Project Astrometria:Global Cooling until 2100?

[Dancing David]

NOAA Today's Space Weather Updated 2010 April 15 10:50 UTC
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/today.html



My post #288 on the 5th Apr 2010 gave details of PC weather predictions, here is an update to show how accurate he is (my bold):

(15th April) The flanks of a major Coronal Mass Ejection - a massive solar explosion which blasted a whole section of the solar corona into space - is heading this way to hit Earth in Weather Action's predicted RED WEATHER WARNING & MAJOR Solar Weather Impact Period 18-19th April. There will be important weather effects.

First images* of the dramatic event by Astronomers of Castle Point Astronomy Club (near Southend, Essex) were viewed when Piers Corbyn astrophysicist of WeatherAction long-range forecasters spoke there on 14th April about Climate & Weather forecasting {*Images to be linked soon}

Piers Corbyn said on 14 April: "This is an important solar event and very significantly the flank of this CME (Coronal Mass Ejection) is predicted by the USA NOAA Space Weather Prediction Centre to hit Earth on 18th April

"We knew there would be significant events on the Sun to drive our 18-19th April Major SWIP & Red Weather Warning period and near-timed events. This is it.
Consequent WeatherAction Extreme events for 18-19th Red Warning period and related preceding days are:

BRITAIN IRELAND EUROPE & MED (issued 17 March)

* Strong winds Hail Sleet & snow showers Scotland North Ireland & N England (forecast issue 17 March) for espec 18-19 April. This event will be more extreme - & the cold plunge more intense - than the UK MetOffice so far predicted.

* Denmark & South Norway heavy** rain espec, originally for later part of 12-17th but now likely to extend into 18/19th (fc issue 17 Mar) (**nb original forecast of 17 March was for mod/heavy)

* Major thunderstorms hail & local floods S/SE Europe esp N Italy, Austria, Switzerland, Czech Republic, SE Germany. (fc issue 17 Mar)

USA (issued April 4th):

April 12-17 - EA esp ~ 16th (B = 75% confidence period)

● Build up to heatwave South USA.
● Severe thunderstorms, hail & tornadoes, MidWest and South USA (espec ~16th).

April 18-20 - Major SWIP 18-19th (BC = 70% confidence period)

● Major Mississippi Floods (from deluges in this & previous periods)

TROPICAL STORMS (issue 4 April)

April 16-17th - EA (B = 75% confidence period)

● West North Tropical PACIFIC TD/TS Formation to East of Philippines.
Land effect unlikely (NB This might only be TD level).

● SOUTH INDIAN OCEAN TD/TS/TC Formation between Madagascar & Australia. Land effect unlikely.

● CORAL SEA / off Queensland TS/TC Formation prob heading South towards New Zealand. Storm & Deluges North Island of New Zealand likely.

April 18-20th - Major SWIP 18-19th (BC = 70% confidence period) (issue 4 April)

● Bay of Bengal /Andaman Sea off Burma. Storm & Deluges BURMA HIT likely.

● BANGLA DESH TORNADO likely in same period.

The major cyclone (link*) which hit West Bengal on 13/14 April is related to these forecasts in that we at WeatherAction correctly predicted the conditions but further events are also likely in 18/19th.

* http://uk.news.yahoo.com/5/20100414/twl-89-dead-as-cyclone-sweeps-through-in-3fd0ae9.html

The Full Extreme Events Forecasts for the period 5th April to 3rd May are available on:

http://www.weatheraction.com/member.asp

● Extreme Events Europe and Med button

● Extreme Events rest of World button for forecasts covering in this period:
USA & Canada;
West North Pacific;
North Indian Ocean, Bay of Bengal & Bangla-Desh/ Burma region;
South Indian Ocean and Coral Sea;
Azerbajan;
Israel;
Antarctica.

http://www.weatheraction.com/displayarticle.asp?a=185&c=5

Evidence based science on how the Sun's magnetic and solar wind outputs does affect our weather in extreme ways?

Blah blah blah, no measured outcome, no blinding.

Could be sloppy protocol and sample bias, but then actually showing the effect would mean something.

You engaging in advertising for WeatherAction is easier.

I wonder why Corbyn won't put his data through the grinder of an objective protocol and blinding?

 

[Haig]

Do you know that you are still wrong, Haig ?
This flawed paper has been discussed elsewhere as you know.

Do you know that you are still wrong, RC ?
Sure, it has been discussed elsewhere, but that doesn’t mean your or TellyKNeasuss view of the paper is correct or that it is flawed. It is just your opinions and perhaps you are both displaying “conformity bias”?

