Project Astrometria:Global Cooling until 2100?

[Reality Check]

I happen to think it's all connected, but your so sure of AGW you won't even consider other possibilities.

I think that it is all connected too !

I am sure of the science behind the large amount of evidence for AGW. But that is beside the point and not the subject of this thread. I would consider other possibilities if you presented any scientific evidence for them. So far you have not.

The subject of this thread is the Astrometria project. It is good science for astrophysicists (e.g. the Russian astrophysicists running the project) to gather data on the total solar irradiation (TSI) and look for the causes for its variations. Climate scientists will then be able to plug those numbers into their models and get even better predictions of the future climate.

Perhaps you do not know what factors climate models already include as drivers and their relative effects (linear contrails was a surprise to me):

• Surface Albedo has changed due to activity such as deforestation. This increases the Earth's albedo - the planet's surface is more reflective. Consequently, more sunlight is reflected directly back into space, giving a cooling effect of -0.2 Wm-2.
• Ozone affects the climate in two ways. The depletion of stratospheric ozone is estimated to have had a cooling effect of -0.05 Wm-2. Increasing tropospheric ozone has had a warming effect of +0.35 Wm-2.
• Solar variations affect climate in various ways. The change in incoming Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) has a direct radiative forcing. There is an indirect effect from UV light which modifies the stratosphere. The radiative forcing from solar variations since pre-industrial times is estimated at +0.12 Wm-2. Note that the radiative forcing from solar variations may be amplified by a possible link between galactic cosmic rays and clouds. However, considering the sun has shown a slight cooling trend over the last 30 years, an amplified forcing from solar variations would mean a greater cooling effect on global temperatures during the modern warming trend over the last 35 years.
• Volcanoes send sulfate aerosols into the stratosphere. These reflect sunlight, cooling the earth. A strong volcanic eruption can have a radiative forcing effect of up to -3 Wm-2. However, the effect of volcanic activity is transitory - over several years, the aerosols wash out of the atmosphere and any long term forcing is removed.
• Aerosols have two effects on climate. They have a direct cooling effect by reflecting sunlight - this is calculated from observations to be -0.5 Wm-2. They also have an indirect effect by affecting the formation of clouds which in turn affect the Earth's albedo. The trend in cloud cover is one of increasing albedo which means a cooling effect of -0.7 Wm-2.
• Stratospheric Water Vapour has increased due to oxidation of methane and had a slight warming effect of +0.07 Wm-2.
• Linear Contrails from aviation have a slight warming effect of +0.01 Wm-2.
• Nitrous Oxide reached a concentration of 319ppb in 2005. As a greenhouse gas, this contributes warming of +0.16 Wm-2.
• Halocarbons (eg - CFC's) were used extensively in refrigeration and other industrial processes before they were found to cause stratospheric ozone depletion. As a greenhouse gas, they cause warming of +0.337 Wm-2.
• Methane is actually a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. Pre-industrial methane levels, determined from ice core measurements, were around 715 parts per billion (ppb). Currently methane rates are at 1774 ppb (eg - 1.774 parts per million). The radiative forcing from methane is +0.48 Wm-2.
• CO2 levels have increased from around 280 parts per million (ppm) in pre-industrial times to 384 ppm in 2009. The radiative forcing from CO2 is +1.66 Wm-2. CO2 forcing is also increasing at a rate greater than any decade since 1750.

(emphasis added)

 

[Haig]

But Astrometria has nothing to do with flares, fluxes, winds, and space weather; they're looking for variations in total solar irradiance. TSI. The optical/IR-dominated solar output which we've been telling you is 10^9 times more powerful than space weather. Nothing whatsoever to do with space weather, Haig.

Yes, the TSI matters for climate. Everyone knows that. Its variation, including the "grand minimum" that Astrometria is looking for, has a direct effect on the climate because it's a lot of energy arriving at the surface.

You yourself linked to http://skepticalscience.com/What-would-happen-if-the-sun-fell-to-Maunder-Minimum-levels.html which shows what the climate will look like IF astrometria finds evidence of a TSI decline. Result: CO2 is more important.

And again, "space weather" doesn't figure in at all and doesn't matter.

I think that it is all connected too !

I am sure of the science behind the large amount of evidence for AGW. But that is beside the point and not the subject of this thread. I would consider other possibilities if you presented any scientific evidence for them. So far you have not.

The subject of this thread is the Astrometria project. It is good science for astrophysicists (e.g. the Russian astrophysicists running the project) to gather data on the total solar irradiation (TSI) and look for the causes for its variations. Climate scientists will then be able to plug those numbers into their models and get even better predictions of the future climate.

Perhaps you do not know what factors climate models already include as drivers and their relative effects (linear contrails was a surprise to me):

(emphasis added)

I accept your point that project Astrometria is mainly concern with TSI. What I was thinking when I talked about “other effects” was the Russians also measuring the solar disc and it’s variations (oscillations) and the possibility that it may link to or explain the FTE’s forming every 8 mins over our heads.

“The russian-ukrainian project Astrometria on the Service Module of the Russian segment of the ISS will provide during more than 6 years simultaneous measurement of variations of the solar shape and the solar angular diameter with an accuracy ~0.005 arcsec, an oblateness of the disk with an accuracy ~10-6 R8 to investigate the nature of their variations and spectrum global oscillations of the Sun”

http://www.bobbrinsmead.com/e_Abdussamatov.html

The science studying wave oscillations in the Sun is called helioseismology.
“For the Sun, no one source generates solar "seismic" waves. The sources of agitation causing the solar waves that we observe are processes in the larger convective region. Because there is no one source, we can treat the sources as a continuum, so the ringing Sun is like a bell struck continually with many tiny sand grains”

http://soi.stanford.edu/results/heliowhat.html

So, I'm still not accepting that "space weather" doesn't affect our weather and may be the cause of climate change.I think I've given some evidence that that can happen / does happen.

Something else, I think you will agree the polar jet stream and the subtropical jet stream have direct effects on our weather, right?

If they were moved or distorted from their usual seasonal positions that would have a major impact on our weather or climate, depending if it was short term or long term.

It seems, to some, that "space weather" is capable of doing just that!

Sorry Guys I haven't replied to your posts on page 3 yet, I will do it.

It's been the pressure of work,plus, I'm going away for a few days, from tomorrow, on a short skiing holiday (actually it's a survival course for the new LIA, in case the Russians are right)

So, no more posts from me until I get back next week.

see ya.

 

[Dancing David]

ben your the one that said "space weather" had no effect on our weather!

And again you mischaracterized what Ben said. (He did not say 'no effect'. Now did he?)

Really Haig.

 

[Dancing David]

Doing the math doesn’t cancel the evidence PC has gathered.

So you don't like my story about the Wright Bros, tough!

The point is, as you well know, evidence, actually somebody doing it! or a scientific demonstration! knocks the math into a cocked hat.

Sure they could be wrong, but there is sufficient doubt in my mind to say "I'm not sure it's us, it may be the Sun"

Bye now, you are just here to read what you write and ignore other people. You are a poseur.

 

[Reality Check]

I accept your point that project Astrometria is mainly concern with TSI. What I was thinking when I talked about “other effects” was the Russians also measuring the solar disc and it’s variations (oscillations) and the possibility that it may link to or explain the FTE’s forming every 8 mins over our heads.
...snip...
http://www.bobbrinsmead.com/e_Abdussamatov.html

http://soi.stanford.edu/results/heliowhat.html
...snip...

Sorry but you are wrong.
The Russians are measuring the solar disc and it’s variations (oscillations) to evaluate the impact of them on the TSI. There is no stated purpose to investigate any link to FTE's by the authors of the Astrometria web page or the above web pages.

The TSI has nothing to do with the energetically and thus climatically insignificant FTE’s forming every 8 mins over our heads. FTE's are local events in the Earth's magnetosphere that periodically allow the particles trapped from the solar wind to leak through the magnetosphere. The mechanism is that the Earth's magnetosphere and the Sun's magnetic field merge (or "reconnect") at a rate determined by the physics of plasmas (usually described using magnetohydrodynamics). In our case once every 8 minutes.
Variations in the solar wind amd the magnetic fields should have an effect on the FTE's.

So, I'm still not accepting that "space weather" doesn't affect our weather and may be the cause of climate change.I think I've given some evidence that that can happen / does happen.

I have not seen any of the evidence. Perhaps you can list the peer-reviewed papers that you cited for evidence again?

Something else, I think you will agree the polar jet stream and the subtropical jet stream have direct effects on our weather, right?

Yes.

If they were moved or distorted from their usual seasonal positions that would have a major impact on our weather or climate, depending if it was short term or long term.

Yes.

It seems, to some, that "space weather" is capable of doing just that!

No.
You seem to think that some claims (by one cited person - Piers Corbyn) that "space weather" is capable of doing just that is evidence.

You may gave noticed the word "Science" in the title of this section of the forum. Evidence is not unsupported assertions. Evidence is contained in published articles or textbooks. Evidence is backed up by repeated analysis of the observations by various scientists.

You have presented no evidence that "space weather" is capable of moving the polar jet stream and the subtropical jet stream. N.B. the polar wind is neither of these (and the lower atmosphere does not contain any "space weather").

"Space weather" (FTE, flares, etc.) will have a tiny and possibly not measurable effect on weather or climate. The energies involved are a billion times less than the TSI which does have an effect on the climate.

 

[BenBurch]

Bye now, you are just here to read what you write and ignore other people. You are a poseur.

The "ignore" button is a wonderful thing.

 

[ben m]

What I was thinking when I talked about “other effects” was the Russians also measuring the solar disc and it’s variations (oscillations) and the possibility that it may link to or explain the FTE’s forming every 8 mins over our heads.

I didn't see one whit of argument towards this point. What makes you think Astrometria is more likely to explain this than the two dozen NASA/ESA/JSA satellites that are actually studying solar flares/fields/winds and the Sun-Earth connection? (ETA: viz, ACE, Cluster, WIND, FAST, POLAR, SOHO, IBEX, STEREO, Hinode, Pioneer, Galileo, RHESSI, Trace, TIMED, Cindi, Geotail, THEMIS ... )

So, I'm still not accepting that "space weather" doesn't affect our weather and may be the cause of climate change.I think I've given some evidence that that can happen / does happen.

No you haven't. You've given evidence that space weather exists.

It seems, to some, that "space weather" is capable of doing just that!

No it doesn't. ("to some"? Who?)

 

[Haig]

Can't respond, packing for our flight early tomorrow, but couldn't resist posting some of the evidence I was hinting at:

New Little Ice Age
Instead of Global Warming?

“These are sharp decreases in the intensity of galactic cosmic rays caused by energetic solar flares which indicate that the respective event has strongly affected the earth's environment.”

“There is cogent evidence that the Sun's eruptional activity, too, has a strong effect in the tropics. Fig. 2 after Neff et al. (2001) shows a strong correlation between solar eruptions, driving the solar wind, and tropical circulation and rainfall.”

“A declining trend in solar activity and global temperature should become manifest long before the deepest point in the development. The current 11-year sunspot cycle 23 with its considerably weaker activity seems to be a first indication of the new trend, especially as it was predicted on the basis of solar motion cycles two decades ago.”

http://mitosyfraudes.org/Calen/Landscheidt-1.html

 

[Reality Check]

Can't respond, packing for our flight early tomorrow, but couldn't resist posting some of the evidence I was hinting at:
...
http://mitosyfraudes.org/Calen/Landscheidt-1.html

An nice but outdated web page about a paper from Theodor Landscheidt.
There is no date on the web page but he died in 2004 and there is no citation later than 2002. The paper that the web page is based on looks like it was published in Energy & Environment which is a pity. That publication is described by Scopus as a trade journal (not science journal ), it is rarely cited and WorldCat shows that it is carried by few libraries (63 in the US, 1 in the UK).

FYI: Publishing in an obscure journal is taken as a sign that the author is not confident of their paper. Otherwise they would have published in a respected journal such as Nature where they know that their paper would be competently peer-reviewed and subject to criticism from a wide range of scientists.

Theodor Landscheidt would be unaware of a few things.
The fact that a Maunder Minimum has been shown to have a minor effect on global warming by Feulner & Rahmstorf 2010:

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) that uses an actual climate model to do the predictions rather than whatever the Russians used.
​

The Sun is currently in becoming more active after the quiet period in the last few years.



The paper itself shows the usual flaws of the papers that assume that solar variations are the primary driver of climate (and ignore greenhouse gases):

• There are plenty of other papers that show that this is not the case.
  The radiative forcing from solar variations since pre-industrial times is estimated at +0.12 Wm^-2.
  The radiative forcing from CO2 is estimated at +1.66 Wm^-2.
• Trying to apply historical precedents to the current situation is obviously flawed since there is a unique event happening currently - the large scale emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities.

ETA
If you want an indication of the quality of Energy & Environment then consider the paper it published by Oliver K. Manuel in 2009: "EARTH’S HEAT SOURCE - THE SUN" (PDF). This is an author who states things like "Niels Bohr [30] noted similarities between the structure of the atom and that of the solar system. Others [31, 32] suggested that the internal structure of stars mimics that of the atomic nucleus.".
He believes that the Sun is not primarily powered by nuclear fusion. Rather he has an "Iron Sun" idea where the center of the Sun is a neutron star and the elements within in it are sorted into shells.
He cites a "Michael Mozina [19] noticed rigid, iron-rich solar structures closer to the solar “surface” in 2005". Michael Mozina is not a scientist (he works in IT). He has the delusion that the TRACE spacecraft can see below the photosphere in 171 Angstrom light and see an iron crust when the images are processed into a running difference movie.
The real physics is

• The 171 A light is radiated by atoms heated to 160,000 K to 2,000,000 K. This is typical of the emission from Fe IV (iron missing 4 electrons) in the corona.
• Running difference movies show the differencee between each of the original images. What look like mountain ranges and ridges in the movie are areas of consistant change, e.g. cooling and heating plasma on either side of coronal loops.
  

 

[ben m]

Theodore Landscheit was an astrologer.

 

[BenBurch]

Theodore Landscheit was an astrologer.

Indeed; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodor_Landscheidt

 

[varwoche]

An nice but outdated web page about a paper from Theodor Landscheidt.

I rather enjoy the lead sentence:

Theodor Landscheidt was an author, astrologer and amateur climatologist.

LOL!

(Note to self: add to list)

 

[mhaze]

....
FYI: Publishing in an obscure journal is taken as a sign that the author is not confident of their paper. Otherwise they would have published in a respected journal such as Nature where they know that their paper would be competently peer-reviewed and subject to criticism from a wide range of scientists.....

No, I can't really see any sense in that statement. I'm not in the rat race of academia and research, but if one was required to publish three papers per year etc, resubmitting to the "top tier journals" could easily be impractical and illogical.

Given the general nature of "Nature", it isn't even the best choice in many cases. "Obscure" is in many cases equal to "specialized", and many specialized journals are of course relatively obscure. The fact that the average person may have heard of Nature, and not of the specialized journal is irrelevant.

What is relevant, outside of the expediancy issues I mentioned above, is the relevance of the article to it's readers through the selected medium.

 

[Megalodon]

E&E is not obscure, it's a rag put up with the sole purpose of giving an impression of peer-review to any hit piece on climatology they can put their hands on.

Including the ones authored by an astrologer.

On the other hand, mhaze has linked to "evidence" from creationist sites, so it's easy to understand his defense of this garbage.

 

[ben m]

I accept your point that project Astrometria is mainly concern with TSI. What I was thinking when I talked about “other effects” was the Russians also measuring the solar disc and it’s variations (oscillations) and the possibility that it may link to or explain the FTE’s forming every 8 mins over our heads.

It appears that you misunderstand what the Russians are doing. They're not "also" measuring the solar disc and its oscillations---that's the only thing they are measuring. They want to translate the disc measurement into a TSI, and the oscillations into some sort of long-term trend in TSI. (It is not clear from the Web page whether they have any idea how to translate their anticipated data into useful science. It's not like you can just plot "radius vs. time" for three years, fit a line through it, and call it a trend.)

They're not measuring magnetic fields, flares, corona properties, winds, etc., which are what matters for FTEs. They're certainly not measuring FTEs themselves. The only connection between FTEs and Astrometria appears to be "things to mention when trying to use the Sun to explain climate change."

So---at this point your "I think the sun might affect climate" argument has deteriorated into:

a) trusting Piers Corbyn
b) Googling randomly for support and finding an astrologer
c) Googling randomly for support and finding a bunch of random factoids about the solar flares and the magnetosphere
d) misinterpreting a Russian TSI project so as to imagine that it confirms all of the above.

It's really not a very good argument at all, Haig. The reason you cannot put together a good argument is not that you're stupid, or that we're ganging up on you, or something like that. The reason you cannot put together a good argument is that the position you are trying to defend is wrong.

 

[Reality Check]

No, I can't really see any sense in that statement. I'm not in the rat race of academia and research, but if one was required to publish three papers per year etc, resubmitting to the "top tier journals" could easily be impractical and illogical.

Given the general nature of "Nature", it isn't even the best choice in many cases. "Obscure" is in many cases equal to "specialized", and many specialized journals are of course relatively obscure. The fact that the average person may have heard of Nature, and not of the specialized journal is irrelevant.

What is relevant, outside of the expediancy issues I mentioned above, is the relevance of the article to it's readers through the selected medium.

Submitting to the "top tier journals" ishould be just as easy as submitting to other journals. Plenty of scientists mange it.

Perhaps Nature was the wrong journal to suggest as "top tier" for climate science. There are more specialized journals.

The point is that Energy & Environment is hardly even a journal.

• It is described by Scopus as a trade journal (not science journal)
• It is rarely cited .
• WorldCat shows that it is carried by few libraries (63 in the US, 1 in the UK).

This defines it as an obscure publication even in the field of climate science.
In addition its peer review procedure is suspicious judging by the quality of the papers that I have seen, e.g. the one by Oliver K. Manuel.

 

[ben m]

Here's a nice test of whether "Energy & Environment" is a serious journal.

I paged through a handful of 2009 issues and looked for single-author anti-AGW papers. Here are the authors I picked: (totally random selection) John Dorz, Richard S. Courtney, David R.B. Stockwell, Nigel Lawson, Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, David C. Archibald, Adrian K. Kerton, Martin Hertzberg, Adriano Mazzarella, have all written E&E articles "concluding" that climate change is not due to AGW CO2 in one way or another. I searched for each of these authors in Google Scholar and scanned the first few pages of links, which in most cases exhausted the name matches and got into the false positives. What did I find? As far as I could see, only one E&E climate author (Mazzarella) has ever published a climate-related paper anywhere other than E&E.

This is not what you find in real low-impact journals. (Try it---as I just did with a few low-ranked astro journals---and you'll see.) A serious astronomer will publish their "routine" problem-solving work in ApJ, their big career-making discovery in Nature, and their "competent-undergrad-doing-first-analysis" papers in (for a fictional example) "Journal of the Belgian Astronomical Society" . If you look at the JBAS, then, you will not find a weird cult of JBAS-only authors whose conclusions differ from everyone else's---you'll find routine, probably less-interesting (and, yes, perhaps less rigorous) papers from people who also publish elsewhere.

"Energy & Environment" is different. Authors who do publishable climate science at all, apparently, do not send their work (even their phoned-in work) to E&E. Authors who send their work to E&E are not doing otherwise-publishable climate science---not at all. That's a fact, not an interpretation; it's a fact which is independent of one's personal AGW stance. It's a fact that's visible without even looking into the papers and seeing how bad they in fact are. (Pretty bad, as a rule.) E&E is not a lower-tier journal within climate science; it's a little isolated, contrarian world of its own. It has the same research credentials as the "Journal of Exxon Mobil Talking Points" or "climate.rants.craigslist.org".

 

[Haig]

Holiday over, back at work and a long catch-up post.

And again you mischaracterized what Ben said. (He did not say 'no effect'. Now did he?)

Really Haig.

Not intentionally I didn't. Ben said this in #160 "And again, "space weather" doesn't figure in at all and doesn't matter." I just interpret that as "no effect" which seems reasonable to me.

Bye now, you are just here to read what you write and ignore other people. You are a poseur.

Interesting ad hom. Projection?

Sorry but you are wrong.The Russians are measuring the solar disc and it’s variations (oscillations) to evaluate the impact of them on the TSI. There is no stated purpose to investigate any link to FTE's

I said "I accept your point" I was reading between the lines, sorry.

The TSI has nothing to do with the energetically and thus climatically insignificant FTE’s

I'll have to disagree. The TSI (sunshine) is one of the Sun's outputs, solar wind and magnetic effects are the others. They are ALL obviously linked. Just as the TSI is seen to vary with the sunspot cycles so may the solar wind and the magnetic effects.

FTE's are local events in the Earth's magnetosphere that periodically allow the particles trapped from the solar wind to leak through the magnetosphere. The mechanism is that the Earth's magnetosphere and the Sun's magnetic field merge (or "reconnect") at a rate determined by the physics of plasmas magnetohydrodyn

The Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) varies on a daily basis due to a balance between decreases caused by sunspots and increases caused by faculae (bright spots). So, the variability of the density of the solar wind and intensity of the magnetic effects do seem to be linked! Therefore my saying the possibility that all this may link to or explain the FTE’s forming every 8 mins over our heads isn't unreasonable IMHO.

Variations in the solar wind amd the magnetic fields should have an effect on the FTE's.

I agree.

I have not seen any of the evidence. Perhaps you can list the peer-reviewed papers that you cited for evidence again?

I have, see below, in my highlighted re-post, more will follow.

No.
You seem to think that some claims (by one cited person - Piers Corbyn) that "space weather" is capable of doing just that is evidence.

Not just PC, there are others:see below

You have presented no evidence that "space weather" is capable of moving the polar jet stream and the subtropical jet stream. N.B. the polar wind is neither of these (and the lower atmosphere does not contain any "space weather").

Solar Activity Controls El Niño and La Niña

"An alternating preponderance of El Niño and La Niña is shown to be linked to the 22-year Hale cycle constituted by 11-year magnetic reversals in sunspot activity"

http://mitosyfraudes.org/Calen/NinoLand.html

"Space weather" (FTE, flares, etc.) will have a tiny and possibly not measurable effect on weather or climate. The energies involved are a billion times less than the TSI which does have an effect on the climate.

NASA say this just now,so it's not a huge step to realise the effect is maybe in reverse too, space weather causing intense thunderstorm activity?

First Global Connection Between Earth And Space Weather Found

"Researchers discovered that tides of air generated by intense thunderstorm activity over South America, Africa and Southeast Asia were altering the structure of the ionosphere."
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2006/space_weather_link.html

The "ignore" button is a wonderful thing.

Suits me fine

I didn't see one whit of argument towards this point. What makes you think Astrometria is more likely to explain this than the two dozen NASA/ESA/JSA satellites that are actually studying solar flares/fields/winds and the Sun-Earth connection? (ETA: viz, ACE, Cluster, WIND, FAST, POLAR, SOHO, IBEX, STEREO, Hinode, Pioneer, Galileo, RHESSI, Trace, TIMED, Cindi, Geotail, THEMIS ... )

The Astrometria project seems likely to add to our knowledge of the Sun - Earth interactions. What's wrong with saying that? Before we had that impressive list of satellites up there scientists used to say "space is an empty vacuum" now we know it's filled with space weather.

The Russians make it clear, when predicting the climate is cooling, that it's linked to the sunspot cycles (22 years for a complete cycle and 200 years cycles between the Sun activity minimums) and that's why their studying the TSI.

However, (and this is where I was guilty of reading between the lines) the implication is: the solar wind and magnetic effects (space weather) vary much more than the TSI in these cycles, as we are beginning to realise.

No you haven't. You've given evidence that space weather exists.

Yes, I think I have, see below, in my highlighted re-post.

No it doesn't. ("to some"? Who?)

see below, in my highlighted re-post.

“These are sharp decreases in the intensity of galactic cosmic rays caused by energetic solar flares which indicate that the respective event has strongly affected the earth's environment.” “There is cogent evidence that the Sun's eruptional activity, too, has a strong effect in the tropics. Fig. 2 after Neff et al. (2001) shows a strong correlation between solar eruptions, driving the solar wind, and tropical circulation and rainfall.”
“A declining trend in solar activity and global temperature should become manifest long before the deepest point in the development. The current 11-year sunspot cycle 23 with its considerably weaker activity seems to be a first indication of the new trend, especially as it was predicted on the basis of solar motion cycles two decades ago.” http://mitosyfraudes.org/Calen/Landscheidt-1.html

An nice but outdated web page about a paper from Theodor Landscheidt

You asked for peer-reviewed papers and when I produce one you say it’s out of date! It seems to me to be extremely up to date at 2002 and relevant. Its evidence supports the Astrometria project “We need not wait until 2030 to see whether the forecast of the next deep Gleissberg minimum is correct. A declining trend in solar activity and global temperature should become manifest long before the deepest point in the development.”

Energy & Environment which is a pity. That publication is described by Scopus as a trade journal (not science journal ), it is rarely cited.

Yes, I understand there is a pecking order. Isn’t this what some of you were suggesting Piers Corbyn should do? So you could try to devalue his science, it seems ;-)

FYI: Publishing in an obscure journal is taken as a sign that the author is not confident of their paper. Otherwise they would have published in a respected journal such as Nature where they know that their paper would be competently peer-reviewed and subject to criticism from a wide range of scientists.

Thanks for your insight into this side of things.

The fact that a Maunder Minimum has been shown to have a minor effect on global warming by Feulner & Rahmstorf 2010:

What would happen if the sun fell to Maunder Minimum levels?[/COLOR][/URL] has a description of the results from a just released paper

This “right up to date paper” has flaws:
It says “it varies over a 11 year cycle” This is misleading when evaluating the effect on climate. The total sunspot cycle is over 22 years. (Hale cycle) and makes a huge difference in accuracy.

Also, they are only measuring total solar irradiance (TSI) (sunlight) this doesn’t take into account solar wind and major magnetic effects.

Judging from what I read in the short piece on that paper I read here:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=143
If a mere layman, can find problems with it, think what a real critical expert will do?

(a PDF behind a pay-wall) that uses an actual climate model to do the predictions rather than whatever the Russians used.

Climate model predictions haven’t been very accurate have they? Prof Jones Q “ no statistically significant warming since 1995?” JONES:” Yes, but only just.”

Who saw that in the computer models?

Don’t see why I should pay to view the full thing? Maybe you could enlighten me of what I missed that’s relevant?

The paper itself shows the usual flaws of the papers that assume that solar variations are the primary driver of climate (and ignore greenhouse gases)

The Feulner & Rahmstorf 2010 paper makes the usual flaws of the papers that assume that greenhouse gases are the primary driver of climate (and ignore solar variations)

There are plenty of other papers that show that this is not the case.

“If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus.”

Theodore Landscheit was an astrologer.

Indeed; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodor_Landscheidt

I rather enjoy the lead sentence: LOL!

So, Theodor Landscheidt had an interest in astrology, but it was scientific astrology that makes a huge difference Right!

Only Reality Check attacked the man’s argument (thanks) the rest of you attacked the man (shame on you)

If you think Theodor Landscheidt connection with some woo devalues or negates his scientific work then you have a problem.

Many scientists believe in an invisible, supernatural, immortal being, split three ways, they even talk with it! Other scientists believe in lots of these "beings" that need special attention and sacrifice.

Does that mean these scientists can’t be trusted to do science to the required standard? If you say “Yes” you will have to discount/ignore (as you have done with Landscheidt) the peer reviewed papers of many supporters of AGW, maybe, 50%, 70% or higher?

Also, the Russians are known for their atheism, untainted by irrational religious beliefs. So,maybe you should accept their “science” as more trusted, right?

Wrong! We need to address the views/arguments in the papers regardless of the man; to do otherwise is opening up a whole can of worms.

Getting back to Dr Theodor Landscheidt and his work for those that are fairer minded.

Bio
German attorney and Supreme Court Justice. An amateur astronomer, he established the position of the galactic center in 1959. As an astrologer, he is an outstanding pioneer of modern scientific astrology who tries to integrate the newest astronomical findings to enlarge the horizon of traditional astrology.
Using both geocentric and heliocentric systems, he introduced the geocentric planet nodes, Transpluto, heliocentric astrology as well as the newest research of solar activity, cycles and much more. He is the author of many scientific articles and ephemeris. His books include "Wir sind Kinder des Lichts," 1987, "Sun-Earth-Man" and "Astrologie, Hoffnung auf eine neue Wissenschaft."

Vocation : Occult Fields : Astrologer
Vocation : Law : Attorney
Lifestyle : Home : Expatriate (Moved to Canada)
Vocation : Law : Jurist (German Supreme Court Justice)
Vocation : Science : Astronomy (Amateur; found galactic center)
Notable : Famous : Top 5% of Profession

Peer reviewed articles
Landscheidt, T. 2000. River Po Discharges And Cycles Of Solar Activity - Discussion. Hydrological Sciences Journal-Journal Des Sciences Hydrologiques 45 (3): 491-493. Times Cited: 4
Landscheidt, T. 1999. Extrema In Sunspot Cycle Linked To Sun's Motion. Solar Physics 189 (2): 415-426. Times Cited: 15
Landscheidt, T. 1988. Solar Rotation, Impulses Of The Torque In The Suns Motion, And Climatic Variation. Climatic Change 12 (3): 265-295. Times Cited: 7
Landscheidt, T. 1987. Cyclic Distribution Of Energetic X-Ray Flares. Solar Physics 107 (1): 195-199. Times Cited: 1
Landscheidt, T. 1981. Swinging Sun, 79-Year Cycle, And Climatic-Change. Journal Of Interdisciplinary Cycle Research 12 (1): 3-19. Times Cited: 5

He was very knowledgeable on the Sun, its cycles and effects on climate change.

online sources of Dr Theodor Landscheidt’s papers
http://landscheidt.auditblogs.com/papers-by-dr-theodor-landscheidt/

He was a panellist at GLOBAL WARMING CONFERENCE AT RICE University May 2, 2003

"Panellist: Dr. Theodor Landscheidt, Schroeter Institute for Research in Cycles of Solar Activity"

It seems to me he was a remarkable man, ahead of his time and deserves our respect.
Those attacking this man because of his connections to some woo while ignoring the woo beliefs of those that support them are guilty of Double Standards with a large dose of Hypocrisy
(I’ll get down off my soap box now)

No, I can't really see any sense in that statement. I'm not in the rat race of academia and research, but if one was required to publish three papers per year etc, resubmitting to the "top tier journals" could easily be impractical and illogical.

Given the general nature of "Nature", it isn't even the best choice in many cases. "Obscure" is in many cases equal to "specialized", and many specialized journals are of course relatively obscure. The fact that the average person may have heard of Nature, and not of the specialized journal is irrelevant.

What is relevant, outside of the expediancy issues I mentioned above, is the relevance of the article to it's readers through the selected medium.

That seems a very good answer to me. Thanks for getting involved.

E&E is not obscure, it's a rag put up with the sole purpose of giving an impression of peer-review to any hit piece on climatology they can put their hands on.

Including the ones authored by an astrologer.

On the other hand, mhaze has linked to "evidence" from creationist sites, so it's easy to understand his defense of this garbage.

Maybe, things are changing after climategate?

“They talk about "peer-to-peer" review. Meaning an end to centralised control through journals and a free for all in which everything is published and anyone can comment on anything. A journalist active in this movement, the West Coast former street artist and radical arts critic Patrick Courrielche, claims: "Climategate... triggered the death of unconditional trust in the scientific peer-review process, and the maturing of a new movement of peer-to-peer review."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/09/climate-emails-pr-disaster-peer-review

It appears that you misunderstand what the Russians are doing. They're not "also" measuring the solar disc and its oscillations---that's the only thing they are measuring. They want to translate the disc measurement into a TSI, and the oscillations into some sort of long-term trend in TSI.

Yes, your right, I'm guilty of reading between the lines.

So---at this point your "I think the sun might affect climate" argument has deteriorated into:

a) trusting Piers Corbyn
b) Googling randomly for support and finding an astrologer
c) Googling randomly for support and finding a bunch of random factoids about the solar flares and the magnetosphere
d) misinterpreting a Russian TSI project so as to imagine that it confirms all of the above.

Argument "deteriorated”? I think you need to go back and look at the OP. I'm on the fence remember? Just asking a few questions and playing DA.
a) Piers Corbyn has good evidence based science for the "space weather" actually affecting our weather and climate. The "bookies" are seldom wrong
b) Randomly? Hardly that! quite focused actually. Btw. Your double standards and hypocrisy are showing.
c) NASA doesn’t do factoids and this evidence of “space weather” from the Sun and how it connects with the Earth is highly relevant IMO.
d) Yip, hand up for that one. Guilty of reading between the lines. But it is clear the Russians find that it’s the Sun causing climate change:“So, the direct influence of the change two centuries of the cycle TSI provides near the half of the change of the Earth’s global temperature. The rest half of the change of the global temperature of the Earth occurs because of indirect influence TSI.”

I took this last part to mean the solar wind and magnetic effects.

http://www.bobbrinsmead.com/e_Abdussamatov.html

It's really not a very good argument at all, Haig

Well that’s your view and you’re entitled to it. I’m not saying the Russians are right and AGW is wrong, what I am saying is the science is not settled and I’m unsure. I’ve given more than enough evidence, I feel, for grounds of reasonable doubt and there is more to come.

The reason you cannot put together a good argument is that the position you are trying to defend is wrong

My position is “on the fence” and I’m expecting there are a lot of us here after climategate and the IPCC “mistakes”.

Submitting to the "top tier journals" ishould be just as easy as submitting to other journals. Plenty of scientists mange it.

Perhaps Nature was the wrong journal to suggest as "top tier" for climate science. There are more specialized journals.

The point is that Energy & Environment is hardly even a journal.

• It is described by Scopus as a trade journal (not science journal)
• It is rarely cited .
• WorldCat shows that it is carried by few libraries (63 in the US, 1 in the UK).

This defines it as an obscure publication even in the field of climate science.
In addition its peer review procedure is suspicious judging by the quality of the papers that I have seen, e.g. the one by Oliver K. Manuel.

Here's a nice test of whether "Energy & Environment" is a serious journal.

I paged through a handful of 2009 issues and looked for single-author anti-AGW papers. Here are the authors I picked: (totally random selection) John Dorz, Richard S. Courtney, David R.B. Stockwell, Nigel Lawson, Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, David C. Archibald, Adrian K. Kerton, Martin Hertzberg, Adriano Mazzarella, have all written E&E articles "concluding" that climate change is not due to AGW CO2 in one way or another. I searched for each of these authors in Google Scholar and scanned the first few pages of links, which in most cases exhausted the name matches and got into the false positives. What did I find? As far as I could see, only one E&E climate author (Mazzarella) has ever published a climate-related paper anywhere other than E&E.

This is not what you find in real low-impact journals. (Try it---as I just did with a few low-ranked astro journals---and you'll see.) A serious astronomer will publish their "routine" problem-solving work in ApJ, their big career-making discovery in Nature, and their "competent-undergrad-doing-first-analysis" papers in (for a fictional example) "Journal of the Belgian Astronomical Society" . If you look at the JBAS, then, you will not find a weird cult of JBAS-only authors whose conclusions differ from everyone else's---you'll find routine, probably less-interesting (and, yes, perhaps less rigorous) papers from people who also publish elsewhere.

"Energy & Environment" is different. Authors who do publishable climate science at all, apparently, do not send their work (even their phoned-in work) to E&E. Authors who send their work to E&E are not doing otherwise-publishable climate science---not at all. That's a fact, not an interpretation; it's a fact which is independent of one's personal AGW stance. It's a fact that's visible without even looking into the papers and seeing how bad they in fact are. (Pretty bad, as a rule.) E&E is not a lower-tier journal within climate science; it's a little isolated, contrarian world of its own. It has the same research credentials as the "Journal of Exxon Mobil Talking Points" or "climate.rants.craigslist.org".

Just let me repeat this:

Maybe, things are changing after climategate?

“They talk about "peer-to-peer" review. Meaning an end to centralised control through journals and a free for all in which everything is published and anyone can comment on anything. A journalist active in this movement, the West Coast former street artist and radical arts critic Patrick Courrielche, claims:

"Climategate... triggered the death of unconditional trust in the scientific peer-review process, and the maturing of a new movement of peer-to-peer review."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...er-peer-review

 

[Haig]

Replies to posts from page three, sorry for the delay.

ben m post #116
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.

I agree there are a lot more surprises to come. No, I disagree, "space weather" is revealing the other connections (other than TSI) of the Sun and Earth weather and gives clues or examples of this.

Um? I'm not saying you're too dumb to understand, I'm saying here are the numbers that will help you understand.

Thanks but evidence and nature may not follow your math.

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.

I understand that you are convinced of AGW, please accept that I am genuinely not! If the Russians are right, the cooling trend of the climate will become obvious, quite soon. We are already in a 15 year period of "statistically insignificant" warming as Prof Jones has agreed.

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 ..."

Yes, I am very disappointed with the IPCC and the climategate scientists and that did move me to the "unsure" side of the debate on AGW.

Sorry, if that's what you want to discuss I really have nothing to say.

Sorry if you see it that way.

If your goal is to find out whether they are right, you will need to look at the numbers.

Welcome back, glad you changed your mind. Yes, I see your point but the Russians and others have "numbers" too. I'm unsure who's right, that's why I started this thread.

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.

Yes, but that statement surprised the climategate scientists as we read in their emails. In contrast, the Russians, PC and others were expecting the warming to start to turn to cooling. I seems to me we have to give it more time to see who's right before taking drastic steps.

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.

I accept there are "agendas" on both sides, I'm in the middle, unsure.

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.

The other effects (solar wind, magnetic etc) importance may not have been realised.

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.

I don't think so. They don't appear to have the Sun's "other effects" in their computer models, only TSI. Also,the short sunspot cycle of 11 years is only half of the effect. The total cycle is 22 years before it goes back to the start conditions. (The Hale cycle, http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/H/Hale_cycle.html ) In each half the polarity reverses resulting in either, adding to or subtracting from, the effect on the Earth, as I understand it.

