously doubt it, Phlogiston. You underestimate the apparent fanatical devotion to the “It’s the sun, stupid, and nothing else” meme. You see others afflicted with it here.

  39. Willis,

    You wrote: “It is crystal-clear evidence that the sea surface temperature is regulating the incoming sunlight as my hypothesis states.”

    It is certainly evidence of a connection. But I think that is well known. The E-W gradient in sea surface temperature drives the Walker circulation, which in turn enhances the E-W T gradient in a positive feedback loop. The regions of rising and descending air create regions of cloudiness and clear air. I think this happens to some extent in all the tropical ocean basins, but only in the Pacific is there a large enough fetch to get a really strong effect.

    So it seems to me that your correlation with temperature might really be a correlation with temperature gradient. If that is the case, then a uniform increase in temperature might produce a very different effect, even opposite, than would be expected from the correlation that you present. Or to put it a different way, the response of one piece of a complex system does not reliably tell you about the response of the system as a whole.

  40. Willis you need to make a climate prediction for the next 10 years and the why behind it. Maybe if you are correct you will get the popularity you seek.

    Until then every topic you talk about is just your opinion and the ones that agree with you embrace it and the ones that do not, think you do not know what you are talking about.

    So why don’t you make a prediction like I have done and let the chips fall where they fall?

    • Salvatore Del Prete September 27, 2015 at 10:21 am Edit

      Willis you need to make a climate prediction for the next 10 years and the why behind it. Maybe if you are correct you will get the popularity you seek.

      No, I don’t need to make a ten year prediction. I hold that we don’t understand the climate any better than we understand the weather, that all “climate” predictions are just long-range weather predictions, and that nobody has ever demonstrated any skill in long-range weather predictions.

      In other words, I hold that anyone who claims that they can tell us what the average global temperature will be in the year 2025 may not be deluding me, but they are certainly deluding themselves. I have no wish to join that crowd.

      As to seeking popularity … if you truly think that is my motive, then you truly have no clue who I am.

      w.

      • “all “climate” predictions are just long-range weather predictions, and that nobody has ever demonstrated any skill in long-range weather predictions”

        Well actually LRF skill has been demonstrated, and climate predictions cannot hope to, and do not intend to predict weather variability, which is exactly why they will fail at predicting climate.

      • Willis – Mark Twain said it well:

        “I was gratified to be able to answer promptly, and I did. I said I didn’t know.”

        – Life on the Mississippi

    • Willis, Pamela, and Leif are not interested in correlations that work, only in simple correlations that fail in order to satisfy their need for “emergent” phenomena.

      In the mean time, I’m betting that Solomon et al. in their 2010 paper, Anomalously low solar extreme-ultraviolet irradiance and thermospheric density during solar minimum, draws the correct conclusion:

      [12] Speculation that the Sun might be entering a new “Maunder Minimum,” turned out to be unfounded, but it is possible that the extended intercycle minimum period has given us a glimpse what it might have been like. Future investigation of upper atmosphere climate change will be complicated by the fact that the concept of a “typical” solar minimum is no longer tenable.

      • jonesingforozone September 27, 2015 at 6:49 pm

        Willis, Pamela, and Leif are not interested in correlations that work, only in simple correlations that fail in order to satisfy their need for “emergent” phenomena.

        Is there some part of “quote the exact words that you disagree with” that is too hard for you to understand? Or are you being deliberately obtuse?

        I have looked extensively for “correlations that work”. I have not found them. You are insinuating that you have correlations that work … but of course, like all the rest of the blowhards, you haven’t provided a link to the study and a link to the data so that we can decide if you’re just blowing smoke or not.

        Come back when you have a link to the actual study and another link to the actual data you are going on about. I’m not interested unless you can provide both links, because without the data there’s no way to tell if the study is valid.

        And if you disagree with something, quote it. Your bogus generalizations just make you look ignorant, and I doubt if that is true.

        w.

      • I read that paper. It is no surprise to anyone that extreme ultraviolet radiation affects thermosphere temperature. And solar variation is by far the greater driver of that temperature variation than is CO2. Your cited paper, with its rockets, satellites, models, filters and error bars, does not tell us anything definitively new. My next question to you jonesingforozone, is this: The variation in EUV driven thermosphere temperature affects whether or not I put a coat on how?

        Now that answer would be worth…critiquing. It will undoubtedly include a very, very, very large amplification device. Do you have one?

      • Thanks Leif. Somewhere in the back of my mind I remember that orbital degradation was an issue but am fuzzy about the circumstances. I need to respond with a better memory. Your comment reminds me again, it matters that I stay current on the literature so that I don’t not make such mistakes. While the direction of my comment ends in the same spot as yours, the reason to place no confidence in the paper I read was different. And accuracy matters.

        This is a great opportunity to caution all sides of this debate. Picking and choosing what one (and me) prefers to have in their literature search is wrought with bias. And the tendency to do so is nearly subconsciously driven, as well as more often than not, blatantly obvious and one-sided.

    • My Dear Mr. Eschenbach,

      Can you tell me why you prefer to use sunspot data when the quote from the paper cited above shows that they are anomalous?

      That is precisely the proxy I had in mind when I discussed using asymptotic proxies as a reason for correlation failure here.

      Everything is “emergent” until proven otherwise, i.e., when it is shown not to be irreducible.

      • jonesingforozone September 27, 2015 at 11:01 pm

        My Dear Mr. Eschenbach,

        Can you tell me why you prefer to use sunspot data when the quote from the paper cited above shows that they are anomalous?

        Sure … as soon as you QUOTE WHAT I SAID ABOUT SUNSPOT DATA. I’m fed up with these vague questions and accusations. I have not said a single word about sunspots in this entire thread. As a result, your question makes absolutely no sense. If you are either too dumb or too arrogant to comply with a simple polite request that you quote the exact words you object to, please take your comments somewheres else.

        That is precisely the proxy I had in mind when I discussed using asymptotic proxies as a reason for correlation failure here.

        Again, meaningless without context. I have no idea what “That” means at the start of your sentence. I also have no clue what you said about “asymptotic proxies”, whatever they are when they are at home, and no interest in searching for said proxies or for your comments.

        Everything is “emergent” until proven otherwise, i.e., when it is shown not to be irreducible.

        That’s as foolish as saying “everything is a cow until proven otherwise” … it appears that you do not understand the concept of “emergent phenomena”.

        Please do your homework before declaring that others are wrong, it just makes you look foolish.

        w.

  41. Mike M

    Or to put it a different way, the response of one piece of a complex system does not reliably tell you about the response of the system as a whole.

    Ever heard of fractals?

    • A physical model missing just one component can cause the model to be unworkable. Does the model have all the necessary variables? Is the structure of the model correct? Are the proxies asymptotic?

      At the other extreme, to many variables combined with too little data will cause to model to succeed in retrospect, yet have zero predictive power.

      An honest researcher with a reasonable statistics background will account for the opportunity cost in degree(s) of freedom whenever the model is changed before publication of the findings.

      Or, the researcher can choose to “tune” a model to provide better correlation of past performance at the expense of predicative power going forward. See Pseudo-Mathematics and Financial Charlatanism: The Effects of Backtest Overfitting on Out-of-Sample Performance.

      Leaves and snow flakes are prime examples of the economy and beauty of self-replicating structures.

    • This is a cowardly uncited attack. Quote Dr. Roy’s exact words and my exact response to what he said, you slimy little man, before accusing me of “pretending to be a climate scientist”.

      Dr. Roy said nothing of the sort, you despicable creep. Go crawl back under your rock. You are as sleazy as the sock puppeteer with this continued attack. You can’t attack my science directly so you try to attack my reputation with hand-waving baseles accusations?

      You are one sick puppy … please confine yourself to the science.

      w.

      • I’m finding it interesting that these trolls have come out in force to attack Willis, he must be scaring the pants off them (male or female, who is to know who they actually are?).
        Yes , Willis , you are held to a standard of explaining and citing virtually everything climactic it may touch on in order to support the science in this post, when an entire IPCC has never done so.

      • Roy’s comment came across to me as a friendly caution about the science still not being settled and not an attack on Willis’s work. Two people can disagree and still maintain mutual respect.

      • Willis what you need to do with all of your vast knowledge and always being correct is tell all of us why/how the climate will change going forward.

        You are the expert and appointed authority from volcanic influences, to solar influences to CO2 to your thermostat theory.

        So put all your vast correct knowledge to use and give us a climate forecast.

      • Salvatore Del Prete September 27, 2015 at 12:48 pm

        Willis what you need to do with all of your vast knowledge and always being correct is tell all of us why/how the climate will change going forward.

        You are the expert and appointed authority from volcanic influences, to solar influences to CO2 to your thermostat theory.

        So put all your vast correct knowledge to use and give us a climate forecast.

        Salvatore, you just made a nasty, underhanded, untrue accusation about me, and pretended that Dr. Roy had said it.

        Until you either back up your accusation or retract it, you’ll get nothing from me but well-deserved scorn. That kind of evidence-free third-hand, ‘blame someone else’ accusation is the action of a unprincipled scumbag.