I have only read the abstract and can only judge from that (my bold):

“In recent years the `solar weather' technique of weather forecasting which takes into account of the influence of the sun has received much attention. No attempt has hitherto been made to determine the success, or otherwise, of elements of these forecasts, which include solar predictors and are prepared 6-11 months in advance of the events they predict. This paper conducts an evaluation of these forecasts but confines attention to the prediction of gales. Skill levels are assessed over different seasons. The results, whilst differing greatly between the seasons, reveal a degree of success that cannot readily be accounted for by chance and suggest that this system of forecasting continues to be assessed over a longer time period to further investigate these findings.”

So, the author makes it clear, forecasts 6-11months in advance for the prediction of gales (not forecasts of “no gales”) and with successful results, that aren’t chance.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001JASTP..63...29W

And you have never cited any scientific paper published by WeatherNet or Piers Corbyn. You are possibly talking about the climate scientist they paid to audit the predictions. The predictions had a 85% success rate -IMO about as high as predicting bad weather in winter during a randomly selected few days. As I said before:

Yes, that’s right. The peer reviewed paper by Dr. Dennis Wheeler was published in 2001 and Piers Corbyn claims to have improved his Solar Weather Technique since then to this: - “independently Audited Assessment report of WeatherAction world extreme events forecasts March to Sept 2008 showing a success rate of 85% in forecasting of generally relatively unusual extreme events in narrow time windows”
http://www.weatheraction.com/pages/pv.asp?p=wact5&fsize=0

WeatherNet carried out that independent Audited Assessment report of WeatherAction and they have a first class reputation, here in the UK.
http://www.weathernet.co.uk/
http://www.weathernet.co.uk/about.asp

RC are you claiming WeatherNet would risk their reputation by making false claims for Piers Corbyn?

In fact I could make better predictions than Piers Corbyn

That was funny RC but could you beat the Met Office 5-0?

Seriously, Piers Corbyn has never published any analysis of his predictions. We cannot say anything about his accuracy and neither can he. All he has done is advertise his companies wares and he is very successful in doing this. This makes him a salesman, not a scientist.

Seriously, the Met Office has published an analysis of their predictions. We cannot say anything about their accuracy, except it’s total rubbish, 5-0

“The Met Office is to stop publishing seasonal forecasts, after it came in for criticism for failing to predict extreme weather.”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/05/met-office-ends-season-forecasts-no-more-bbq-summers/

BTW. How can we take seriously,from the Met Office, the climate forecast for the next 100 years to 2100, if they can’t even get the seasonal weather right, only a few months in advance? The answer is we can’t, it’s a, AGW, computer generated, myth. So, all the following projections are very suspect indeed! IMO

Met Office climate projections:
Despite the uncertainties, all models show that the Earth will warm in the next century, with a consistent geographical pattern.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/science/projections/

Our scientists have developed ten-year climate forecasts to strengthen UK contingency planning, for use alongside the 50- or 100-year time frame projections currently deployed worldwide.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/businesses/casestudies/thamesbarrier.html

Particular emphasis is given to probable future climate
changes in extremes, including storms, intense rainfall, drought and climate ‘shocks’
http://ensembles-eu.metoffice.com/meetings/CoP13_Bali07/flyer.pdf

My answer is:
The University of Sunderland is competent and worthy.
The paper published by people working for it in no way affects the reputation of the university. The authors though did a bad job as shown above.

Thanks for the reply. Yes, The University of Sunderland has an excellent reputation.

The author of the paper in question, Dr. Dennis Wheeler, also has an excellent reputation and you are very wrong to try to besmirch it.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001JASTP..63...29W

The above paper is number 63 in this list of 144 papers in which he has authored or co-authored.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-abs_connect?return_req=no_params&author=Wheeler, D.&db_key=PHY

Staff details for Dr. Dennis Wheeler
http://www.sunderland.ac.uk/research/rae/staff/staffdetail/index.php?stid=45

The climate scientist auditing the predictions is also "competent or worthy". The audit states nothing at all about the accuracy of Piers Corbyn predictions when compared to any other method such as random guessing.

Yes, WeatherNet is also "competent or worthy" and their reputation is first class.

This letter from them makes it clear “Weather Action achieved an overall score of 8.5/9 for US based predictions” that is 85%
http://www.weatheraction.com/pages/data/WAcoverletter.pdf

I see you are still fooled by the WeatherNet advertising.

I see you are still fooled by the AGW advertising (IPCC AR4)

Disproven by the science that you are ignoring, cannot understand or are still ignorant of (Could cosmic rays be causing global warming?):

The correlation between global temperatures and cosmic ray flux broke down after 1970 as in Krivova 2003

Your wrong :

Cosmoclimatology: a new theory emerges (PDF)
(Astronomy & Geophysics, Volume 48, Issue 1, pp. 1.18-1.24, February 2007)
- Henrik Svensmark

“Changes in the intensity of galactic cosmic rays alter the Earth's cloudiness. A recent experiment has shown how electrons liberated by cosmic rays assist in making aerosols, the building blocks of cloud condensation nuclei, while anomalous climatic trends in Antarctica confirm the role of clouds in helping to drive climate change. Variations in the cosmic-ray influx due to solar magnetic activity account well for climatic fluctuations on decadal, centennial and millennial timescales. Over longer intervals, the changing galactic environment of the solar system has had dramatic consequences, including Snowball Earth episodes. A new contribution to the faint young Sun paradox is also on offer”
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/117980230/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

Experimental evidence for the role of ions in particle nucleation under atmospheric conditions (PDF)
(Proceedings of the Royal Society A, Volume 463, Number 2078, pp. 385-396, February 2007)
- Henrik Svensmark et al.

