Roger J Smith

EWP had reached 82 mm after 27 days and added perhaps 2 mm from rain in southwest England on 28th, dry elsewhere. GFS estimates grid average of 5 mm more, mostly in progress on Saturday 31st as month ends. That gives us an estimate of 89 mm.

EWP continued at 80 mm to 26th, projection is still in the 85-90 range.

The summer of 2019 now stands provisionally first in terms of the average value of the warmest days of each month, and as June (21.7) was its lowest value, will finish second to 1947 (21.8) with 1846 third at 21.6 in terms of exceeding a given value (falling to third if August reduced in final values to 21.6 (tied) or 21.5 down to 21.1 (all would be sole third), unless yesterday's provisional of 21.9 is reduced to 21.0 or lower which seems unlikely). edit -- this list now includes all top 50 averages of monthly max, showing their full stats and includes all years that exceeded 19.0 all three months. Ranked for average summers that had a value lower than 19.1 are not ranked in the category of lowest value. Ranked for value summers with an average lower than 20 are not ranked in that category. edit after final data for August -- The slightly lower value of 21.7 for August (was 21.9 in provisional) means that 2019 ties 1995 for first place in the average of three monthly maxima, and remains second behind 1947 for highest value attained in each month (21.7 vs 21.8 for 1947). rank _ YEAR _ JUN _ JUL _ AUG ___ avg (rank) _ 01 __1947 __ 23.0 _ 21.8 _ 22.1 ___ 22.30 (4) _ 02 __2019 __ 21.7 _ 25.2 _ 21.7 ___ 22.87 (t1) _ 03 __1846 __ 22.0 _ 21.6 _ 21.7 ___ 21.77 (t10) _ 04 __ 2001 __ 21.9 _ 23.0 _ 21.0 ___ 21.97 (9) _t05 __ 2005 __ 22.1 _ 22.0 _ 20.9 ___ 21.67 (t12) _t05 __ 2006 __ 20.8 _ 24.5 _ 20.9 ___ 22.07 (8) _t05 __ 1781 __ 20.8 _ 20.8 _ 20.9 ___ 20.83 (t34) _ 08 __ 1868 __ 20.6 _ 23.2 _ 22.5 ___ 22.10 (7) _t09 __ 1976 __ 22.6 _ 24.5 _ 20.5 ___ 22.53 (3) _t09 __ 1818 __ 20.5 _ 23.9 _ 20.9 ___ 21.77 (t10) _t09 __ 1893 __ 20.5 _ 21.2 _ 22.6 ___ 21.43 (16) _t09 __ 1921 __ 21.0 _ 22.3 _ 20.5 ___ 21.27 (21) _t13 __ 1826 __ 22.8 _ 21.8 _ 20.4 ___ 21.67 (t12) _t13 __ 1935 __ 22.0 _ 21.3 _ 20.4 ___ 21.23 (t22) _t15 __ 1995 __ 20.3 _ 23.4 _ 24.9 ___ 22.87 (t1) _t15 __ 1933 __ 20.3 _ 21.6 _ 22.2 ___ 21.37 (17) _t15 __ 1870 __ 20.3 _ 21.4 _ 20.6 ___ 20.77 (t36) _t18 __ 2015 __ 20.2 _ 24.6 _ 20.1 ___ 21.63 (14) _t18 __ 2018 __ 20.1 _ 22.5 _ 20.5 ___ 21.03 (t27) _ 20 __ 1970 __ 21.5 _ 21.6 _ 20.0 ___ 21.03 (t27) _t21 __ 2003 __ 19.9 _ 22.7 _ 23.9 ___ 22.17 (t5) _t21 __ 1834 __ 21.8 _ 22.3 _ 19,9 ___ 21.33 (18) _t21 __ 1975 __ 19.9 _ 20.3 _ 23.7 ___ 21.30 (t19) _t21 __ 1858 __ 22.9 _ 20.7 _ 19.9 ___ 21.17 (25) _t21 __ 1897 __ 20.2 _ 19.9 _ 22.2 ___ 20.77 (t36) _t21 __ 1857 __ 21.1 _ 19.9 _ 21.1 ___ 20.70 (t41) _t21 __ 1982 __ 21.3 _ 19,9 _ 20.9 ___ 20.70 (t41) _t28 __ 2009 __ 21.4 _ 22.5 _ 19.8 ___ 21.23 (t22) _t28 __ 1876 __ 19.8 _ 21.4 _ 22.4 ___ 21.20 (24) _t28 __ 1773 __ 19.8 _ 20.9 _ 22.5 ___ 21.07 (26) _t28 __ 1772 __ 20.8 _ 20.3 _ 19.8 ___ 20.30 (t61) _t32 __ 1949 __ 21.4 _ 21.5 _ 19.7 ___ 20.87 (t32) _t32 __ 1856 __ 19.7 _ 19.7 _ 22.2 ___ 20.53 (t48) _t32 __ 1804 __ 20.7 _ 19.7 _ 21.0 ___ 20.47 (t54) _t32 __ 1854 __ 19.7 _ 21.2 _ 19.9 ___ 20.27 (t63) _ 36 __ 1930 __ 19.6 _ 19.8 _ 22.3 ___ 20.73 (t39) _t37 __ 1911 __ 19.5 _ 23.4 _ 23.6 ___ 22.17 (t5) _t37 __ 1778 __ 20.2 _ 21.6 _ 19.5 ___ 20.43 (t56) _t37 __ 2012 __ 19.8 _ 19.5 _ 20.3 ___ 19.87 () _t40 __ 1783 __ 19.4 _ 22.6 _ 20.0 ___ 20.67 (44) _t40 __ 2004 __ 20.1 _ 19.4 _ 21.7 ___ 20.40 (58) _t40 __ 1780 __ 19.4 _ 21.2 _ 20.3 ___ 20.30 (t61) _t40 __ 1798 __ 21.4 _ 19.4 _ 19.4 ___ 20.07 (t74) _t44 __ 1884 __ 19.3 _ 19.9 _ 22.5 ___ 20.57 (47) _t44 __ 1959 __ 19.3 _ 20.9 _ 21.4 ___ 20.53 (t48) _t44 __ 1914 __ 21.0 _ 20.3 _ 19.3 ___ 20.20 (t68) _t44 __ 1987 __ 20.1 _ 19.3 _ 20.9 ___ 20.10 (t72) _t48 __ 1989 __ 20.5 _ 23.1 _ 19.2 ___ 20.93 (31) _t48 __ 1984 __ 19.2 _ 21.1 _ 21.6 ___ 20.63 (45) _t48 __ 1961 __ 19.2 _ 20.7 _ 21.6 ___ 20.50 (t51) _t48 __ 1835 __ 19.6 _ 19.2 _ 20.7 ___ 19.83 () _t48 __ 1788 __ 19.8 _ 20.4 _ 19.2 ___ 19.80 () _t53 __ 1825 __ 19.1 _ 22.7 _ 23.9 ___ 21.60 (15) _t53 __ 1859 __ 19.1 _ 22.2 _ 20.3 ___ 20.53 (t48) _t53 __ 1994 __ 19.1 _ 20.6 _ 20.4 ___ 20.03 (t77) _ xx __ 2016 __ 18.9 _ 23.5 _ 20.2 ___ 20.87 (t32) _ xx __ 1957 __ 21.1 _ 22.3 _ 18.9 ___ 20.77 (t36) _ xx __ 1952 __ 20.8 _ 22.5 _ 18.9 ___ 20.73 (t39) _ xx __ 1899 __ 18.8 _ 21.1 _ 20.9 ___ 20.27 (t63) _ xx __ 1869 __ 18.6 _ 21.9 _ 20.8 ___ 20.43 (t56) _ xx __ 1968 __ 18.6 _ 21.8 _ 19.7 ___ 20.03 (t77) _ xx __ 2017 __ 21.9 _ 21.0 _ 18.5 ___ 20.47 (t54) _ xx __ 1953 __ 20.6 _ 18.5 _ 22.0 ___ 20.37 (t59) _ xx __ 1942 __ 21.1 _ 18.4 _ 23.0 ___ 20.83 (t34) _ xx __ 1997 __ 18.4 _ 19.1 _ 22.6 ___ 20.03 (t77) _ xx __ 1878 __ 22.7 _ 22.9 _ 18.3 ___ 21.30 (t19) _ xx __ 1941 __ 22.3 _ 22.5 _ 18.3 ___ 21.03 (t27) _ xx __ 1800 __ 18.3 _ 20.6 _ 21.7 ___ 20.20 (t68) _ xx __ 1948 __ 18.2 _ 25.2 _ 18.4 ___ 20.60 (46) _ xx __ 1932 __ 18,2 _ 20.5 _ 22.8 ___ 20.50 (t51) _ xx __ 2011 __ 22.0 _ 18,2 _ 20.1 ___ 20.10 (t72) _ xx __ 1990 __ 18,1 _ 20.5 _ 24.4 ___ 21.00 (30) _ xx __ 1820 __ 21.9 _ 21.1 _ 18.1 ___ 20.37 (t59) _ xx __ 2002 __ 18,1 _ 21.6 _ 20.4 ___ 20.03 (t77) _ xx __ 1925 __ 20.3 _ 22.3 _ 18,0 ___ 20.20 (t68) _ xx __ 1983 __ 17.9 _ 22.7 _ 20.9 ___ 20.50 (t51) _ xx __ 2013 __ 17.8 _ 21.6 _ 22.7 ___ 20.70 (t41) _ xx __ 1969 __ 17.8 _ 21.4 _ 21.0 ___ 20.07 (t74) _ xx __ 1808 __ 17.7 _ 24.5 _ 18.6 ___ 20.27 (t63) _ xx __ 1943 __ 17.5 _ 23.4 _ 19.9 ___ 20.27 (t63) _ xx __ 1779 __ 17.5 _ 22.0 _ 21.2 ___ 20.23 (67) _ xx __ 1901 __ 17.5 _ 22.6 _ 20.4 ___ 20.17 (71) _ xx __ 2007 __ 17.2 _ 21.7 _ 21.3 ___ 20.07 (t74) _______________________________________ 1780 made only a modest dent on these lists but it did manage to exceed 21 in both May and September. 1868 was the only year to exceed 20 in all five months. No other year has had such warm days in both of those months. September 1906 had a warmer day but May 1906 maxed out at 15.1. May 1947 also had some days near 21 and September maxed out at 18.8. May 1944 also quite warm at the end, but September had no really warm weather. And September of 1833 was very cool. (added later) These are the top averages for all five months May to September, and what 2019 would need to tie them (subject to adjustment for the August provisional value). (edit 21 Sep 2019, have added .2 to all values under 2019 as August dropped by 0.2 in final values. Have inserted 2019 into table using 21st Sep estimate of 18.0 ... the current provisional daily max is 16.6 which would place 2019 in 12th. 18.0 would leave this year in 8th. Anything from 18.3 to 19.3 would leave 2019 in 7th. Rank _ Year ___ MAY __ JUN __ JUL __ AUG__ SEP ___Mean ___ 2019 ties with this _01 __ 1868 ___ 20.4 __ 20.6 __ 23.2 __ 22.5 __ 21.1 ___ 21.56 _____ (23.5) _02 __ 1947 ___ 20.8 __ 23.0 __ 21.8 __ 22.1 __ 18.8 ___ 21.30 _____ (22.2) _03 __ 2006 ___ 17.4 __ 20.8 __ 24.5 __ 20.9 __ 21.4 ___ 21.00 _____ (20.7) _04 __ 1911 ___ 17.9 __ 19.5 __ 23.4 __ 23.6 __ 19.8 ___ 20.84 _____ (19.9) _05 __ 1780 ___ 21.2 __ 19.4 __ 21.2 __ 20.3 __ 21.8 ___ 20.78 _____ (19.6) _06 __ 2005 ___ 18.3 __ 22.1 __ 22.0 __ 20.9 __ 20.4 ___ 20.74 _____ (19.4) _07 __ 2003 ___ 18.9 __ 19.9 __ 22.7 __ 23.9 __ 17.1 ___ 20.50 _____ (18.2) _08 __ 2019 ___ 15.7 __ 21.7 __ 25.2 __ 21.7 __ 18.0 ___ 20.46 _____ (18.0) _09 __ 1781 ___ 20.0 __ 20.9 __ 20.8 __ 20.8 __ 19.5 ___ 20.40 _____ (17.5) _10 __ 2016 ___ 17.8 __ 18.9 __ 23.5 __ 20.2 __ 21.3 ___ 20.34 _____ (17.2) _11 __ 1995 ___ 16.5 __ 20.3 __ 23.4 __ 24.9 __ 16.5 ___ 20.32 _____ (17.1) _12 __ 1834 ___ 18.0 __ 21.8 __ 22.3 __ 19.9 __ 18.3 ___ 20.06 _____ (15.8) _13 __ 2001 ___ 17.6 __ 21.9 __ 23.0 __ 21.0 __ 16.8 ___ 20.06 _____ (15.8) _14 __ 1846 ___ 16.7 __ 22.0 __ 21.6 __ 21.7 __ 18.1 ___ 20.02 _____ (15.6) _15 __ 1858 ___ 18.9 __ 22.9 __ 20.7 __ 19.9 __ 17.6 ___ 20.00 _____ (15.5) _16 __ 2009 ___ 16.6 __ 21.4 __ 22.5 __ 19.8 __ 19.7 ___ 20.00 _____ (15.5)