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.

Yes, that appears to be the case. I can't explain why they don't see it. Also, I can't explain why other views to AGW are demonised and branded "deniers" that seems quite fanatical behaviour to me.

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?

I have looked and those outer planets have very energetic atmospheres. I still seems to me they may be getting that energy from the Sun's "other effects" BTW in the Project Astrometria article they mention the recent melting of the polar caps on Mars as a guide to what will happen here " Warming on the Mars observed during 6 years from 1999 to 2005"

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.

That seems a bit unfair Ben. I'm just trying to look at the big picture as a layman, what's wrong with that?. Science didn't predict "space weather" and seem surprised be every new discovery.

Reality Check post #118

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.

Here's one: Habibullo I. Abdussamatov
Head of the Russian-Ukrainian Astrometria project on the board of the Russian segment of the International Space Station,
Head of Space Research Laboratory at the Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Dr. Sci.

“We expect that the next relatively deep minimum of the solar activity, radius and radiation flux in the 200 year quasi-cycle will be close to the Maunder minimum level and will occur in the year 2040 +/- 10”

http://www.gao.spb.ru/english/astrometr/KPhCB21_6_328.pdf

I know they think they have a effective computer model but how can that be if they don't include the Sun's "other effects"?

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.

Maybe, the outer planets energetic atmospheres are driven by a combination of the solar wind and magnetic effects, it seems to be a possibility to some.

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)[/URL] is that there will be no Little Ice Age and that the effect with be less than 10% for the strongest variation.

As I said before:
This “right up to date paper” has flaws:
It says “it varies over a 11 year cycle” This is misleading when evaluating the effect on climate. The total sunspot cycle is over 22 years. (Hale cycle) and makes a huge difference in accuracy.

Also, they are only measuring total solar irradiance (TSI) (sunlight) this doesn’t take into account solar wind and major magnetic effects.

Judging from what I read in the short piece on that paper I read here:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=143
If a mere layman, can find problems with it, think what a real critical expert will do?

That is not what Wiki says in your quote. There is no mention of a close link.

"Close link" is my view. Wiki says this "A long-term pattern of weather is called climate" are you saying there's none?

I agree. Maybe sometime PC will do some actual science.

Whatever it is, he makes correct predictions with his Solar Weather Technique. He calls it science and I can't fault that can you?

No maybe about it - they are wrong becaus ethey ignore the simple scienbce behinde the greenhouse effect.

They don't ignore GHG, they just say they are not as important as the Sun and it's cycles.

Do your own reserach.

Well, as a layman, I would say it wasn't man fault but nature.

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.

It's just my view. Can these computer models that "fit existing data" tell us what caused the MWP and LIA? or when the next ones will be? NO! then what use are they?

Once more time - parts per billion!
What is your obsession with these climatically insignificant FTEs?

Read again what Astrometria project says about Mars. Yes, these FTE's are very interesting to me (obsession is going too far) because NASA say they form every 8 mins above our heads and the magnetic ropes streach all they way to our Sun. How do they stay intact all that way? Space weather is fascinating to me, doesn't mean I'm a bad person

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”.

PC has all the Met scientists "fooled" too, because they can't do (with their climate computer models) what he can.

 

[ben m]

Welcome back and thanks for being comprehensive in your reply.

This “right up to date paper” has flaws:
It says “it varies over a 11 year cycle” This is misleading when evaluating the effect on climate. The total sunspot cycle is over 22 years. (Hale cycle) and makes a huge difference in accuracy.

Sorry, you are still wrong about this. The 22-year cycle is just two copies of the 11-year cycle. These copies differ only by the vector sign of the B field. Each 11-year period contains a full oscillation of sunspot count, TSI, flaring activity, and magnetic field magnitude. Each 22-year period contains a double oscillation.

Also, they are only measuring total solar irradiance (TSI) (sunlight) this doesn’t take into account solar wind and major magnetic effects.

The wind and magnetic effects have been measured over and over again, quite accurately, since the 1960s. We need to measure them better to learn the details, but we already know from direct measurement how tiny they are.

Climate model predictions haven’t been very accurate have they? Prof Jones Q “ no statistically significant warming since 1995?” JONES:” Yes, but only just.”

That meme is going around, isn't it? Unfortunately, Haig, this meme relies on an utterly idiotic misrepresentation of what Jones said. Jones was saying the same thing all experimentalists must say: any experiment is only sensitive to any effect if the noise is low enough. Jones was saying that a 15-year snippet of data is too noisy to see any effect at all.

There is no place in intelligent climate discussion for people who parrot this Jones misstatement over and over again. It's a moronic cheap shot with no science content---I'll give you a pass on it once but if I see it again you go straight to my ignore list. Understand? Sorry to be so blunt, but that's as much of my time than this Jones talking point is worth.

The Feulner & Rahmstorf 2010 paper makes the usual flaws of the papers that assume that greenhouse gases are the primary driver of climate (and ignore solar variations)

What the heck? IT'S A WHOLE PAPER ABOUT THE CLIMATE IMPACT OF SOLAR VARIATIONS. They conclude that greenhouse gases drive climate, and TSI doesn't, because that's what you get when you add up the numbers.

He was very knowledgeable on the Sun, its cycles and effects on climate change.

So when you find an amateur astrologer who agrees with you, he's "very knowledgable". When Feulner & Rahmsdorf disagree with you, you assume that they did the math wrong and are blinded by a dominant paradigm.

That's confirmation bias, Haig.