• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Project Astrometria:Global Cooling until 2100?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Haig

Graduate Poster
H
Joined
Feb 9, 2010
Messages
1,635
Project Astrometria: Global Cooling until 2100?

Read the article here: http://www.gao.spb.ru/english/astrometr/index1_eng.html

A very interesting Russian solar science project. Basically it is about accurate measurement of the Sun's diameter and to investigate the deep inner of the Sun. The minute change in the Sun's diameter has a very direct influence on the climate in the whole solar system.

Measuring the Sun's diameter and thereby the change in surface that can radiate energy to Earth and the rest of the solar system, give us a significant pointer to the TSI Total Solar Irradiance, which again, directly and indirectly changes the global temperature.

Comparing historic TSI and future extrapolation, a very close fit appears between the TSI and the global temperature records.

Even more interesting is the very plausible extrapolation until year 2100, another LIA or worse?

With constantly failing IPCC hind-casts and forecasts this appears the more accurate future for Earth’s climate, any deniers?

So how should we prepare for ourselves for climate change that is not our fault and will cool the globe for decades?
 
BenBurch said:
Same way we prepare for the Zombie Apocalypse, of course!
Click to expand...

Is that your considered view?

Piers Corbyn, astrophysicist says this "The attacks on what the Global Warmers deem as 'solar theory' are the product of disgraceful dishonesty which marks the integrity of the scientific establishment at its lowest level since the Papal Inquisition"

Any serious responses?
 
DogB said:
I'll let you know in 2014.
Click to expand...

Why wait, don't you have a view now?


macdoc said:
Serious response ....to that???

:dl:spare us ..this is a science forum....:garfield:
Click to expand...

Proof that PC is right?

""The attacks on what the Global Warmers deem as 'solar theory' are the product of disgraceful dishonesty which marks the integrity of the scientific establishment at its lowest level since the Papal Inquisition"


The Russians are putting a lot of money and effort into this project and the Earth is cooling as they predict. What prediction of AGW has been right?
 
Haig said:
Why wait, don't you have a view now?
Click to expand...

No I don't. The study is an attempt to fit observation of a phenomenon to pre-existing data sets. No observations have been carried out as yet so no conclusions can be drawn.

When they build the scope and produce some data get back to us.
 
Piers Corbyn Astrophysicist founder WeatherAction says this on the subject:-

"The main periodical solar activity effect - the largest observed periodicity present in world temperature data - is the 22 year cycle (driven by sun-earth magnetic connectivity). Hence for about half the time, the 11 year cycle of solar activity of particles, sunspots and radiation will move with temperature and half the time move against it. This is well known to solar and climate scientists. All the pseudo-scientists have done is essentially choose time spans where the two move in opposite directions and ignore demonstrated correlations on longer time spans. Those who do this are either unbelievably ignorant of their own subject or deliberately deceptive. BBC web 'information' on the matter refuses to publish the truth despite requests and in this programme avoids interviewing scientists in Britain or overseas who research, understand and apply sun-earth magnetic and particle effects in provably skilled weather and climate forecasting***. CO2 based climate and seasonal weather forecasts on the other hand show no skill, have been abysmally incorrect for a decade and have got worse in the last few years."

and he predicts the climate cooling to, at least, 2030 and probably longer. He is an expert in this science
 
Just cause I live near their headquarters,

Monsanto would love to hear that the increase in agricultural production in the XX century is all due to the increase in the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.



Maybe a few others as well.

Increased agricultural production is due to CO2!

:dl:

And dueling is outlawed these days.

People on the interwebs can be so insulting.
 
Last edited:
Haig said:
Is that your considered view?

Piers Corbyn, astrophysicist says this "The attacks on what the Global Warmers deem as 'solar theory' are the product of disgraceful dishonesty which marks the integrity of the scientific establishment at its lowest level since the Papal Inquisition"

Any serious responses?
Click to expand...

What? You don't believe in the Zombie Apocalypse???!!!!111!!eleventy!!
 
OP persists

and the Earth is cooling as they predict.
Click to expand...

care to defend that?....:popcorn1

against say NASA's assessment

Past Decade Warmest on Record, NASA Data Shows - NYTimes.com
22 Jan 2010 ... The agency also found that 2009 was the second warmest year since 1880, when temperature measurement began.
Click to expand...
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/science/earth/22warming.html

Your entire approach reeks of denier agitprop rather than honest inquiry.