“This suggests that the ions are active in generating an atmospheric reservoir of small thermodynamically stable clusters, which are important for nucleation processes in the atmosphere and ultimately for cloud formation.”
http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/463/2078/385.full

Correlations of clouds, cosmic rays and solar irradiation over the Earth
(Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, Volume 72, Issues 2-3, pp. 151-156, February 2010)
- A.D. Erlykina, T. Sloanb, A.W. Wolfendale

“conclude that the evidence for a negative correlation of low and a positive correlation for middle cloud cover with solar irradiance (as measured by UV) over a significant fraction of the Earth (20–30%) is good”
http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...serid=10&md5=38ff807c630bf2b8aca19bf42d10daf1


Cosmic-ray-driven electron-induced reactions of halogenated molecules adsorbed on ice surfaces: Implications for atmospheric ozone depletion
(Physics Reports, Volume 487, Issue 5, pp. 141-167, February 2010)- Qing-Bin Lu

“Time series variations of global surface temperature and cosmic ray (CR) intensity over 1970–2008 and EESC from 1970 to 2050, relative to 1980; a three-point average smoothing was applied to observed surface temperature data. A global cooling is projected for the coming five decades.” (see Figures/Tables)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...serid=10&md5=a91e7381cf5e8814cf9401e84c434a77

Galactic cosmic rays-clouds effect and bifurcation model of the Earth global climate. Part 1. Theory
(Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, Volume 72, Issues 5-6, pp. 398-408, April 2010)- Vitaliy D. Rusov et al.

"It is shown that the basic equation of the Earth's climate energy-balance model is described by the bifurcation equation (with respect to the temperature of the Earth's surface) in the form of assembly-type catastrophe with the two governing parameters defining the variations of insolation and Earth's magnetic field (or the galactic cosmic rays intensity in the atmosphere), respectively."
http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...serid=10&md5=0d6da8867b47f2affa2bba708ab28306

The correlation between low clouds and cosmic rays is the reverse after 1991 - clouds formation changes 6 months before cosmic ray flux changes. See Laut 2003 - Solar activity and terrestrial climate: an analysis of some purported correlations.

Notice in the abstract this (my bold):

“My findings do not by any means rule out the existence of important links between solar activity and terrestrial climate. Such links have over the years been demonstrated by many authors”

and this in the conclusions :

“As to the many publicized studies indicating potential mechanisms for solar-climate interactions through modulation of the atmospheric circulation (Bond et al., 2001;Haigh, 1996, 2001; Shindell et al., 1999, 2001) some of them may indeed have identifed important physical mechanisms.”

So, RC the above paper hardly disproves GCR’s effect on climate, even since 1970, when erroneous data and the modulating effect of an active Sun is taken unto account IMHO

Also there is this:

Attempt To Discredit Cosmic Ray-Climate Link Using Computer Model

"Two computer modelers from CMU have written a program to simulate the interaction of cosmic rays with Earth's atmosphere. Because the model failed to predict significant increases in cloud cover, global warming activists are claiming the theory linking cosmic rays to climate change has been discredited. Climate models have failed to accurately predict the current downward trend in temperatures and now we are asked to accept a model as proof of how the Universe works. In truth, the paper cited is nothing more than a study of a computer program, and has nothing to do with the physical reality of how Earth's climate functions."

(snip)

“The experiment has attracted the leading aerosol, cloud and solar-terrestrial physicists from Europe; Austria, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Switzerland and the United Kingdom are especially strong in this area” says the CLOUD spokesperson, Jasper Kirkby of CERN. Kirkby is shown below with a sketch illustrating the possible link between galactic cosmic rays and cloud formation. An interdisciplinary team from 18 institutes and 9 countries in Europe, the United States and Russia will perform the experiment. We will know if Svensmark is really on the right track when the CLOUD project starts producing data in 2011."

"Remember, they are attempting to establish the existence of new causal links, new phenomena that have not been considered previously by climate scientists. And here come Pierce and Adams' computer model, “a global atmospheric computer model of the sort used to model climate,” in a preemptive strike on real science using the same discredited techniques as the IPCC global warming cabal."
http://theresilientearth.com/?q=con...-cosmic-ray-climate-link-using-computer-model

And no one disputes that cosmic rays "help to make chemical specks in the air on which water drops condense to make clouds".
What is in dispute is what effect that this has on the climate. The papers cited above show that there was a correlation in the past but some other climate driving factor has overwhelmed any effect that cosmic rays have in the last few decades.

GCR's modulated by the Sun are the main forcing's in climate change. The claimed end of the correlation since 1970 is false and is due to manipulated temperature data and a very active Sun (x2 magnetically) suppressing/deflecting the GCR's.

These two recent papers confirm the importance of GCR's in climate change: (my bold)

Importance of the Terrestrial Cosmic Ray Flux on Climate 12/2008

There has been debate in the scientific community whether or not changes in solar activity affect earth's climate significantly. One of the main arguments against solar influence is that the intensity of solar radiation changes by too little (only 0.1 percent) over a solar cycle to have any significant consequence for Earth's climate. Others, argue that changes in the UV are as much as a few percent over a solar cycle, and should not be ignored in the context of climate change. An hitherto largely ignored factor is the effect of the solar modulated terrestrial cosmic ray flux on earth's climate. It has been reported by Svensmark that the terrestrial cosmic ray flux is correlated with cloud cover over the oceans (at least as measured over one single solar cycle). We present evidence going back as far as 100,000 years supporting this hypothesis, and present a sun-climate connection that is facilitated by the solar modulated cosmic ray flux, rather than by the small variations in solar insolation. We argue that the proposed mechanism greatly enhances the sun's import on climate change, and must be taken into account when modelling climate.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu//abs/2008AGUFMGC31A0743R

The Terrestrial Cosmic Ray Flux: Its Importance for Climate November 2009

The CRF affects the electrical conductivity of the atmosphere through ion production and is the meteorological variable subject to the largest solar cycle modulation that penetrates into the denser layers of the atmosphere.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009EO440001.shtml

Non-Evidence based science on how Piers Corbyn’s guesses are as correct as random guesses?

Non-Evidence based science on how The Met Office guesses are as correct as random guesses?

So when someones point out to you that statistically due to a lack of protocol in analysis and double blinding the data is not meaningful as presented, all you can say is tough?

DD can I point out to you your opinion, of the peer reviewed paper by Dr. Dennis Wheeler, published in 2001 and an independently Audited Assessment report of WeatherAction world extreme events forecasts March to Sept 2008 by WeatherNet, amount to nothing more than sour grapes, it seems to me. I can see both Dr. Dennis Wheeler and WeatherNet have excellent reputations (scroll back to see my reply to RC). So I can only repeat – tough, that you don’t accept their professional view of Piers Corbyn’s accuracy.

All I can say then is, meaningless. As in you have not shown that there is a measurable standard or a meaningful effect.

Your entitled to your view DD but it doesn’t stack up against Dr. Dennis Wheeler or WeatherNet and their views. IMHO.

You are not really meeting the common standard of evidence, so that means alot. You rely on the same sort of evidence psychics use, which is too bad for you.

Dr. Dennis Wheeler and WeatherNet don’t agree with you DD and I don’t either.

ETA: We haven't even discussed the control sample, but you will just say tough because you want to be a believer.

I don’t “believe” in anything DD I judge the facts on the evidence and just now I’m on the “fence”

Blah blah blah, no measured outcome, no blinding.

That’s your view DD but aren’t you even curious that PC can make these extreme weather predictions months in advance so that even a layman like you and me can judge them? The Met Office can’t even do that! How’s their measured outcome and blinding?

Could be sloppy protocol and sample bias, but then actually showing the effect would mean something.

PC is showing the effect’s - extreme weather ones. The cause is the Sun’s solar wind and magnetic outputs, it seems.Take a look at this and you might see his point!

The sun has just exploded to life, blasting a huge coronal mass ejection (CME) into space. This is the largest such event for several years. Tue Apr 13, 2010
http://blogs.discovery.com/.a/6a00d8341bf67c53ef01347fdaaa93970c-pi

http://news.discovery.com/space/boom-the-sun-unleashes-a-huge-cme.html

http://planetary.org/blog/article/00002438/

You engaging in advertising for WeatherAction is easier.

Publicising is more like it and why not? If WeatherAction is as good, as they appear to be, the more people who know about it the better.
http://www.weatheraction.com/pages/pv.asp?p=wact5

I wonder why Corbyn won't put his data through the grinder of an objective protocol and blinding?

Probably, because of the “Conformity Bias” in the AGW believers and he's has 25 years of it!

Is Peer Review Censorship? 2009
“Bauer has noted that as a field matures, “knowledge monopolies” and “research cartels,” which fiercely protect their domains, suppress minority opinions, and curtail publication and funding of unorthodox viewpoints, are established”
http://ukpmc.ac.uk/articlerender.cgi?artid=1831075

Back to the OP and it seems to be gaining support?

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

Comparing historic TSI and future extrapolation, a very perfect fit appears between the TSI and the global temperature records. Even more interesting is the very plausible extrapolation until year 2100.