15.8 and 34.2 mm --summer continues and dry spells return

Latest EWP estimate (80 mm to 23rd, zero on 23rd-24th, 5-10 mm to fall on average) is 87 mm. Looks rather wet in the northwest but dry in the southeast, 10 mm could be generous, so maybe 83-86 the likely finishing range at this point. (edited on Sunday 25th, think my report may have contained a slight error in total to 22nd, so I have placed the more accurate number of 80 mm in today's edit, was probably 80 mm to 22nd as well).

Hadley EWP tracker on 78 mm after 20 days, added perhaps 2 mm on 21st (dry most of the grid, 10-20 mm in far north and north Wales). The projection on GFS to end of month is around 10 mm on average, once again rather dry in the south to 20-30 mm in the north. That will finish things very close to 90 mm (provisional scoring for that was posted a few days back).

EWP was 77 mm after 19 days, added perhaps 1 mm on 20th, and GFS shows only about 10 mm on average (a few places almost dry but some over 20 mm) to 06z 31st. Then charts for 18z 31st suggest 5 mm of rain could fall that day for a total of about 93 mm, outcome seems likely to be in the 90-100 range anyway. Would currently guess 17.2 after adjustments for CET (17.4 before).

Here's something odd I just noticed in the EWP stats, for annual precip, the six wettest years are all leap years ... 1872, 1768, 2012, 2000, 1852, 1960. Then leap years keep appearing more frequently than once every four places ... 10th, 12th, 17th, 21st, 22nd, 23rd, so that's twelve of the wettest 23. However, they also dominate the ten driest years with five (1788 driest, 1780 fifth driest, 1864 sixth driest, 1844 eighth driest, 1964 tenth driest).

These are warmer charts for the end of the month than we've been seeing, extending the warm spell to almost the final day. If we assume CET is around 17.0 now (after 20 days), then an average for 21st-31st of 20 deg would yield an outcome of 18.1, 19 as the average would give 17.7, and 18 would produce 17.4. That is largely "before adjustments" but as 19 looks to be the over-under for this final period now, 17.4 to 17.7 appears to be the landing zone. My forecast pretty much guarantees it would be 17.4 if so.

September CET averages and extremes ... all values since 1981 are shown, colour coded for warmest, middle and coolest thirds of the 37 years.22.6 22.6 ... warmest day (2nd, 1906) 21.4 ... warmest day in second half (21st, 2006) 16.8 ... warmest September (2006) 16.6 ... second warmest (1729) 16.3 ... third warmest (tied 1865 and 1949) 16.0 ... fifth warmest (1795, 2016) 15.7 ... seventh warmest (1760) 15.6 ... eighth warmest (tied with 1780) 1999 15.4 ... tenth warmest (1895) 15.2 ... 2005 15.1 ... 2011, 2014 14.9 ... 1998, 2004 14.7 ... 1989, 1991, 2000 14.6 ... 1985 14.5 ... 1981 14.4 ... 2002 14.3 ... average 2001-2018 and 2003 14.2 ... average 1991-2018, 1989-2018 and 1982, 1997, 2009 14.1 ... 14.0 ... average 1981-2010 and 1986-2015 13.8 ... 2007, 2010 13.7 ... average 1971-2000, 1983, 1984, 1995, 2013, 2018 13.6 ... average 1961-1990, 1987, 1996 13.5 ... average 1701-1800, 1901-2000, 2008, 2017 13.4 ... 1992, 2001 13.34... average 1659-2018 13.2 ... 1988, 1990 13.1 ... average 1801-1900 13.0 .. 2012 12.7 ... 1994 12.6 ... average 1659-1700, 2015 12.4 ... 1993 11.3 ... coldest since 1952 and tied (with 1829) 14th coldest (1986) 11.2 ... tied twelfth coldest (1860, 1877) 11.1 ... tied tenth coldest (1840, 1912) 11.0 ... tied seventh coldest (1672, 1687, 1691) 10.7 ... coldest September since 1807 and sixth coldest (1952) 10.6 ... fifth coldest (1703) 10.5 ... coldest (four tied, 1674,1675,1694,1807) 6.7 ... coldest days in first half (13th and 14th, 1807) 4.9 ... coldest day (28th, 1824) ____________________________________________________________________ Enter by the end of Saturday, 31 August without penalty, or with increasing late penalties to end of Tuesday, 3rd September. ============================================================================ (add your EWP forecast if you wish, to the CET entry) ... ... data from 1766 to 2018 from Hadley EWP. 189.8 mm __ wettest (1918)* 139.9 mm __ wettest 1981-2018 in 1981 102.0 mm __ wettest 30-year avg (1772-1801) 80.9 mm ___ average all data 1766-2018 77.2 mm __ average 1981-2010 73.2 mm __ average 1989-2018 58.4 mm __ lowest 30-year avg (1888-1917) 16.4 mm __ driest 1981-2018 in 2014. _8.0 mm __ driest (Hadley) 1766-2018 in 1959** _________________________________________________ * 1797 and 1799 were almost as wet in the Hadley series at 185.4 mm and 186.8 mm. ** second driest in Hadley series since 1766 was 9.5 mm in 1865. __________________________________________________ Recent EWP ___ 2018 .. 67.0 ___ 2017 .. 106.2 ___ 2016 .. 72.0 ___ 2015 .. 62.7 ___ 2014 .. 16.4 ___ 2013 .. 61.8 ___ 2012 .. 92.8 Enter the EWP contest on same deadlines as CET ... good luck !! ...

Hadley EWP tracker at 73 mm after 17 days, added only about 1 mm on 18th, and GFS showing 20-30 mm the most likely amount to be added (ten days then 30th-31st appear fairly dry on charts). This would project towards a total close to 100 mm. I had posted that provisional early in the month but here it is again (with a few corrections). Note _ The September contests will be open later today. EWP20182019AUG.xlsx

A count was undertaken for record maximum CET daily means in each "month" of the J-year. The results showed that there were more than the random expectation of hits in three months, namely A, E and L. Months A and L are one (L) and two (A) months after Jupiter oppositions. Although month L has a few extra days available because it is the "leap month" in fact only one record fell into that leap period (1st of Aug 1995), with a higher count on either side of this interval which can only extend very far past L-33 when oppositions are in the July to November portion of the 12-year cycle. Month "L" had 41 records, the random expectation is 31 (30.4 for the other eleven). Month "A" had 38. The higher peak at month "E" (37 hits) coincides with the other alignment with Jupiter at conjunction. Lower than random expectation hits were found around months B-D and H-J. This falls in line with the findings that higher mean temperatures (relative to normal) occur near alignments with Jupiter. A significant number of monthly maxima fell into the L/A period which is basically 30-90 days after Jupiter opposition.

EWP had reached 59 mm on 15th and added possibly as much as 15 mm on Friday 16th, but then GFS trends rather dry in the ten days ending 27th 06z, about 10-15 mm seems to be the grid average there, and maps for rest of August look moderately unsettled, so perhaps a further 5-10 mm there. It all adds up to 89 to 99 mm as the ballpark estimate. Some warmer days again briefly but would agree that the guidance suggests CET will end up around 16.7 or so.

Here are some comments in response to questions or comments from readers. (1) There seems to be a general misconception that I think the warming spikes suggested in the research data emanate from Jupiter (or other outer planets where relevant). No, I think the source of the warming is enhanced solar wind within sectors of the rotating solar system magnetic field. So the effects are not coming all that distance from Jupiter, but from much closer, the interface between the SSMF and our magnetosphere, or even in terms of periodic increases of solar flux. But the causes for those increases may extend out into the middle portions of our solar system. If one contributing factor is that incoming cosmic rays (probably a counterbalancing force against solar wind) are reduced by enhanced magnetic activity around Jupiter and Saturn, then that is how the distant source interacts with the process, but the source of any additional warming (over and above the AGW signal which I accept must be part of the overall signal) can only be the Sun or atmospheric processes set into motion by solar particles. (2) The field sectors may give some impression of a postulated process of material moving inward from the gas giants to the inner solar system but in reality they are postulated to be sectors of enhanced outflow of solar wind. (3) As to the specific questions about the data file and data points, I think you have generally understood how the Jupiter profiles are constructed, as you say, on average the differential is 12 years and 5 days but if you compared columns with late summer and autumn oppositions you would see a larger differential because opposition dates are further apart due to Jupiter's faster motion in that part of its orbit. Also the columns do not keep adding 12 years and 5 days indefinitely, they all jog back at certain intervals to keep the opposition dates within the range specified. Jupiter's orbital positions are similar after 83 years so the iteration is something like this 1, 13, 25, 37, 48, 60, 72, 84 (repeated). The actual data compilation can be handled either by formulae that average out the differentials to within a tolerance of 1-2 days, or just by inputting the actual opposition dates (in the row selected) and working up and down from those. As to the 12-year running means and the graph shown, this is a different profile from the J-year (synodic year of 399 days on average) profile whose graph appears in the section starting at row 1051. The 12-year sidereal Jupiter year (11.86 years to be more precise) was analyzed as you said in column KF but with 40-day data averages (not 39, the differentials are 39 as in 1-40, 41-80 etc). The reason why I chose 40 days was to divide the successive segments into ten equal parts. If you dived into that column you might find that the intervals vary slightly near end of each segment to keep the input as ten segments per column. Actually at some later point I also generated a more direct version of this signal which simply averages out data at 11.86 year intervals. As I recall that looked almost identical. The smoothing intervals chosen will tend to increase or decrease the scatter but eventually as you likely know from experience the smoothed curves begin to settle into final patterns that can only be blurred by taking too long a smoothing interval. You could do this 12-year Jupiter analysis with monthly scale CET data and get the same sort of result as by using smoothed daily data. And that particular product of the research file is not really relevant to our discussion anyway, unless it somehow shows that Jupiter's orbital cycle signal (which as you say is rather small) contains clues as to timing of the process that the more relevant segment analysis would tend to show more clearly. So in other words, even if I accepted that it showed nothing, it has no impact on the arguments presented, probably that column should be deleted from the file for these purposes anyway. Also it should be noted that this data and the graph you showed refer to all data and not any particular recent signal. If I took the more recent data in that time scale, we would only have 2.5 orbits of Jupiter around the Sun (the overall analysis takes an average for 21 orbits). Even with that moderate number of data points, I think the sharp decline evident near mid-graph might be an artificial construct of data intervals (the most recent data entered terminating thus losing the most recent warming component). My research in general has not been looking for huge blockbuster signals but rather a compilation of all signals of moderate or small amplitude to find out whether, all integrated into one complex model, they form a predictive model. Rather ironically, the main impediment to testing this out is the continual upward drift of the background temperature trend in both of the primary data sets (I have all this sort of research done for 1841-present Toronto data as well). If there were a hundred signals with amplitude 0.1 C, and if it were valid that they could interact in a simple additive algorithm, then as 100 x 0.1 = 10, you would have a resultant predictive equation going forward with a potential amplitude of 10 to -10, roughly the actual range of the CET. The statistical chances of having all one hundred reinforcing at the same point in time would be, well, astronomically low. So perhaps the search should be for 200 components. (I counted up 84 that I had identified at some point -- my LRF offerings are generally based on the output of said assumptions). What I'm hoping to focus on in this thread is the primary assertion that recent warming somehow clusters around the times when earth moves through field sectors that are more or less located at the alignments with the outer planets (the details are a bit complex but you can see in some of the graphs in the primary research area that the recent warming is stronger near Jupiter alignments than at the other times in our 13-month interactive cycles). I'm hoping the discussion will move into that area because that's what I find significant. As with the June question posed in the previous post, why is the warming not more or less evenly distributed in the J-year?

Thanks for comments and interest, I think I agree with JeffC's assessment that this work is potentially something that can help us understand the actual details of the recent warming that I think almost everyone accepts has taken place. I will get to providing an answer to the specific questions about the data after this post, possibly about an hour or two after you see this. Here for comparison are the CET averages for the periods used in the study. For August to December and the full year, anything ending in 2019 will be adjusted by edit (I have at least that power) going forward, would not expect any of the numbers to change by more than .01 or .02. This table can be used to get a sense of the range of increases in the most recent interval(s) over the earth calendar year. The last two lines of the table show the increase of the most recent 31-year interval (1989-2019) compared to the average of 1772-1988 and also compared to the average of all data. Interval __ JAN _FEB _MAR _APR _MAY _ JUN _ JUL _ AUG _SEP _ OCT _NOV _DEC __ YEAR 1772-2019 _ 3.44 _ 4.07 _ 5.56 _ 8.10 _11.32 _14.36 _16.05 _15.69 _13.40 _ 9.90 _ 6.19 _ 4.25 ___ 9.36 1772-1833 _ 2.40 _ 3.95 _ 5.24 _ 8.04 _11.46 _14.47 _16.03 _15.66 _13.25 _ 9.68 _ 5.68 _ 3.63 ___ 9.12 1834-1895 _ 3.28 _ 3.98 _ 5.13 _ 7.94 _10.98 _14.33 _15.71 _15.38 _13.09 _ 9.30 _ 5.81 _ 3.93 ___ 9.07 1896-1957 _ 3,94 _ 4.07 _ 5.68 _ 8.04 _11.28 _14.22 _16.05 _15.63 _13.35 _ 9.83 _ 6.32 _ 4.63 ___ 9.42 1958-2019 _ 4.14 _ 4.30 _ 6.18 _ 8.40 _11.55 _14.44 _16.41 _16.10 _13.90 _10.81 _ 6.97 _ 4.80 ___ 9.83 1958-1988 _ 3.57 _ 3.64 _ 5.55 _ 7.99 _11.16 _14.25 _15.96 _15.69 _13.65 _10.60 _ 6.59 _ 4.68 ___ 9.44 1989-2019 _ 4.71 _ 4.95 _ 6.81 _ 8.80 _11.94 _14.63 _16.87 _16.52 _14,16 _11.02 _ 7.36 _ 4.92 ___10.22 1772-1988 _ 3.26 _ 3.95 _ 5.38 _ 8.01 _11.23 _14.33 _15.93 _15.57 _13.29 _ 9.74 _ 6.03 _ 4.15 ___ 9.24 incr last 31y __1.45 _1.00 _ 1.43 _ 0.79 __0.71 __0.30 __0.94 __0.95 __0.87 _ 1.28 _ 1.33 _ 0.77 ___ 0.98 incr (all data)_1.27 _0.88 _ 1.25 _ 0.70 __0.62 __0.27 __0.82 __0.83 __0.76 _ 1.12 _ 1.17 _ 0.67 ___ 0.86 ________________________________________________________________________ Some comments ... the recent warming has been much less significant in June than other months. The four months most impacted are January, March, November and October (in that order). The warming of 1958-88 over the third quarter interval before that is confined to autumn, most of the other nine months are somewhat colder or within .05, but the three autumn months warmed by 0.30, 0.77 and 0.27 deg. The presumably natural warming from q2 to q3 was generally larger in winter than in summer, and in fact June was cooler in q3 (and even in 1958-88) than in 1834-1895. Q1 which is an extended version of the Dalton minimum had colder winters than q2 but warmer summers, the two trends more or less balanced out with similar annual means. I think that between this analysis and the work offered in the research file, it is safe to say that the details of the recent warmings and in fact all decade to decade scale temperature changes contain many clues as to the actual processes at work. This is not the time or place to speculate on what those might be, even those readers who are inclined to dismiss the research file portion would have a challenge explaining why June has so far avoided the overall trend of recent warming. I suppose one theory might be that due to accelerated outflow of arctic meltwater, Atlantic SST values are subject to a negative forcing in May-June. That would be correlated with increased early summer ice content in the Labrador current possibly. I am probably in the camp that says that recent warming must be some complex blend of human influences on the atmosphere, solar forcings over long term, and other natural processes not all identified or understood. But to those who suspect this is some ploy to debunk AGW, actually all options must be considered, one logical possibility is that we have entered a period of natural cooling and the AGW signal is therefore larger than postulated. Imagine that.