I suspect if we did the math about the 21 million Lenigrad nuclear stations mentioned in the paper we'd find the solar contribution to be well within the 25% ( 16 -36% ) range swing of the 11 year cycle as to variation and far below the AGW figure.

decent summary

On May 6, 2000, however, New Scientist magazine reported that Lassen and astrophysicist Peter Thejll had updated Lassen's 1991 research and found that while the solar cycle still accounts for about half the temperature rise since 1900, it fails to explain a rise of 0.4 °C since 1980. "The curves diverge after 1980," Thejll said, "and it's a startlingly large deviation. Something else is acting on the climate.... It has the fingerprints of the greenhouse effect."[68]
Later that same year, Peter Stott and other researchers at the Hadley Centre in the United Kingdom published a paper in which they reported on the most comprehensive model simulations to date of the climate of the 20th century. Their study looked at both "natural forcing agents" (solar variations and volcanic emissions) as well as "anthropogenic forcing" (greenhouse gases and sulphate aerosols). They found that "solar effects may have contributed significantly to the warming in the first half of the century although this result is dependent on the reconstruction of total solar irradiance that is used. In the latter half of the century, we find that anthropogenic increases in greenhouses gases are largely responsible for the observed warming, balanced by some cooling due to anthropogenic sulphate aerosols, with no evidence for significant solar effects." Stott's team found that combining all of these factors enabled them to closely simulate global temperature changes throughout the 20th century. They predicted that continued greenhouse gas emissions would cause additional future temperature increases "at a rate similar to that observed in recent decades". It should be noted that their solar forcing included "spectrally-resolved changes in solar irradiance" and not the indirect effects mediated through cosmic rays for which there is still no accepted mechanism — these ideas are still being fleshed out.[69] In addition, the study notes "uncertainties in historical forcing" — in other words, past natural forcing may still be having a delayed warming effect, most likely due to the oceans.[70] A graphical representation[71] of the relationship between natural and anthropogenic factors contributing to climate change appears in "Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis", a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).[72]

Stott's 2003 work mentioned in the model section above largely revised his assessment, and found a significant solar contribution to recent warming, although still smaller (between 16 and 36%) than that of the greenhouse gases.[61]
Click to expand...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation

Let us know when your thesis shows up in Nature...:garfield:
 
BenBurch said:
What? You don't believe in the Zombie Apocalypse???!!!!111!!eleventy!!
Click to expand...
Your repeating yourself.
parky76 said:
me likes dis line. iz funny.:p
Click to expand...
Cute.
macdoc said:
OP persists care to defend that?....:popcorn1

against say NASA's assessment




http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/science/earth/22warming.html

Your entire approach reeks of denier agitprop rather than honest inquiry.

I suspect if we did the math about the 21 million Lenigrad nuclear stations mentioned in the paper we'd find the solar contribution to be well within the 25% ( 16 -36% ) range swing of the 11 year cycle as to variation and far below the AGW figure.

decent summary


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation

Let us know when your thesis shows up in Nature...:garfield:
Click to expand...

"care to defend that?....: against say NASA's assessment"

These scientists in the article can:

"The tendency of decrease in the global Earth temperature started in 2006–2008 will temporarily pause in 2010–2012. The increase in TSI within a short 11-year cycle 24 is expected to temporarily compensate the decrease in TSI within the ongoing 2-century variation. Only the decrease in TSI within the ongoing 11-year cycle 24 accompanied by continued decrease of its 2-century component in 2013–2015 will lead to stable subsequent cooling of our planet, which is expected to reach its minimum in the phase of a deep cooling by 2055–2060 ± 112

Pof Jones answers this to the BBC:
B - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?

Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.


:popcorn1

Your view of Russian science does you no credit IMHO
 
BenBurch said:
Can we have Galileo back?

Or Archimedes Plutonium?
Click to expand...

No, you've got the Russian scientists, supported by Professor Phil Jones (thanks to the BBC) and Piers Corbyn, astrophysicist to deal with.

"the coming 24-26 cycles will see a tendency of the further decrease in 11-year variations amplitude and the TSI."

The sunspot cycles show we are is for a long period of cooling:cool:
 
No, we got you.

And, um, how to put this delicately? We have direct measurements of solar output over this period that make those supposed "scientists" into the world's biggest fools. They are very, very wrong.
 
OP - nice try on the selective edit bit

YOU said.