        Clear enough for you? PUT UP OR SHUT UP! Back up your slimy accusation or retract it. I’m tired of your insults.

        w.

        PS—I answered your question about predicting future climate immediately above … do try to keep up with the discussion, dear boy, you look so foolish asking a question again when it’s already been answered …

      • Signore Del Prete, have you ever heard the expression: “people who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones”? Your own ideas/predictions, which you relentless promote here, haven’t gained much traction. Willis hasn’t been making predictions (unlike you,) but how far in future would you like to see a prediction? Since Edward Lorenz work in chaos math showed clearly in the 60’s that accurate long term weather/climate predictions can not be made with chaotic Earth weather inputs/unknown forcings, any long term prediction falls under the heading of “Best Guess”. How is it that you do not know that?

      • Alan Robertson writes:
        “Since Edward Lorenz work in chaos math showed clearly in the 60’s that accurate long term weather/climate predictions can not be made with chaotic Earth weather inputs/unknown forcings,”

        Lorenz merely assumed that it is chaotic. Kepler on the other hand was on the right path 420 years ago, and made his fame from long range weather forecasts based on the heliocentric planetary ordering of solar activity. Internal variability of weather and climate is as illusory as the internal theories for the sunspot cycle and solar variability.

      • ulriclyons
        September 27, 2015 at 6:16 pm
        “Lorenz merely assumed that it is chaotic. Kepler on the other hand was on the right path 420 years ago, and made his fame from long range weather forecasts based on the heliocentric planetary ordering of solar activity. Internal variability of weather and climate is as illusory as the internal theories for the sunspot cycle and solar variability.”
        ———————–
        Oh. Planetary influences are the climate control knob. Astrology, of sorts.
        Or are you alluding to planetary tidal forces as climate influence? Or did I miss your point?

        Lorenz said that unless all inputs to a system are precisely known, then accurate predictions about future behavior cannot be made beyond short time periods.

      • “Or are you alluding to planetary tidal forces as climate influence? Or did I miss your point?”

        There is no point in trying to frame the argument before asking.

      • ulriclyons
        September 28, 2015 at 1:58 am

        “There is no point in trying to frame the argument before asking.”
        ————————–
        I’ll not take that bait and will thus avoid driving this interesting thread further into the weeds.

    • Under the understanding that Willis has NEVER said he is a climate scientist…Salvatore, you are…what?

  42. OK, so Willis isn’t perfect. Golly, let’s tar and feather him! NOT!

    On the other hand, I’ve seen here on WUWT that he’s willing to spend a great amount of personal time trying to sort out the various messes created by the “real” scientists whose main claim to knowledge, at least as it appears to me, is that they know how to add Bull S., More Bull S, and Piled Higher and Deeper Bull S. to their names, (never mind “I’m a Nobel Laureate”) ,usually at everyone else’s expense.

    I think, from what I’ve read of his posts, that Willis brings something that those others don’t bring which is real life experience and observation from a multitude of perspectives, unmatched by people hiding in a lab or cavorting with their “consensus” cohort. At least when he discovers a mistake has been made in his own work he corrects it.

    Willis’ writing alone made me intensely interested in studying clouds and ocean currents, etc., in order to gain some understanding of their effects on climate, and he does a much better job of explaining and demonstrating aspects of climate than any university division “science professor” I’ve ever had, all on his own dime.

    You go Willis!!!

    • Thanks, guys. I wander around in fields of data, and I analyze them and try to make sense of them. When I encouter something interesting, I report back my findings as best I know how.

      Seems like folks have decided it’s open season on me, slinging any possible mud on my life, my work experience, my competence, my lack of credentials. Mud on everything in sight except my science … my rule of thumb is that when a man starts throwing mud, it’s because he’s out of ammunition.

      Salvatore and the rest would never bother with their vile personal attacks if they could attack my science, or if they had anything remotely scientific to contribute besides boasting about how profound their scientific understanding is.

      Regards,

      w.

  43. “Obviously, this is a self-regulating system.”

    Even more obviously this is not news to anyone who follows climate science. It’s why La Ninas follow El Ninos.

    • What is apparently not *obvious* to you Klapper, is that most people DON’T “follow climate science” , and which Willis understands completely, unlike most academics who write about it.

      • While I appreciate the support, I would never claim to understand climate science completely, that’s about three bridges too far. Climate is way too broad a subject area to understand it all—you’d need to be everything from an atmospheric physicist to a marine biologist to a cryospecialist and a couple dozen more specialties to comprehend it all.

        What I do think I have to offer is a new climate paradigm—instead of the current faith-based belief that the changes in temperature are a function of the changes in forcing, I say that emergent climate phenomena regulate and restrict the temperature to a fairly narrow range (e.g. ±0.3°C over the 20th century), and forcing has little to do with it.

        Best regards,

        w.

  44. Willis wrote: “Because I realized I could see the 2003, 2007, and 2010 El Ninos in the absorbed solar data, and it was moving opposite to the surface temperature … which would be very strong observational support for my hypothesis that the tropical ocean temperature regulates the incoming sunlight.,, Obviously, this is a self-regulating system. When it is running cool it lets in more energy, and when it is running hot it lets in less energy. This is the heart of the system of emergent climate phenomena that has kept the planet from either frying or freezing into a snowball for millions of years.”

    The information in this post is extremely interesting, but appears to be mis-interpreted in this passage (and in similar passages).

    The first conclusion is partially correct: IN THE NINO 3.4 AREA, tropical ocean temperature appears to negatively regulate incoming sunlight. Only when the reader gets to Figure 5 does he/she get to see global data. There we find that Willis hasn’t told us that GLOBALLY more SWR is absorbed when it is warmer (positive correlation). This feedback (the SWR component of cloud feedback) amplifies GHG-mediated warming. In the tropics as a whole, he also hasn’t told us there is net ZERO correlation: Some regions (like the Western Pacific Warm Pool) shows strongly negative correlation, but this is balanced by positive correlation elsewhere. It may be that the warmest ocean areas are regulated by a strong negative feedback that usually limits SSTs to 30 degC, but that much of the tropics isn’t warm enough cross the threshold to a regime with strongly negative feedback. It would be interesting to see if the amount of negative correlation increases when you only consider SSTs greater than some limit, say SSTs greater than 27 degC. As the GHG mediated warming increases, more of the tropics might cross the threshold needed to produce negative feedback.

    WIllis’s observations certainly don’t demonstrate the existence of a self-regulating SYSTEM – even in the areas of negative correlation. The SYSTEM consists of more than just incoming SWR – negatively regulated by temperature presumably by clouds over part of the planet. Clouds also regulate outgoing OLR. High clouds emit relatively little OLR while low clouds emit nearly as much as the surface. Convection is another key part of the system, carrying heat and moisture both upward and poleward (both through the ocean and atmosphere). If we knew that these components of the system remained constant as SST negatively regulated incoming SWR, then Willis would have demonstrated a self-regulating system in a small portion of the planet.

    The Planck response to surface warming is probably the “heart of the system … that has kept the planet from either frying or freezing into a snowball”, but we have still experienced “snowball earth” in the distant past and ice ages in the recent past.

    • Frank, you say:

      Willis’s observations certainly don’t demonstrate the existence of a self-regulating SYSTEM – even in the areas of negative correlation. The SYSTEM consists of more than just incoming SWR – negatively regulated by temperature presumably by clouds over part of the planet.

      Good heavens, you don’t expect me to discuss all of the different aspects of global temperature regulation by a variety of very different emergent climate phenomena this in one post, I hope.

      My suggestion is that you start by reading each and every post in the list I appended to the head post. There you will find both theory and observations, and I discuss and investigate all of the issues that you raise.

      When you’ve done that, if you still have questions, then I’m happy to answer them.

      Finally, let me ask you to please dial back on the insults. You wrongly claim that I’m deliberately holding back results, viz:

      There we find that Willis hasn’t told us that GLOBALLY more SWR is absorbed when it is warmer (positive correlation). …

      and

      In the tropics as a whole, he also hasn’t told us there is net ZERO correlation …

      Hogwash! If I didn’t tell you … then who did? Did you do the research to find that out? Nope. You know that information for one reason only, because I JUST TOLD YOU, and now you use what I just told you to claim that “Willis hasn’t told us …”?

      Not nice at all.

      Your implication that I’m deliberately leaving out information is unpleasant, un-called for, and most importantly, totally untrue. I’m the one doing the research, not you. You know what you know about this entire subject, top to bottom, because I reported all of my results, good, bad, and ugly alike.

      So let me invite you to lay off the personal attacks, they don’t reflect well on your character.

      Best regards,

      w.

      • mwh September 27, 2015 at 5:10 pm

        good grief Willis you need another holiday!!

        Just what I need. Another jerkwagon to ignore the science and tell me I’m all wrong.

        Congratulations. You’ve just made yourself part of the problem.

        And no, I won’t sit still and let some fool claim I’m deliberately withholding data. Not gonna happen on my watch. I don’t bite, but I damn sure bite back. Sorry you don’t like it.

        w.

      • “I don’t bite,”

        Nonsense, look at the way you attacked me because you were ignorant of the standard WMO definition of a heat wave.

