Open Thread

This is a page for your use, to try out html tags and see what they look like, to post new ideas, to pass along interesting information, to suggest future topics for discussion, to reach out and contact me directly, the floor is yours.

w.

 

Advertisements

154 thoughts on “Open Thread

    • Thanks, worldwide. Your site was interesting. However, to put any credence in your post about Atlantis I’d have to know the provenance of the image showing the “canals”. Is there a NOAA site where it can be downloaded?

      Next, the spot you’re discussing is 700 miles from the nearest land, a thousand miles from the Mediterranean, and 18,000 feet (three miles) below the surface of the ocean … Atlantis?

      Best to you,

      w.

      Like

  1. Willis
    We are within a cherry moment. (at least that is what it will be when the future looks at it).

    A coronal hole has just made a “pass in review” for everyone to see. Starting on 1/25/18 it first became geo effective. The barometric pressure began to respond by the pressure dropping and continued to drop until yesterday afternoon 1/27/18 around 1600 cst when it began to slowly rise again.

    During this period of time the relationship between temperature and humidity indicates an enthalpy shift to a warmer and drier condition. (Yesterday was cloudy to party sunny to clear sky last night and clear today).

    This is not the only cherry I have seen but it is a change from the previous hole passages. Last night instead of the temperature dropping to near freezing, it remained fairly constant during night time.

    In theory (mine at least) any action that happens on the sun (holes and flares) will appear at the earth and all the weather stations should react to the change at the same time. In order to make comparisons the information must be collected (ongoing) for at least 6 days.
    (http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/mesowest/getobext.php?wfo=sgx&sid=KSAN&num=72&raw=0)

    But I cannot do that. My monitoring system is just too simple. I use the 3 day data that isn’t a long enough period of time. But after posting your last on WUWT I realized that there are ways to obtain ALL the past records of the weather stations. But as I said my abilities are just too minimum.

    In order to “see” the coronal holes come and go, I have resorted to using the Synoptic views
    (http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/solar-synoptic-map)

    I have also found some thermometers that can be buried under ground. Normally they are used by gardeners to measure the temperatue of the soil. They have a long cord to the spike probe. And they read in .1 degree increments. They need to be read locally as much as possible to determine when the digits actually change. So my data from them are not as clear as wished.

    The UG (underground) thermometers being used:

    1) a digital weather station transmitter placed just below the surface in a small cave area to measure temp/humidity. Humidity remains 99% 24/7 but the thermometer provides a reading in my window that also requires manual reading.
    2) a garden thermometer probe stuck in the bottom of and into the side of the cave at approximately 10″ below the surface.
    3) another garden thermometer probe sticking in the bottom rear of the cave that is approximately 4″ lower than #2.

    All three readings show the temperature following the “average barometric pressure” without any change that I can see due to the di-urnal cycle.

    So all the instruments I am recording all show this enthalpy shift when the holes pass. And looking back in time, it happens every time.

    Sooo, I must ask, am I in permenent moderation or it this the man to man rubber room you promised…..

    Lee Osburn – mountain man from Concan, Texas.

    Like

    • Lee, you’ve never been under any kind of “moderation” that I know of, and I’m the only one running this site.

      As to your theory, anything is possible, but very few things are probable … what you need now is evidence.

      Seems like what you need is daily data for both the sun and the weather stations. Daily station data is available from Wolfram Alpha. Not sure where you can get “coronal hole” data, but then I’m not sure what a coronal hole is … hang on …

      OK, I find the following:

      As the CH HSS [coronal hole high speed stream] begins to arrive at Earth, solar wind speed and temperature increase, while particle density begins to decrease. After passage of the CIR [co-rotating interaction region] and upon transition into the CH HSS flow, the overall IMF strength will normally begin to slowly weaken.

      Seams like what gets measured at the earth are solar wind speed, temperature and density. We do have measurements for that … hang on … OK, what I used when I looked at the solar wind was from here.

      Good luck with looking for the correlations, don’t forget to account for autocorrelations, I’d be glad to see any results.

      w.