Quote:
and the Earth is cooling as they predict.
I said
care to defend that?....

against say NASA's assessment
Click to expand...

Past Decade Warmest on Record, NASA Data Shows - NYTimes.com
22 Jan 2010 ... The agency also found that 2009 was the second warmest year since 1880, when temperature measurement began.
Click to expand...
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/sc...22warming.html

You did not defend YOUR statement that the earth is cooling....you dodged it completely.....you are just an ill informed denier grasping at straws and dishonest in your responses to direct challenges......

Still waiting for your defence of your statement

and the Earth is cooling as they predict.
against NASA's assessment of the past decade .....:popcorn1

You are invoking a future prediction based on dodgy science from one group and lying about the current state of the warming to avoid taking responsibility for your support of DO NOTHING in regards to fossil carbon use reduction......

This is a science forum....expect nonsense to be exposed and challenged....
 
BenBurch said:
No, we got you.
And, um, how to put this delicately? We have direct measurements of solar output over this period that make those supposed "scientists" into the world's biggest fools. They are very, very wrong.
Click to expand...
No, I don't think so. If you look back at my OP you'll see lots of "?" and that's all I'm doing.
BenBurch said:
Source: Foukal et al. 2006. Variations in solar luminosity and their effect on the Earth's climate. Nature 443: 161-166.
Click to expand...
No, I don't think you understand, it's not the solar luminosity (sunshine) which is steady to 0.1 but the Sun's other outputs, like particles (solar wind) and magnitic effects (CME, Flares) that are critical, they say.
BenBurch said:
BTW, Galileo was a former member here, Archimedes Plutonium was an infamous usenet poster; http://www.indopedia.org/Archimedes_Plutonium.html
Click to expand...
Thanks for the info.
macdoc said:
OP - nice try on the selective edit bit

YOU said.

Quote:
and the Earth is cooling as they predict.
I said



http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/sc...22warming.html

You did not defend YOUR statement that the earth is cooling....you dodged it completely.....you are just an ill informed denier grasping at straws and dishonest in your responses to direct challenges......

Still waiting for your defence of your statement

and the Earth is cooling as they predict.
against NASA's assessment of the past decade .....:popcorn1

You are invoking a future prediction based on dodgy science from one group and lying about the current state of the warming to avoid taking responsibility for your support of DO NOTHING in regards to fossil carbon use reduction......

This is a science forum....expect nonsense to be exposed and challenged....
Click to expand...

The Earth has been cooling:

Prof Jones answer to BBC question:-
C - Do you agree that from January 2002 to the present there has been statistically significant global cooling?

No. This period is even shorter than 1995-2009. The trend this time is negative (-0.12C per decade), but this trend is not statistically significant.

It may not be statistically significant to Prof Jones or You but it IS cooling.

BTW,So much for the "Welcome to the JREF Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way"

When does that start?

This might help some of you understand, if not, I would still like to get back "on topic" for this thread, thanks.

Piers Corbyn explains:-

Interview on Sky News August 2009
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=09h48RJiQM0
and here:
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=4968&linkbox=true&position=16
Key points

1. Lots of things visible & invisible happen on the sun - ejecting particles, radiation, changing magnetic fields etc.

2. They have no effect on Earth unless they actually hit earth (or Earth's magnetic field) and penetrate to wherever they will be effective.

3. The factors which control the EFFECT of solar activity (including measured, unmeasured and as yet unknown fluxes) broadly cover directional effects from the sun, magnetic linkages between the solar wind and the earth and modulation effects include lunar effects, seasons, stratospheric winds etc

4. The directional effects are crucial. Most CMEs (Coronal mass ejections) miss earth entirely.

5. The modulation & linkage factors vary hugely - Like the difference between what you feel in a room on a wet & windy day when a window is open or closed. Indeed the concept of the earth's magnetic field being open or closed to the solar wind is about 50 years old.

6. The importance of NOTHING. When just about Nothing seems to be happening on the sun that too can be very important, it may make the jet stream more stable but when something interrupts such a quiet state we notice big time.
This may be relevant to the astounding almost circular with amazing triangular symmetry jet stream in earlier parts of January which has got disrupted dramatically by a series of predicted SWIPS since then - especially 18th-20th - see animation links in WANewsNo8.
It's like if a loud mouth walks into a noisy party there is not much effect but there would be in a quaker prayer meeting.

Piers

More detail here:
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=1771
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=1831
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom