Week in review – science edition

by Judith Curry

A few things that caught my eye this past week.

Uncertainty quantification of the multi-centennial response of the Antarctic ice sheet to climate change 

“India’s Depleting Groundwater: When Science Meets Policy”

Regime shift of global oceanic evaporation in the late 1990s [link]

2018 Florida Red Tide caused by ocean circulation, not climate change

Ito et al. (2019) “used a computational model of circulation and cycling of elements in the ocean to simulate [changes in seawater oxygen levels in the North Pacific] for the last approximately 70 years” and to understand their causes.  

A new 200‐year spatial reconstruction of West Antarctic surface mass balance

Regime shifts of Mediterranean forest carbon uptake and reduced resilience driven by multidecadal ocean surface temperatures

Identifying strong signals between low‐frequency climate oscillations and annual precipitation using long‐window correlation analysis

Observation-based estimate of global and basin ocean meridional heat transport time series

Constraining the aerosol influence on cloud liquid water path

A key factor initiating surface ablation of Arctic sea ice: earlier and increasing liquid precipitation (open access)

Effects of deforestation on the onset of the rainy season and the duration of dry spells in southern Amazonia

Non-uniform contribution of internal variability to recent Arctic sea ice loss

Impacts of exposure to ambient temperature on burden of disease: a systematic review of epidemiological evidence [link]

“wicked problems require a range of difficult perspectives, which should not only be included in the agenda setting of science but also in the assessment of scientific products.”

Evaluating climate model simulations of the radiative forcing and radiative response at the Earth’s surface

Water Vapor, Clouds, and Saturation in the Tropical Tropopause Layer –

Risks of hydroclimatic regime shifts across the western United States [link]

Late Cretaceous extreme warmth at high southern latitudes [link]

An unexpected spike in methane emissions threatens to negate or reverse efforts to stave off climate change by reducing CO2 emissions.

“We show that the changing coverage of weather stations in the Indian rainfall data leads to spurious increases in extreme rainfall. This suggests that previously reported trends of extreme rainfall are biased positive.”

Annual variability of ice-nucleating particle concentrations at different Arctic locations (open access)

Volume, heat and freshwater divergences in the subpolar North Atlantic suggest the Nordic Seas as key to the state of the meridional overturning circulation

On the spectrum of variability in climate models [link]

Factors affecting interdecadal variability of air–sea CO2 fluxes in the tropical Pacific, revealed by an ocean physical–biogeochemical model [link]

Inter-annual variability of wind and solar electricity generation and capacity values in Texas (open access)

A large uptick in dust activity in northern Mesopotamia roughly 4,200 years ago coincided with the decline of the Akkadian Empire. [link]

Variable external forcing obscures the weak relationship between the NAO and North Atlantic multi-decadal SST variability

“Most models largely underestimate photosynthetic carbon fixation and therefore likely overestimate future atmospheric CO2 abundance and ensuing climate change, though not proportionately”. [link]

Extreme precipitation is increasing, so why aren’t ?

Atlantic Zonal Mode: An emerging source of Indian summer monsoon variability in a warming world

Introducing ‘(un)safe (un)certainty’ as a framework for climate adaptation. Embracing uncertainty: A discursive approach to understanding pathways for climate adaptation in Senegal.

Responses of soil carbon sequestration to climate smart agriculture practices: A meta‐analysis

Formation of snow cover anomalies over the Tibetan Plateau in cold seasons

The Indian Ocean’s gravity has a huge dent in it, and seismologists are trying to figure out why.  

Social Science, technology & policy

On the financial viability of negative emissions [link]

Material efficiency strategies to reducing greenhouse gas emissions associated with buildings, vehicles, and electronics—a review (open access)

A new study in Nature Climate Change finds an even stronger case for reducing CO2 emissions to stabilize climate change through a shift from coal to natural gas. Findings are robust under range of leakage rates and uncertainties in emissions data. [link]

New Study Confirms EVs Considerably Worse For Climate Than Diesel Cars

Rand Corp: Deep decarbonization as a risk management challenge [link]

Unreliable Nature Of Solar And Wind Makes Electricity Much More Expensive [link]

U of Chicago:  Do renewable portfolio standards deliver? [link]

Pricing Carbon Isn’t Enough

About science and scientists

Being a black academic in America [link]

The Dearth of conservatives in academic philosophy [link]

Is it right to use intuition as evidence? [link]

A review of research on human errors in probabilistic reasoning and judgement biases

Drawing the line against campus radicals [link]

Why Are Women Under-Represented in Physics? [link]

Recent study of academic flying (N = 705) finds “no relationship between air travel emissions and metrics of academic productivity” [link]ory

Peter Ridd (Australia) wins huge victory for academic free speech, against climate ‘science’  [link]

Smith and Mount Holyoke colleges put new joint chief of police on leave after he “likes” conservative tweets. [link]

97 responses to “Week in review – science edition

  1. Thanks for your work in helping keep us informed, Dr. Curry. A few observations:

    1) The evaluation of UN IPCC climate models’ handling of radiation forcing and response at the surface shows us what we already intuit: Each modeling group makes up its own physics rules and parameterizations and there is no consistency in their “science.”

    2) The Abstract of the AGU paper on upper tropical tropospheric water vapor saturation seems to imply that there is no room for a CO2-induced water vapor hotspot. Am I reading that wrong?

    3) Severin Borenstein acknowledges that Developed-World CO2 taxes won’t have any significant effect on CO2 emissions because the Developing-World will not implement CO2 taxes on their higher emission levels. Even given that reality, he still wants high CO2 taxes, but coupled with Western governments’ massive funding of green energy technology scientific work and, presumably, giving large monetary incentives to individual innovators. I’m not clear on how he expects politicians and bureaucrats will pick scientific winners and, especially, decide on how grandly to reward budding Bill Gates’s. But, hope springs eternal, especially in people who are not responsible for implementing well-meaning policies.

    Thanks, again.

  2. I have a wife and three daughters; but any real man would be offended. And I’m sure you don’t care what anybody thinks, much less me; you’re a real sociopath.

    We are on a female’s blog site, fool. Is Dr. Curry offended? If you expected to get moderated with your vile presentation, why wouldn’t you expect your host to be offended by your boorish taste.

    Your comments show that you are a smarmy clod.

  3. To get serious for a moment.

    1. “Lorenz was able to show that even for a simple set of nonlinear equations (1.1), the evolution of the solution could be changed by minute perturbations to the initial conditions, in other words, beyond a certain forecast lead time, there is no longer a single, deterministic solution and hence all forecasts must be treated as probabilistic.” Julia Slingo and Tim Palmer

    Each model has

    • 1000’s of feasible solutions. The pysics you need to understand that is chaos theory.

