Project Astrometria:Global Cooling until 2100?
- Thread starter Haig
- Start date
- Status
Well, if you actually bothered to present any compelling evidence to support your case then maybe we could talk about that. But all you seem to say basically boils down to "I think PC is correct because it says so on his web pages".
Which ones? The people at the conference? They weren't credible climatologists, no.
No he doesn't.
No, I'm not. When you first tried your ridiculous argument from popularity contest I at least thought you were trying to talk about qualified scientists. I was wrong, I clearly overestimated you and for that I apologise.
Come back when you have evidence.
No they do not in any way shape or form. Are you completely incapable of understanding the basic numbers you've been given. Which bit do you not comprehend?
Last edited:
Lets bring the topic back to the OP and try to avoid any more derails (I will reply to anyone who insists on a direct reply)
The Russian-Ukrainian project ASTROMETRIA
(ok, so it’s not the best translation you will read but the message is clear “it’s the Sun not us” driving climate change)
"We expect that after cooling of the upper ocean in 5-8 years (namely, in a decline phase of the 24th cycle in 2012-2015) earthmen will feel a very slow beginning of global cooling, and after decades – its more active phase. Due to thermal inertia of the Earth only after 15-20 years after beginning in about 2041 of a deep minimum of TSI – in 2055-2060 – the next climatic minimum and deep cooling of Earth climate will begin"
http://www.bobbrinsmead.com/e_Abdussamatov.html
http://www.bobbrinsmead.com/e_Abdussamatov_files/image009.jpg
NASA and the Sun
This is supporting evidence (even if it's unintentional on NASA's part) for the Russians and Piers Corbyn's ideas.
Solar Cycle Update
“As sunspot numbers mount, coronal mass ejections and solar wind disturbances will trigger more and more geomagnetic storms. In extreme cases, these storms can induce electric currents in the earth and oceans that interfere with electric power transmission equipment.
The extra ultraviolet (UV) and X-ray radiation created by magnetic fields around sunspots also cause the Earth's atmosphere to heat up and expand”
http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/ast14oct99_1.htm
The Day the Solar Wind Disappeared
“From May 10-12, 1999, the solar wind that blows constantly from the Sun virtually disappeared -- the most drastic and longest-lasting decrease ever observed.
Dropping to a fraction of its normal density and to half its normal speed, the solar wind died down enough to allow physicists to observe particles flowing directly from the Sun's corona to Earth. This severe change in the solar wind also changed the shape of Earth's magnetic field and produced an unusual auroral display at the North Pole”
http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/ast13dec99_1.htm
.
Finding the 'smoking gun' before it fires
“Under conditions that still are not fully understood, magnetic field lines that should be snaking past each other - like Moore's handshake - instead reconnect”.
“Suddenly, everything snaps back, and 10 billion tons of ionized gas are hurled into space at up to a 3 million km/h. If the gas bundle - still constrained by its own magnetic field - goes off at the right spot on the sun, it intercepts the Earth in about four days. In turn, that sets off geomagnetic storms that can damage satellites in space and shut down electrical power grids on the ground.”
“a CME eruption on Jan. 16, 1993. As the images show, the eruption occurred when the region was just to the south of disk center; the material arrived at Earth and generated geomagnetic storms a few days later.”
http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/ast09mar99_1.htm
The Resurgent Sun
“Earth-directed solar explosions, for instance, tend to happen every 27 days -- the time it takes for sunspots to rotate once around the Sun. There is also an occasional 155-day cycle of solar flares. No one knows what causes it. And the double peaks of recent solar maxima are separated by approximately 18 months.”
“Magnetic fields are produced by electric currents -- that is, charges in motion. The Sun itself is a conducting fluid.”
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2002/18jan_solarback.htm
Watching the Angry Sun
The flare coincided with a coronal mass ejection (CME) which sent billions of tons of plasma into space traveling at 4 million miles per hour, two times faster than normal.
http://science.msfc.nasa.gov/headlines/y2000/ast22dec_1.htm
So the science is not settled, it seems to many, AGW and C02 appear only bit players, The MWP and the LIA may have been caused by the “other effects” of the Sun as we appear to be heading for another “cooling” of the globe.
Comments anyone?
The Russian-Ukrainian project ASTROMETRIA
(ok, so it’s not the best translation you will read but the message is clear “it’s the Sun not us” driving climate change)
"We expect that after cooling of the upper ocean in 5-8 years (namely, in a decline phase of the 24th cycle in 2012-2015) earthmen will feel a very slow beginning of global cooling, and after decades – its more active phase. Due to thermal inertia of the Earth only after 15-20 years after beginning in about 2041 of a deep minimum of TSI – in 2055-2060 – the next climatic minimum and deep cooling of Earth climate will begin"
http://www.bobbrinsmead.com/e_Abdussamatov.html
http://www.bobbrinsmead.com/e_Abdussamatov_files/image009.jpg
NASA and the Sun
This is supporting evidence (even if it's unintentional on NASA's part) for the Russians and Piers Corbyn's ideas.
Solar Cycle Update
“As sunspot numbers mount, coronal mass ejections and solar wind disturbances will trigger more and more geomagnetic storms. In extreme cases, these storms can induce electric currents in the earth and oceans that interfere with electric power transmission equipment.
The extra ultraviolet (UV) and X-ray radiation created by magnetic fields around sunspots also cause the Earth's atmosphere to heat up and expand”
http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/ast14oct99_1.htm
The Day the Solar Wind Disappeared
“From May 10-12, 1999, the solar wind that blows constantly from the Sun virtually disappeared -- the most drastic and longest-lasting decrease ever observed.
Dropping to a fraction of its normal density and to half its normal speed, the solar wind died down enough to allow physicists to observe particles flowing directly from the Sun's corona to Earth. This severe change in the solar wind also changed the shape of Earth's magnetic field and produced an unusual auroral display at the North Pole”
http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/ast13dec99_1.htm
.
Finding the 'smoking gun' before it fires
“Under conditions that still are not fully understood, magnetic field lines that should be snaking past each other - like Moore's handshake - instead reconnect”.
“Suddenly, everything snaps back, and 10 billion tons of ionized gas are hurled into space at up to a 3 million km/h. If the gas bundle - still constrained by its own magnetic field - goes off at the right spot on the sun, it intercepts the Earth in about four days. In turn, that sets off geomagnetic storms that can damage satellites in space and shut down electrical power grids on the ground.”
“a CME eruption on Jan. 16, 1993. As the images show, the eruption occurred when the region was just to the south of disk center; the material arrived at Earth and generated geomagnetic storms a few days later.”
http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/ast09mar99_1.htm
The Resurgent Sun
“Earth-directed solar explosions, for instance, tend to happen every 27 days -- the time it takes for sunspots to rotate once around the Sun. There is also an occasional 155-day cycle of solar flares. No one knows what causes it. And the double peaks of recent solar maxima are separated by approximately 18 months.”
“Magnetic fields are produced by electric currents -- that is, charges in motion. The Sun itself is a conducting fluid.”
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2002/18jan_solarback.htm
Watching the Angry Sun
The flare coincided with a coronal mass ejection (CME) which sent billions of tons of plasma into space traveling at 4 million miles per hour, two times faster than normal.
http://science.msfc.nasa.gov/headlines/y2000/ast22dec_1.htm
So the science is not settled, it seems to many, AGW and C02 appear only bit players, The MWP and the LIA may have been caused by the “other effects” of the Sun as we appear to be heading for another “cooling” of the globe.
Comments anyone?
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
Lets bring the topic back to the OP and its debunking - read the rest of the posts in the thread.
The ASTROMETRIA astrophysicists seem to have made a bad mistake. They assumed that the global temperature of the Earth is only caused by variations in solar irradiation and that it ignored by climate scientists. This is wrong:
- Variation in sun activity, e.g. the 11 year cycle related to sunspost, is taken in account of in climate models.
Correcting your Solar Cycle Update quote mine:
After which the Earth's atmosphere to cools down and contracts - that is orbital weather.
The Day the Solar Wind Disappeared is a good observation. Why did you add this random link to your OP? It has nothing to do with climate. The energy of the solar wind is parts per billion of the solar irradiation.
The Resurgent Sun and Watching the Angry Sun
seem to impress you with their big numbers. Well here is a couple more:
- Solar irradiation (visible/IR/UV):
1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 Joules per year. - The biggest solar flares/magnetic storms/etc ever to hit Earth:
1,000,000,000,000,000 Joules, total.