      Like

  2. Hi Willis ,
    A year or so ago, you posted a story on why you voted Trump. Since Trump has gotten himself a pretty terrible image here in Europe, but I like to hear both sides, I was wondering what your thoughts are these days regarding The Donald.
    Best regards,
    Frank

    Like

    • Thanks for the question, Frank.

      Far too many Europeans, like far too many Americans, seem unable to distinguish between the man and his actions.

      Me, I don’t like Trump the man. He’s far too brash for me, kinda crude, shoots from the hip too often.

      But I approved of his stated goals, promises, and policies during the campaign, so I took a chance and voted for him. And to my great surprise and joy, unlike every other politician in my lifetime, he’s actually making good on his campaign promises.

      Do I like everything he’s done? No. For example, his stance on drugs is medieval, apparently driven by his brother’s addiction to alcohol.

      But by and large, he’s doing the things as President that he promised to do as a candidate … what’s not to like?

      So my question in return would be, which ACTIONS of President Trump do Europeans dislike? Not his style, not his tone, not his tweets, but the actual policies that end up affecting people?

      w.

      Like

      • I see your point about distinguishing between the man and his actions. However, one can’t totally separate the two, either. I know several people who are genuinely concerned that Trump, in one of his “brash, kinda crude, shooting-from-the-hip” temper tantrums, will start a global crisis (be it military, political or economical).

        As to delivering on his promises, it seems that indeed he has delivered on a few of them, although he’s also had to drop or postpone a few (Source: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-37982000). But he’s only 1/4 along the way, so okay, I’ll grant you this point.

        With regard to “actual policies that end up affecting people”, I think very few in Europe understand the drive to eviscerate Obamacare. Changing it, to lower costs, to prevent abuse, or to allow more freedom of choice: sure. But the basis should be that *everyone* can afford *basic* medical care. Almost all if not all EU countries have this. Most people here see it as basic decency.

        Coming back to the “man vs actions” issue, also what the man has said, and not just actual implemented policies, can end up affecting people. When he threatened to effectively disband NATO, quite a few people got a bit of a scare: it’s not great news if you are a small country depending on the joint strength of NATO.

        Also, I believe that our leaders are (or should be) a role model. If the POTUS makes derogatory remarks about women, Mexicans, certain African countries, etc., etc., we (and our children!) are taught that it’s okay to treat others (or at least, those groups of people) as dirt. That’s not cool in my book.

        If you want to talk about statistics about certain groups of people, to identify problems or threats in certain groups, sure, I’m all for the discussion. You can’t solve a problem if you pretend it doesn’t exist. But if you make broad (and/or unfounded) generalizations that unjustly vilify or denigrate entire groups of people, that’s another thing. Don’t judge a book by its cover.

        Like

        • Thanks for your interesting reply, Frank. Some points.

          Frank de Jong February 28, 2018 at 8:06 am

          I see your point about distinguishing between the man and his actions. However, one can’t totally separate the two, either. I know several people who are genuinely concerned that Trump, in one of his “brash, kinda crude, shooting-from-the-hip” temper tantrums, will start a global crisis (be it military, political or economical).

          While anything is possible, wars in history seem to be only very rarely started by some crude statement. Instead, they are started by actions—the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand, the attack on Pearl Harbor, and the like.

          With regard to “actual policies that end up affecting people”, I think very few in Europe understand the drive to eviscerate Obamacare. Changing it, to lower costs, to prevent abuse, or to allow more freedom of choice: sure. But the basis should be that *everyone* can afford *basic* medical care. Almost all if not all EU countries have this. Most people here see it as basic decency.

          Americans are funny that way. We have a very, very different view of government. You view it as a kind paternal force that is expected to provide all kinds of amenities for the citizens.

          In the US we don’t trust our government one bit. We view it as a rapacious monster best kept in check by every kind of laws and strictures.

          Coming back to the “man vs actions” issue, also what the man has said, and not just actual implemented policies, can end up affecting people. When he threatened to effectively disband NATO, quite a few people got a bit of a scare: it’s not great news if you are a small country depending on the joint strength of NATO.