This post will introduce the actual data file which is attached. You can find the following features in this file (which is an edited version of a larger research file I have created). In the cells A to AE 1 to 2922, all the daily CET values are posted. These are in groups of eight years in each column. The data file has been maintained after I downloaded a csv version of the UK Met Office file around 2011. I have input the monthly finished (not provisional) data after each month since then and occasionally I cross-check to avoid errors. One way I do this is to calculate averages for each new month to see if they match the UK Met Office values. The data are stored without decimal places as you see them on file. The first value (in A1) is 32 which is read as 3.2 C. These are mean daily temperatures. Some further guides and explanations to that section can be found below the data block, that is to say, around rows 2924 and down towards 2950 or so, starting in column A and extending most of the way beneath the data block. Then in columns AF to AP, there are calculations of daily average CET values for the ongoing data set. This is right up to date even including July 2019. So for each day of the year, a 248-point average (247 for August to December) is available and reduced to one decimal place (like the data set, no decimal points are shown). The average for leap year day is also calculated from its 58 data points. The data block has two blank cells for the two missing leap year days in the years 1800 and 1900. Those are at D1521 and Q60. For my own work, I have inserted large negative numbers in them so that if I overlook removing them from formulae, I will spot that error. I left this out of the thread file however. In the data block that fills AR to BV 1 to 3000, the daily anomalies are calculated. Those are in every case the difference between the value in the data block and the daily average. If the first entry day of the data set has value 32 and the daily mean is 34, then the anomaly for that day is -2 (meaning -0.2 C deg). The range of daily anomalies is generally about -12 to +11 but anything over 4 (showing as 40) is quite significant, record values are often in the range of 7 to 9 deg above or below normal. There is a slightly larger variance in winter than in summer in the UK climate. The anomaly block allows direct comparison of different times of year, if we had formulae that only compared actual temperatures, there would be a large "apples and oranges" problem comparing the outcomes. But comparing anomalies while not 100% precise is a lot better. Eventually I might need to refine this to comparing standard deviations but the ranges don't really expand or contract that much in this climate. To make formula extensions from first terms a little easier to manage, I have created buffer zones between row 2923 and row 3000 which are the data from the next columns in rows 1 to 78. What that means on a practical level is that I can overturn formulae approaching the data limit in groups of several nearly equal values without having to land in on the exact cell where the column ends (which would be row 2923). But to prevent missing any empty or spurious data cells (the spurious ones would be data from outside the designated formula zone) I have placed 77777 in row 301 across the anomaly block. If a formula "forgets" to update to the next column in a downward copy extension (further data blocks created in the file), then a huge number will appear even if it's an average of 40 terms because that 77777 will be far bigger than the possible sum of the 40 terms, and so in the graph that I would be using to inspect the outcome, a huge invalid spike would appear. So in that way I have added some quality control to the process ensuring that the formulae being used to generate various data sets actually stay in the going-forward mode using only valid data. Anyway, moving further to the right in the file, the next block of data relates to lunar declination and the full-new moon cycles. This does not form part of our discussion here, while it's interesting in and of itself, no suggestion is made that any of the recent warming could emanate from any such process, so while you may want to look in on this section and its graphs, you can also safely navigate past it to sections that show planetary time scales. In each case, whatever is posted in this data file has some explanations or guides below the data or to the left of where the data block begins, and I have highlighted those in green. The main portion of the file for you to reach and inspect (relevant to this thread discussion) is located in columns starting around JS and moving through the rest of the J_ section into the first few letters of the K columns to KF. This is after some files showing data for Mercury and some other planets, and a column related to solar cycles (in col IV). All of that is basically irrelevant to our discussion so I could have removed it but was fearful that formulae in the Jupiter section might then degrade, so I only removed data segments that were done later and posted to the right of these Jupiter segments. In the Jupiter research area, the data near the top of the block will show eleven segments with similar opposition dates, and complete 395 to 403 day temperature profiles for all of those. That takes you down to around row 420, after which there's a section that shows how similar Jupiter-Saturn orientations look when averaged out. That is not a primary part of our discussion here so navigate down through that to row 1051 where the working files are located for this discussion. Each column starting at row 1051 is titled and has some relevance to this thread. Each column is also part of some graph available in that same area (which runs as far down as about row 1500, with the one exception that the comparative Mars file runs to about row 1800. The various graphs illustrate all the points being made in the thread and have some commentary attached within the excel file. To the right of the Jupiter research section there are further sections giving more detailed results for Mars, Saturn, Venus, and Uranus-Neptune. Once again, these are not really the primary focus of this discussion but I did include the graphs of the most recent profiles to compare with the Jupiter results, mainly to test out whether the Jupiter results are unique to that system or are shared by other field sector systems in this AGW (postulated) warming period. I think that's enough of an intro to bring on the file itself now. You can refer to this post or just muddle your way through the file, but I think it will be easier if you check this post for the general overview. Once again, the three basic elements to get you oriented are: -- the raw data appear in A to AE 1 to 2922. -- the calculated anomalies for the data appear in AR to BV 1 to 2922. -- the Jupiter analysis appears in columns that begin around JS and end around KF. Everything else in the file, you're quite welcome to peruse, but any detailed discussion of that should be left until we have a chance to discuss the main focus which is the material in the JD to KC 1051 to 1500 section, and the graphs which appear near those data columns. (anything created as a graph will be so close to the data that you won't have to scroll right or left to find it, but you might have to scroll up or down, it will be somewhere just outside the boundaries of the data columns). The file may open around the JS-KF columns, or Jupiter data section. You might want to start there if you understand the background of how the data set was assembled, or you may want to start the tour of the file around A2924 where the first explanations begin. I will try to make improvements to the file after any discussions or questions, so this is by no means a finished product. CETnew.xlsx

This is a rough schematic drawing of the earth's annual movement through a postulated field structure in the solar system magnetic field. I have simplified the diagram by showing only earth and Jupiter. There would be similar sectors in place for other planets. The reader should realize that these sectors are rotating at roughly the same angular displacement as the outer planet although there could be minor variations in that caused by flexing as the planet moves closer or further from the Sun in an elliptical orbit. The convention in my diagrams and in some other astronomical drawings I have seen is to show the December position of the earth near the top of the circle and the June position near the bottom, so that March would be on the left and September on the right. The motion of all planets in the solar system is counter-clockwise in this scheme. This diagram is approximately to scale, the planets themselves are not as large as the circles so those are more representative of the magnetospheres perhaps. ................................................................................................................................................................................ ................................................................................. O .... Jup .............................................................................. .............................................................................xxx.......xxx...................................................................................... ............................................................................xxxx..........xxxx..................................................................................... ........................................................................xxxxx...............xxxxx.................................................................................. .....................................................................xxxxxxx...........xxxxxx...................................................................................... .......................................................................xxxxxxx.........xxxxxxx....................................................................................... ..........................................................................xxxxxx....xxxxxx........................................................................................... .....................................................E....o...................xxxx..xxxxx............................................................................................. .....................................................................................@ ...SUN ................................................................................ ................................................................................xxxx.......xxxx........................................................................................ ...........................................................................xxxxx................xxxxxx................................................................................ .............................................................................xxxxxxx.......................xxxxxxx............................................................................. This particular diagram might approximate the "J-field" sectors in the SSMF at a time when Jupiter was in the part of its orbit where we pass it in late December and it appears in the winter sky above Orion and in the Milky Way. But the earth's position as shown would be around mid-February, so in this hypothetical case the earth has recently moved through two segments of the J-field structure and during the following summer it will move through two more (note these are moving so by that time they will be a few degrees further to the right on this diagram). Realize also that the solar system is three dimensional, this is one of two times in Jupiter's orbit where earth's orbit has the same inclination relative to the Sun. By the time Jupiter moves around to the left side of this diagram (three years later) it is also around 2 deg above our orbital plane so those field sectors may be somewhat above the earth's north pole when we encounter them. Both the asymmetric look and the widths indicated are deliberate features meant to capture what I think the research data demonstrate about the shaping. The original research that I outlined in the thread posted several years ago suggests that while the impacts on earth's atmosphere may be generally simultaneous, there may also be components that more effectively manifest near the stronger portions of our magnetic field and then residuals propagate downstream. This might imply that there should be a lag between sector encounters and warmings (if warmings are the actual result) in the CET since the North American sector is somewhat stronger. I had identified the most likely lag time as 2-3 months. However, if the activity is stronger perhaps it then becomes more simultaneous with this lag effect perhaps muted.

Yes, there will be graphs available in the posted excel file. Still aiming for about 0600h to post that. The J-year that I am analyzing is the synodic year or average period (399 days) between Jupiter oppositions. As stated it takes Jupiter 11.86 years to travel once around the Sun. So each year the earth needs roughly 30 to 40 days in addition to its own year to catch up. Slower moving planets further out have shorter synodic years. Saturn 378.1 days, Uranus 369.66 days, and Neptune 367.7 days. Mars on the other hand needs only 1.88 earth years to make its orbit, so it takes earth over two years to catch up (780 days). The twelve months that I created were arbitrary divisions of those intervals into twelve equal portions, with slight variations allowed in the twelfth month. To make comparison of them easier, I standardized the synodic year data intervals so that planetary opposition (where we pass each outer planet) takes place early in the eleventh of the twelve months. Since the S-year is shorter than the J-year, the equivalent positions are day 338 of the J-year and day 320 of the S-year. In both cases these will fall in the early portion of month eleven. Anyway, look for the file to appear tomorrow in your time zone, I am working on it and the post for this thread this evening here.

I will probably change the naming system for the 12 equal intervals ("months" as we might think of them) to remove any connection to the earth-year and the assumptions that might come along for the ride, so look for an edit to the previous post to show these as "Jyr-A" to "Jyr-L" ... numbers would cause confusion with other concepts in the theory, and Roman numerals are already assigned to Jovian moons. So the letter system seems most appropriate. For the Saturn synodic year of 378.1 days, the system can be modified to alternating 32 and 31 day intervals, with the opposition date coming at Syr-K 5th (compare to Jyr-K 8th), and Syr-L will occasionally be 30 or 32 days rather than 31 but Saturn's synodic year tends to vary within narrower limits than Jupiter's so there is not much of a strain on the length of the leap month. So to compare how the recent past (1989-2019) warms relative to the S-yr, we see a rather similar outcome to the J-yr and this despite the fact that the S-yr is randomly distributed in the data as compared to the J-yr over that length of time. Here are the numbers, the anomalies for the J-yr "months" are taken from the table above, and the data for the S-yr months are to be found in column KJ 1051-1062 in the excel file. Anomalies in the interval 1989-2019 relative to all data 1772-2019 (C deg) "Month" (30-33d) _ Jup anom __ Sat anom __ Ura anom __ Nep anom J/S/U/N yr A _____ +1.064 _____ +0.862 ____ +0.989 ____ +1.019 J/S/U/N yr B _____ +0.534 _____ +0.779 ____ +0.637 ____ +0.914 J/S/U/N yr C _____ +0.587 _____ +0.575 ____ +0.902 ____ +1.053 J/S/U/N yr D _____ +0.544 _____ +1.242 ____ +0.810 ____ +0.635 J/S/U/N yr E _____ +1.266 _____ +0.931 ____ +1.093 ____ +1.237 J/S/U/N yr F _____ +0.760 _____ +1.238 ____ +0.944 ____ +0.929 J/S/U/N yr G _____ +0.890 _____ +0.846 ____ +0.945 ____ +1.201 J/S/U/N yr H _____ +1.111 _____ +0.578 ____ +0.807 ____ +0.583 J/S/U/N yr I ______ +0.780 _____ +0.913 ____ +0.310 ____ +0.508 J/S/U/N yr J ______ +0.780 _____ +0.794 ____ +0.474 ____ +0.351 J/S/U/N yr K ______ +0.921 _____ +1.006 ____ +1.226 ____ +0.704 J/S/U/N yr L ______ +1.107 _____ +0.574 ____ +1.213 ____ +1.196 _______________________________________________________________________ The Saturn year also shows least warming around 4 months after opposition, as well as 3 months after conjunction. For both sets of data, it should be noted that the warming of 1989-2019 relative to all data is smaller (by about 1/4) than the warming of 1989-2019 relative to 1772-1988 since 1989-2019 is part of all data. An example, in J-yr A the anomaly is +1.064. But the anomaly of data from 1772 to 1988 averaged -0.212 so the warming is actually +1.276 C deg from that average. I am looking at the data for the U-year and N-year and will add that to the table also. The U-year 12-"month" system will be (5x31 + 1x30)x2 and for the N-year (2x31+1x30)x4. This will make the 12th month in each case occasionally 29 days since the synodic years are about 369.66 and 367.75 days (rather than 370 and 368 which those systems generate). You'll see that the warmer periods associated with these two occur near their oppositions. It must be stressed that the data has considerable overlap since Uranus overtook Neptune in 1992-93 and has only gained by about one "month" in the 26 years since then. In other words, there's no easy way to unravel the two signals from this data, it may be mostly one and a bit of the other, or they may be similar despite overlapping. The numbers show a concentrated warming at the months of opposition (which have all been in the range Sept-Nov for Uranus and Sept-Oct for Neptune) and lasting to 2 months after opposition, and a secondary peak near the conjunctions. In both cases, the warming is less robust about two months before opposition, a time of year that has been sliding from about July to September. At some point later I will post the similar analysis for Mars to show that there is less variation relative to that smaller planet with its presumably weaker ability to interact with either the solar wind or incoming cosmic rays.

It would be a matter of debate what might constitute proof of a signal in the CET (or any other) temperature record from an external source such as Jupiter. And once demonstrated, any such signal could hypothetically be the result of some process driven by Jupiter or a process mainly controlled by the Sun as modulated by Jupiter. Imagine that we had a calendar that was Jupiter-centric and not solar-centric. (There are monthly moon-cycle calendars but these are really solar in their foundations since seven additional lunar months are added every 19 years to keep these calendars in sync with the solar year). To match my data set as you will soon have the opportunity to inspect, my proposed Jupiter-centered calendar J-year will have 12 months of 33 days each, with the date of Jupiter opposition on the 8th of "J-November" which is day 338 of the J-year. To keep that happening every J-year, J-December will be the leap month, and its length will vary from 32 days to 41 with an average of 36 days. (note that "J-February" would be equal to all the other months at 33 days also). If this were the case, you would have runs of 3-4 years (for example 2015 to mid 2018) when Jupiter's oppositions were in February, March, April and May where J-December would be relatively short, then intervals a few years later with longer J-Decembers when the oppositions of Jupiter were somewhat further apart. To orient yourself to this a little more in the here and now, 2012 plus Jan 2013 would have been a J-year and the 2012 opposition date (Dec 3rd) would then be J-Nov 8th of that J-year. So the J-December of that year would essentially have been Jan 2013. Now that Jupiter oppositions are moving towards their longer separations, the J-years would be a few days longer and the J-Decembers that fall around Aug 2020, Sep 2021 and Oct into Nov 2022, will be 40 or 41 days long. And we are currently at the start of a new J-year. The previous one ended on the 11th of August which was J-December 36th. The J-opp was on June 10th (or J-Nov 8th) and the next one is on July 14th of 2020. So today is the 4th day of J-January in this Jupiter-centric calendar. So after reducing the entire daily CET data set to anomalies by solar calendar date averages, what would be the average temperature anomalies in each of the twelve J-months as defined above? I show them in this table, for the entire 248 year data set, and for each quarter, and within the last quarter, the two equal halves of that last quarter. The final column shows the increase for q4(2) (1989-2019) over the mean of all data. ... all data are in C deg and derived from mean daily anomalies relative to 1772-2019 daily averages ... (edited later _ note the use of earth months in this table will change in the following posts to a more neutral system, J-Jan becomes Jyr-A, J-Feb is Jyr-B, etc, so that the eventual discussion can avoid any confusion between this arbitrary division of time and the earth calendar.) Month ___ All data ___ q.1 ___ q.2 ___ q.3 ___ q.4 ___ q.4-1 ___ q.4-2 ____ q4-2 minus mean all data J-Jan ___ +0.026 ___ -0.329 _-0.239 _-0.050 _+0.720 _+0.389 _+1.064 ____ +1.038 J-Feb ___ -0.129 ___ -0.212 _-0.372 _-0.186 _+0.252 _ -0.020 _+0.534 ____ +0.663 J-Mar ___+0.005 ___ -0.091 _-0.347 _+0.117 _+0.341 _+0.102 _+0.587 ____ +0.582 J-Apr ___ -0.019 ___ -0.229 _ -0.258 _+0.057 _+0.355 _+0.173 _+0.544 ____ +0.563 J-May ___+0.099 ___ -0.487 _-0.177 _+0.312 _+0.751 _+0.253 _+1.266 ____ +1.167 J-Jun ___ +0.079 ___ -0.135 _-0.240 _+0.280 _+0.409 _+0.071 _+0.760 ____ +0.681 J-Jul ___ -0.127 ____ -0.446 _-0.421 _-0.097 _+0.445 _ +0.034 _+0.890 ____ +1.017 J-Aug ___+0.111 ___ -0.086 _-0.145 _+0.068 _+0.607 _ +0.121 _+1.111 ____ +1.000 J-Sep ___ -0.098 ___ -0.423 _-0.407 _-0.024 _+0.461 _ +0.153 _+0.780 ____ +0.878 J-Oct ____-0.032 ___ -0.267 _-0.311 _+0.292 _+0.158 _ -0.443 _+0.780 ____ +0.812 J-Nov ___+0.094 ___ +0.055 _-0.201 _+0.136 _+0.387 _-0.129 _+0.921 ____ +0.827 J-Dec ___+0.007 ___ -0.267 _--0.327 _-0.155 _+0.776 _+0.461 _+1.107 ____ +1.100 ______________________________________________________________________________________ (this summary can be found at KL-KT 1051-1062 in the excel file to be posted) ______________________________________________________________________________________ Here's an overview of what this summary shows. There has always been a faint J-year signal with peaks in months five and eleven (at the conjunctions and oppositions of Jupiter). The mean amplitude of this two-wave phenomenon is 0.2 C deg, but it weakened considerably to almost no signal in q.2 (1834-1895). The amplitude in q1 was about 0.4 deg, a little larger than in q3 and the first half of q4, although what catches my eye in q4(1st half) is that the data show either no warming or a cooling from q3 until the last J-month (J-Dec) which is considerably warmer (and that warmth continues into the following J-January). Inspection showed that most of that "new" warmth in the 1958-88 interval happened in those months in the 1980s (notably around June 1982, July 1983, August 1984, and late Sept to Oct 1 1985, June 1970 was one of the few outliers in producing this warmth). Then the second half of the fourth quarter which is more or less the prime AGW interval (1989 to 2019) showed a marked increase over all previous data but as you can see the increase was held to 0.6 C deg in the portion of the J-year defined as 3-5 months after Jupiter oppositions or 1-3 months before Jupiter conjunctions (the portion of earth's orbit where we have passed the Sun-Jupiter connection and even if that curves forward slightly, we are through that forward flex curve which corresponds to about months 12 and 1 (J-Dec into the next J-Jan). The recent increase is a little over 1.0 C deg in the months around both conjunctions and oppositions. It stays relatively high in that portion of the J-year where the earth is approaching Jupiter opposition (unlike the portion after those events). I will at some point tabulate the frequency of daily record highs in the CET against this Jupiter-centric time scale. That will likely show a clustering of these records around Jupiter alignments at 6.5 (conventional) month intervals (on average). Going back into the excel file now to get that ready for inclusion into a post, however, the above table is really the foundation of what that is going to show, you'll be able to see how the data sets are arranged and quite a few other details of this postulated process. (an added observation, the smaller segment of warming in q4(1) looks very much like the opening phase of some larger process in the graphical presentation in the file -- and it corresponds to (mostly happening shortly after) the strong 1982-83 El Nino and the widely noted anomalies in North American data around Dec 1982 which would be roughly equivalent to J-June in this system, a month after a Jupiter conjunction event).

