Chris Knight

What do you mean Mike, cloudspotters or BBC4 programs? It was quite a gentle 90 minutes and with some interesting information - I now know what a Derecho is, and how to pronounce it, nothing to do with the program incidentally, but due to youtubing on clouds after the program. Must go, my anorak is calling

That would be "Tipp-Ex ed", then :winky:

For Noggin, or anyone else who may have missed it, Wind is here

You are not alone VP see here

Just posted in General - the 1960's hump was also probably due to USN SST irregularities.

Apparently for exactly the same reasons - the US Navy stood down after WWII, and again after the tensions had eased after the Cuban Missile crisis, (I suppose for refits and economic reasons) and therefore the warm engine intake readings stopped for a while. Source I wonder when CRU does make the adjustments in SST records to account for this, if the warmer readings will be adjusted down, or the cooler readings adjusted up? I suspect the latter!

David Thompson seems to be an interesting researcher and author regarding Atmospheric Physical processes. His manuscripts are available here, and may interest those who followed the recent SSW thread, amonst others.

Was it this? PDF here.

If you subtracted the LI output from the temperature curve data, you would know exactly what shape of curve would be required to bring the LI into perfect alignment. Perhaps we could then look at some of the teleconnections. There are certainly indices out there like the winter PCI (The atmospheric circulation index for the Pacific-North American region) and the Aleutian Low Pressure Index that have big inflections around 1945 (and 1976), but I am guessing that you would need something more subtle.

Thanks J1:good:

Lot of atmospheric thermonuclear & enhanced fission nuclear tests during that period - lots of radioactivity in the atmosphere until the test ban treaty, following the Cuban Missile Crisis, both in the tropical pacific and in the Arctic. Radioactivity - ionisation - cloud nucleation events - increased albedo - reduction of surface insolation - not so much a loss as a reduction in input. However, there is no global cloud data for that period (that any government has yet released). They did call it the Cold War! Thankx to TWS for the SOI source :lol:

Thanks TWS. Is the SOI numerical data from the second link available online anywhere?

I thought I had found a good long recent historical ENSO record here, but sadly it seems flawed. Looking through the data, the 1997-8 El Nino doesn't seem to exist, as either a very strong or extreme event, and some of the dates seem to be wrong compared to the ENSO-ONI data from NOAA. Who peer reviews this stuff?

You could try putting a lag of about sixty years between the Leif chart and the temperature That would even predict the current temperature stagnation! I would hate to be called closed-minded, VP. Why don't you add Mauna Loa CO2 to this? At least we know the IPCC estimate of the temperature of a doubling in CO2, and we can then extrapolate back in time to preindustrial periods, without using ice core data. ENSO data is made up of SST anomalies, and is therefore a part of the HADCRUT3 temperature series, you'd be putting a temperature signal into the model, which is a rather circular reference IMO.

1957 had a whopper of a sunspot maximum. VP's sunspot data confirm this in the following chart. In an earlier post here I suggested that TSI data available on Leif Svalgaard's site might be used as a more precise and appropriate input than the sunspot numbers: The data are here:tsi.txt This is following the trusted formula: if the data do not fit the model results, change the data edited for grammar.

It could just be the volcano data from Mann et al 1998 (remember who this Mann is!). It is also possible that the degree of activity was underestimated. It may not mean that the early half of the 20th century was unusually short of volcanic forcing as the graph of the data below indicates, it may be for various socioeconomic reasons, attention was directed elsewhere, and volcanoes went unreported. If real, that period was distinctly unusual. Not one southern hemisphere eruption below the tropics was recorded. However, there were a few eruptions from the period which left (SO2) traces in the polar ice: Ksudach, Kamchatka, Russia NH 1907 Novarupta-Katmai, Alaska NH 1912 Agrigan, Marianas USA(?) T 1917 Kelut, Indonesia T 1919 Cerro Azul (Quizapu), Ecuador T 1932 Rabaul, Indonesia (?) T 1937 Hekla, Iceland NH 1947 Bezymianny, Kamchatka NH 1956 (?) NH 1960 VP, If the LI algorithm is doing what it should, if there are volcanoes it should depress the slope, if there is no volcanic activity over a period of time, then perhaps the clarity of the atmosphere would act as a positive forcing, and therefore should increase the slope.

Those naughty Germans, twice. A great depression. A greater dependence on oil (petrol and diesel) for transport, on Land and Sea, with a lot of methane and petrochemical gases (mostly potent GGS) released (remember "gushers") as oilfields were found and oilwells were drilled. Increase in population leading to increase of requirement for irrigation in drought stricken corn belts. Increase in black carbon pollution in populated centres, increase in urbanization. The rise of Communism. Aviation. Reduction in dependence on animals for transport and agricultural energy. 1950s reduced dependence on coal for domestic heating as the realisation of the danger of atmospheric pollution led to various clean air acts. Electrification of former gas lighting - streets, domestic.

What about the change in the earth's angular momentum, equivalent to -Δlength of day? This is made up of effects of mountain torque (winds), changes of distribution of mass - ocean, cryosphere, atmosphere and lithosphere, and lunisolar precessional torque (effects of tides from all bodies in the solar system). The figure of a mean change of 2 thousandths of a second a day per year doesn't sound a lot, but it does mean we gain a (leap) second about every 500 days, and the earth has a lot of angular momentum in total. This equates to the effects of all the heat that does not go into radiation out to space, apart from that stored say in the oceans, either as heat, or as change in total global biomass. It can be thought of as heat transduced to kinetic energy, stored as potential mechanical energy. It can be released as heat through friction by the tides in both shallow and deep oceans. Now whether the actual heat amounts are significant is doubtful, but the associated changes (i.e. oscillations) in ocean currents, upwelling and winds are certainly becoming more important, the more is known about them. On the graph below, a negative slope represents a slowing down, a positive slope represents an increase in angular momentum. Negative represents more friction, positive less, I think. Effects would certainly represent a latent period between energy input and output. Omega is in prads/s. There is some interest in the role of the earths angular momentum as a climate forcing/feedback, by the Russians, particularly Nikolay Sidorenkov, who has a book out soon, and Leonid Klyashtorin, an oceanographer. The data above can be found at IERS (International Earth Rotation Service) or here: LODomega.txt

Which warm moist air rises via convection, condenses* (releasing latent heat into the mid and upper troposphere, warming it there) into clouds, increasing albedo (-ve feedback) reducing insolation of the surface (-ve feedback), and precipitating the condensed water (and dissolved CO2 back to the surface, cooling the surface (-ve feedback) and feeding the land and ocean CO2 sinks. *also absorbing the CO2 on the enormous surface area of the tiny droplets of cold water in the condensate. But what warms the CO2 first, and where does the warming take place?

Early retirement is good enough for me Dev. (as long as you mean it), and yes, it is a playground.

Hang on Pete, are you referring to the illustration given by me? A crappy biassed billboard presentation of why our IPCC soap is best, and should be used to wash all governmental minds??

I'd agree that the recent meaning of "climate" equates with "Post-industrial Climate", and all before is only "proxy" or "local" or "anecdotal" evidence, therefore falling into an interpreted "palaeoclimatological record", where the strands of evidence are so diverse, and sometimes contradictory, that there is a real ideological battle going on. In other words, we exist in an Orwellian matrix where truth is the first casualty, and the second is that free thinking is outlawed, and the third is that history becomes a fluid morass, and thus fails to teach us anything.