Yes. You are posting links to random items from standard "space weather" science. You posted stuff with big numbers in it, none of which are of the slightest relevance to Earth weather. If you like I can give you lots of even bigger numbers that are even less relevant to Earth weather. Like: "Many cosmic ray protons strike the Earth at nearly one billion miles per hour!" "Gamma ray bursts can strike the Earth with thousands and thousands of x-rays per square meter!"
I have already told you how tiny the actual energy budget of these storms are, and compared it to the actual energy budget of the standard TSI. You have completely ignored this. Are my numbers wrong? Is my measure (energy budget) the wrong one to care about? Is solar wind velocity relevant to climate for some reason you can state?
One point about "inflating the atmosphere". The outermost layers of the atmosphere, the thermosphere and exosphere, is indeed "inflated" by solar and magnetospheric activity. Do you want to know how little effect this has on the climate? Go over to NASA and watch some spacewalk videos from the International Space Station. That's all happening in the thermosphere, the layer of air which cares about the solar wind. The density of the residual wisps of atmosphere around the space station is indeed affected by the solar wind. This is something less than 1 part per billion of the atmosphere; it's responsible for less than 1ppb of the surface radiation budget. And inflating it doesn't change its radiation properties anyway.
Once again, you're identifying some tiny tiny tiny effect you know nothing about, saying "maybe THIS effect causes warming", and ignoring the fact that CO2 (a *large* absorber of *hugely abundant* IR radiation) is up 30% (a *large* fraction).
Moreover, you're doing this in spite of data which shows the 20th century climate warming in lockstep with CO2, and in spite of data (http://skepticalscience.com/What-would-happen-if-the-sun-fell-to-Maunder-Minimum-levels.htmlwhich shows the climate basically ignoring both the 11 and the 22 year solar cycles. Why? Why? Why?
BenBurch
Gatekeeper of The Left
Ignorance is bliss.
Yes let’s debunk it, if we can! I have read ALL the posts and no they don’t do it for me.
They don’t agree.
I think your missing my point. NASA is confirming a direct sudden impact on the Earths atmosphere from events on the Sun, just like Piers Corbyn’s says it does. Why didn’t you comment on the previous paragraph? “these storms can induce electric currents in the earth and oceans” Seems quite an impressive event to me, wonder how much energy is required to do that?
It appears to some, the solar winds interaction with the magnetosphere affects our weather, when modified by the FTE's found by NASA. So the fact that the solar wind can suddenly drop from a million miles an hour to a fraction of that, may be relevant to climate change, it seems to me. Especially, as we don’t know why or how it happens or for that matter, what causes the sunspot cycles in the first place.
We really need to understand the Sun more, don’t you think?
Don’t think that’s the full picture. NASA found that these FTE’s are happening twice as often as previously thought.
“Active FTEs are magnetic cylinders that allow particles to flow through rather easily; they are important conduits of energy for Earth's magnetosphere. Passive FTEs are magnetic cylinders that offer more resistance; their internal structure does not admit such an easy flow of particles and fields.”
“There are many unanswered questions: Why do the portals form every 8 minutes? How do magnetic fields inside the cylinder twist and coil? "We're doing some heavy thinking about this at the Workshop," says Sibeck”
Notice that the Active FTE’s let particles (solar wind) through to Earths magnetosphere easily and the Passive FTE’s don’t. Lot’s of variable factors that could affect climate change, don’t you think?
Care to calculate how much energy, in joules, that could add to our system?
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/30oct_ftes.htm
I think what I’m posting is relevant to this topic and shows that what the Russians and PC are saying is possible. From my point of view, the science on climate change is NOT settled.
The data you talk about isn’t convincing to all, especially since the IPPC mistakes and Climategate revelations. That’s why!
Here is a better translation from the head of project Astrometria in a 2009pdf
THE SUN DEFINES THE CLIMATE
Habibullo Abdussamatov, Dr. Sc. Head of Space research laboratory of the Pulkovo Observatory, Head of the Russian/Ukrainian joint project Astrometria
“Experts of the United Nations in regular reports publish data said to show that
the Earth is approaching a catastrophic global warming, caused by increasing
emissions of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. However, observations of the Sun
show that as for the increase in temperature, carbon dioxide is "not guilty" and as for what lies ahead in the upcoming decades, it is not catastrophic warming, but a global, and very prolonged, temperature drop”
(snip)
“Thus, the observed global warming of the climate of the Earth is caused not by theanthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases, but primarily by extraordinarily highsolar intensity that extended over virtually the entire past century. Future decrease inglobal temperature will occur even if anthropogenic ejection of carbon dioxide intothe atmosphere rises to record levels”
Warming on Mars and other planets
A global increase in temperature has also occurred on Mars. NASA researchers, after tracing changes on its surface from 1999 until 2005, discovered melting ice at Mars’ south pole and warming of the Martian climate, a natural event that occurred without any contribution by Martians or greenhouse effect driven by Martians. Analogous processes have also been observed on Jupiter, Neptune, Triton, Pluto and other planets of the solar system. These can only be the direct consequences of the action of one and the same factor - the prolonged and extraordinarily high level of the energy radiated by the Sun.