          “A bit of a scare”? And no, he NEVER “threatened to effectively disband NATO”. If that is what was reported in Europe, fire your reporters. Near as I can tell, the part that really got Europeans up in arms was him asking them to stand by their promises and put 2% of their budget into the military. You took a long free ride on the US strength while not doing what you agreed to do.

          Also, I believe that our leaders are (or should be) a role model. If the POTUS makes derogatory remarks about women, Mexicans, certain African countries, etc., etc., we (and our children!) are taught that it’s okay to treat others (or at least, those groups of people) as dirt. That’s not cool in my book.

          Should our rulers be “role models”? Obama was a wonderful “role model”, suave, hip, cool … but he did more damage to this country in eight years than I can count. Justin Trudeau is kind, always says the right things, and is leading Canada into the garbage dump. So no, I’m not much fussed by a President who isn’t a role model. I didn’t elect him to be mister nice guy and blow in people’s ears and rub their tummies. I voted for him to fix the desperate problems facing this country. If he does that his crudeness is meaningless, and if he can’t do it, it won’t matter if he’s Mr. Perfect.

          If you want to talk about statistics about certain groups of people, to identify problems or threats in certain groups, sure, I’m all for the discussion. You can’t solve a problem if you pretend it doesn’t exist. But if you make broad (and/or unfounded) generalizations that unjustly vilify or denigrate entire groups of people, that’s another thing. Don’t judge a book by its cover.

          Part of the problem is that he gets misquoted constantly. For example it’s claimed over and over that he said that Mexicans are rapists and murderers … boo! But in fact, what he said was that Mexico is not sending its best people illegally across the border, and that a number of illegal aliens are rapists and murderers. And while that is not politically correct, it’s damn sure true …

          My best to you, Frank, thanks for the discussions, gotta run,

          w.

          Like

  3. Henrik Svensmark is speaking at the Global Warming Policy Foundation at the British House of Lords next Tuesday 13 March 2018. Might be interesting if you could find time to “pop” over. Direct flights on United, Virgin, and BA. Happy to recommend a hotel and would be pleased to meet you for dinner afterwards.

    Like

  4. Hi Willis, I would like to understand why climate change science doesn’t want to create understanding from this starting point .
    “Because of its large electrical conductivity, the earth’s surface can rapidly adjust to changes in
    electric potential (relaxation time 10-5 second, see Table 1). Variations of electric potential at
    different locations on the earth’s surface result in currents called “telluric currents”. Telluric
    currents consist of both the natural electric currents flowing within the earth (called earth
    currents), including the oceans, and the electric currents originating from man-made systems. ”

    http://162.214.7.219/~earthio0/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Chevalier_electrical_surface_potential-2007.pdf

    https://tamucc-ir.tdl.org/tamucc-ir/bitstream/handle/1969.6/19199/Lavigne_Thomas_thesis.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

    Especially when people like Walter Lewin state in one of his lectures ” If it wasn’t for electricity we wouldn’t be here” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtlJoXxlSFE&list=PLyQSN7X0ro2314mKyUiOILaOC2hk6Pc3j
    Why is the Global electric circuit band from discussion on some sites like WUWT ?

    Cheers

    Like

    • Good question, j. I was unaware that the subject was banned from WUWT. If Anthony does that, it’s because some topic almost invariably brings more heat than light, and the bunfights quickly get out of hand …

      The electromagnetic aspects of climate are of interest to me. However, there’s precious little actual information on the subject. Even your second link goes to a 503 error … and the other article says we’re causing ourselves problems by wearing shoes that insulate us from the earth. It’s from someone at a school where they teach “Psychology, Integral Health, Life Physics and Comparative Religion and Philosophy” … “Life Physics”?? Sorry, I’ll pass on that … his article correctly points out that the amount of current flowing in the “telluric” circuit is 10E-12 amps/metre^2. Color me unimpressed.

      The real electrical interaction with climate takes place in thunderstorms, as is evidenced by the lightning flashes. Unfortunately, this is not well understood. In the past I calculated total heat released by lightning. From memory averaged over the earth’s surface it’s on the order of tenths of a W/m2, if that … however, locally it is obviously much larger.

      There’s a lot to learn regarding the electromagnetic aspects of climate.

      Thanks,

      w.

      Like

  5. Willis , thank you for replying . “Even your second link goes to a 503 error …”
    You mite be able to access from google??

    [PDF]relationship between the global electric circuit and electrified cloud …
    https://tamucc-ir.tdl.org/tamucc-ir/bitstream/handle/1969.6/19199/Lavigne_Thomas_t
    by T Lavigne – ‎2017 – ‎Related articles
    downloaded from http://atmos.tamucc.edu/trmm/data/. The Vostok electric field ….. combined together to create a single longer-running time series of the electric field over Vostok. The mean value of the … been introduced in order to better represent the physical properties behind the charge separation. Occurrence of 30 dBZ …
    cheers..

    Like

  6. Willis, On June 6, 2016 at https://judithcurry.com/2016/06/04/week-in-review-energy-and-policy-edition-26/ After having already identified compelling evidence showing that ghg which did not condense in the atmosphere had no significant effect on climate, I stated “If average global temperature does not significantly decline before 20[20] an as yet unidentified factor is preventing it.”

    Your article at https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/07/25/precipitable-water/comment-page-1 where you stated “This leads us to a curious position where we have had a larger change in forcing from water vapor since 1988 than from all the other IPCC-listed forcings since 1750 … so where is the corresponding warming?” suggested that the ‘as yet unidentified factor’ might be water vapor.

    A graph of the NASA/RSS TPW data (Fig 3 in http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com shows a trend increase of 1.5%/decade. Plugging an extrapolation of this into Eqn 1 there produced a match with measured of 98.3% (2017 update). (Admittedly the simple approximation of ocean cycles in Eqn 1 is ‘curve matching’ but the rest, not so much and IMO a valid format and the three important factors are identified and, at least roughly, quantified).

    IMO you discovered an important factor wrt climate change, water vapor, and the rising WV is now the only thing countering global cooling. That would be fine except it must also be increasing the risk of tragedy of precipitation related flooding.

    I hope to have stimulated your curiosity on this enough to research the subject further and possibly produce an article. There is an analysis re WV and lots of links in my blog/analysis that you might find useful.

    You also might find interesting the analysis showing why CO2 has no significant effect on climate at http://energyredirect3.blogspot.com

    Like

  7. Willis

    I follow you here and at WUWT. Thanks for both.

    I haven’t seen you devote a lot of time to political discussions but it seems you do occasionally put your toes into that water. Below is a link to an article that tries to link: Bannon, Russia, Trump, Improperly acquired profiles of millions of Facebook users, Psychological warfare, 2014 & 2016 elections, Brexit, A right wing billionaire, a 28 year old whiz-kid and many other players. It is quite a story, it is well written and it appears to be somewhat of an, as yet, un-exploded political bomb.

    If I recall correctly, you read ‘wicked fast’ so I expect you could get thru this in 5 to10 min. If you take the time to read it and find it interesting I would appreciate your thoughts,
    Thanks

    Jack Wurts

    Like

  8. Confirmed your thunderstorm temperature readings yesterday in Fiji. 34 degrees prior to storm, 26 degrees after by the ever reliable rental car thermometer!

    Like

  9. I was most impressed by how large the area of cool air was. I was travelling from Lami to Pacific harbour and the low temp area was 10 minutes at 80km/hr

    Like

  10. Hello Willis.. On WUWT on March 19, 2018 you answered Dr Strangelove and added a quote about “fields” . I would appreciate your reference for that please. I have been intrigued by Rupert Sheldrake’s invocation of Fields and would like to follow up on the passage you used.

    Thank you very much. (could not figure out how to use italics below)

    Dr. Strangelove March 19, 2018 at 9:09 pm Edit

    Not the same caliber as Newton, Babbage, Stokes, Dirac

    I do enjoy the irony of being lectured on the relative merits of scientific giants by someone hiding behind the alias “Dr. Strangelove” …

    In addition, you sneer that “Shanon” (whose name you are not fit to spell … by which I mean that you repeatedly spelled it incorrectly) among his other failings “was not physicist [sic]”.

    So what? Fundamental discoveries like those of Shannon often find application in field far removed from their initial use, viz:

    The field [information theory] is at the intersection of mathematics, statistics, computer science, physics, neurobiology, and electrical engineering. The theory has also found applications in other areas, including statistical inference, natural language processing, cryptography, neurobiology, human vision, the evolution and function of molecular codes (bioinformatics), model selection in statistics, thermal physics, quantum computing, linguistics, plagiarism detection, pattern recognition, and anomaly detection. Important sub-fields of information theory include source coding, channel coding, algorithmic complexity theory, algorithmic information theory, information-theoretic security, and measures of information.

    What’s next, You going to point out disparagingly that “Shanon” was not a neurobiologist either? Funny … despite that, his information theory has found applications in neurobiology …

    Was Hawking right about information? Is the “information paradox” real? I don’t know … but I do know that you anonymously rubbishing the entire field as being worthless is quite humorous …

    w.

    Like

  11. Willis

    If I had read this last week when you wrote about ‘Trade War’, I would have submitted it then.

    “How to Meet the Strategic Challenge Posed by China”

    An interesting analysis. The author presents a much more complex picture than that of a trade imbalance. He makes the case that it is the cultural differences that are paramount and absolutely must be taken into account. I have not heard anyone present this perspective before.

    https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/how-to-meet-the-strategic-challenge-posed-by-china/

    Jack

    Like

    • Thanks, Jack, that’s a most fascinating look at the differences in culture between the US and China.

      My only comment would be that it does not obviate the need for trade barriers to prevent US manufacturing moving to China. To the contrary, it makes such barriers even more necessary.

      Regards,

      w.

      Like

  12. Willis, this relates to your climate data work… sorry, probably misplaced here but I wasn’t sure how to contact you otherwise.

    I was wondering what you thought of JRA-55, and if you had undertaken either an assessment of it, or a comparator study with other datasets, especially BEST but also GISS, HadCRUT etc.

    Alas I lack the skills to do this but from what little I know JRA-55 does seem to be well put together.

    With gratitude for your time in reading this. J

    Like

    • Julian, I looked at the JRA-55 reanalysis. I don’t see that it is free of any of the problems of all such analyses, which is that they are the output of the same computer models that have fared so poorly in forecasting the future … except these models are continually “nudged” to keep them from going off of the rails.

      These computer models have several huge failings. First, they are NOT founded on “basic physics” as is often claimed. We know this because models with wildly differing inputs (forcings) are none-the-less able to do a reasonable job “hindcasting” the global average temperature. If they were truly physics-based, this would not be possible.

      Second, the global temperature outputs of such models are basically lagged and scaled versions of their inputs. This is far, far more linear than the real world.

      Third, in general, they are nowhere near as damped as reality is. As a result, you can see echoes of whatever you put in coming out in the output … but the world doesn’t work like that. This is crucial in e.g. analyses of the putative effect of the sunspot cycle on climate. Many times you can see echoes of the sunspot cycle in reanalysis model output … but the same is not true when we look at the real world observations for the same variable.

      For another view on reanalysis climate models, here’s Pat Frank on the subject:

      I think all reanalysis is indeed unreliable. The reason is that no climate model deploys a valid theory of climate.

      Even where reanalysis is of the known climate, for which the model has been parameterized to reproduce certain observables, the uncertainty remains in the reanalysis because the parameters merely are tuned to have offsetting errors. Other sets of parameters, reflecting different physical relationships, will reproduce the same set of observables.

      That is, the underlying physical theory is incomplete or wrong or both, no matter whether the tuned parameters reproduce known observables, or not. Therefore large uncertainties remain in the calculational product. The uncertainties are merely hidden because of the parameter tuning.

      No one in the modeling community seems to pay attention to these absolutely critical details of scientific rigor. By excluding proper physical error analysis, climate modelers are claiming to know what they manifestly do not.

      Couldn’t say it better myself.

      One final point. Computers don’t do edges very well. If you have a chunk of the ocean L1 at a temperature T1 and a location L2 some ways away at a temperature T2, in the absence of other information, the computer will assume a steady change in temperature from L1 to L2.

      However, nature doesn’t do gradual. Instead, it usually does edges. Either you are in a cloud or out of it, there is no miles and miles of gradual decrease in cloud.

      And I can’t tell you how many times at sea the temperature doesn’t vary for dozens of miles, and then it suddenly changes by a couple of degrees. As the poet had it, nature is “dappled”, while computers … well, they’re not.

      Pied Beauty
      
      Glory be to God for dappled things —
        For skies of couple-colour as a brinded cow;
          For rose-moles all in stipple upon trout that swim;
      Fresh-firecoal chestnut-falls; finches' wings;
        Landscape plotted and pieced — fold, fallow, and plough;
          And áll trádes, their gear and tackle and trim.
      
      All things counter, original, spare, strange;
        Whatever is fickle, freckled (who knows how?)
          With swift, slow; sweet, sour; adazzle, dim;
      He fathers-forth whose beauty is past change:
                      Praise him.

      Thanks for the question, best regards,

      w.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Willis, thank you greatly for your answer and thoughts on JRA-55. I had completely misunderstood it, wrongly thinking it was more grounded in data. Sort of like BEST but more accurate.

        Much obliged for the correction.

        J

        Like

    • Thanks, Kevin. Kench is looking at accurate measurements of the islands, which show that the islands in general are not losing area and many are gaining area.

      Nature magazine, on the other hand, is looking to hype the “danger” in order to sell magazines.

      Easy choice.

      If you haven’t read my other posts on this question you might enjoy:

      Floating Islands 2010-01-27

      Much has been written of late regarding the impending projected demise of the world’s coral atoll islands due to CO2-caused sea level rise. Micronesia is suing the Czech Government over CO2 emissions that they claim are damaging their coral atolls via sea level rise. Tuvalu and the Maldives are also repeating…

      The Irony, It Burns … 2010-06-03

      Anthony commented yesterday on the question of atolls and sea level rise here, and I had previously written on the subject in my post “Floating Islands“. However, Anthony referenced a paper which was incorrectly linked by New Scientist. So I thought I’d provide some more information on the actual study, entitled “The dynamic response of reef…

      Why The Parrotfish Should Be The National Bird 2013-06-13

      Ecological alarmist scares have a lot in common with zombies. They seem to eat up people’s brains, they are mindless themselves, and most important, they are really, really hard to kill. Take for example the long-discredited idea, first overthrown by Charles Darwin, that coral atolls are under threat from sea…

      Best regards,

      w.

      Like

  13. Hi Willis
    Just thought you mite be interested in this paper .
    “Solar wind-atmospheric electricity-cloud
    microphysics connections to weather and climate
    Mai Mai Lam1*
    , Brian A. Tinsley2
    1. British Antarctic Survey, Cambridge, UK
    2. University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson, TX, USA
    ABSTRACT: We review recent research articles that present observations of the large-scale day-to-day
    dynamic tropospheric response to changes in the downward current density Jz
    of the global atmospheric
    electric circuit (GEC). The evidence for the global circuit downward current density, Jz
    , causing
    changes in atmospheric dynamics is now even stronger than as reviewed by Tinsley (Reports on Progress in
    Physics volume 71, 2008). We consider proposed mechanisms for these responses, and suggest future
    directions for research.”

    And what do you think would happen if you pointed this parabolic antenna sky-woods??

    Isn’t this the same process used in radar?

    Like

You are invited to add your comments. Please QUOTE THE EXACT WORDS YOU ARE DISCUSSING so we can all be clear on your subject.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s