      2. Where vapor is condensing and heat being released at higher altitudes – the atmosphere may remain saturated.


      3. China and India – and other developing – havde Paris commitments. They just don’t involve emission reductions. But energy innovation is the key to prosperity and productivity.

      No one is very good at picking winners – government should provide both tax incentives and contribute to prototype development. But it is very easy to pick superficial skeptic losers.

  4. https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/4/eaau1380.full

    This recent paper suggests that current day ice sheets thinning and flow can be influenced by physiographic and geological properties beyond external climate forcing. Other papers have noted the same possibilities in present day Ice Sheet dynamics but this paper reconstructs what possibly happened over 15,000 years since the last glacial maximum.

    • “The reconstruction reveals a significant negative trend (‐1.9 ± 2.2 Gt yr‐1 decade‐1) in the SMB over the entire WAIS during the 19th century, but a statistically significant positive trend of 5.4 ± 2.9 Gt yr‐1 decade‐1 between 1900 and 2010, in contrast to insignificant WAIS SMB changes during the 20th century reported earlier. At regional scales, the Antarctic Peninsula (AP) and western WAIS show opposite SMB trends, with different signs in the 19th and 20th centuries”
      “….significant negative trend….during the 19th Century…..”

      I don’t recall any previous paper suggesting a reduction in WAIS SMB pre 1900. It also raises the question of factors being at play as noted in the Bradwell, et al, 2019, paper linked above.

      So, we have geothermal activity under the Ice sheets, evidence that geomorphological properties influenced glacial thinning in the last 15,000 years and this paper noting SMB loss pre 1900.

      Sounds to me like a 3 on 1 fast break for Natural Variability.

    • https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2019/04/24/science.aav7908?intcmp=trendmd-sci

      This paper, Larour, et al, 2019, just released, entitled “Slowdown in Antarctica mass loss from solid earth and sea level feedbacks.”, adds to previous work of crustal uplift and grounding line migration.

      It is refreshing that research is finally digging into all processes that might be influencing Ice Sheet instability. Being obsessed with AGW to the extent that it blinds researchers to all other possibilities serves no one.

      • There are ice cores for Antarctic that go back 800 thousands years. That is proof the ice sheet is stable. The ice core data shows that when the temperature is warmer, ice accumulation is more. The ice core data shows that when the temperature is colder, ice accumulation is less. That alone, would cause ice sheet stability.

        The Greenland ice core data shows the same relationship between temperature and ice accumulation. Ice sheets are stable in both hemispheres. Ice accumulations are more when oceans are warmer and more thawed and ice accumulations are less when oceans are colder and more frozen.

      • Over the last ten thousand years, the north above 60 degrees has had a lowering of solar in and the south below 60 degrees has had an increase of solar in. That has reduced the ice accumulation in the Northern Hemisphere and increased the ice accumulation in the Southern Hemisphere. This is a factor in temperature regulation of the climate that is left out of Models and Theory.

      • I skimmed through the article. This is about the greatest ice sheet on earth. No mention of snowfall and ice accumulation. We have ice core data that could have been used. All ice sheets on land come from snowfall. We have data that tells about that. Study the ice accumulation rates as a function of temperature. This study did not consider where ice even comes from, throw it away.

  5. richswarthout

    I posted the following comment last night on another CE thread, before this thread came along. I hope it is as eye opening to the denizens as it was to me. It looks like things are happening at the DOE but at least one climate science organization is missing the target (IMHO).
    The DOE has initiated the Exoscale Computing Project (ECP) that will include the world’s most powerful and smartest supercomputer (the IBM Summit at Oak Ridge). Through its INCITE program, DOE is soliciting scientific research proposals that can utilize the ECP and there is a list of proposals that have been accepted so far.

    The following proposal highlights, to me, a problem in climate science research:

    The title of the proposal (it was accepted) is “High-Resolution Climate Sensitivity and Prediction Simulations with the CESM”

    It states “For 2019, the team has designed a set of three simulation sub-projects to assess parametric and structural uncertainty in earth system models, and to provide efficient guidance for future projects focused on longer timescale predictability.”

    “The first sub-project employs the Cloud-Associated Parametrizations Testbed (CAPT), a framework that provides a computationally efficient method to identify parametrization errors in earth system simulations, so as to investigate error growth in the coupled system.”

    The problem I have with this proposal is that it’s the wrong proposal at the wrong time. With an opportunity to use the most advanced supercomputers, scientists should be seeking to more fully understand cloud dynamics and interactions, rather than seeking new cloud parameters for existing and unsuccessful models. These scientists are jumping the shark and wasting resources!


  6. Bad link given to “Risks of hydroclimatic regime shifts across the western United States.”

    Here is the correct link:


  7. Students protesting likes by the police chief.

    I wonder if their GPA might go up if they spent that time studying rather than protesting.

    If students are so fragile that liking a Merry Christmas Tweet triggers them, are they really prepared for the rough and tumble of the real world, like getting fired.

    There is only a fine line between freedom of speech and freedom of thought. We don’t have the technology to determine thought……yet. But the day is coming. Those who want to destroy freedom of thought and expression now will be the same ones to quash freedom of thought when the technology becomes available.

    What would the Framers think? Forget them. Who cares. They were slave owners anyway, and their statues are on somebody’s list for destruction.

  8. Inter-annual variability of wind and solar electricity generation and capacity values in Texas (open access) https://buff.ly/2UGA6Xi

    We are spending more for taxes and power to provide less reliable energy.

    Go back to Nuclear and Coal and Gas. Climate change is natural and it is not outside historical bounds. They are getting rich selling less energy for more profit and they must scare people to get them to pay more.

  9. Dr Curry, here are a few videos you missed. Some Teenagers are taking on climate change. They add a lot of humor to the science.

    • David Wojick

      Of course “these of reports mine” should be these reports of mine. New cat exploring keyboard as I type.

  10. The Ocean’s Biggest Waves Are Getting Even Bigger
    “The researchers found that extreme winds in the Southern Ocean have increased by 1.5 metres per second, or 8 per cent, over the past 30 years. Extreme waves have increased by 30 centimetres, or 5 per cent, over the same period. The researchers, a pair of scientists from the University of Melbourne Department of Infrastructure Engineering in Australia, have built the largest-ever database of wind and wave data, and found that both increased significantly between 1985 and 2018.”

    The NASA HALO and European Aeolus satellite were built to study this important atmospheric phenomena.

    • Jack,

      At what point does this become data mining? Take massive databases and look for small changes over time (8% over 30 years) that meet the narrative (ignore those that don’t). Publish!

      Restated, how to assess the probability that this is random – a result of the methodology followed?

      It looks like a case study for the Replication Crisis.

    • There are ocean cycles around the earth, there have always been cycles. Waves increase in some places while they decrease in others, no one looks for the decreases.

      • David Wojick

        True, but I doubt that these statistical estimates for the entire Southern Ocean are accurate to 8% over 30 years, not even close.

    • Curious George

      The numbers don’t make sense. 30 cm is 5%, meaning an “extreme wave” is 6 m. I don’t know much about the Southern Ocean, but “rogue waves” in Northern Atlanic can be well over 15 m.

    • “Since “panta rhei” was pronounced by Heraclitus, hydrology and the objects it studies, such as rivers and lakes, have offered grounds to observe and understand change and flux. Change occurs on all time scales, from minute to geological, but our limited senses and life span, as well as the short time window of instrumental observations, restrict our perception to the most apparent daily to yearly variations. As a result, our typical modelling practices assume that natural changes are just a short-term “noise” superimposed on the daily and annual cycles in a scene that is static and invariant in the long run. According to this perception, only an exceptional and extraordinary forcing can produce a long-term change. The hydrologist H.E. Hurst, studying the long flow records of the Nile and other geophysical time series, was the first to observe a natural behaviour, named after him, related to multi-scale change, as well as its implications in engineering designs. Essentially, this behaviour manifests that long-term changes are much more frequent and intense than commonly perceived and, simultaneously, that the future states are much more uncertain and unpredictable on long time horizons than implied by standard approaches. Surprisingly, however, the implications of multi-scale change have not been assimilated in geophysical sciences. A change of perspective is thus needed, in which change and uncertainty are essential parts.” https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02626667.2013.804626

      With a lack of perspective – do you assume anthropogenic causation of short term variability?

  11. Dr Curry, thank you again for this large collection.

  12. This 1800-2010 reconstruction (using ice cores) of WAIS (West Antarctic Ice Sheet) mass balance by Wang et al 2019, shows something remarkable.


    Mass balance on the WAIS increased between 1900 and 2010.
    Is this not surprising considering all the discussion of melting of the WAIS?
    How can melting be reconciled with mass balance gain?

    Equally remarkable is negative WAIS mass balance (loss) during 1800-1900. This was the tail end of the little ice age where gain might be expected.

    Perhaps all this is an indication of an interhemispheric see-saw in operation – opposite climate trends in the two hemispheres.

    • Phil
      Of the comments and links I provided above, the reference to loss from 1800-1900 was the most interesting. I’m quite sure I’ve read other papers stating that SMB loss began in the 1940s. I have no idea of why they thought it began at that particular date.
      It certainly goes against the AGW narrative, as do the other papers I linked. The other studies though don’t seem to be as significant as the one you mentioned.

      I hope some denizens will weigh in on what appears to be quite a remarkable paper simply because it suggests SMB loss well before 1950.

      • We just came out of the Little Ice Age, of course we have lost ice, that is how ice cycles work. We are warm now and that is when ice accumulation becomes enough to replace the lost ice, Ice core data shows us that.

      • Short term cycles are just blips in the thousand year ice age warm period cycles that have dominated the recent ten thousand years.

      • We have had ice loss since the coldest time in the Little Ice Age. That stops after we are warm enough to increase ice accumulation enough.
        There have been little cycles of more and less ice loss, and now there will be little cycles of more and less ice gain. We came out of the last Little Ice Age and we will go into the next Little Ice Age when ice volume and weight are sufficient to increase ice flow rates to more than ice loss rates.

        This is well documented in Ice Core Data. Temperature and Ice Accumulation Rates are in the data.

    • The linked paper showed that from 1800-1900 WAIS was losing ice.
      And that from 1900-2010 WAIS was gaining ice.
      So I repeat my question – how can WAIS gaining ice be reconciled with accelerating and alarming melting of WAIS?
      (Or does it even have to be – guess its a naive question.)

  13. All ice sheets on land come from snowfall. We have data that tells about that. Study the ice accumulation rates as a function of temperature.

    There is more ice accumulations when oceans are warmer and thawed, less ice accumulations when oceans are colder and frozen.

    Ice loss from ice flowing and dumping in the oceans is a function of ice volume and weight. When volume and weight are high, ice loss is high. When volume and weight are low, ice loss is low.

    These factors are responsible for stable ice sheets and climate cycles due to changes in ice extent.

  14. The Dearth of conservatives in academic philosophy [link]

    The ‘streetlight effect,’ as the Sufi tale goes– academics are simply looking, not thinking, if they keep looking for the missing keys under the street lamp because the light is better …

  15. David Wojick

    Another problem with grid scale batteries — they explode! See “‘Reasons that are still unknown’: 30 experts investigate Surprise battery explosion that injured 9” https://ux.azcentral.com/story/money/business/energy/2019/04/23/arizona-public-service-provides-update-investigation-battery-fire-aps-surprise/3540437002/

    The irony here is that the explosion occurred just after a big conference on battery storage ended in town. The exploding battery facility was only 1200 feet from the nearest residence. This is now likely to change. Chemical energy in vast quantities is tricky stuff.

  16. David L. Hagen (HagenDL)

    Proposed Mitigation costing 3/4th of total government expenditures!
    Bednar et al. 2019 “On the financial viability of negative emissions [link]” explore the consequences of proposed CO2 mitigation actions:

    Cost allocation following considerations of intra- and intergenerational effort sharing in line with the Brazilian Proposal8 would lead to public spending peaking at 15% of GDP in Annex I countries (UNFCCC) as depicted in Fig. 2, rendering the implementation of this mechanism extremely difficult (see SI B)

    With US federal spending of 21% of GDP, the UNFCCC is proposing “mitigation” of 71% of US government spending!
    Roger Pielke Jr’s “iron law of climate policy dictates that whenever environmental and economic objectives are placed in opposition to each other, economics always wins.”
    50% of US federal budget is for social security and medicare etc.
    Asking taxpayers to bury in the ground 150% of all social security plus medicare with negligible benefit will be an absolute non-starter!
    No mention of adaptation.
    Nor of making sustainable fuel cheaper than fossil fuels.

    • I think they are suggesting that a carbon tax early is less costly than bio-energy and carbon capture and storage late in the century. I take it you agree?

      • David L. Hagen (HagenDL)

        NO. Why pay MORE for insurance than the potential LOSS? Adaptation should be far less expensive.

      • It would depend on what is being adapted to. And negative emissions – nebulous as that is – is what they were comparing it to.

  17. Wrong meme? Read the impulse to totalitarianism. But is the reaction here to a word in common parlance? The implication that this is a prominently American problem? Or my challenge to Climate etc groupthink?

    “Solar panels and wind turbines are making electricity significantly more expensive, a major new study by a team of economists from the University of Chicago finds.

    Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) “significantly increase average retail electricity prices, with prices increasing by 11% (1.3 cents per kWh) seven years after the policy’s passage into law and 17% (2 cents per kWh) twelve years afterward,” the economists write.” Michael Shellenberger

    Based on a study that doesn’t seem to be available. As I said – it is about 10% across Australia and the result of government intervention and not necessarily due to intrinsic costs of the technology.

  18. Curious George

    Being a black academic in America: It is a collection of anecdotal “evidence”. My impression is that the primary culprit is a skewed admissions process. It allows less qualified black students to enroll in universities. Then the less qualified students struggle and drop out – it is very unfair to them, as they lose years and accumulate a significant debt. It is also unfair for qualified students who are then looked at with a suspicion – is (s)he here because (s)he is good, or because (s)he is black?

    • Curious George

      “the primary culprit is a skewed admissions process.”

      Maureen Downey, in the Atlanta Journal Constitution April 16 had an article on the low pass rate (47%) of all elementary teachers on a standardized licensing examination (Praxis). Further differentiating test pass rates found:

      “only 38 percent of black teacher candidates… pass the most widely used licensing test even after multiple attempts,”

      Maureen Downey had another article in AJC April 26 on poor teacher retention especially in minority dominant schools.

      The gist of the articles was that those who wanted to be teachers had poor preparation from poor college course selection to low expectations but also having elementary math skills, unable to pass middle school math exams.

      In the Cleveland Plain Dealer today (April 27) was an article on the take over by the State of Ohio of the East Cleveland school system imposing a CEO whose primary focus was to get adults involved in their child’s education as an attempt to address high student and teacher absenteeism.

      It seems to me that the students who make it through the college application process have already navigated a gauntlet of adversity. It should come as no surprise to anyone that high name recognition schools have improved their appearance of diversity by admitting applicant immigrants from Africa and those whose parents are many times mixed race like President Obama.

      On top of the preparation issues, many African Americans in academia as I have experienced as colleagues, feel lost, in a wilderness, not knowing whom to trust. The many more Africans with whom I interacted in academia as colleagues, negotiate their way through the maelstrom just as their Asian, Latino and white counterparts, successfully.

      To me, there is a culture of victimhood in the African American population which serves as a drag on many people’s progress.

  19. There’s a remarkable disconnect between the very disparate results presented–on log-log graphs–for the spectra of variability of climate models and those of proxy data and the sanguine conclusions drawn therefrom. While discrepancies over an order of magnitude are glossed over, the mere similarity of power-laws governing the broad continuum is claimed to indicate that the the physics of the models “is fundamentally sound.” The conclusion is drawn, without any analytic justification, that ‘global temperature is more predictable than has been supposed.” Furthermore, the stunning hypothesis is posited that “today’s climate variations at decadal to centennial scales are echoes of the last Ice Age.”

    While the “memory” of the ocean in some of its modes of temperature variability is indeed quite long, those modes involve dynamically-uncertain, slow, turbulent transport over great distances, which changes the temperature of the water in a highly unpredictable, chaotic manner. Even if models were capable of specifying the dynamics of global transport very accurately, the unpredictability would not disappear. In the best of circumstances, power spectra can only specify ensemble properties, never any actual time-domain realization of a chaotic variable. Any idea that there can be practically useful, purely empirical predictability of a very wide-band process is ludicrous.

    What we see in the blog-musings of a self-described “gonzo climate scientist” are the ambitious academic dreams of the scientifically immature.

  20. ‘Variable external forcing obscures the weak relationship between the NAO and North Atlantic multi-decadal SST variability’

    Well the relationship would be weaker only using the cold season, especially when the stronger negative NAO episodes are occurring in other seasons. It’s not like the other negative NAO episodes have no effect on the AMO. Looking at the noise level, negative NAO episodes drive positive AMO anomalies with a lag in weeks. While looking at trends of the NAO cold season only and with an imagined 10 year lag, this study has reversed the NAO-AMO relationship, and in doing so, has also reversed the AMO response to their external forcing. Positive NAO does not drive a warm AMO.

  21. sheldonjwalker

    Do Alarmists believe in evolution?

    Everybody who is worried about global warming, should answer these 2 simple yes/no questions.

    1) Did humans evolve near Kenya, Africa?

    2) Should humans be able to tolerate temperatures similar to Kenya’s?

    The obvious answers to both of these 2 simple questions, are Yes, and Yes.

    But no Alarmist can manage to say the answers. Can you see why?

    I have even asked a climate scientist to answer these 2 questions. I received no answer.

    For people who are interested, here are the real absolute temperatures for Kenya (in degrees Celsius) are:

    winter = 14.7

    average = 21.5

    summer = 29.1

    Nice and warm !!!

    The temperature in Kenya is not below 14.7 very often, and the average is 21.5

    In summer, the temperature in Kenya is often around 29.1 degrees Celsius.

    Humans evolved in a hot country. Later, many humans migrated to colder countries. But we didn’t evolve in a cold country.

    That is why humans can tolerate heat, better than they can tolerate cold.

    For more global warming / real absolute temperature facts, read this article:


    • So Norwegians – only surviving through technology – may be marginally more comfortable – and Kenyans may be driven beyond physiological limits?

      Mind you prediction may be problematic in an abruptly shifting climate.

      • sheldonjwalker

        Robert I. Ellison

        Abruptly shifting climate ???

        Is changing by 0.02 degrees Celsius per year, too fast for you to cope with?

        I have some bad news for you about sea level rise. You should start running NOW !!!

        Why will Norwegians only be affected a little bit (in your words – may be marginally more comfortable), but Kenyans will be affected a lot (in your words – may be driven beyond physiological limits)?

        5% of humans (about 397 million) live with an average summer temperature of over 38 degrees Celsius. Kenya’s average summer temperature is only 29.1 degrees Celsius. They can easily cope with warmer temperatures.

        Humans can tolerate warmth, better than they can tolerate cold.

      • I am at some 5m above HAT. Not going anywhere.

        If you have never heard of abrupt climate change – I guess it will come as a surprise.

        But what bit of Norwegians not needing to dress up so warm don’t you understand?

      • sheldonjwalker

        It always makes me laugh, when I see pictures of Greta Thunberg.

        Greta is from Sweden. A cold country.
        – average winter temperature = -3.9 degrees Celsius
        – average temperature = 7.1 degrees Celsius
        – average summer temperature = 21.1 degrees Celsius

        Greta is almost always wearing a thick padded jacket, a scarf wrapped around her neck many times, thick gloves, and a warm woolly hat.

        She is often surrounded by snow.

        Sometimes it looks like she has frost, on her eyebrows !!!

        Her clothing is totally inconsistent with being warm, or global warming. She is dressed to prevent freezing to death.

        Why don’t Alarmists see this?

        Where is global warming, when you need some warmth?

      • Greta seems a bit of a non sequitur. Is she dressing less warm?

        But at 40C peak temperature – averages may by of less physiological interest – you need to get out of the heat. And temperature is not strictly correlated to latitude.


        What peak temperature rise are you predicting for 2100 CE?

      • sheldonjwalker

        Which part of “Swedish and Norwegian people are dressing like they are in danger of freezing to death”, don’t you understand?

        Freezing is the opposite of over-heating.

        Greta is NOT a non sequitur. The person who is complaining most about global warming, is acting in a way that directly contradicts what she is saying.

        Is it too much to ask for consistency, from the people who claim that global warming is dangerous? It looks like cold, is much more dangerous.

      • The first Norwegian Olympic swim team.


        The Kenyan swim team.

        So the difference is taking off a sweater or heat stroke? What a funny guy you are.

      • sheldonjwalker

        The first Norwegian Olympic swim team all died of hypothermia, 5 seconds after that photo was taken.

        The Kenyan Olympic swim team won the gold medal, because they were the only other team left in the contest.

        I think that YOU are the funny guy.

        Funny peculiar. Not funny ha ha.

      • But surely the point is that Norway and Kenya both warm by an amount that you haven’t predicted? And the Kenyans have an unspecified increase in the number of days above 40C? Peak temperatures and not averages.

        But it is worse than that. Climate is a complex dynamical system thus deterministically chaotic hence abrupt and in principle beyond predictable.
        Dimitris Koutsoyiannis here redefines random as unpredictable and deterministic as predictable.

        “Here I argue that such views should be reconsidered by admitting that uncertainty is an intrinsic property of nature, that causality implies dependence of natural processes in time, thus suggesting predictability, but even the tiniest uncertainty (e.g. in initial conditions) may result in unpredictability after a certain time horizon.” https://www.hydrol-earth-syst-sci.net/14/585/2010/

        But if you can’t predict the future how would you know? Or is this the warm is good skeptic groupthink and cognitive dissonance has kicked in?

        I just wan’t to get to the bottom

      • sheldonjwalker

        Life is full of surprises.

        Are you frightened of uncertainty?

        Is an unpredicted temperature of 41 degrees Celsius any worse than a predicted temperature of 41 degrees Celsius?

        Our ancestors survived full ice ages, and interglacial periods similar to today. They never knew what was coming next.

        Our ancestors had far less resources and technology than we have. They still survived.

        More than 5% of humans (about 397 million), live with average summer temperatures above 38.0 degrees Celsius. Why haven’t they all died?

        Do you know how many people die from the cold? It is a lot. A lot more than die from heat.

      • Really? An average summer temp of 38C?


        But fewer cold and more heat deaths in a climate changing in ways you have not a clue about?


        Evasion and unresponsive obfuscation. I am beginning to suspect you of talking through your arse.

      • sheldonjwalker

        Do you think that America is the whole world?

        Yes, An average summer temperature of OVER 38.0 degrees Celsius.

        Try Kuwait, average summer temperature = 44.5 C (population 4.2 million)

        Or Iraq, average summer temperature = 42.2 C (population 40.4 million)

        As I said before, more than 5% of humans (about 397 million), live with average summer temperatures above 38.0 degrees Celsius. Why haven’t they all died?

        Have a look at my map of Northern Hemisphere Summer/Southern Hemisphere Winter temperatures

        Then have a look at my map of Northern Hemisphere Winter/Southern Hemisphere Summer temperatures

        Look at how cold most of the Northern Hemisphere gets, north of the Tropic of Cancer. Most locations have an average temperature less than zero, with some 0 to 5, and some 5 to 10.

        You can check the average, winter, and summer temperatures for 216 countries here

        I find it hard to believe your Weather Fatalities numbers. They look far too low.

        I am beginning to suspect that you ARE an arse.

      • The highest average temp in Kuwait happens at the end of July and is 38.3. How much that will increase by you don’t have a freakin’ clue.



        Peak temperatures can be be much higher – which is when all the dying happens.

        The US was chosen because the data is better and it has such diverse regional climates – the data is given state by state.

        And do you seriously think I should give a rat’s arse whether you believe NOAA and the CDC on US fatalities? Or that I can be bothered with a motivated blog analysis of the wrong metric? But I can confirm your suspicion that I am an arse.

      • sheldonjwalker

        I would rather have a civil discussion, without name calling. I usually respond to name calling, by being equally or more obnoxious. But I will try to be nice.

        I have very detailed temperature information for the whole Earth. Tavg, Tmax, and Tmin, for every month, for over 24,000 locations. I have 2 locations in Kuwait (Kuwait City and Ad Dasma’).

        I have spent months researching world temperatures. I probably have a better idea than most people, how much temperatures will increase. I used the GISTEMP gridded Land-Ocean Temperature Index (LOTI), to work out the theoretical temperature increase since 1880, for every 2 x 2 latitude-longitude cell of the Earth (all 16,200 of them).


        By looking at the CO2 level in 1880, and in 2019, I can estimate the temperature increase for any given CO2 level.

        America is not hot, compared to some of the rest of the world.

        I did a quick Google search on “how many people die from cold in america”

        One of the webpages that I found, was this one


        The webpage says, “Each year in the United States, about 1,330 people die of cold exposure, essentially freezing to death. You may picture outdoor adventurers dying of hypothermia on snowy mountaintops. While rates are higher in rural areas, many cold-related deaths and illnesses occur in cities too.”

        The figure of 1,330 looks reasonable to me.

        The graph that you displayed for Baghdad?, agrees with my temperatures quite well. I find the Y-axis of the graph a bit strange, because they don’t have even steps of temperature.
        It goes (0, 8, 17, 25, 33, 42, 50). So the steps are (8, 9, 8, 8, 9, 8)
        Why not use equal steps?

      • I was thinking Florida with high humidity and occasionally extreme temps. This is the 1958 NASA result that didn’t appear above None of your temps matter a damn.


        “Extreme heat and extreme cold both kill hundreds of people each year in the U.S., but determining a death toll for each is a process subject to large errors. In fact, two major U.S. government agencies that track heat and cold deaths–NOAA and the CDC–differ sharply in their answer to the question of which is the bigger killer. One reasonable take on the literature is that extreme heat and extreme cold are both likely responsible for at least 1300 deaths per year in the U.S. In cities containing 1/3 of the U.S. population, a warming climate is expected to increase the number of extreme temperature deaths by 3900 – 9300 per year by 2090, at a cost of $60 – $140 billion per year. However, acclimatization or other adaptation efforts, such as increased use of air conditioning, may cut these numbers by more than one-half.” https://www.wunderground.com/cat6/Which-Kills-More-People-Extreme-Heat-or-Extreme-Cold

        You didn’t actually read the link did you?

        Acclimatization in Norway happened long ago. And there are other and nonlinear factors in climate than CO2.

        I think your behavior shows a resistance to consideration of alternate views in favour of your grossly simplified memes. I suggest less fiddling with temps and more reading in nuanced Earth system science. For God’s sake you have not heard of abrupt climate change. Google it. As for accusing me of being an arse – I was told it takes one to know one.

      • sheldonjwalker

        I find it amusing, that you think that your temperatures matter, but mine don’t.

        What special quality do your temperatures have, that mine don’t have.

        Bear in mind, that I have temperature data for over 24,000 locations on the Earth.

        Since you want to fight about deaths from cold, I will quote another part of the webpage I found

        Cold-related illness and death are underreported because only a small number are appropriately recognized and coded as hypothermia and tissue damage. Yet, cold temperatures can worsen conditions like heart disease and respiratory illness, causing hospitalizations and deaths that may not be recognized as related to the cold on death certificates or hospital records. Still, focusing on those cases that are recognized and coded as cold-related can provide valuable information.

        I don’t call a warming rate of 0.01 to 0.02 degrees Celsius per year, abrupt climate change.

        Seasonal warming is 2,500 times faster !!!

        Global warming is weak and puny, compared to seasonal warming.

        Global warming is slow motion climate change.

      • “To paraphrase C. S. Lewis, the climate system appears wild, and may continue to hold many surprises if pressed.” https://www.pnas.org/content/106/38/16120

        On both the cool and warm ends of the spectrum. I added the Koutsoyiannis quote for a reason – to provide a millennial scale climate context without which Earth system dynamics remain a mystery.

        But again – the difference is between extremes – both warm and cold – and averages.

      • nobodysknowledge

        If there are enough food, norwegians can survive a cold climate. During LIA there were famines and high death rate because of failing crops. A couple of giant volcano eruptions would make the people more vulnerable, if it wasn`t for global warming.

  22. In this election season – the sight of affluent Australians attempting to subvert international rules is morally repugnant. The Labor Party, greens and striking school girls are both dumb and immoral.


  23. Can someone explain to me why the hothouse late Cretaceous, with high temperatures and high CO2, was catastrophic? How did any insects survive – if the BBC now tell us that 100 more years of current warming will kill all insects?


    During the Late Cretaceous, Earth was a greenhouse world characterized by extreme temperatures and high concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Records from the Falkland Plateau in the southern Atlantic Ocean suggest that during the period of peak warmth, which lasted from about 100 to 90 million years ago, sea surface temperatures at middle to high southern latitudes exceeded 30°C, conditions that were significantly hotter than today’s mean annual average of 0°C. But because these data have been difficult to reconcile with climate models and other proxy records, scientists have debated whether they truly reflect global climatic conditions.

    Now O’Connor et al. further explore this question using TEX86, an organic paleothermometer regularly used to reconstruct past sea surface temperatures. The team applied this technique to Late Cretaceous sediment samples collected at Deep Sea Drilling Project drilling Sites 327 and 511 on the Falkland Plateau as well as Ocean Drilling Program Sites 1138 and 1135 on the Kerguelen Plateau in the southern Indian Ocean. All four locations lay between 50°S and 60°S from about 100 to 66 million years ago.

    The data indicate that Late Cretaceous sea surface temperatures ranged from 27°C to 37°C at these locations. Because these results are comparable to other local proxy data as well as the global TEX86 records, the authors conclude their data accurately reflect long-term global trends and therefore corroborate previous interpretations of extreme warmth during the Late Cretaceous at Earth’s subpolar latitudes. The study results also show that after sea surface temperatures peaked during the Cenomanian-Turonian time interval, around 94 million years ago, Earth’s climate experienced a slow and steady cooling trend that lasted for at least 16 million years.

    These findings also highlight the discrepancy between proxy records and climate model simulations, which struggle to reproduce such warm conditions at middle to high latitudes…

  24. Regime shifts of Mediterranean forest carbon uptake and reduced resilience driven by multidecadal ocean surface temperatures https://buff.ly/2vhuiUT

    One of the key skills of a climate scientist is to apply the hand of a conjurer to turn a good news story into a bad news story.

    For example the above paper goes into intricate contortions to show that ENSO and AMO affects “carbon” (yes all those black soot particles floating around in the atmosphere) uptake in Mediterranean forests and this is expertly processed into bad news.

    However the bigger picture is that carbon (dioxide) uptake increase due to anthropogenic CO2 increase (i.e. greening of the planet) is 60% more than had previously been assumed in models, according to this Nature paper:


    Think of all those pestilential trees encroaching onto grassland and that sinister unnatural grass disfiguring pristine desert! Save us Greta save us!! David Attenborough was so right not to mention that nasty word “photosynthesis” one single time in his entire documentary on plants 🌱 on earth.

    • “Driven by a strong CO2 fertilization effect, magnitude of NBP increased from 27.17 TgC/yr in the 1980s to 34.39 TgC/yr in the 1990s but decreased to 23.70 TgC/yr in the 2000s due to change in climate. Adoption of forest conservation, management, and reforestation policies in the past decade has promoted carbon sequestration in the ecosystems, but this effect has been offset by loss of carbon from ecosystems due to rising temperatures and decrease in precipitation.” https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2017GL075777

      Ignoring a strong reliance on adjectives – the key to carbon uptake – plants take up carbon and not carbon dioxide – is net biome production. The net of photosynthesis and respiration that varies with environmental conditions. Note the “amplified seasonal swings of atmospheric CO2 concentration” in the Winkler et al paper.

      The other paper suggests that shifting patterns of terrestrial drought is associated with patterns of ocean surface temps – and influence carbon uptake in the modern era. Shifting ocean regimes have been with us always.


      Think of it as a puzzle where diverse bits of science are synthesized into the real bigger picture of the Earth system as a whole. This is quite unlike the climateball practice of accepting or rejecting bits of science based on personal antipathies. You should – btw – knock off the purple prose.

  25. In this case the dog was able to bark in the night:

    “The case has identified a culture of censorship when it comes to challenging claims surrounding climate change and the Great Barrier Reef. Not once did JCU attempt to disprove claims made by Dr Ridd about the Great Barrier Reef.”

    “Fearmongering about the health of the Great Barrier Reef must now desist.”

    “JCU has shredded the idea that Australian universities have any sort of commitment to scientific integrity and free academic inquiry. JCU’s actions prove the depth of the free speech crisis confronting Australia’s universities.”

