/home/bill/Climate/Vaughan, Paul/140202 Original verbose posting of Climate 101, version 2.txt
20Dec2013 Paul Vaughan - Sun-Climate 101 Solar-Terrestrial Primer, version 2
As food for a great deal of thought, here is a second, significantly-expanded version of Paul's powerful
Sun-Climate 101 document-in-development, that includes the contents of the earlier version from 04Aug2013
(pumping, persistence, Solar-Pulsed Decadal Terrestrial Circulation and the Solar-Terrestrial-Climate Weave),
and increments it with :
- "Solar-Terrestrial Weave" - details of arithmetic showing its relationship to "Weather" (day-to-month timescale)
and "short-term Climate" (annual-to-decadal timescale)
- Examples manifesting "short-term Climate" (annual-decadal timescale) oscillations :
- "Zonal Total Column Ozone Waves" - which is also an interesting contrast to the public's only impression
about ozone holes from the "Chloro-Fluoro-Carbon" (CFC) frenzy.
- "Antarctic Ice & Length of Day"
- "Multidecadal Atlantic Hurricane Rates" - "... are coherent with a simple measure of changing
durations of solar-governed northern hemisphere circulatory configurations.
- "Nonuniform Meridional semi-annual Gradients" for [temperature, wind, pressure, ozone] from pole to pole
- "Agassiz BC Canada temperatures"
- Examples manifesting "Weather" (day-to-month timescale) oscillations, in the form of composite animations
for average annual cycles to visualize the effects (descriptions and links below are taken directly from Paul's document) :
-
"sun, temperature, & wind" - visualizing & understanding terrestrial 200hPa semiannual midlatitude
westerly winds = westerlies = mean terrestrial jet streams
-
"sun, temperature, wind, & ozone" - equator-pole insolation & temperature gradients,
semiannual midlatitude westerly winds = westerlies = mean jet streams, & ozone
-
"pressure, wind, waves, & gyres" - visualizing & understanding coherence of terrestrial surface pressure, wind, waves, &
currents (ocean gyres)
-
"water = hydrology" - multivariate hydrology in the context of sunlight, temperature, pressure, wind, & welling
-
"cloud cover" - low, mid level, high, & total cloud cover
- Plus a host of other weather variables...
As usual, Paul gives full credit to Nikolay Sidorenkov, [Dickey & Keppenne (NASA JPL 1997 Figure 3b)],
[Le Mouël, Blanter, Shnirman, & Courtillot (Solar forcing of the semi-annual variation of length-of-day [2010])],
and many others who have inspired him and provided a foundation for his work.
Pauls' "Challenge for Climate Modelers" -
Here I include verbatim Paul's challenge :
"... Sensibly adapt to overcome Sidorenkov's (2009) simplification (p.184 [pdf p.198]):
"[...] hereafter we will neglect the variations in W [...]" (**)
When due care is taken to view clustered volatility through a bifocal lens balanced to
avoid nonlinear ENSO water redistribution bias, equator-to-polar-night spatial gradients
are seen to vary in lockstep with the solar cycle as illustrated by Dickey & Keppenne
(NASA JPL 1997 Figure 3b) and clarified by Le Mouël, Blanter, Shnirman, & Courtillot
(Solar forcing of the semi-annual variation of length-of-day [2010]).
The geometric consequences are simple - (see pages 1-3 above). These insights are governed by
the laws of large numbers & conservation of angular momentum.
Climate evolution isn't only a function of total energy input, but also the spatiotemporal
gradient of input, the driver of mixing. Wind's the primary driver of ocean currents,
welling, evaporation, ice transport, & solar-paced stirring more generally. ..."
On a happy-yet-sad-to-think-he-may-disappear note, Paul says that he has nearly completed the work
that he set out to do so many years ago. There are one or two loose ends for him to
clean up. Paul is convinced that there can be no sensible doubt remaining about the solar-terrestrial-weave, and that there's also no doubt about the existence of lunisolar-terrestrial-weaves -- a few more year's worth of data will simply yield clarification about whether that specific lunisolar-terrestrial weave (a very special one) has a reversed phase. After that, perhaps he can catch up with his kayaking and hiking.
** Howell -> Sidorenkov uses W = solar radiation power over the year, and states that
"... changes are due to the eccentricity of the Earth's orbit. The value of W in January is approximately by
7% larger than that in July. ..."
NOTE : The following comments are my (Bill Howell) opinions ONLY. Paul doesn't share my opinions, so please don't blame him! ...
Finally, Paul is emerging alive from years of scathing attacks on the blogs by big-name-big-institute
mainstream scientists (disguised names or not), and some of his tormentors have reversed their
positions in the last 6 months to a year, and seem to be coming to him for advice. My impression is that for Paul, the most important
lesson to learn from climate science is that we must all remain civil, and refrain from personal attacks.
In contrast to Paul's thinking and work (certainly, he decisively do not subscribe to the following views!!!), it seems to ME that eccentricity is certainly NOT the only source of variability in W, at any timescale.
For example, Piers Corbyn's www.weatheraction.com makes heavy use of coronal holes and other solar phenomena to
produce stunning 30-to-45 day extreme weather forecasts. The whole area of sun-Earth connections and solar system phenomena
may have far more to add here. For example, Paul has continually noted planetary correlations, albeit these are
weak compared to the astronomy-Earth-Climate-based correlations he has worked on for the last 4 years.
Furthermore, Svensmark's galactic rays and the Electric Universe community provide fuerther
tantalizing concepts. The interesting point is that none of these groups seems enthusiastic about the other.
In a strange way, some of Paul's experiences have reminded me of my own impression for perhaps a decade or so, that :
"... For many of the great science-environmental-health issues that have exploded onto the mainstream
public's radar, I often get the distinct impression that the scientific
opinions of scientists have far more to do with whichever political party they sympathize with, than with what the
[honest, competent, diligent, non-hypocritical, non-backstabbing, brave] data and analysis might say.
Furthermore, the strengths of their convictions bear scant relation to the strength of that data & analysis. ..."
I guess we're all believers of some sort or another, many scientists more than most. ...