The excel file is currently edited down to a postable size and just needs some editing but the thread post that will introduce it will take some concentrated work so that you have a viable guide to a rather massive amount of data. However, I can post some summaries that will essentially make the same argument about (a) the existence of a signal from Jupiter and (b) changes in that in recent years. I am estimating that the excel file and related post will be available by 0600h Friday. The summary will be posted in about an hour from now.

I could also recommend getting hold of recent TV documentaries under the aegis of "NOVA" that discuss Jupiter and Saturn. This would be fascinating viewing for anyone even if totally uninterested in my research. It opened my eyes to some concepts that I had not previously realized about the potential influence of these large planets on events in the inner solar system. But I had already known that they both have strong magnetic fields (much stronger than ours) which tends to increase their potential to interact in some meaningful way with both the solar wind and cosmic rays. You do need to get beyond thinking of their potential in gravitational terms, this has nothing to do with mass over distance squared. The effects demonstrated vary with much larger powers. Consider that even a change of 0.1% in net solar wind would have a significant influence on terrestrial weather. Is it so hard to imagine that interactions of the Sun with these large planets could be smaller than 0.1% of net solar wind flow? I don't find that difficult to imagine at all given that the solar system magnetic field is known to be arranged in rotating sectors of unequal strength. However, a secular warming must have a cause other than those sectors alone, since we continually traverse them on an annual basis. So that's what this research is about, finding out whether or not the sectors are perhaps getting stronger in time. If it blows a bit of a hole in the AGW theory, that's good for science, in my opinion and if it somehow reinforces the AGW theory then also good for science.

Well in this case there is a physical mechanism, energy flows in the solar system magnetic field are being studied under the general heading of "space weather" (not a term I invented) and I think it's fair to say that is a reputable science in its early stages. What I'm talking about here is not meant to be an alternative to the AGW theory, it has the potential to be anything between that and a parallel process unrelated to it that must be given some weight in our understanding of what is likely to happen going forward. If let's say half the modern warming has this unrelated cause, then we've only seen half of what most in the science had assumed was the footprint of AGW. If it's one third, then we've seen two thirds (all assuming that the two processes cannot interact with each other somehow). Anyway, my more pithy comments are only semi in jest and partly in frustration that we all seem locked into a predictable cycle of viewpoints that really have nothing to do with the actual numbers that I have in the research files, so I am going to get this excel file onto this thread as soon as possible, estimating that might be Friday at latest, the problem being that I have a huge amount of linked equations and stripping portions of the file might corrupt the parts I want to retain. Then you can see three essential things to form a better basis for real discussion here. First of all, what was this background J-year signal? (it is already documented in my research thread which appeared several years ago on net-weather, so nothing new about it). Then how robust has that been over time, is it the same signal in different periods which might bolster confidence in it being a real physical entity? Finally, how has it changed recently and what does that potentially mean? Okay, I am going to spend the rest of today (it is before noon here) working on reducing the data file to something that can be posted in the thread. I will concentrate on showing the data for the J-year rather than widening out the scope to the rest of the supporting data, maybe we could have a second round of discussion in a few weeks after that first round, with the other data added in a second posted file. All of this is new research as far as I know, which means that the question "why didn't somebody notice this before" is irrelevant to the discussion, I have no idea why nobody noticed it before, that's not my job as a scientist, but didn't two different people discover Neptune's existence at roughly the same time in the 1840s working independently? Maybe there's some guy in Russia doing exactly what I'm doing on his computer. Never know with science, nobody should ever assume that we know everything there is to know, especially in our science where to be frank we lag far behind most of the other sciences.

Burn me at the stake, right? Or maybe just a long drawn out inquisition. Well that's already happened so don't bother.

I will get the excel file available for readers to inspect and I think you'll see that there is quite obvious evidence that some sort of solar system magnetic field signal exists, and that it has changed recently after being quite stable for most of the period studied. As to the CET or UK temperatures being a small part of a global picture, point understood but I had already established that there were similar responses at other locations across the northern hemisphere, so the signals were being incorporated into data for other mid-latitude climatic regions. This is a very large and complex topic and at my rather advanced age I am concentrating on getting these basic results accepted so that a future generation of workers could tackle problems such as southern hemisphere, polar regions and tropical zones within this framework. I would invite anyone who is skeptical about this research to wait for a chance to inspect the data and then see if the comments hold up, personally I think that the series of graphs of this effect over time show a very obvious development of a different trend around the 1980s and 1990s. Arguments about this not being supported in science fail to realize that some other studies have been published about high energy flows in the solar system magnetic field and in any case I am not postulating that the source of the warming is at Jupiter or other planets, I am saying that their interactions with the Sun are modulating the solar wind which we know is the primary source of heat for our planet, so any such objections are invalid since the theory doesn't say what you're criticizing it for saying. The important point is that opens up a valid field of objection to the concept that all of the warming we have recently seen is anthropogenic and it may require that we divide the warming into two separate sources, leaving the problem of how to do that and what implications it would have for our response. I don't even have a first estimate of how that should be divided, it could be 90-10 either way or anything in between. Anyway, give me a couple of days, I should have had these files ready when I posted this, but I wanted to get any ideas people might have to help me formulate one or two additional graphs to answer questions I might anticipate. Critics will have the burden of explaining why there is any signal at all in 248 years of data when a Jupiter synodic year time scale is employed. You can take some other time scale and find much smaller variations from a smooth zero net anomaly straight line. Then similar looking profiles emerge for Saturn and Mars on their time scales. I am just looking now at output from the Toronto data and seeing that a very similar result can be demonstrated for the J-year in their data. As to 2010 being cold in Britain and not many other places, you have to get lucky sometimes, but 2010 was also anomalously snowy in the east central United States. The two things were related to the blocking over Greenland. Here again, things like that rather singular event are more likely to be set up by external than internal energy flows in the atmosphere-magnetosphere system. We all know that the SSW phenomenon is something important to long-range weather forecasting and what are the chances that SSW propagates downward rather than upward? Given that there is rather limited predictability involved, I wouldn't want to close any doors on subjects like that.