http://www.climatechangefacts.info/ClimateChangeDocuments/abdussamatov_russian_cooling_nkj_2009.pdf
Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says
Kate Ravilious
for National Geographic News
February 28, 2007
Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet's recent climate changes have a natural—and not a human-induced—
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html
I think ALL this gives reasonable doubt in the AGW / C02 debate on climate change. I'm looking for reasoned argument to convince me to change my view of,unsure, not bullying or a snow job. I used to accept AGW as fact until the goal posts were moved, certain warming became only climate change.
.
"seems quite impressive"---go into the literature and look up the energies. Like I said four times, 10^15 Joules is an unusually big one. What makes you think I'm getting this number wrong? You seem to be guessing that this number is wrong because the events sounds so "impressive" intuitively. Please, go into the literature and find the numbers yourself. 10^15 J is indeed impressive for a magnetospheric event, but it's peanuts compared with the Earth's surface radiation budget.
Sorry, you are still confused---these particular FTEs are not particularly energetic. They're an unusual configuration of the magnetosphere, but they're not particularly high-flux. The event mentioned here is described as an amazing 10^27 particles per second. Turn that into Joules, Haig. These are keV particles, so 10^-16 joules each; 10^27 of them is 10^11 joules per second. And that's into the magnetosphere; only a fraction of that goes into the atmosphere; and that's all into the wispiest uppermost atmosphere, above 100km, where it radiates easily back into space. Comparing that to sunlight: 10^11 Joules per second is the amount of sunlight that hits Manhattan, Haig.
So maybe someone has discovered that these events are 10x more frequent than before? So they're 10^11 j/s into the thermosphere instead of 10^10. If next year someone finds they're 2x more frequent again---that's 2x10^11 j/s. It's still negligible compared to the TSI.
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
You cannot understand that a variation of parts per billion cannot have an effect on the Earth's climate?
That is a pity.
They say nothing about the variaito of irradtion from flares, etc. The paper concentrates on TSI varience.
The prediction they quote is generated from whatever technique the paper that the Russians cited used. The paper cited was Abdussamatov H.I. Bulletin of the Crimean Astrophysical Observatory. 2007. 103. No. 4. p. 292–298.
But this prediction from actual climate scientists using real climate models contradicts the graph on the ASTROMETRIA web page.
What would happen if the sun fell to Maunder Minimum levels? has a description of the results from a just released paper On the Effect of a New Grand Minimum of Solar Activity on the Future Climate on Earth (Feulner & Rahmstorf 2010) (a PDF behind a pay-wall).
You seemed to ignore the paper because you could not read it because you needed to pay for it.
Maybe you should have also ignored the ASTROMETRIA temperature graph because the paper that they cite to support it is in Russian.
If you did read the paper then you would have noticed something disturbing
- The ASTROMETRIA graph does not exist in the paper. That is bad scholarship. If it is their own graph then they should have stated so. What is worse is that the graph looks hand drawn, i.e. not the result from a model or even fitting a curve to the existing data.
- The translated abstract of the paper makes it clear that the author is arguing by similarity, i.e. If a Maunder Minimum happens again then temperatures should be coldest around 2065 as in the previous Maunder Minimum. This of course ignores a little thing called the greenhouse effect.
A single electron arriving from the Sun has a direct impact on the Earth. The question is the scale. Geomagnetic storms have a tiny amount of energy (compared to the Sun), have local effects and are short term. They are useless for long term weather forcasts since there is no way to predict them far in the future.
The answer to your question is much less than a billionth of the energy output of the Sun. In other words, a very unimpressive event indeed.
It appears that some cannot tell the difference bwtween weather and climate.
Yes. That is what science is about - understanding things better.
Obviously you do not remember what you read. Using the numbers from that article:
And lets be totally idiotic and double it for fun: That is 0.014% of the solar irradiation using our extremely bad assumption.Magnetic Portals Connect Sun and Earth
Flux transfer events deliver negligible energy to the Earth. They have no effect on the climate and maybe a tiny effect on weather (but then PC is not a weatherman so we can ignore that!).
See ben m's post.
That is 0.0000001% for the most energetic events seen from the Sun. Flux transfer events are not as energetic but let us make the very bad assumption that every flux transfer event is. They happen every 8 minutes. That is 0.007% of the solar irradiation.
Done.
See above (but you will not given the many times that you have ignored the post).
What you are posting actually shows that what the Russians and PC are saying is impossible. A variation in the Sun's irradiation of parts per billion cannot change the Earth's climate.
From any ones point of view, the science on climate change is NEVER settled. That is because no science is EVER settled as in set in stone. All that happens is that the science becomes accepted until something better comes along.
In climate science the evidence has caused most climate scientists to accept that
- Global warming is happening.
- A large part of that warming is casued by our emissions of greenhouse gases.
- The predictions for the future is that global warming will continue.
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
This old idiocy is easily answered: Global warming on Mars, ice caps melting.
And in case you think that other planets are the Earth
:- Global warming on other planets in the solar system
- Neptune is warming
- Global warming on Jupiter
- Pluto is warming
lomiller
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2007
- Messages
- 13,208
Corbyn doesn't do science. As far as I can tell he's never published a peer reviewed paper on the topic of climate in his life.
When someone say "I have this revolutionary theory that proves all the scientists are wrong, but I refuse to tell you what it is you just need to trust me and send money" what does your skeptic sense tell you about this person?
lomiller
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2007
- Messages
- 13,208
More pseudo-science that has already been thoroughly debunked.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/04/29/is-global-warming-solar-induced/
Yes they are impressive to a layman like me
The point is: these FTE’s are new discoveries. Who knew that these conduits could channel energy from the Sun to the Earth? Nobody predicted them, right? What causes them? Any ideas? It seems to me there may be FTE’s from the Sun to the other planets, such as Mars, maybe that could explain the recent melting of the ice caps there.
Seems your doing the “if you too dumb to understand leave it to the experts bit” That used to work but less so since climategate and the IPCC shambles. The tax paying public want to know why, in terms they can understand. If not, support for the science and the funding will fall, that may be happening right now?
Of course I can, but other scientists don’t agree, maybe they’re right! The last decade has shown no “statistically significant” warming and SC 24 may reveal a cooling trend with deeper cooling in SC25. That’s what they expect, as you know.
You may be right in saying the paper concentrates on TSI variances, I still have my doubts, but hey! I’m only a layman.
I found the correlation between the graphs showing TSI variances and sunspot cycles very interesting but your saying they made it up? Or at least part of it. Do they have connections to the IPCC or the climategate scientists? (sorry, couldn’t resist that)
Seriously, they are not the first to confirm the close connection with TSI and sunspots are they?
That prediction from actual climate scientists using real climate models contradicts the graph but that’s based on computer simulations. You know that if you put in, assumptions, to the models they tend to confirm what you already know. It’s like the computer models the meteorologists use, based on what happened in previous years (as I understand, correct me if I’m wrong) and they are very good at forecasting the weather a few days ahead. However, their long range forecasts based on the same models are notorious for getting it wrong. Unlike PC who is famous for getting his forecasts right. BTW he was spot on for Jan and Feb this year from months ago. You see my point with computer models? (rubbish in - rubbish out.)
Something else that puzzles me, maybe you could explain it and do the math? Why is it that the most remote planets, receiving small fractions of the TSI coming to Earth, have the strongest winds?
I’m not talking about just a slight difference here but massive ones. Jupiter's has winds of 635 kilometres per hour, Saturn's average wind speed is up to 1800 kilometres per hour; Uranus 900 kilometres per hour; and Neptune comes in at 1138 kilometres per hour.
So what’s driving their weather and climate ……. Maybe, it’s a combination of the solar wind and FTE’s just like PC says it does, here on Earth?
I read a brief summery on the link that I posted and that gave me a reasonable summery. Why should a layman, like me, pay to look at the full paper, when I’d probable be criticised, by some on here, for not understanding it anyway?
When I was convinced the AGW was a fact I hadn’t read any of the peer-reviewed papers on it but that was OK, wasn’t it? Because I was on the “right” side.
It appears your wrong:
"Weather can be defined as the day- to-day characteristics of these ... A long-term pattern of weather is called climate" from Wiki.
It seems to me that weather and climate are closely linked.
Glad we can agree about what science is!
True, I don’t remember everything I read but few of us do. The math you keep putting up seems like a snow job to me, you know what I mean don’t you?
Thanks for doing the calculation anyway. It reminds me of the math that proved the human powered flight was impossible, that is, until the Wright Bros showed that to be nonsense.
It just could be the Russians and PC may do that “evidence based” trick too, I know you won’t agree, but time will tell.
Maybe they are wrong but maybe AGW with C02 as the villain is wrong too, I'm not sure.
You do seem sure. Could you tell me what caused the warming in the MWP and what caused the cooling in the LIA? What about the cause of those amazingly high winds in the outer planets that get so much less TSI than Earth? (BTW can you do the math?)
It seems to me that maybe, just maybe, those climate models haven't got all the factors taken into account so that the right answer come out of the computer.
This old idiocy is easily answered: Global warming on Mars, ice caps melting.
And in case you think that other planets are the Earth
And then there is Solar activity & climate: is the sun causing global warming? with its list of many papers that show that the sun has little effect (possibly negative) on global temperature since the 1950's. This is in contract with the evidence for the Sun contributing to warming in the early 20th century.
- Global warming on other planets in the solar system
- Neptune is warming
- Global warming on Jupiter
- Pluto is warming
Your links were very interesting but …….
“The empirical evidence isn't conclusive on whether global warming is happening on Mars”
That’s the conclusion of the article but maybe FTE’s are acting on Mars as they are on earth?
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-on-mars.htm
If the FTE’s are happening there too and if they are, maybe more “active” FTE’s than “passive” FTE’s. Each type have a different properties according to NASA.
Anyway, these conduits could be providing the energy together with the solar wind to the outer planets?
It seems the sunspot cycle should be viewed over 22 years to get the true picture. One period of 11 years acting with the polarity and the other 11 years acting against. It depends where in the sine wave the “pair” are to know which will be the “little” one, either first or second.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-other-planets-solar-system.htm
“She concluded that while they don't correlate statistically, the patterns are visually compelling and planetary climate changes may be due to solar variations”
Very interesting graphs, I thought. I agree the TSI seems an not to be the culprit but maybe FTE’s together with the million mile per hour solar wind could cause the warming?
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-on-neptune.htm
“Jupiter's storms are fuelled by the planet's own internal heat (sunlight is 4% the level of solar energy at Earth)”
Where is the heat coming from? Maybe it’s FTE’s and solar wind again?
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-on-jupiter.htm
Looks like those FTE’s and solar wind again?
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pluto-global-warming.htm
We’ve covered this before; ad-hom attacks aren’t doing it. PC does “evidence based science” and he explains it very well in those videos of him in the media. He’s popular because his arguments make sense to the layperson and he doesn’t talk down to them. You should look at them; he is very convincing and has been for a long time.
Saying he is only “guessing” doesn’t do it. He makes detailed forecasts locally and extreme events forecasts for certain weather developments around the World. When they are seen to happen as he predicted that impresses. That’s why the BBC, SKY and ABC etc have him on so often; they love to see him make fools of the opposition, its good television. This “heretic” does it all with out any public money, he just takes every opportunity to show these peer-reviewed scientists are wrong.
He has told other scientists and the public how his methods work in a public conference and it’s the “Sun not us” message.
Don’t think so. How can you be so sure these FTE’s that NASA tells us about aren’t also pumping energy from the Sun to Mars and the other planets as well?
Maybe that’s affecting climate change there? But admitting that would show that AGW here on Earth was wrong!
Not sure your right about that piece in bad astronomy!
It has this:
“First off, I want to make a very big point here: the changes in the Earth due to global warming, while real, are somewhat subtle. Yet the Earth gets most of its heat from the Sun, so if the Sun were the cause, we’d expect the effects of warming to be much stronger on Earth than any outer planets”
They seem to forget there is more water on the Earth than on the other planets acting as a massive heat sink. I think it’s 70% of the globe is under water. Yet they expect the earth to react first? And what about possible FTE’s to the other planets that may be more effective drivers of climate change on them than the little sunlight they receive?
No, guy’s I think the science is still not settled
They're "space weather"; space weather involves all sorts of complex nonlinear re-organizations of magnetic fields and plasmas. I'm sure there are many surprises yet to come in this field, everywhere from the corona to Jupiter to the magnetopause. None of this has anything to do with Earth weather.
Um? I'm not saying you're too dumb to understand, I'm saying here are the numbers that will help you understand.
I see no evidence that you're interested in understanding, though. If these Russians are wrong, you could find out they are wrong only by looking at their claims and analyzing them scientifically. Likewise if they are right. Are you doing that? No, you're actively ignoring their numbers, ignoring analysis of their claims.
Instead, you seem to be assuming: because IPCC doesn't meet your standards for perfection, one of the alternative ideas must be right! So you're asking for nonscientific reasons to slap that label on Astrometria---reasons like "Piers Corbyn swears up and down that he's a good meteorologist" or "there are scientists involved" or "space weather exists and is cool", as opposed to reasons like "their model matches dataset X better than AGW" or "Astrometria's new forcing is bigger than the CO2 forcing" or "Astrometria's model has this feedback ..."
Sorry, if that's what you want to discuss I really have nothing to say.
Last edited:
If your goal is to find out whether they are right, you will need to look at the numbers.
There's a whole nother thread on this business. The statement that "this decade has shown no statistically significant warming" is similar to the statement "I drove the car once around the block and the gas gauge did not budge." Imagine, Haig, that you heard the latter statement---would you use it to conclude "we don't understand gas mileage at all, this car might very well be getting 1000 miles per gallon"?
No, you'd realize that or one block is too short a time to detect any gas use at all. One decade is too short a time to detect (in a statistically meaningful way) any trends in climate change.
Go read the whole statement rather than that one sentence that gets pulled out of context. The only people quoting that sentence over and over are the people looking for excuses to discard as much mainstream science as possible.
We have said this repeatedly: the (tiny) variation in the TSI, which follows the same 11-year cycle as the sunspots, has been known for a long time. It is already in mainstream climate models. It has a much, much smaller effect than CO2 or methane.
That's a flatly false statement, and a big one. That is not what computer models do. The "assumptions" you put into the model are things you know individually: "CO2 has thus-and-such absorption spectrum". "Clouds form when thus-and-such humidity and wind conditions occur". "Water's temperature rises by 0.25 degrees C per joule of energy". The computer model is just a way of keeping track of all of those effects when they happen at the same time, in thousands of places all over the globe.
If you think that the mainstream AGW models have one of the assumptions wrong, why has no one been able to point out which one? Instead of credible scientists saying things like "hey, your model input says that ice has this albedo but in reality the albedo is this"---which would be a good reason to doubt the model output---we have you saying "sometimes models are wrong". Dude, these models have been around for 40 years. If there was a major error in the assumptions, one of Exxon's paid FUD-engineers would have found it.
It's thought to be a mixture of solar irradiation and internal heat sources.
The outer planets are all gas giants, which means that (unlike Earth, which is internally heated largely by radioactivity) they retain a lot of their primordial core heat, and generate more by gravitational contraction. Given that, there two factors that make gas giants particularly efficient at turning small amounts of energy into wind. One, they're very fast-rotating so they have strong Coriolis forces; a tiny amount of vertical convection gets translated to a large horizontal wind pretty easily. Two, they have very tall atmospheres and no solid surface below; there's no interaction with a surface to slow the resulting winds down, and convection cells can be very tall and wide.
If you look in the literature you will find 50 years of research on understanding winds in the giant planets. Did you think of looking?
You seem to have indulged a common habit of thought here: "Hey, here's something I just thought of which, after 5 minutes thought, seems to defy understanding. I bet that means that nobody has thought of it at all and therefore it might be a giant hole in modern science!" Sorry, Haig---science is a pretty big thing, there are a hundred thousand people doing it full time. Things which look like "giant holes" don't get quietly ignored---they get leapt upon, studied hard, funded for further study, discussed at conferences, etc.. Jupiter's winds are no exception. They are not an unexplored mystery waiting for an outside-the-box thinker to ask about them for the first time.
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
Not that graph - the graph showing their prediction looks hand drawn and does not exist in the paper that they cite.
Seriously, they are not the first to confirm the close connection with TSI and sunspots are they?