    “Australian Universities must now commit to signing up to the model code as recommended by the Hon. Robert French AC in his review of freedom of speech at Australian Universities,” said Mr Rozner.

  26. can’t see the forest for the trees

  27. “Many lakes and estuaries around the world, which provide drinking water for millions of people, and support a myriad of ecosystem services, already have toxic, food web-altering, hypoxia-generating blooms of cyanobacteria. The occurrence is driven by high inputs of nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) to the ecosystems from human sources.(1) To reduce the frequency and intensity of noxious and sometimes toxic cyanobacteria blooms, sizable reductions of both N and P are urgently needed.(2) Yet, Climate change will severely affect our ability to control blooms, and in some cases could make it near impossible.” https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.5b03990

    Nitrogen and phosphorous inputs cause algal blooms. Because global warming is so good for life – there is more biomass. Sediment below some 1cm is anoxic as a result of limited oxygen diffusion. In anoxic environments nitrogen is transformed to gaseous dinitrogen or nitrous oxide that is lost to the atmosphere. Insoluble orthophosphate – a crystalline lattice – is transformed into soluble forms by faculative organisms stripping the molecule of oxygen. The oxic 1cm top of sediment keeps the soluble phosphorus contained. When the algal bloom dies and settles on the bottom decomposition depletes oxygen in the surface of the sediment allowing a surge of soluble and bioavailable phosphorus to move into the water column. This change in the balance of bioavailable nutrients favors nitrogen fixing red tides.

    But the most important question is whether or not it is caused by global warming?

  28. Billiard balls and two holes (Strangelove mechanics)

    The highest energy cosmic rays that travel at almost the speed of light have enormous kinetic energy. A single proton has a kinetic energy equal to a baseball moving at 94 kph. We are so familiar with the concept of kinetic energy that we take it for granted that modern physics does not explain it. According to modern physics, there are four fundamental forces: gravity, electromagnetism, strong nuclear and weak nuclear. All kinds of energy must be one of these four forces. Kinetic energy is not one of them. Potential energy from the four forces can be converted to kinetic energy. However, kinetic energy itself is not any of these forces.

    For example, a proton can be accelerated using a magnetic field or a gravitational field. The kinetic energy is identical regardless of the field that accelerated it. We cannot tell the difference. Even when the fields disappear, the kinetic energy remains. Its existence does not depend on the fields. This implies that kinetic energy is unique from electromagnetism and gravity.

    Even the mundane billiard ball defies modern physics. Let‘s see how modern physics explains how billiard balls work. General relativity is a field theory of gravity. It does not explain how billiard balls conserve momentum. The collision of billiard balls does not require a gravitational field. Quantum mechanics states that electrons cannot have the same four quantum numbers. Electrons cannot be at the same point in space. This partly explains why billiard balls bounce when they collide. The electrons in the balls cannot occupy the same space. The repulsive electromagnetic force between electrons pushes the balls away from each other.

    However, this is not the whole story. The repulsive force is inversely proportional to the distance between electrons. They have to be compressed to reduce the distances and increase the repulsive force enough to move the balls. The electromagnetic force is a reaction force. It is a reaction to the compression of electrons. So what is the action force? The force that caused the compression in the first place.

    The clue that a 5th force exists comes from classical physics. It is so fundamental that Newton and Euler made it their first laws. The two giants of physics intuitively knew the 5th force. Newton’s 3rd law gives a better insight how billiard balls work than quantum mechanics. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Quantum mechanics gives the reaction of electrons. The action comes from Newton’s first law. The moving ball has inertia. Newton made separate laws for inertia and gravity. He knew inertia is independent of gravitational force.

    Euler is even more explicit than Newton. The action of the billiard ball is described by Euler’s first law:
    F = dp/dt
    Where F is a force and dp/dt is the time derivative of momentum. This is a force different from gravitational force. Causality is reversible in Euler’s equation. It can be viewed as a force causing a change in momentum of the ball, or a change in momentum of the ball causing a force. The momenta of billiard balls are conserved in elastic collisions. Exchange of momenta is triggered by an impact force.

    Theoretical physicists think there is nothing new to discover from classical physics. New discoveries will have to come from modern physics. I turn this assertion on its head. Our knowledge of kinetic energy, inertia and momentum comes from classical physics. Modern physics does not have a theory why kinetic energy exists at all. So I formulated one.

    In his famous physics lecture, Feynman said the two-hole experiment is the only mystery in quantum mechanics. Nobody can explain it because nobody understands quantum mechanics. It implies that physicists don’t know what they’re talking about in the interpretations of quantum mechanics. I will show that the mystery of the two-hole experiment is intimately related to the mystery of kinetic energy. The solution to the two mysteries leads to the 5th fundamental force that also explains many things such as:

    Where does kinetic energy come from?
    How is momentum conserved?
    Where does impulse come from?
    What is matter-wave?
    What is a wave-particle duality?
    How is matter-wave interference created?
    How is superposition created?
    What is a probability wave?
    Why is a particle like a harmonic oscillator?
    How do particles get entangled?
    What does “collapse of wave function” mean? The so-called measurement problem
    How does locality lead to relativity of time and apparent non-conservation of energy?
    How does nonlocality lead to absolute time and actual non-conservation of energy?
    All of these are answered when I combined Euler’s law with quantum mechanics and converted it to a quantum field theory. I call it Strangelove mechanics.

    The laws of Strangelove mechanics

    1st law: A point particle moving in the Strangelove field experiences a centripetal force perpendicular to its velocity and pointed towards its moving center of mass.
    F = m v^2 /r
    r = y/(2 π)
    Where: F is Strangelove force, m is mass of particle, v is velocity of particle, r is orbital radius, y is wavelength of matter-wave

    2nd law: Kinetic energy is equivalent to Strangelove force.
    E = 1/2 F r = 1/2 m v^2
    Where: E is kinetic energy, F is Strangelove force

    3rd law: Impulse is the product of Strangelove force and period.
    I = 1/(2 π) F t
    Where: I is impulse, F is Strangelove force, t is period or inverse frequency of matter-wave

    4th law: Strange boson is the force carrier of Strangelove force and exchange particle of Strangelove field.
    p’ = p^2/41
    Where: p’ is Strange boson (quantized momentum), p is momentum of particle, 41 is ratio of Planck constant and Planck length

    5th law: Matter-wave is the oscillation of Strangelove field.
    y = h/p
    f = v/y
    A = y/4
    Where: h is Planck constant, f is frequency, A is amplitude of matter-wave

    6th law: Kinetic energy of matter-wave is proportional to amplitude and equivalent to Strangelove force.
    E = 2 h f/y A = ½ F r
    Where: F is Strangelove force, r is orbital radius

    7th law: Superposition is the splitting of matter-wave amplitude into fractional wave amplitudes.
    A = ∑ a
    Where: a is fractional wave amplitudes

    8th law: Matter-wave interference is the cancellation of fractional wave amplitudes.
    A’ = ∑ a1 – ∑ a2
    Where: A’ is amplitude with interference, a1 is fractional wave amplitudes, a2 is fractional wave amplitudes pi rad. out of phase with a1

    9th law: Fractional wave amplitude is inversely proportional to propagation distance of matter-wave.
    a = A/(1 + π/4 (R/A)^2)
    P = a/A
    Where: R is distance of fractional wave amplitude from particle, P is probability of finding the particle given a fractional wave amplitude

    10th law: Particle entanglement is the resonance of matter-waves.
    ∑ (f/y A n) = f’/y’ A’ ∑ n
    Where: n is number of particles at a certain frequency, wavelength and amplitude, f’ is entangled frequency, y’ is entangled wavelength, A’ is entangled amplitude

    I have to write a full paper to show how I derived these equations and explain what they mean. (It’s easier for me to write the equations than to write in English)

    • David Wojick

      This is physically ridiculous. There are many forces that have nothing to do with your four.

  29. Uncertainty in near-term global surface warming linked to tropical Pacific climate variability


    Climate models generally simulate a long-term slowdown of the Pacific Walker Circulation in a warming world. However, despite increasing greenhouse forcing, there was an unprecedented intensification of the Pacific Trade Winds during 1992–2011, that co-occurred with a temporary slowdown in global surface warming. Using ensemble simulations from three different climate models starting from different initial conditions, we find a large spread in projected 20-year globally averaged surface air temperature trends that can be linked to differences in Pacific climate variability. This implies diminished predictive skill for global surface air temperature trends over decadal timescales, to a large extent due to intrinsic Pacific Ocean variability. We show, however, that this uncertainty can be considerably reduced when the initial oceanic state is known and well represented in the model. In this case, the spatial patterns of 20-year surface air temperature trends depend largely on the initial state of the Pacific Ocean.


  30. Ulric Lyons

    A large uptick in dust activity in northern Mesopotamia…
    “Carolin and her collaborators found an uptick in magnesium, a component of dust, in the stalagmite beginning 4,260 years ago…”

    This has a good analogue around 3440 years later, beginning with a short but very deep centennial solar minimum in the early 1100’s AD, and then a grand solar minimum series from the early 1200’s onward.

    • Deep centennial solar minimum !!

      Fairly closely corresponds to deep and long droughts in western USA from 900 to 1200 AD or so.


      • Ulric Lyons

        California drought is La Nina driven, while solar minima see a sharp increase in El Nino conditions.

    • 4260 yrs ago (= 2310bce). Recall 2345bce , that is one date to which most correlations are made. Repeat link: https://melitamegalithic.wordpress.com/2019/03/15/searching-evidence-update-2/

      Any links to that info pls?

      • Ulric Lyons

        I can plot a short centennial solar minimum starting 2310 BC, followed by a majorly long centennial minimum starting 2220 BC, the 4.2 kyr event.
        Grand solar minima series are primarily ordered by a 1726.6 year cycle (+/- 10yrs), two of those on from 2220 BC is the early 1200’s AD.
        The 1726.6 cycle also has a grand solar minimum series at its half cycle. 863 years before the early 1200’s AD is the start of the Antique Little Ice Age. 863 years after 2220 BC is the first of a pair of super solar minima that wiped out the Minoans and the the late Neolithic culture along with several others. From around 1360 BC and from 1250 BC. Repeats of those begin from the late 2090’s and 2200 AD, which I can confirm by discrete mapping of each centennial minimum.
        I’m not a fan of the Eddy cycle.

      • Thanks.
        As they say, ‘the devil is in the detail’, and hard to find. The 4.2kyr event appears to be a string of events, starting as early as 2345bce (precise tree ring) and here – (see C/N and sediment rate, source D’Andrea et al “Glacier response to North Atlantic climate variability during the Holocene”.); – my link https://melitamegalithic.wordpress.com/2018/06/29/searching-evidence-3/
        There appears to be a trigger to a cascade of events over many decades, with apparently multiple effects. From my starting point which was archaeological, I had been correlating proxies to establish event dates. The series of correlations to the Eddy cycle was a curiosity attempt on my part, but very surprising result. It is still a complete enigma, but there it is.
        4375bce – also tree ring – appears an identical to 2345, if you can try/check that.

  31. Ireneusz Palmowski

    Circulation over the Northeast Pacific is still blocked.
    During periods of very low solar activity there will be neither strong El Nino nor strong La Nina. Therefore, the global temperature will change slowly. The meridional jetstream will interfere with the typical ENSO cycle.
    In the period of low solar activity, jet stream hinders the development of the full El Nio.
    In 2015, full El Nio developed only after the increase in the magnetic activity of the Sun in 2015.

  32. Ireneusz Palmowski

    North jetstream generates heavy thunderstorms in the southern US.

  33. Ireneusz Palmowski

    The relationship between climatic parameters and the Earth’s magnetic field has been reported by many authors. However, the absence of a feasible mechanism accounting for this relationship has impeded progress in this research field. Based on the instrumental observations, we reveal the spatio-temporal relation ship between the key structures in the geomagnetic field, surface air temperature and pressure fields, ozone, and the specific humidity near the tropopause. As one of the probable explanations of these correlations, we suggest the following chain of the causal relations:
    (1) modulation of the intensity and penetration depth of energetic particles (galactic cosmic rays (GCRs)) in the Earth’s atmosphere by the geomagnetic field;
    (2) the distortion of the ozone density near the tropopause under the action of GCRs;
    (3) the change in temperature near the tropopause due to the high absorbing capacity of ozone;
    (4) the adjustment of the extra tropical upper tropospheric static stability and, consequently, specific humidity, to the modified tropopause temperature; and (5) the change in the surface air temperature due to the increase/decrease of the water vapor green house effect.

  34. Ireneusz Palmowski

    The NAIRAS model predicts atmospheric radiation exposure from galactic cosmic rays (GCR) and solar energetic particle (SEP) events.

  35. Ireneusz Palmowski

    1.The observed magnetic field is highly asymmetrical.
    2. Lines of inclination are highly elliptical, with the North Magnetic Pole situated near one end of the ellipse.
    3. The strength of the magnetic field is no longer a maximum at the North Magnetic Pole. In fact, there are now two maxima, one over central Canada, the other over Siberia.
    4. Magnetic meridians do not converge radially on the North Magnetic Pole.

  36. Pingback: Metaaniuhkaa pukkaa | Roskasaitti