Judge for yourself and bare in mind the constantly failing IPCC hind-casts and forecasts."
http://klimabedrag.dk/indlen/92-project-astrometria-global-cooling-until-2100

 

[lomiller]

How can we believe them with a paragraph like this (bolding mine)....

Why do you find it difficult to believe temperatures for some years are statistically indistinguishable?

 

[Reality Check]

Do you know that you are still wrong, RC ?
Sure, it has been discussed elsewhere, but that doesn’t mean your or TellyKNeasuss view of the paper is correct or that it is flawed. It is just your opinions and perhaps you are both displaying “conformity bias”?
...
I have only read the abstract and can only judge from that (my bold):
...

Do you know that you are still wrong, Haig !
TellyKNeasuss has read the whole paper and pointed out the obvious flaw in it.
You have just read the abstract and think it is correct - perhaps you are displaying “conformity bias”?
You are defintitely displaying confirmation bias by just looking at the abstract.

Yes, that’s right. The peer reviewed paper by Dr. Dennis Wheeler was published in 2001 and Piers Corbyn claims to have improved his Solar Weather Technique since then to this:

Yes, that’s right. Piers Corbyn is advertising that he has improved this techniques.
Pity that there is no scientific evidence that he is right.

RC are you claiming WeatherNet would risk their reputation by making false claims for Piers Corbyn?

No. I am claiming that WeatherNet is what it is - a company selling weather predictions. It is in their interest to never have their predictions scientifically tested in case it is found that they are not doing better than informed guesses.

That was funny RC but could you beat the Met Office 5-0?

No. Neither did Piers Corbyn. Otherwise you would cite the scientific evidence that he did.

Haig,
You do realize that the accuracy or not of the Met Office has nothing to do with the accuracy or not of Piers Corbyn?

The author of the paper in question, Dr. Dennis Wheeler, also has an excellent reputation and you are very wrong to try to besmirch it.

I am not trying to "besmirch it". He probably does has an excellent reputation. He certainly has published papers.
Scientists make mistakes. He made a mistake one paper in his statictical analysis of PC's predictions that invalidates his results.

Yes, WeatherNet is also "competent or worthy" and their reputation is first class.

WeatherNet is a company. It is not "competent or worthy" in the same sense as the University of Sunderland since there is no scientific proof that it is either competent or worthy.

You have the opinion that they have a first class reputation.
This does not make their predictions more right than informed guesses. This means that they have good advertising.

This letter from them makes it clear “Weather Action achieved an overall score of 8.5/9 for US based predictions” that is 85%

One more time:

Haig:

1. No one doubts that their accuracy is high for the predictions that they do.
2. There is no scientific evidence that their predictions are any more accurate than informed guesses.

I see you are still fooled by the AGW advertising (IPCC AR4)

Do you know that you are still wrong, Haig ?
AR4 is not advertising. It is an analysis of the existing scientific literature.
IPCC is not a company with a vested interest in advertising it wares.

Your wrong :
...snipped...

Do you know that you are still wrong, Haig ?
Your list of papers are on the probable effects of cosmic rays on cloud formation.
This has nothing to do with the breakdown of the correlation between cosmic ray flux in the last few decades and cloud formation/global temperatures.

Note what I stated:

And no one disputes that cosmic rays "help to make chemical specks in the air on which water drops condense to make clouds".
What is in dispute is what effect that this has on the climate. The papers cited above show that there was a correlation in the past but some other climate driving factor has overwhelmed any effect that cosmic rays have in the last few decades.

This is supported by:
Laut 2003 - Solar activity and terrestrial climate: an analysis of some purported correlations.
Abstract

“My findings do not by any means rule out the existence of important links between solar activity and terrestrial climate. Such links have over the years been demonstrated by many authors”

Conclustions

“As to the many publicized studies indicating potential mechanisms for solar-climate interactions through modulation of the atmospheric circulation (Bond et al., 2001;Haigh, 1996, 2001; Shindell et al., 1999, 2001) some of them may indeed have identifed important physical mechanisms.”

(Your emphasis retained)

The CLOUD experiment will identifey even more "important physical mechanisms" and boost evidence for the link between cosmic rays and climate.

Haig:


Cite papers that show that the following papers are wrong

• The correlation between global temperatures and cosmic ray flux has broken down after 1970 as in Krivova 2003.
• The correlation between low clouds and cosmic rays is the reverse after 1991 - clouds formation changes 6 months before cosmic ray flux changes. See Laut 2003 - Solar activity and terrestrial climate: an analysis of some purported correlations.

Hint: If the paper does not cite these papers than it probaly has nothing to do the correlation breakdown.

If you cannot then there is no recent correlation between cosmic rays and climate. This means that cosmic rays currently have a minor effect on climate and so are not responsible for global warming.

 

[Dancing David]

DD can I point out to you your opinion, of the peer reviewed paper by Dr. Dennis Wheeler, published in 2001 and an independently Audited Assessment report of WeatherAction world extreme events forecasts March to Sept 2008 by WeatherNet, amount to nothing more than sour grapes, it seems to me. I can see both Dr. Dennis Wheeler and WeatherNet have excellent reputations (scroll back to see my reply to RC). So I can only repeat – tough, that you don’t accept their professional view of Piers Corbyn’s accuracy.
Your entitled to your view DD but it doesn’t stack up against Dr. Dennis Wheeler or WeatherNet and their views. IMHO.
Dr. Dennis Wheeler and WeatherNet don’t agree with you DD and I don’t either.
I don’t “believe” in anything DD I judge the facts on the evidence and just now I’m on the “fence”
That’s your view DD but aren’t you even curious that PC can make these extreme weather predictions months in advance so that even a layman like you and me can judge them? The Met Office can’t even do that! How’s their measured outcome and blinding?

PC is showing the effect’s - extreme weather ones. The cause is the Sun’s solar wind and magnetic outputs, it seems.Take a look at this and you might see his point!

Um Haig, you really need to read around the Forum, and not just this thread.

My questions about
1. Measurement of event.
2. Defintions of prediction.
3. Random sampling.
4. Blinding.

Are the way that science is practiced, as is the introduction of control groups.

Until those are done, there is no 'effect', there are the confounding factors of possible sample bias (which is why random samples and controls are used), lack of clarity is what 'event' is to be measured (hence defintions of 'evidentiary event' and 'predictions') and then confirmation bias, hence the blinding of both the judging of 'evidence' and 'prediction'.

Instead you offer the appeal to authority fallacy multiple times.

That is why I say you are a beleiver and not 'sitting on the fence' when it comes to Corbyn.

If he claimed a miracle treatment for some medical condition, that is exactly what would be expected, as in any other science endevour.

So you are not 'on the fence' because you do not hold his claims to any scrutiny.

 

[Wangler]

Why do you find it difficult to believe temperatures for some years are statistically indistinguishable?

uhh, it was an attempt to poke fun at the apparent lack of proof-reading demonstrated in the article itself.

Not a serious scientific rebuttal.

 

[Haig]

Do you know that you are still wrong, Haig !

Do you know that you are still wrong, RC !

TellyKNeasuss has read the whole paper and pointed out the obvious flaw in it. You have just read the abstract and think it is correct - perhaps you are displaying “conformity bias”? You are defintitely displaying confirmation bias by just looking at the abstract

Sure, I just read the extract but what I did read and the points I posted, makes me doubt TellyKNeasuss interpretation of the paper and NO, I don’t feel the need, to pay, to see it for myself. Mmmm “conformity bias” as I understand it is following the herd, clearly that’s not me. So RC, you and TellyKNeasuss, are displaying “conformity bias” if anyone is! I’m not part of the “in crowd” consensus, more of a dissenter, as this study explains: http://lesswrong.com/lw/m9/aschs_conformity_experiment/

Yes, that’s right. Piers Corbyn is advertising that he has improved this techniques. Pity that there is no scientific evidence that he is right.

Sure there is and it’s called “evidence based science”

No. I am claiming that WeatherNet is what it is - a company selling weather predictions. It is in their interest to never have their predictions scientifically tested in case it is found that they are not doing better than informed guesses.

Your wrong here RC and a bit mixed up. WeatherNet is the company that confirmed Piers Corbyn’s company, WeatherAction, has 85% success rate in its best predictions of extreme weather. http://www.weatheraction.com/pages/data/WAcoverletter.pdf
It was on “evidence based science” that WeatherNet was able to judge PC and WeatherAction and here is a topical example:- WeatherAction warnings of volcano AND wind changes confirmed
“Piers said “We are very pleased with this confirmation of our forecast. It generally speaking means extra dust risk but the precise implications depend both on the detailed mechanics of the eruptions and wind directions. Very importantly we predicted on 17th March that the last 5 days of April would see high pressure decisively dominate Europe and give winds from the South/SouthEast which are going to clear the ash from Europe, Britain & Ireland (see map). We also correctly identified the immediately preceding developments towards this situation which will start some clearance. “Some politicians have been saying ‘no-one could have seen these developments’. This of course is not true and comes notably from self styled ‘new’ poseurs who – along with the other Parties – do not want to admit these things are predictable and are controlled by solar-magnetic & lunar factors and NOTHING to do with CO2. As long as politicians continue to put dogma before evidence-based science the public will suffer unnecessary”
“If the Government took our long range – months ahead - forecasts of important
Weather situations (and volcano/earthquake risk) we could make them free to the
public and the BBC”, said Piers. “Surely this is a no-brainer. The Met Office
can’t do it but we can.” http://www.weatheraction.com/docs/WANews10No17.pdf

No. Neither did Piers Corbyn. Otherwise you would cite the scientific evidence that he did.

Yes, he did and it’s a matter of public record that he made those 5 correct predictions, months before the event (three winters and two summers) and that’s “evidence based science” of his SWT.

Haig, You do realize that the accuracy or not of the Met Office has nothing to do with the accuracy or not of Piers Corbyn?

Sure it is RC. The Met Office was, in effect, competing directly with PC when it made those 5 disastrously wrong predictions of the same three winters and two summers. Also they use a AGW computer model of the climate that FAILED and RC used his study of the Sun and it’s solar wind and magnetic outputs to make his correct predictions. PC gets NO public funds and the Met Office gets approx £155 million of taxpayer’s cash, a true David and Goliath story and very relevant I say.

I am not trying to "besmirch it". He probably does has an excellent reputation. He certainly has published papers. Scientists make mistakes. He made a mistake one paper in his statictical analysis of PC's predictions that invalidates his results.

Yes, he has an excellent reputation. I don’t agree with your assessment of his paper on WeatherAction.

WeatherNet is a company. It is not "competent or worthy" in the same sense as the University of Sunderland since there is no scientific proof that it is either competent or worthy.

I know the point your making RC and that’s why I had the "competent or worthy" in quotes. The letter to PC is signed by Martin Lilley (BSc. Hons) Meteorologist - WeatherNet Ltd and I think he knows all about scientific proof. http://www.weatheraction.com/pages/data/WAcoverletter.pdf

You have the opinion that they have a first class reputation. This does not make their predictions more right than informed guesses. This means that they have good advertising.

Not just my opinion, they where service provider of the year, in 2008, as you can see on the letter above. Their Key Personnel are quite impressive too http://www.weathernet.co.uk/Key.asp

One more time: Haig:

1. No one doubts that their accuracy is high for the predictions that they do.
2. There is no scientific evidence that their predictions are any more accurate than informed guesses.

One more time: RC:

1. No one doubts that their accuracy is high for the predictions that they do, 85% is agreed.
2. There is evidence-based science that their predictions are more accurate than informed guesses.

Do you know that you are still wrong, Haig ? AR4 is not advertising. It is an analysis of the existing scientific literature. IPCC is not a company with a vested interest in advertising it wares.

Do you know that you are still wrong, RC ? AR4 is advertising. It is an analysis of the existing AGW biased scientific literature. IPCC is a body with a vested interest in advertising its Tax & Trade agenda at the behest of its backers.

Do you know that you are still wrong, Haig ? Your list of papers are on the probable effects of cosmic rays on cloud formation. This has nothing to do with the breakdown of the correlation between cosmic ray flux in the last few decades and cloud formation/global temperatures. Note what I stated:

Do you know that you are still wrong, RC ? My lists of papers are on the probable effects of cosmic rays on cloud formation show, IMHO, the supposed breakdown of the correlation between cosmic ray flux in the last few decades and cloud formation/global temperatures is mistaken. Note what I posted, those papers give a clear correlation of GCR and climate.

This is supported by: Laut 2003 - Solar activity and terrestrial climate: an analysis of some purported correlations. Abstract

Conclustions

The Laut 2003 paper, you quote, is only a “caution” of some errors on graphs used in “previous” papers as is clear from these quotes:-
Solar activity and terrestrial climate: an analysis of some purported correlations - Laut 2003
“an incorrect handling of the physical data.”
“caution against drawing any conclusions based upon these graphs”
“As to the many publicized studies indicating potential mechanisms for solar-climate interactions through modulation of the atmospheric circulation (Bond et al., 2001; Haigh, 1996, 2001; Shindell et al., 1999, 2001) some of them may indeed have identi1ed important physical mechanisms. However, further work is necessary to con1rm their role.”
http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/Laut2003.pdf
Hey RC! Do you think if Laut did a 2010 paper on the errors and incorrect handling of the physical data in the IPCC AR4 and Climategate that would invalidate AGW? No! Why not?

The CLOUD experiment will identifey even more "important physical mechanisms" and boost evidence for the link between cosmic rays and climate.

Yes, CLOUD will give more detail on how GCR’s affect our climate but the link has already been confirmed:-
NITRATE CONCENTRATION IN GREENLAND ICE: AN INDICATOR OF CHANGES IN FLUXES OF SOLAR AND GALACTIC HIGH-ENERGY PARTICLES
-2004
http://www.springerlink.com/content/up821xn371878712/fulltext.pdf?page=1

Haig: Cite papers that show that the following papers are wrong

• The correlation between global temperatures and cosmic ray flux has broken down after 1970 as in Krivova 2003.
• The correlation between low clouds and cosmic rays is the reverse after 1991 - clouds formation changes 6 months before cosmic ray flux changes. See Laut 2003 - Solar activity and terrestrial climate: an analysis of some purported correlations.