        “Until you give us those numbers, anything you say about your mythical and totally undefined “heat wave” is garbage. Get that straight. Instead of actual specific predictions that can be verified or falsified, you’re giving us garbage. Trash. Crap. Useless twaddle. Nonsense.”

        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/13/like-the-pause-in-surface-temperatures-the-slump-in-solar-activity-continues/#comment-1417132

        p.s. the northeast US got that long cold shot from around 7 Jan 2014 that I predicted.

      • Jim Sawhill September 27, 2015 at 7:08 pm

        Willis says:

        “Another jerkwagon to ignore the science and tell me I’m all wrong.”


        So, please tell all of us out here that if someone tells you that you are wrong, do they automatically earn the name “jerkwagon?”

        Good question, Jim. Nope, nobody gets that honor automatically—they have to earn it by acting like jerkwagons.

        I’ve been told that my science was wrong by some of the best and some of the worst scientists around. And some of those times I’ve actually been wrong. But generally, I didn’t mind if they did it harshly, particularly if that part of my science actually was flawed, because they were attacking my science.

        Jerkwagons, on the other hand, attack me instead of my science … AS I SAID IN MY COMMENT. They want to ignore the science and focus on my education, my style, my lack of scientific credentials, did I work as a masseur, how I’m absolutely wrong about where I place my quotation marks, how I’m too krool to all the wonderful commenters, whether you call a Fourier transform “FT” or “FFT”, and in general what a worthless excuse for a human being they consider me to be … you know, crucial, vitally important stuff like that.

        Those folks earn the coveted title of “jerkwagon”, and they are fortunate to be referred to by a euphemism in place of my actual opinion of them.

        I hope that clears up the confusion …

        w.

      • ulriclyons September 27, 2015 at 7:02 pm

        “I don’t bite,”

        Nonsense, look at the way you attacked me because you were ignorant of the standard WMO definition of a heat wave.

        “Until you give us those numbers, anything you say about your mythical and totally undefined “heat wave” is garbage. Get that straight. Instead of actual specific predictions that can be verified or falsified, you’re giving us garbage. Trash. Crap. Useless twaddle. Nonsense.”

        ulrich, you were asked over and over to give us the numbers needed to make your prediction real. You refused to give them. Let me quote a bit more from that email, the previous paragraph to the one you quoted:

        Why is this so hard for you to understand? Three of the more knowledgeable posters on this blog are telling you the same thing in different words, and you are just continuing with your useless twaddle about “heat waves” … what is a “heat wave” to you, Ulrich? In other words, how much hotter IN DEGREES than what temperature (monthly average? seasonal average? the average for that week? the annual average?) does it have to be for how many DAYS in order for you to say it’s a heat wave?

        As a result of your refusal to specify your so-called “predictions”, all you were giving us was useless garbage and I told you so.

        And your claim that I was “ignorant of the standard WMO definition” is pure bovine excrement, because you didn’t mention until later, until after even more people than before had pressed you to provide numbers, that you were using the WMO definition … don’t try to sneak that hogwash past me, that’s bogus historical revisionism.

        However, note that in that comment I didn’t bite YOU in the slightest. I didn’t attack your education, your morals, your personal character, nothing of the sort. I just told you the truth about your so-called predictions—that without numbers they could not be falsified and thus they were useless as tits on a boar hog. You didn’t like that, but it was the truth then and it is the truth now.

        p.s. the northeast US got that long cold shot from around 7 Jan 2014 that I predicted.

        Jeez, you quote me but you don’t even quote your own prediction? Break it out, dude, lets have a look at it. Does it specify what you are going to call “cold”, given that it’s for January? And how long is a “long” cold shot on your planet? One week? One month?

        Next, the area of the prediction. Piers Corbyn famously predicted forest fires in one state and claimed success when there were forest fires in the next state over … so did your prediction specify what area you were talking about? I mean, you don’t even specify the area now, just “northeast America” … how many states are you referring to, and which ones?

        Next, to be falsifiable you have to specify the way you’ll measure success. What temperature records are you going to use? I mean, if one state in the “northeast US” has a long cold spell whatever that means, and the other 9? 11? however many states are warmer than usual, is your prediction right or wrong?

        Because if a prediction of a “long cold shot” has no definition of either “long” or “cold”, or if you don’t say where it’s supposed to happen or how you plan to verify whether it happened or not … well, sorry, but that’s not a prediction at all.

        A prediction is like a bet, and at the end of the bet you have to have a way to determine who won and who lost. The prediction itself must specify enough details for us to clearly determine winners and losers.

        And if you are unwilling or unable to provide those details INCLUDING NUMBERS in your prediction, then as I told you back then, instead of actual specific predictions that can be verified or falsified, you’re giving us garbage. Trash. Crap. Useless twaddle. Nonsense.

        So point us to your prediction, and we can determine if it is falsifiable or not.

        w.

      • Willis said:
        “..you were asked over and over to give us the numbers needed to make your prediction real. You refused to give them.”

        Nonsense, I would never refuse such a thing.

        “And your claim that I was “ignorant of the standard WMO definition” is pure bovine excrement, because you didn’t mention until later, until after even more people than before had pressed you to provide numbers, that you were using the WMO definition … don’t try to sneak that hogwash past me, that’s bogus historical revisionism.”

        Pure bovine excrement? you cannot help your potty mouth can you. The reason that I had to mention it later was simply that you didn’t know. And just look at all the grief that you gave me over it, and you still continue. Even the points where I outright proved you wrong on that post, you didn’t have the spine to admit that you were wrong. For example where you claimed that the NAO were not positive in July-August, which is because you are hopeless at looking at graphs and charts, and failed to look at the monthly figures:
        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/13/like-the-pause-in-surface-temperatures-the-slump-in-solar-activity-continues/#comment-1420719

        We don’t get apologies for your unnecessary rudeness, nor for your for false claims, and that isn’t the only example by any means. Like when you insisted that it wasn’t colder on CET in solar minima. All you did was insult me by suggesting that I had fabricated the name of the Gleissberg Minimum, and then failed to acknowledge that I had proved you wrong, and that all three the coldest periods on CET were in solar minima. Because you couldn’t read or didn’t want to read what the chart actually showed.

      • Willis you read me completely wrong, I was sympathising (see about 4 posts above where I am so cross at the abuse hurled at you) considering the situation and the amount of offensive material I will ignore the jerk wad comment which was uncalled for and does you no credit

      • ref post september 27 7:09am 7 posts below your september 26 11:12pm………..I love your posts from the very first I read about your fishing and erroneous buoy data

      • As it happens and in reponse to a post from Bill Illis above which he very kindly responded to, I referred back to the thread you did back in August when I first read about your tropical rainstorm theory. It made so much sense I have been avidly waiting for the follow up.

        I dont generally get too involved as I lack the knowledge to do so when things get technical especially with statistical maths (not enough grey matter space to learn at the moment). However I understood that you were particularly interested in the diurnal changes caused during El Nino/Nina. That I particularly liked as to me it tied up the loose ends. I am now confused as to whether that is still central to the theory.

        Kind regards, and sincerely meant best wishes, Mark

      • When I was 19 and here in Sussex we were experiencing the hottest and calmest summer I have ever (or is it evah) experienced I used to spend half the day rowing my little rowing boat between Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, where for 2 months the sea bass and mackerel were chasing shoals of brit to the millpond surface with a roar that sounded like a crashing wave. It was so exhilarating to just watch and be so close to with he bass flashing past my boat.

        I dont think there has ever been a time where I have been more at peace and when I was tired I would lie down on my back in the bottom of the boat and watch the clouds forming over the South Down Hills just in land from us – it was seeing the geography I had learnt at school coming into action. You could feel the breeze picking up off the sea heading in land and rising as it hit the warm land and slope of the downs. So dramatic was this that regularly they would be playing cricket 100m from the beach whilst there was a rainstorm not 500m further inland – incredible and stirred an interest in meteorology (my wife kicks me under the table sometimes if I get on the subject) that has remained with me ever since, hence my interest here.

        Please forgive me if I made an already unpleasant day more unpleasant – not intended at all

      • ulriclyons September 28, 2015 at 2:29 am Edit

        Willis said:

        “..you were asked over and over to give us the numbers needed to make your prediction real. You refused to give them.”

        Nonsense, I would never refuse such a thing.

        Three different commenters asked you for numbers, including myself. You refused to give them. READ THE THREAD, it’s all there in black and white.

        “And your claim that I was “ignorant of the standard WMO definition” is pure bovine excrement, because you didn’t mention until later, until after even more people than before had pressed you to provide numbers, that you were using the WMO definition … don’t try to sneak that hogwash past me, that’s bogus historical revisionism.”

        Pure bovine excrement? you cannot help your potty mouth can you.

        I call bullshit bullshit … sorry, but if you don’t like it, stop spewing it.

        The reason that I had to mention it later was simply that you didn’t know.

        More bullshit. The reason you had to mention it later is because YOU DIDN’T MENTION IT EARLIER, so nobody but you knew what you were claiming … again, read the thread.

        And just look at all the grief that you gave me over it, and you still continue.

        Please don’t feel special. I give the same grief to everyone who tries to claim that a prediction without numbers is valid.