[/qyote]
Seriously - no. The fact that the Sun's output varies with sunspots
That prediction from actual climate scientists using real climate models contradicts the graph but that’s based on computer simulations.
...GIGO stuff...
Please cite the papers that show that all climate model simulations that have ever been run have garbage as their input?
What you may not realize is that the simulations are checked in a very simple way - if they cannot reproduce the existsing data then they are wrong.
Basically
- The lighter the gas the faster it moved (F=ma).
- The winds are not driven just by the TSI. Juperter also has internal heat sources.
Then you have no choice but to accept the conclusion of the paper as presented in the article. The conclusion of On the Effect of a New Grand Minimum of Solar Activity on the Future Climate on Earth (Feulner & Rahmstorf 2010) is that there will be no Little Ice Age and that the effect with be less than 10% for the strongest variation.
That is not what Wiki says in your quote. There is no mention of a close link.
I agree. Maybe sometime PC will do some actual science.
No maybe about it - they are wrong becaus ethey ignore the simple scienbce behinde the greenhouse effect.
Do your own reserach.
That is silly - if they missed factors then the wrong results would have come out, i.e. they could not have matched the existing data.
You mentioned this yourself - GIGO!
The correct conclustion is that because the models fit existing data then any missing factors are insignificant.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-on-mars.htm
Once more time - parts per billion!
What is your obsession with these climatically insignificant FTEs?
I will butt in here: Videos and statements in them are not “evidence based science”. Being about to fool laymen is not “evidence based science”.
Here is an informal look at Corbyn's performance in 2008. Not that impressive.
I could even add the link eh?
http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2009/01/corbynwatch-2008-verdict.html
I could even add the link eh?
http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2009/01/corbynwatch-2008-verdict.html
Last edited:
Here's a another view of Piers Corbyn
Renegade weatherman drops his kimono
Moon also plays part in solar method, says Corbyn
By Andrew Orlowski
Posted in Environment, 29th October 2009 13:55 GMT
Piers Corbyn gave a glimpse into his methods of long-range weather forecasting yesterday. Corbyn can claim an extraordinary degree of accuracy for predicting extreme weather events. So much so, it makes the professionals look stupid. Corbyn's WeatherAction is a successful private business, with farmers, big insurance, and other serious players increasingly shunning the taxpayer-funded Met Office in preference to his forecasts. He's been banned by the bookies from betting on his own forecasts.
Clearly, something significant is going on. Corbyn has found a correlation, one that has eluded the experts. So what's behind his SWT, or Solar Weather Technique? Infuriatingly for supporters as well as critics, he won't publish the details. But we know more today than we did yesterday, following a climate conference he organised yesterday at Imperial College to help publicise SWT.
The Corbyn Method
"Standard meterology deals with transient events", he said. "It's very good at doing a day ahead." [Are you sure? - ed] "But these are easy questions. We want to solve harder ones."
For weather events, Corbyn identifies bursts of solar particle and electromagnetic activity he calls SWIPS. These can be predicted deterministically, he claims, although he won't disclose his method. The key is not the 11 year cycle, or even fluctuations in total solar irradiance (TSI), but the 22 year Hale Cycle in magnetic sunspot activity, which indicates changes in activity in solar wind. The team had also noticed a lunar modulation - probably two factors. When the Moon was in the Earth's slipstream, its elevation influenced the climate. There were also other magnetic factors. All these influenced the jet stream, and in turn, weather.
Corbyn also said his team looked back at past weather events and found that most fitted a similar pattern.
"Mathematically in phase space, states are nearly always repeated. Similar states are (nearly) repeated at predictable times. It works because external forcing factors are more important than internal weather noise (transients) on reasonable time scales, of only about 4 days. The changes in energy flow are big - that's why it actually works."
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/10/29/corbyn/
Renegade weatherman forecast today's storm weeks ago
Mystic Met baffled
By Andrew Orlowski • Get more from this author
Posted in Environment, 18th November 2009 16:15 GMT
Piers Corbyn's renegade weather outfit has comprehensively trumped the taxpayer funded Met Office. Back in August, Corbyn's WeatherAction forecast storms for 17-19 November. Or more accurately, WA made this prediction, upgrading it to 85 per cent accuracy:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/18/weatheraction_storm_ok/
Working just now, night and day. So I'll reply to the others when i get the time.
Last edited:
- Status