Update: 1:53pm Eastern Time

Earthquake Condition Index: B+
The sunspot number may have peaked today! If we get no more spots during these transits it would explain the uptick near PNG and in Mexico. The coronal hole coming may further this uptick – we shall see… [6.3 Mexico, multiple 5s near Papua New Guinea]

Apart from a whopping C4 [sarcasm] solar flare, all is calm today, so how about a little fruit of the gatherer. This is the email sent to me from Gatherer314 earlier today:::

Hello S0,
You’ve likely already seen some of these, but thought I’d send them over anyway:

‘Temperature trends during the Present and Last Interglacial periods – a multi-model-data comparison’
“..If the general picture emerging from reconstructions is realistic, then the model-data mismatch in mid and high Southern Hemisphere latitudes implies that none of the models is able to resolve the correct balance of these feedbacks, or, alternatively, that interglacial Southern Hemisphere temperature trends are driven by mechanisms which are not included in the transient simulations, such as changes in the Antarctic ice sheet or meltwater-induced changes in the overturning circulation.”

‘Radiative forcing and temperature change at Potsdam between 1893 and 2012.’

‘Changes in global net radiative imbalance 1985-2012’

‘Reversals of the solar magnetic dipole in the light of observational data and simple dynamo models’
~ http://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/abs/2014/07/aa23319-13/aa23319-13.html

‘How important are the alpha-proton relative drift and the electron heat flux for the proton heating of the solar wind in the inner heliosphere?’

‘Global climate simulations at 3000 year intervals for the last 21 000 years with the GENMOM coupled atmosphere–ocean model’
~ http://www.clim-past-discuss.net/10/2925/2014/cpd-10-2925-2014.html

‘Testing the hockey-stick hypothesis by statistical analyses of a large dataset of proxy records’
This paper is a statistical time-series investigation addressed at testing the anthropogenic climate change hypothesis known as the “hockey-stick”. The time-series components of a select batch of 258 long-term yearly Climate Change Proxies (CCP) included in 19 paleoclimate datasets, all of which running back as far as the year 2192 B.C., are reconstructed by means of univariate Bayesian Calibration. The instrumental temperature record utilized is the Global Best Estimated Anomaly (BEA) of the HADCRUT4 time series readings available yearly for the period 1850-2010. After performing appropriate data transformations, Ordinary Least Squares parameter estimates are obtained, and subsequently simulated by means of multi-draw Gibbs sampling for each year of the
pre-1850 period. The ensuing Time-Varying Parameter sequence is utilized to produce high-resolution calibrated estimates of the CCP series, merged with BEA to yield Millennial-scale Time Series (MTS). Finally, the MTS are individually tested for temperature single break date and multiple peak dates. As a result, the estimated temperature breaks and peaks suggest widespread rejection of the hockey-stick hypothesis since they are mostly centered in the Medieval Warm Period.
~ http://pattern-recognition-in-physics.com/pub/prp-2-36-2014.pdf

‘New evidence on the dimming/brightening phenomenon and decreasing diurnal temperature range in Iran (1961–2009)’
“..In this study, variations of sunshine duration and diurnal temperature range (DTR) are used as proxies for surface solar radiation. Annual and seasonal composites of both variables from 29 stations are analyzed from 1961 through 2009 across the different types of climates of Iran. The annual sunshine duration mean time series shows a decrease from the early 1960s to the late 1970s, in line with the widespread dimming of surface solar radiation observed during this period. By the early 1980s, there is an increase in sunshine through the end of the 20th century, aligning with a well-known and well-documented brightening period..”
~ http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/joc.4107/abstract

‘First Evidence of Fully Spatially Mixed First and Second Generations in Globular Clusters: The Case of NGC 6362’
~ http://iopscience.iop.org/2041-8205/791/1/L4/article

‘Synchronization of North Pacific and Greenland climates preceded abrupt deglacial warming’
Some proposed mechanisms for transmission of major climate change events between the North Pacific and North Atlantic predict opposing patterns of variations; others suggest synchronization. Resolving this conflict has implications for regulation of poleward heat transport and global climate change. New multidecadal-resolution foraminiferal oxygen isotope records from the Gulf of Alaska (GOA) reveal sudden shifts between intervals of synchroneity and asynchroneity with the North Greenland Ice Core Project (NGRIP) δ18O record over the past 18,000 years. Synchronization of these regions occurred 15,500 to 11,000 years ago, just prior to and throughout the most abrupt climate transitions of the last 20,000 years, suggesting that dynamic coupling of North Pacific and North Atlantic climates may lead to critical transitions in Earth’s climate system.
~ http://www.sciencemag.org/content/345/6195/444.short

[thought this was kinda amusing, if it weren’t so sad…] “..This implies that the Antarctic sea ice trends reported in the IPCC’s AR4 and AR5 [the 2007 and 2013 assessment reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] can’t both be correct: our findings show that the data used in one of the reports contains a significant error. But we have not yet been able to identify which one contains the error,” ..”
~ http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-satellite-antarctic-sea-ice-20140724-story.html
‘A spurious jump in the satellite record: has Antarctic sea ice expansion been overestimated?’
~ http://www.the-cryosphere.net/8/1289/2014/tc-8-1289-2014.html

“..Scientists with the libertarian Cato Institute have criticized the study for suggesting a large portion of the South Pole’s sea ice growth is a data glitch when in reality the growth attributable to data processing errors is a “molehill.” “If the reason that the shift was undetected is because the data is so noisy, how important can it be?” Cato scientists Patrick Michaels and Chip Knappenberger asked, pointing out that the term “much” used by the study’s authors only refers to about 200,000 square kilometers (about 77,220 square miles). “The change since the turn of the century is about 1.3 million square kilometers, a mountain of ice,” wrote Michaels and Knappenberger. “The step change is about 200,000, a molehill. That doesn’t sound like ‘much’ to us.” “But, hey, if you don’t look too close — and we are sure our greener friends (or the reviewers) won’t (or didn’t) — you might believe that everything is OK with the reigning, model-based paradigm. In fact there’s’‘much’ that is wrong with it,” Michaels and Knappenberger added. Scientists with NASA, who developed the disputed algorithm to calculate sea ice extent, also challenged Eisenman’s view, including the scientist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md., who developed the algorithm that is being criticized in the study. “The apparent expansion is real and not due to an error in a previous data set uncovered by the Eisenman et al paper,” NASA’s Josefino Comiso told Live Science. “That error has already been corrected and the expansion being reported now has also been reported by other groups as well using different techniques.”
~ http://dailycaller.com/2014/07/28/whats-really-happening-in-antarctica/

‘HAC robust trend comparisons among climate series with possible level shifts’
Comparisons of trends across climatic data sets are complicated by the presence of serial correlation and possible step-changes in the mean. We build on heteroskedasticity and autocorrelation robust methods, specifically the Vogelsang–Franses (VF) nonparametric testing approach, to allow for a step-change in the mean (level shift) at a known or unknown date. The VF method provides a powerful multivariate trend estimator robust to unknown serial correlation up to but not including unit roots. We show that the critical values change when the level shift occurs at a known or unknown date. We derive an asymptotic approximation that can be used to simulate critical values, and we outline a simple bootstrap procedure that generates valid critical values and p-values. Our application builds on the literature comparing simulated and observed trends in the tropical lower troposphere and mid-troposphere since 1958. The method identifies a shift in observations around 1977, coinciding with the Pacific Climate Shift. Allowing for a level shift causes apparently significant observed trends to become statistically insignificant. Model overestimation of warming is significant whether or not we account for a level shift, although null rejections are much stronger when the level shift is included.
~ http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/env.2294/abstract