        Even the points where I outright proved you wrong on that post, you didn’t have the spine to admit that you were wrong. For example where you claimed that the NAO were not positive in July-August, which is because you are hopeless at looking at graphs and charts, and failed to look at the monthly figures:
        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/13/like-the-pause-in-surface-temperatures-the-slump-in-solar-activity-continues/#comment-1420719

        You still agitating over that? Really?

        We don’t get apologies for your unnecessary rudeness, nor for your for false claims, and that isn’t the only example by any means.

        I love guys who wave their hands and say “that isn’t the only example by any means” … is there some part of “quote the exact words you disagree with” that puzzles you?.

        And you still seem to think that me abusing your bogus predictions is somehow me abusing YOU. If you can’t tell the difference between you and your claimed “predictions”, I can’t help you.

        Like when you insisted that it wasn’t colder on CET in solar minima. All you did was insult me by suggesting that I had fabricated the name of the Gleissberg Minimum, and then failed to acknowledge that I had proved you wrong, and that all three the coldest periods on CET were in solar minima. Because you couldn’t read or didn’t want to read what the chart actually showed.

        Let me try it again, more slowly this time:

        Quote. The. Exact. Words. You. Disagree. With. So. Everyone. Can. Understand. Your. Objections.

        Finally, you remember at the top of your comment saying

        Willis said:

        “..you were asked over and over to give us the numbers needed to make your prediction real. You refused to give them.”

        Nonsense, I would never refuse such a thing.

        And do you remember me asking at the end of the last comment …

        And if you are unwilling or unable to provide those details INCLUDING NUMBERS in your prediction, then as I told you back then, instead of actual specific predictions that can be verified or falsified, you’re giving us garbage. Trash. Crap. Useless twaddle. Nonsense.

        So point us to your prediction, and we can determine if it is falsifiable or not.

        So … since you would “never refuse such a thing” … where are your numbers, Ulrich?

        w.

      • Willis Eschenbach September 27, 2015 at 5:58 pm

        mwh September 27, 2015 at 5:10 pm

        good grief Willis you need another holiday!!

        Just what I need. Another jerkwagon to ignore the science and tell me I’m all wrong.

        mwh September 28, 2015 at 3:07 am Edit

        Willis you read me completely wrong, I was sympathising (see about 4 posts above where I am so cross at the abuse hurled at you) considering the situation and the amount of offensive material I will ignore the jerk wad comment which was uncalled for and does you no credit

        I will gladly take your word for it, as your intentions are obviously good. My apologies for my misunderstanding and my harsh words.

        For future reference, however, telling someone “you need another holiday” in the midst of a heated discussion is far from being obvious sympathy. It sounded like you were saying “you’re on the wrong path, Willis, you’re over-wrought, you need to take a break”.

        And yes, I’m on a hair-trigger. I’ve just been attacked relentlessly by the three weird sock-puppets for no reason, the sock-puppets think Dinostratus is a genius, Dino is giving me endless grief over where I put my quotation marks, Salvatore is spreading lies about what Dr. Roy said, Ulrich is off his meds because we asked him to put numbers to his predictions a couple years ago … yeah, I’d say that after having been handed the worst over and over in this thread, I’m assuming the worst …

        Finally, no, I didn’t remember that 4 comments above you said something supportive. I’m sorry, but I make no attempt to connect aliases up with comments. If you want me to remember your comments, sign your own name to them. Otherwise, I can’t be bothered, there are too many anonymous comments and the aliases are changing all the time and are often so similar.

        Anyhow, thanks for clearing that up, and again, my apologies for my misdirected anger.

        w.

        PS—Ulrich, please note that when I am wrong I do indeed apologize … but I’ll never apologize for saying that predictions without numbers were garbage.

      • Its no biggy Willis – I know you were under pressure – actually I was trying to lighten you up……sure got that wrong. Pesronally I couldnt give a damn what those other idiots say – a very few people with an agenda hogging the thread. I am fascinated by this topic and I havent yet seen it discounted. I have bookmarked several links to read when I get a bit more time. I will sink back to lurking distance now.

        Best wishes Mark Hansford. (they are my initials – when I registered I was still smarting from being banned from Nevens site for not toeing his line and didnt really want to be ridiculed for popping up here – now I dont care so much)

      • It will take me about 40 seconds to explain the difference between random data and chaotic data. It does NOT take months. It does take months to make up your own definitions, reinvent a fleet of wheels, make plodding inferential conclusions that are either wrong or were obvious to begin with. Please don’t. Save us the agony.

        Here’s a difference between you and a trained scientist. To become a trained scientist, one has to take math classes, learn from his betters and have any vestige of ego squashed. It’s your ego that irritates me to no end. Not your lack of education. Ego.

        It’s fine to be a skeptic. I’m a skeptic. I keep it in check though as to make progress it is much more efficient to learn from people who are smarter than me.

      • Dinostratus said September 28, 2015 at 5:58 pm:

        “It will take me about 40 seconds to explain the difference between random data and chaotic data.”

        So….. Normally, one might expect such an utterance to be followed by a 40 second explanation! Not 40 seconds of irrelevant babble.

        Don’t rush yourself however. It’s hardly new. In fact, I wouldn’t mind much if you just stayed away.

      • I’m sorry you got caught up in this whole thing but if you’re going to publish a sheet that covers basic signal processing concepts and you get them wrong, well your credibility is not going to be very good. That’s just a fact.

      • “More bullshit. The reason you had to mention it later is because YOU DIDN’T MENTION IT EARLIER, so nobody but you knew what you were claiming”

        No, as already explained, you are the one that didn’t know what the standard WMO heatwave standard that we use in the UK is. You could have politely asked for it rather that give a barrage of abuse. That is a lie that I refused to give the heatwave definition. In fact you are the one doing the bogus historical revisionism with this saga.

        “You still agitating over that? Really?”

        Proof that you cannot admit when you are wrong, and of belligerent self righteousness despite the facts. Pathetic school yard behaviour, you have no integrity as a scientist if you refuse to admit your errors. Damn right I’m still agitating over that, because you are still defending the same corrupt position. You have an attitude problem with me Willis, you won’t admit to a single error or false claim that I have shown on any post of yours in the last couple years. Pure willful ignorance.

        “Let me try it again, more slowly this time:
        Quote. The. Exact. Words. You. Disagree. With. So. Everyone. Can. Understand. Your. Objections.”

        I did that a number of times on that post (CET in solar minima) comment thread, and you ignored it every time. You just don’t like admitting when you are wrong, and you do it repeatedly.
        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/23/maunder-and-dalton-sunspot-minima/#comment-1668036
        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/23/maunder-and-dalton-sunspot-minima/#comment-1668853
        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/23/maunder-and-dalton-sunspot-minima/#comment-1669540
        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/23/maunder-and-dalton-sunspot-minima/#comment-1669540

        You just tried to bullshit your way out if, you’ll probably respond here by doing exactly the same again:
        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/23/maunder-and-dalton-sunspot-minima/#comment-1668111

    • I don’t follow you when you say that more SW is absorbed under warmer temperatures globally. Are you talking about SST or land temperatures? I do know this: When surface waters are warmer than air, the water begins to evaporate, which leads to clouds and less SW penetration through those clouds. That’s just plain physics. Where is all this SW absorption you are talking about where it is warmer?

  45. always wondered about a lady

    GaiaGaia.

    could it be a ‘Sha’ in Sha’

    a king of the kings,

    ein Koenig der Koenige, a female Cesar?

    or just ‘Frauenquote’, a nuisance you won’t get confronted with.

    A blend granade, sturgishoppers womb bomb.

    defending Paris’ unborn Death.

    Hans

  46. really great post willis ,has to be one of your best to date. very sad to see what was a very informative discussion derailed by a few idiots with egos as big as their mouth.

    having read all the replies in relation to the op i was hoping to see someone smarter than me looking at lunar data over the same period,something like this http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/new-paper-finds-lunar-tide-cycle.html

    in any discussion relating to the oceans i think it is a mistake to ignore one of the greatest factors in relation to movement of the oceans water. the lunar cycles influence ranging from daily to monthly to millennial all play a part in moving huge volumes of ocean water. the relative position of the moon to the earth during the periods of these cycles must play a huge part in moving areas of cold or warm water around the globe by altering various currents over various timescales .

    robert gallacher.

    • Thanks, Robert. I looked at that claim and that paper when it came up and I was totally unimpressed. The problem is that the 18.6 year lunar “cycle” is not a cycle as we understand it. It’s not how I had originally imagined it before I researched the question. I thought it was a long sinusoidal wave of some kind with an 18.6 year period … not so at all.

      Instead, it’s just a time period when the positions of the sun, moon, and earth are kinda sorta in the same relationship but not exactly. As a result, the 18.6 year “cycle” is as if you put out one digit each month, like

      1548935248788154968348859759667557855961249955312012500458559987 … etc, etc

      The 18.6 year cycle is when the series of numbers starts over again … so what? Why should we expect the restarting of the numbers to make any difference? It’s still going up and down in the same limited range.

      I’ve spent a good chunk of my life working and playing on and under the ocean, so I’m well aware of the lunar effects. Heck, I’ve even experienced the moon-wind, not many folks have ever noticed that. So I’m far from ignorant about the moon.