‘Scientists Find That Saturn’s Rotation Period is a Puzzle’
“..Here’s the puzzle: That is about 6 minutes, or one percent, longer than the radio rotational period measured by the Voyager 1 and Voyager 2 spacecraft, which flew by Saturn in 1980 and 1981. … Gurnett said, “Although Saturn’s radio rotation period has clearly shifted substantially since the Voyager measurements, I don’t think any of us could conceive of any process that would cause the rotation of the entire planet to actually slow down. So it appears that there is some kind of slippage between the deep interior of the planet and the magnetic field, which controls the charged particles responsible for the radio emission.” He suggests the solution may be tied to the fact that Saturn’s rotational axis is nearly identical to its magnetic axis. Jupiter, with a more substantial difference between its magnetic axis and its rotational axis, shows no comparable irregularities in its radio rotation period. “This finding is very significant. It demonstrates that the idea of a rigidly rotating magnetic field is wrong,” said Dr. Alex Dessler, a senior research scientist at the University of Arizona, Tucson. In that way, the magnetic fields of gas giant planets may resemble that of the Sun. The Sun’s magnetic field does not rotate uniformly. Instead, its rotation period varies with latitude. “Saturn’s magnetic field has more in common with the Sun than the Earth. The measurement can be interpreted as showing that the part of Saturn’s magnetic field that controls the radio emissions has moved to a higher latitude during the last two decades,” said Dressler…”
~ http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/cassini/media/cassini-062804.html

‘Global temperatures and sunspot numbers. Are they related? Yes, but non linearly. A reply to Gil-Alana et al. (2014)’
Recently Gil-Alana et al. (2014) compared the sunspot number record and the temperature record and found that they differ: the sunspot number record is characterized by a dominant 11-year cycle while the temperature record appears to be characterized by a “singularity” or “pole” in the spectral density function at the “zero” frequency. Consequently, they claimed that the two records are characterized by substantially different statistical fractional models and rejected the hypothesis that the Sun influences significantly global temperatures. I will show that: (1) the “singularity” or “pole” in the spectral density function of the global surface temperature at the “zero” frequency does not exist—the observed pattern derives from the post 1880 warming trend of the temperature signal and is a typical misinterpretation that discrete power spectra of non-stationary signals can suggest; (2) appropriate continuous periodograms clarify the issue and also show a signature of the 11-year solar cycle (amplitude ), which since 1850 has an average period of about 10.4 year, and of many other natural oscillations; (3) the solar signature in the surface temperature record can be recognized only using specific techniques of analysis that take into account non-linearity and filtering of the multiple climate change contributions; (4) the post 1880-year temperature warming trend cannot be compared or studied against the sunspot record and its 11-year cycle, but requires solar proxy models showing short and long scale oscillations plus the contribution of anthropogenic forcings, as done in the literature. Multiple evidences suggest that global temperatures and sunspot numbers are quite related to each other at multiple time scales. Thus, they are characterized by cyclical fractional models. However, solar and climatic indexes are related to each other through complex and non-linear processes. Finally, I show that the prediction of a semi-empirical model for the global surface temperature based on astronomical oscillations and anthropogenic forcing proposed by Scafetta since 2009 has, up to date, been successful.

Also, I am unsure if I’ve mentioned Lam’s paper to you before(?)…
‘The interplanetary magnetic field influences mid-latitude surface atmospheric pressure’
The existence of a meteorological response in the polar regions to fluctuations in the interplanetary magnetic field (IMF) component By is well established. More controversially, there is evidence to suggest that this Sun–weather coupling occurs via the global atmospheric electric circuit. Consequently, it has been assumed that the effect is maximized at high latitudes and is negligible at low and mid-latitudes, because the perturbation by the IMF is concentrated in the polar regions. We demonstrate a previously unrecognized influence of the IMF By on mid-latitude surface pressure. The difference between the mean surface pressures during times of high positive and high negative IMF By possesses a statistically significant mid-latitude wave structure similar to atmospheric Rossby waves. Our results show that a mechanism that is known to produce atmospheric responses to the IMF in the polar regions is also able to modulate pre-existing weather patterns at mid-latitudes. We suggest the mechanism for this from conventional meteorology. The amplitude of the effect is comparable to typical initial analysis uncertainties in ensemble numerical weather prediction. Thus, a relatively localized small-amplitude solar influence on the upper atmosphere could have an important effect, via the nonlinear evolution of atmospheric dynamics, on critical atmospheric processes.
~ http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/4/045001/pdf/1748-9326_8_4_045001.pdf

There’s a few others of interest (along with some older ones) that I’ll send over in the next couple of days.
Hope all is well with you and yours,
Peace out.