      But to date, I’ve not seen any good data that shows that it affects the long-term temperature, and since the moon’s influence is obviously trendless, it’s hard to see how it could do so.

      w.

      • thank you for the reply willis , that paper refers to just one particular cycle. as you say “kinda,sorta” in the same relationship . it is that variation over the various cycles i was interested in. the exact point on earth where the greatest gravitational pull from the moon happens throughout these cycles varies. the greatest effect on the oceans would depend whether that point is over a large land mass or the oceans,and which particular point in the oceans.
        i too have spent a large chunk of my life in and around the oceans, and have witnessed huge amounts of sand disappear and reappear on stretches of coast when there have been no storms and no other extraordinary factors witnessed during the period this occurred. the only thing that can can do that is a shifting current. i appreciate there are many factors involved in the variation of ocean currents, my query was in relation to one of those.

  47. Yes Willis, ref your post hoc note, it quickly gets a bit lame and obvious.
    Whilst its always interesting to read what one’s opponents say about one, since their criticisms are unclouded by affection or partisan views, their pointing up of one’s weaknesses are sometimes useful to build on.
    However, the sad truth about ad hominem attacks is that they show up the poverty of the attackers position.
    The use of proxies to strengthen this compounds the failure rather than giving strength.
    The only way to win is to defeat the argument, insulting or shooting the messenger is a losing move.

  48. George E. Smith —

    “Most physicists understand that at higher Temperatures, the atmosphere holds more water in vapor form. Clouds tend to form at higher altitudes, because for a given surface relative humidity the dew point will be met at higher altitudes if the surface Temperatures are higher.” — this is not basically correct. In deserts temperatures are high, that does not mean more water vapour/clouds —“. In urban areas for example, with the day the temperature rises and over a vast waterbody, through evaporation water vapou enters the atmosphere and suddenly clouds forms and it rains and subsequently the temperature falls with cold wind all around in the wind direction — in coastal zones around vast water bodies we get sea breeze/ lake breeze that cools with this principle. So, temperature and water source must be there to create clouds/rains localized rains and not system based rains. They are quite different phenomenon.

    In artificial rain making, there must be clouds and with the pumping of substances in to clouds that makes them supercool and thus it rains. But, generally localized clouds rarely give this result. So, the companies that seed the clouds choose system clouds that even without seeding gives widespread rains. In fact seeding system clouds, it reduces the rainfall in downwind direction — this was clearly shown during Olympic games in China. They tried to stop the rains in sports arena and this severely affected the farming downwind and farmers protested on this. I presented the such results the Andhra Pradesh Government and stopped the cloud seeding operations.

    “Rainfall and other precipitations usually follow a cold front of some sort, it is not the rain which starts the process; although I will agree that when a cold front moves into a warm air mass, and we get rainfall, it is likely that some of that rain will re-evaporate while falling, and in the process reduce the Temperature of the originally resident warmer air.” — They system that operates under rainfall causing systems are quite different. This is the same with the cyclonic activity. Some argue with warming of oceans are linked to cyclonic activities but in India during pre-monsoon [summer] and post-monsoon winter causes severe cyclones but they are more in winter in association with the northeast monsoon.

    When we understand the basics of meteorology, we get answers to such issues.

    Thanks

    Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy

    • Well Dr Reddy, in making my comment, I made the mistake of assuming too much on the part of the reader.

      I never intended to imply that the cloud / rain processes over the Sahara Desert were the same as those that exist in the Florida Keys.

      My comment simply compared the cloud / rain relationships in a fixed ordinary environment, such as a typical residential neighborhood in ordinary America, for two different conditions. One with higher daytime temperatures and plenty of moisture around, and the other with lower daytime temperatures and similar relative humidity.

      The situation with the higher surface Temperature, would presumably result in the cloud formation being at higher altitudes, and the night time Temperatures would be higher than following the less hot day situation.

      Apparently I assumed too much from the reader.

      G

  49. Clear enough for you? PUT UP OR SHUT UP! Back up your slimy accusation or retract it. I’m tired of your insults.

    I can not believe that comment I made has got you so upset. Why would you care?

    If you are that upset I will say I am sorry I posted it.

    One tough and brave on a web-site but that is not my style. I am saying this to you as if we were face to face. Again sorry if I got you so upset again if I had known I would have not posted it.

    • Salvatore Del Prete September 28, 2015 at 6:31 am

      Clear enough for you? PUT UP OR SHUT UP! Back up your slimy accusation or retract it. I’m tired of your insults.

      I can not believe that comment I made has got you so upset. Why would you care?

      I care because you flat-out lied about what Dr. Roy said in a pathetic but vicious attempt to damage my reputation. If you don’t understand that, you have my sympathy.

      If you are that upset I will say I am sorry I posted it.

      If I’m upset you will apologize? I love the conditions. IF I’M UPSET, then at some future point you will apologize??? Do you truly believe I’m not upset?

      One tough and brave on a web-site but that is not my style.

      No, your style is to scurrilously spread lies about what a decent honest scientist said in an attempt to do me harm.

      I am saying this to you as if we were face to face. Again sorry if I got you so upset again if I had known I would have not posted it.

      Nonsense. You knew damn well that you were trying to do me harm. Stop trying to pretend that it was some innocent comment that I got unreasonable about.

      You LIED about what someone said to try to DAMAGE MY REPUTATION. If you didn’t think I’d get upset about that, then you’re in big trouble … because if you are truly that ignorant of the real world, when you remove your cranium from your fundamental orifice you’re gonna go snow-blind from the sudden light.

      Do I accept your apology? Sure, wholeheartedly.

      Do I think you mean it?

      I think you’re sorry you got caught lying.

      w.

    • I know what it was “in reference to”, you just lied about what was actually said.

      And of course you don’t think it’s a big deal to lie to try to damage someone’s reputation … the person lying never thinks its a big deal. Out here in the real world, however, lies have consequences.

      w.

  50. As I understand it the basic premise of the CAGW crowd is that increasing concentrations of atmospheric CO2 disrupt the “natural” atmospheric heat balance and the only way to restore that “natural” balance is by radiating that unbalanced heat back to space per the S-B relationship, i.e. increasing the surface temperature. BTW, the atmosphere is not, as some postulate, a closed system. That assumption simplifies calculations, but ignores reality.

    One, there is no such thing as the “natural” heat balance. As abundantly evident from both paleo and contemporary records the atmospheric heat balance has always been and continues to be in constant turmoil w/o regard to the pitiful 2 W/m^2 of industrial CO@ added between 1750 and 2011. Fluctuations in incoming and outgoing radiation, changing albedo from clouds and ice, cosmic rays, 10 +/- W/m^2 range of solar insolation from perigee to apogee, etc. refute that notion of a closed system.

    Two, radiation is far from the only source of rebalancing the “natural” heat balance. Water cools the surroundings when it evaporates and warms the surroundings when it condenses. The water vapor cycle, clouds, precipitation, etc., a subject which IPCC AR5 admits to having a poor understanding, modulates and moderates the atmospheric heat balance and has done so for millions of years all without the help or hindrance of industrialized man. The atmospheric water cycle is a global swamp cooler for the earth. Other planets don’t have that. The popular GHE considers radiation only and excludes water vapor.

    CAGW has zip to do with science and everything to do with a hazy, starry eyed, utopian, anti-fossil fuel (90% anti-coal) agenda bereft of facts & reality.

  51. I looked at that and said “Wow!” and ran to compare the two. Why? Because I realized I could see the 2003, 2007, and 2010 El Ninos in the absorbed solar data, and it was moving opposite to the surface temperature … which would be very strong observational support for my hypothesis that the tropical ocean temperature regulates the incoming sunlight. It does so

    Willis says which is the small picture. In the big picture solar activity will determine ocean heat content and sea surface temperatures. In other words it is solar activity which regulates the oceanic temperatures and lunar influences can not be over looked as far as influencing oceanic currents ,and the changing of them.

    Remember Ian, he called for this El Nino based on lunar parameters way in advance and was correct and of course his call is being largely ignored. He has elaborated in detail how he came to these conclusions.

    No BS and straight to the point.

    • Salvatore Del Prete September 28, 2015 at 8:31 am

      Remember Ian, he called for this El Nino based on lunar parameters way in advance and was correct and of course his call is being largely ignored. He has elaborated in detail how he came to these conclusions.

      No, I don’t remember that at all. How about you QUOTE WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT, or provide a link, so we can follow you and so that you’re not just babbling inanities about some unknown prediction somewhere?

      w.

      • Willis my intent was not to damage your reputation. That is the truth. I did not realize it.

        Again I hope we can get through the misunderstanding. I have nothing personally against you.

        That article Dr. Spencer did can prove that what I said might have been incorrect.

        If so I stand corrected.

        You have torn my theory apart and I hold nothing against you other then we do not agree.

      • Salvatore Del Prete September 28, 2015 at 12:53 pm

        Willis my intent was not to damage your reputation. That is the truth. I did not realize it.

        Again I hope we can get through the misunderstanding. I have nothing personally against you.

        Thanks, Salvatore. Given your assurances above, I’m happy to let it go.

        However, my strong advice is that if you see nothing wrong with making up a claim that I’m “pretending to be a climate scientist” and falsely stating that Dr. Roy said it … well, if you truly are that blind to what you’re doing in the social arena, you really should stick scrupulously to the science and eschew personal comments entirely …

        Which is good advice in any case for everyone in a scientific discussion. Whether I’m a “real” scientist or not is just another bogus red herring you’ve dreamed up to divert interest from the fact that you can’t find anything wrong with my science … and the same is true when others launch similar ad-hominem attacks.

        I’ve said it before … the only reason that you and the others start slinging mud at me is because you are out of real ammunition.

        Why do you all spend so much time focusing on my undoubtedly human frailties? Every time you do that, YOU LOSE CREDIBILITY! Every time you attack me instead of attacking the science, YOUR REPUTATION SUFFERS!

        Forget about me, and concentrate on the science.

        Sheesh … why is this so hard to get across?

        w.

  52. Just be sure to slop some of those ITCZ / equatorial moisture packages up our way, to help feed this winter’s North Pacific Cold Fronts. We need ’em real juicy.

  53. Moderator – having supported Willis all the way through this thread and completely sided with him, been misread and apologised for my bad timing am now to be insulted by being moderated as well my last post disappeared at ‘post comment’ – I like being on this site too much to mess it up

    • mwh – that was auto-moderation by the wordpress.com spam detector, sometimes combinations of words trigger this, it was not a human action. Your comment is restored.

      • mwh, honest discussion never takes up too much space, and it is always valid to inquire about a lost comment. Thanks for your participation.

        w.

  54. Willis, you are in danger of your repartee being more entertaining than your science. Thank you for your work before and after posting.

    • Thanks, Joseph. I try to make my repartee as interesting as possible, regardless of the subject under discussion.

      w.

  55. Salvatore Del Prete September 28, 2015 at 3:50 pm

    http://beforeitsnews.com/science-and-technology/2015/05/ian-wilson-the-el-ninos-during-new-moon-epoch-5-1963-to-1994-2767106.html

    This is what I was referring to Willis.

    Gadzooks, that’s a horrible distortion of the scientific method. Heck, he doesn’t even follow his own guidelines for picking “strong” El Ninos. In addition, there’s only seven of them, and he makes no effort to show that this tiny number supposed correlations are significant, he gives us no error bars, no p-values, he just squints at his results from across the room and says dang, don’t that look sciencey! …

    Not only that, but we have reasonable El Nino records going back over a hundred years … once again, when someone’s theory doesn’t get tested on the full dataset, I gotta say what I’ve been excoriated for saying but never proven wrong for saying, which is this:

    When a man hides something … it’s because he has something to hide.

    I say it is not accidental that he’s only shown a part of the record. You are free to believe otherwise.

    If you want to put your full faith and trust in that kind of nonsense, be my guest.

    OR, you could actually go get the data, and compare the full set of all known El Ninos to the moon’s behavior, do a proper statistical analysis of the results, and make up your own mind.

    I’d suggest the latter choice, but even if you’re not going to do the latter … I’d suggest you stay a long ways away from the other choice …

    Best regards,

    w.

  56. Dinostratus September 28, 2015 at 5:58 pm

    It will take me about 40 seconds to explain the difference between random data and chaotic data. It does NOT take months.

    Wonderful! Please give us your 40-second explanation, so we can see it for ourselves.

    It does take months to make up your own definitions, reinvent a fleet of wheels, make plodding inferential conclusions that are either wrong or were obvious to begin with. Please don’t. Save us the agony.

    Dinostratus, I’m not engaged in “explaining the difference between random data and chaotic data”. I leave that mundane stuff to folks like you.

    Instead, I’m investigating how and whether the Hurst analysis method of Koutsoyiannis can be used to differentiate between random datasets, red-noise ARMA datasets, high-Hurst Exponent datasets, Lorenz-chaotic datasets, Rossler-chaotic datasets, Henon-chaotic datasets, climate model datasets, and climate observation datasets.

    Perhaps in your imagination you can investigate that in forty seconds. Here in the real world, I’m not just regurgitating information for 40 seconds like a parrot. I’m doing investigations that to the best of my knowledge have never been done. That’s why I find new things—because I go out and walk untrodden scientific paths, rather than winge about where someone puts their quotation marks.

    Here’s a difference between you and a trained scientist. To become a trained scientist, one has to take math classes, learn from his betters and have any vestige of ego squashed. It’s your ego that irritates me to no end. Not your lack of education. Ego.

    Scientists have every vestige of ego squashed?!? What planet are you inhabiting? Some of them have egos so big they have their own postal codes. And if you think every vestige of your ego is squashed, I fear you’re beyond my poor power to add or detract.

    Reality check. I have an un-squashed ego. You have an un-squashed ego.

    So what?

    You don’t seem to get it. I’m a freak of nature. I have absolutely no scientific training other than Physics 101, Chem 101, and one semester of college calculus. Period. Everything else I have taught myself through thousands and thousands of hours of study. I also have a peer-reviewed (and cited) “Brief Communications Arising” in Nature magazine. My 2003 findings that the change in fish catch in Lake Tanganyika were NOT climate related were confirmed, twelve years after publication, in Nature magazine itself. I suspect I am the only degree-less, formal-education-free person in the last good while who has published in Nature, much less had their findings confirmed in Nature. Am I proud of that? Dangbetcha. To date, my publications in scientific journals have garnered over 30 citations. Am I proud of that? You know it. I came up through the hawsehole, and it’s been a long hard climb.

    So what?

    Can we move on to the science, or are you going to focus on me and my real and imagined flaws forever?

    It’s fine to be a skeptic. I’m a skeptic. I keep it in check though as to make progress it is much more efficient to learn from people who are smarter than me.

    I’m happy to learn from anyone. However, I wouldn’t do what you do. I would never restrict my learning opportunities to learning from people smarter than me. The problem with doing that is it would make my chances to learn far too infrequent …

    Just kidding. Sorry, I couldn’t resist it, I knew it would make your un-squashed ego asplode …

    w.

    Bernie Hutchins September 28, 2015 at 7:43 pm Edit

    Dinostratus said September 28, 2015 at 5:58 pm:

    “It will take me about 40 seconds to explain the difference between random data and chaotic data.”

    So….. Normally, one might expect such an utterance to be followed by a 40 second explanation! Not 40 seconds of irrelevant babble.

    Hasn’t happened in the past, but if we keep up the pressure he might actually, for the first time, move the scientific conversation forwards.

    w.

    • Willis:
      Why bother responding to some anonymous sock puppetty troll who chooses to hide behind a BS nom de net like “Dinostratus”
      I believe Anthony should establish a policy that requires (with some exceptions, made at his discretion, for those whose careers may be endangered by posting their thoughts here) all who post here to do so under their real names.
      It is the height of cowardice, of lack of integrity to act as these people do.
      Really, i could care less about your background, or training, or lack of training….
      After all much space is given to a cdertain english major, who had a career in marketing, before associating himself with a group named after a famous university, yet having nothing whatsoever to do with that institution.
      At least he has the courage and decency to post under his given name.
      Stop fighting with pigs…they like to wallow in porcine excretia, you only get dirty.

      • Thanks, David. I respond to folks like Dinosaurus for a few reasons.

        First, I want to expose him for the blowhard that he is. Otherwise, some of the lurkers will assuredly think that he is right.

        Second, I won’t let someone just rubbish my name without protest. If one person gets away with that, others see the opportunity and pile on, and pretty soon I have a conflagration on my hands. Better to stamp it out before it starts.

        Third, it gives me a chance to re-state my own position. People don’t seem to realize that their protests are a convenient peg upon which I can hang a re-statement or a clearer exposition of my ideas.

        Fourth, it gives me a chance to point out some of the more common ways that people avoid discussing the science.

        Fifth, and perhaps most importantly, I’m not really having a discussion with Dinosaurus … oh, it looks like that, that’s the form of it, but in reality I write for the lurkers. I’m well aware that folks like Dino are extremely unlikely to change their minds, but there are many lurkers out there who are not so hidebound, who will consider my words and perhaps find them reasonable.

        As to requiring people to only post under their own names, I’ve met many, many people who are unwilling to post under their own names because in their opinion it would damage either their own or their businesses reputation. The problem is, I don’t see how Anthony or anyone could sort them out and provide for relief “under his discretion” without huge problems. You gotta know that if he approves one person and not another that there is going to be a giant bunfight. And how can someone demonstrate that their business is at risk or their job is at risk if they’re identified as a climate skeptic? There’s no test for that, no database to consult.

        So as much as I agree that it would be better if people published under their own names, the plan just doesn’t seem feasible to me.

        Finally, I give plenty of space to Mosh, for a simple reason. Like me, he fights for honest transparent science. he practices it himself, he posts and links to his data and code, and he signs his own name to his words. I don’t ask more than that from anyone. If you do that, you are a scientist, for a simple reason—you are practicing science.

        Yes, I often disagree with Steven, but that’s science. Like a good number of our commenters here, he’s wicked-smart (that’s a compliment), and his ideas are often very interesting and provocative. I just wish he’d give up his habit of occasional drive-by cryptic postings …

        All the best,

        w.

      • I understand your point regarding anonymity; I think that if all were required to release their names to Mr Watts, there would be some check on the asshattery thats been on display here, thats all.

      • Thanks Willis

        Regarding Dinostratus, he/she on your “23 New Papers” post attacked me as:

        “If you can’t even properly define a LT then it kinda makes your work…. suspect.”

        and

        “No. I’ve never, ever, never seen a two sided LT.”

        It would have taken 10 seconds on Google to find out what it is and that it is part of the art. Instead the

        FALLACY OF PERSONAL-INCREDULITY

        Perhaps he/she should establish a site where he/she lists the items he/she HAS heard about, along with etiquette advice on placing quote marks and indicating when things are algorithms, etc.

        If Dino’s knowledge of Fourier theory is any indication, he/she avoids every opportunity to show that he/she knows more than just enough jargon to harass the rest of us. I agree that others who know better should call BS on Dino.

      • Sorry guys. I’ve been away. A group of nuns was caught in a bus fire, stranded over a railroad track in front of an oncoming train and I had to act.

        “It would have taken 10 seconds on Google to find out what it is and that it is part of the art. Instead the

        FALLACY OF PERSONAL-INCREDULITY ”

        So I look up “Two-sided Laplace Transform” and I find a wiki. Okay good enough. Let’s see what it says,

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-sided_Laplace_transform

        “In mathematics, the two-sided Laplace transform or bilateral Laplace transform is an integral transform equivalent to probability’s moment generating function.”

        And I’m like, well ya. Duh. Technically a LT is a moment generating function used in statistics to generate averages, variances, skews, etc. I’m sure, like me, when you had done undergraduate work in signal processing, stability and control, etc. then in a graduate course in mathematical statistics, you saw definition of a MGF and said, “Well that’s a fine thing.” Like me, you never said “Hey! That’s a two sided Laplace transform!” Never in your wildest mind.

        Why not? Welll here is wiki with the answer,
        “Bilateral transforms don’t respect causality. They make sense when applied over generic functions but when working with functions of time (signals) unilateral transforms are preferred.”

        That’s right! a TWO SIDED LAPLACE TRANSFORM does not respect causality. Why is that important? BECAUSE IT DOES NOT SOLVE INITIAL VALUE PROBLEMS!! HA HA!!

        This is just to awesome. Life has come full circle for Willis. Willis does not understand the difference between a boundary value problem and an initial value problem (that post was a few months ago, iirc) and neither does his math friend and now they think that a two sided LT is twice as good for signal processing as a right sided LT.

        No one but no one uses two sided LT’s for signal processing because they do not work, can’t work, just can’t…… They do not respect causality. On a site where WIllis argues with people about whether climate models are IVP’s or BVP’s (they are both*), it’s pretty darn important that the two sided FT doesn’t respect causality.

        And just to round things out, the references that wiki uses for the Two-sided LT is are, in order, 1941, 1941, 1980, 1987, 1941. Not because it’s such an old, grand theory but because it’s applications are so few and statisticians do not call a MGF a Two-sided FT. Well maybe some do but I’ve never met them.

        BTW – If someone really, really wants to know what’s so nifty about a two sided FT it’s that if one substitutes the dummy variable “-s” with “jw”, one gets a FT. It’s a very easy way to figure out the FT of various functions. You just find the equivalent function in a table of LT’s, substitute “-jw” for “s” and you get the Fourier transform. Cool.

        * – By “both”, I mean they are elliptical and parabolic. Sorry if I wasn’t clear.

    • My ego compared to yours is enormous. Like a fourteen year old compared to a six year old.

      My ego compared to my advisory is tiny, non-existent. He is the best researcher I have ever known, ever. I know many many researchers from IIT Madras campus to Stanford. None of them, I mean none, come close. What is so amazing is that if you ask him to compare himself, he will say he is tiny. Good researchers develop deep respect for competent people.

      THAT is what bugs me about you WIllis. Is your lack of respect for those who have come before you and laid out the path. You reinvent everything because you are overly skeptical. Learn the math. Learn it. You can trust mathematics. You don’t have to be skeptical of a math book.

  57. ulriclyons September 29, 2015 at 2:50 am

    “More bullshit. The reason you had to mention it later is because YOU DIDN’T MENTION IT EARLIER, so nobody but you knew what you were claiming”

    No, as already explained, you are the one that didn’t know what the standard WMO heatwave standard that we use in the UK is. You could have politely asked for it rather that give a barrage of abuse. That is a lie that I refused to give the heatwave definition. In fact you are the one doing the bogus historical revisionism with this saga.

    Ulrich, you gave no definition at all. Were we supposed to guess that you were using a particular defintion? How? We can’t read minds.

    Three different people asked you in that thread what you meant by a heat wave, including myself. Obviously, none of us are mind readers.

    “You still agitating over that? Really?”

    Proof that you cannot admit when you are wrong, and of belligerent self righteousness despite the facts.

    Oh, please. I’ve publicly admitted being wrong more than any other blogger or any commenter I know … not because I’ve been wrong more often, but because when I am wrong, I’m one of the few folks who will admit it … and you’re absolutely not among us few. Heck, I’ve got two posts, one entitled “Wrong Again”, and the other entitled “Wrong Again, Again”, so your claim is obviously and demonstrably false.

    However, I don’t want to fight that old fight again. I’m much more interested in this new interchange …

    Finally, you remember at the top of your comment saying

    Willis said:

    “..you were asked over and over to give us the numbers needed to make your prediction real. You refused to give them.”

    Nonsense, I would never refuse such a thing.

    And do you remember me asking at the end of the last comment …

    And if you are unwilling or unable to provide those details INCLUDING NUMBERS in your prediction, then as I told you back then, instead of actual specific predictions that can be verified or falsified, you’re giving us garbage. Trash. Crap. Useless twaddle. Nonsense.</blockq
    So point us to your prediction, and we can determine if it is falsifiable or not.

    So … since you would “never refuse such a thing” … where are your numbers, Ulrich?

    JUST LIKE YOU DID BEFORE, you are currently refusing to show us your numbers. And this time, everyone is sitting here watching you do it, so you can’t BS your way out by some handwaving about the WMO. It has already happened. This is the third time I’ve had to ask, and I’ve gotten nothing. Your claim that you would “never refuse such a thing” is totally falsified. It is clearly not true now, just as it was not true then.

    Where is your whiz-bang prediction, Ulrich, INCLUDING NUMBERS? I mean, a few comments ago you were all proud about it and now you’ve gotten strangely shy …

    w.

    • Nonsense, to your “In other words, Ulrich, when you claim there is one standard that is so well-known you don’t need to mention it, that just reveals your profound ignorance of the field.”

      I replied:

      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/13/like-the-pause-in-surface-temperatures-the-slump-in-solar-activity-continues/#comment-1417282

      Just another smoke screen to avoid fessing up to what I called you out on, i.e. CET in solar minima, your mistake with that July-August NAO, and even your bogus Nino pump that moves the opposite direction to the Pacific thermohaline circulation. I can safely give up on you ever being honest or civil.

      • Gosh, still no numbers from you, Ulric? I’ll remind you again of your claim:

        Willis said:

        “..you were asked over and over to give us the numbers needed to make your prediction real. You refused to give them.”

        Nonsense, I would never refuse such a thing.

        Yet here you are, after four requests, doing exactly that, refusing to give us your numbers … the evidence is right there, folks, he’s all hat and no cattle.

        Here’s your so-called prediction, and my request, in case you’ve forgotten it:

        p.s. the northeast US got that long cold shot from around 7 Jan 2014 that I predicted.

        Jeez, you quote me but you don’t even quote your own prediction? Break it out, dude, lets have a look at it. Does it specify what you are going to call “cold”, given that it’s for January? And how long is a “long” cold shot on your planet? One week? One month?

        Next, the area of the prediction. Piers Corbyn famously predicted forest fires in one state and claimed success when there were forest fires in the next state over … so did your prediction specify what area you were talking about? I mean, you don’t even specify the area now, just “northeast America” … how many states are you referring to, and which ones?

        Next, to be falsifiable you have to specify the way you’ll measure success. What temperature records are you going to use? I mean, if one state in the “northeast US” has a long cold spell whatever that means, and the other 9? 11? however many states are warmer than usual, is your prediction right or wrong?

        Because if a prediction of a “long cold shot” has no definition of either “long” or “cold”, or if you don’t say where it’s supposed to happen or how you plan to verify whether it happened or not … well, sorry, but that’s not a prediction at all.

        A prediction is like a bet, and at the end of the bet you have to have a way to determine who won and who lost. The prediction itself must specify enough details for us to clearly determine winners and losers.

        And if you are unwilling or unable to provide those details INCLUDING NUMBERS in your prediction, then as I told you back then, instead of actual specific predictions that can be verified or falsified, you’re giving us garbage. Trash. Crap. Useless twaddle. Nonsense.

        So point us to your prediction, and we can determine if it is falsifiable or not.

        Four requests so far for the numbers to back up his mouth … still no numbers.

        You be the judge.

        w.

      • We were talking about UK heatwave figures hello? Long range forecasts have plenty of utility by indicating grades of cold relative to normals, such as below, much below, and very much below. That’s what the UK MetO do, if you think that’s “garbage. Trash. Crap. Useless twaddle. Nonsense.”, take it up with them. Why should I bother talking to you about it when you are not familiar with meteo standards and practice, you are exceedingly rude, and willfully ignorant, i.e. where you said: “Are you kidding? I try to avoid reading your claptrap at all, but somehow I get sucked in.”

      • ulriclyons September 30, 2015 at 1:19 am Edit

        We were talking about UK heatwave figures hello?

        Nope. We were talking about your predictions. In the event, after being asked numerous times, you said you were using the standard official UK Met Office definition of a heat wave … but none of us knew that, THAT’S WHY WE WERE ASKING. You could have been using, for example, the WMO definition, or the NOAA definition, or the Aussie definition, there was no way for us to know.

        You seem to think that when you say “a heat wave” everyone assumes “he must be using the UKMO definition” … doesn’t work like that.

        In any case, there’s another problem with your after-the-fact claim that you were using the official UKMO definition of a heatwave … see below.

        Long range forecasts have plenty of utility by indicating grades of cold relative to normals, such as below, much below, and very much below. That’s what the UK MetO do, if you think that’s “garbage. Trash. Crap. Useless twaddle. Nonsense.”, take it up with them.

        Please tell me that you are not holding the up UK Met Office, whose “forecasts” are often so vague as to be useless, and which have gotten more vague as their inaccuracy has been highlighted, as a paradigm of forecasting practice?

        In any case, for your information, here’s what the UK Met Office says about their official definition of a heatwave, the definition you say you were depending on and we were stupid not to have intuited (emphasis mine):

        How hot is a heat wave?

        There’s actually no official definition of a heat wave in the UK. In America, where high temperatures are more likely, the official classification is based on the Heat Index. The Heat Index temperature is a ‘feels-like’ temperature calculated by combining the temperature and relative humidity.

        Depending on the local climate, an excessive heat warning is issued when the Heat Index is expected to exceed 105 °- 110 °F (40 °C – 43 °C) for at least two consecutive days.

        Australia also has variable definitions depending on the state. In Adelaide, a heat wave is defined as five consecutive days at or above 35 °C, or three consecutive days at or over 40 °C. SOURCE

        In other words, your claim (both then and now) that you were using the official UK Met Office definition of a heat wave is no more true than most of your other claims … because there is no such definition, you just made it up.

        Why should I bother talking to you about it when you are not familiar with meteo standards and practice, you are exceedingly rude, and willfully ignorant, i.e. where you said: “Are you kidding? I try to avoid reading your claptrap at all, but somehow I get sucked in.”

        Me not familiar with meteo standards? You’re the fool claiming that the UKMO has an official definition of a heat wave, not me.

        And still, after all your blather and circumlocution, you have provided no numbers for your forecast. Dang. Color me unsurprised. And you were the man who claimed you would never do that, you would never refuse to divulge the numbers related to your forecast, hang on, let me get your exact claim …

        Willis said:

        “..you were asked over and over to give us the numbers needed to make your prediction real. You refused to give them.”

        Nonsense, I would never refuse such a thing.

        And yet, here we are AGAIN, just like last time, with you refusing to give us the numbers needed to make your claimed prediction real.

        And since you won’t reveal where you made this wonderful forecast or what it actually said, I gotta conclude that your so-called “forecast” was just handwaving of the best UKMO variety.

        w.

      • Me making things up lol, that’s what you have just done.

        “A heatwave refers to a prolonged period of hot weather, which may be accompanied by high humidity. We tend to use the World Meteorological Organization definition of a heatwave which is “when the daily maximum temperature of more than five consecutive days exceeds the average maximum temperature by 5 °C, the normal period being 1961-1990″. They are common in the northern and southern hemisphere during summer and classification and impacts vary globally.”

        http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/learning/learn-about-the-weather/weather-phenomena/heatwave

      • ulriclyons September 30, 2015 at 12:27 pm Edit

        Me making things up lol, that’s what you have just done.

        “A heatwave refers to a prolonged period of hot weather, which may be accompanied by high humidity. We tend to use the World Meteorological Organization definition of a heatwave which is “when the daily maximum temperature of more than five consecutive days exceeds the average maximum temperature by 5 °C, the normal period being 1961-1990″. They are common in the northern and southern hemisphere during summer and classification and impacts vary globally.”

        http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/learning/learn-about-the-weather/weather-phenomena/heatwave

        Since you are either too foolish or too arrogant to quote what you think I’m “making up”, I have no clue what you think I made up.

        In any case, your quote says the same as mine—THERE IS NO OFFICIAL UK STANDARD FOR A HEATWAVE, as you incorrectly claimed. They “tend to use” one standard and the rest of the time they use other standards.

        ulriclyons September 30, 2015 at 12:29 pm

        It took me 10 seconds to google for that link. What exactly is your problem?

        My problem is that you continue to refuse to reveal the location and the details of the prediction you announced so proudly up above … just like you refused to reveal them last time we had this discussion. Yes, you eventually revealed them there … but here you haven’t revealed them at all, despite your boast above that you would never do such a thing:

        Willis said:

        “..you were asked over and over to give us the numbers needed to make your prediction real. You refused to give them.”

        Nonsense, I would never refuse such a thing.

        w.

      • ulriclyons September 30, 2015 at 5:42 pm

        “My problem is that you continue to refuse to reveal the location and the details of the prediction you announced so proudly up above”

        A UK heatwave, and there was. The figures were on the old post, ““when the daily maximum temperature of more than five consecutive days exceeds the average maximum temperature by 5 °C, the normal period being 1961-1990″. Simple, end of.

        Heatwave? Who’s talking about a heatwave? Well, you are, but that’s only because you’re doing your best to focus on last year, in order to evade the questions I asked about the prediction you boasted about IN THIS THREAD, viz:

        p.s. the northeast US got that long cold shot from around 7 Jan 2014 that I predicted.

        Jeez, you quote me but you don’t even quote your own prediction? Break it out, dude, lets have a look at it. Does it specify what you are going to call “cold”, given that it’s for January? And how long is a “long” cold shot on your planet? One week? One month?

        Next, the area of the prediction. Piers Corbyn famously predicted forest fires in one state and claimed success when there were forest fires in the next state over … so did your prediction specify what area you were talking about? I mean, you don’t even specify the area now, just “northeast America” … how many states are you referring to, and which ones?

        Next, to be falsifiable you have to specify the way you’ll measure success. What temperature records are you going to use? I mean, if one state in the “northeast US” has a long cold spell whatever that means, and the other 9? 11? however many states are warmer than usual, is your prediction right or wrong?

        Because if a prediction of a “long cold shot” has no definition of either “long” or “cold”, or if you don’t say where it’s supposed to happen or how you plan to verify whether it happened or not … well, sorry, but that’s not a prediction at all.

        A prediction is like a bet, and at the end of the bet you have to have a way to determine who won and who lost. The prediction itself must specify enough details for us to clearly determine winners and losers.

        And if you are unwilling or unable to provide those details INCLUDING NUMBERS in your prediction, then as I told you back then, instead of actual specific predictions that can be verified or falsified, you’re giving us garbage. Trash. Crap. Useless twaddle. Nonsense.

        So point us to your prediction, and we can determine if it is falsifiable or not.

        That’s the third time I’ve quoted that and asked those questions. So wave your hands all you want, ulrich, and talk about your heatwave prediction ’til the cows come home. It may distract you, and some of the lurkers might be fooled, but I’m still patiently waiting for answers to my questions about the current prediction.

        Now, if you don’t have the albonidigas to answer scientific questions, let us know and I’ll quit asking. Until then, you can’t just pretend that you’ve given us the numbers. Won’t work, don’t bother trying, just makes you look evasive.

        w.

        PS—Since you’ve refused to give us the numbers despite being asked four separate times, your following claim is already falsified:

        Willis said:

        “..you were asked over and over to give us the numbers needed to make your prediction real. You refused to give them.”

        Nonsense, I would never refuse such a thing.

        There it is, folks …

    • “They “tend to use” one standard and the rest of the time they use other standards.”

      Is that a fact? how much of the rest of the time do they use other standards in the UK, and which standards are these? as you seem to be such an expert on the subject.

      “Since you are either too foolish or too arrogant to quote what you think I’m “making up”, I have no clue what you think I made up”

      Exactly what you claimed that I had made up, i.e.
      “In other words, your claim (both then and now) that you were using the official UK Met Office definition of a heat wave is no more true than most of your other claims … because there is no such definition, you just made it up.”
      This is getting very boring.

      “My problem is that you continue to refuse to reveal the location and the details of the prediction you announced so proudly up above”

      A UK heatwave, and there was. The figures were on the old post, ““when the daily maximum temperature of more than five consecutive days exceeds the average maximum temperature by 5 °C, the normal period being 1961-1990″. Simple, end of.

  58. i thought the standard definition of a heat wave here in the uk was more than two days in a row of sunshine ;)

Comments are closed.