Hint: If the paper does not cite these papers than it probaly has nothing to do the correlation breakdown. If you cannot then there is no recent correlation between cosmic rays and climate. This means that cosmic rays currently have a minor effect on climate and so are not responsible for global warming.

RC you pin your hopes on these two papers unreasonably IMHO. The Laut 2003 paper I’ve already dealt with above. The Krivova 2003 paper in no obstacle either as you can see when you read, carefully, the “outlook” at the end.
Actually, these two papers have been left far behind as this list of papers shows:

Papers on GCR’s and Climate

Evidence for a link between the flux of galactic cosmic rays and Earth's climate during the past 200,000 years - 2004
http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...serid=10&md5=5c2976920484480e22f8f2a559100cc5
Latitudinal dependence of low cloud amount on cosmic ray induced ionization -2004
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2004/2004GL019507.shtml
External forcing of the geomagnetic field? Implications for the cosmic ray flux—climate variability -2004
http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...serid=10&md5=33e6be89330ececa4f7068aac6e17001
Precipitation, cloud cover and Forbush decreases in galactic cosmic rays -2004
http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...serid=10&md5=120b093fdc42968f10c462a7caf15c3f
Long-Term Modulation of Cosmic Rays in the Heliosphere and its influence at Earth -2004
http://www.springerlink.com/content/g274732x8r97350x/
The effects of galactic cosmic rays, modulated by solar terrestrial magnetic fields, on the climate -2004
http://elpub.wdcb.ru/journals/rjes/abstract/v06/abjes163.htm
Formation of large NAT particles and denitrification in polar stratosphere: possible role of cosmic rays and effect of solar activity -2004
http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/4/2273/2004/acp-4-2273-2004.html
Possible influence of cosmic rays on climate through thunderstorm clouds -2005
http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...serid=10&md5=fb0d59cf8f48e576f5e5f89544496435
Estimation of long-term cosmic ray intensity variation in near future and prediction of their contribution in expected global climate change -2005
http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...serid=10&md5=d89132c4e5911778e92f2e42221ea69c
Prediction of expected global climate change by forecasting of galactic cosmic ray intensity time variation in near future based on solar magnetic field data – 2005
http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...serid=10&md5=1487dd1b9313310d9562691c374e2366
Long-term variations of the surface pressure in the North Atlantic and possible association with solar activity and galactic cosmic rays -2005
http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...serid=10&md5=71d9ea60acfc2066d065e6f036ed906f
Ice Age Epochs and the Sun's Path Through the Galaxy -2005
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0503306
On climate response to changes in the cosmic ray flux and radiative budget -2005
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2005/2004JA010866.shtml
Solar activity, cosmic rays, and Earth's temperature: A millennium-scale comparison -2005
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2005/2004JA010946.shtml

2006 - 8 papers

2007 – 7 papers

2008 – 2 papers

2009 – 10 papers

2010 – 3 papers (so far)

No time to list them all RC but it probably would be a waste of my time anyway, you seem to rule out GCR's as a significant factor, in our climate, based on those flawed 2003 papers. You seem to have the spare time to do more research; instead, you defend your belief of AGW regardless.
BTW despite all the DA filling, I’m still an "unsure" but "sure" the science isn't settled in, favour of, AGW. Interesting times are just ahead with all the studies on the Sun and also GCR's.

Um Haig, you really need to read around the Forum, and not just this thread.

No time DD. I’m sure your right but, as I’ve said before on this thread, my work and family takes most of my spare time. Actually, it’s set to get much worse for me, as far as JREF is concerned, a two week holiday at start of May (volcano’s permitting), after that, a frail relative coming to stay for a month and, now Spring is finally here, my two outdoor sports are calling me, so free time at a PC will be very rare indeed.

My questions about 1. Measurement of event. 2. Defintions of prediction. 3. Random sampling. 4. Blinding. Are the way that science is practiced, as is the introduction of control groups.

Sure DD, I understand your point but if you read what’s on PC’s web site and watched his videos he answers that with “all I ask is a level playing field” I know what he means, do you? He’s had 25 years of abuse, and B/S from the AGW crowd and he’s still here, a thorn in their sides, and gaining support. He’s on record as saying he will reveal all his methods and submit papers to his peers, watch this space! (should that be “watch this Sun?)

Until those are done, there is no 'effect', there are the confounding factors of possible sample bias (which is why random samples and controls are used), lack of clarity is what 'event' is to be measured (hence defintions of 'evidentiary event' and 'predictions') and then confirmation bias, hence the blinding of both the judging of 'evidence' and 'prediction'.

I don’t agree DD. The evidence-based science Piers Corbyn has produced is valid. Sure, he can submit to your method but “first” he needs a level playing field. The confirmation bias, you allude to, fits more snugly on the mainstream rather than an outsider like him.

Instead you offer the appeal to authority fallacy multiple times.

So, it’s your way or no way? BTW I thought you said you hadn’t got a dog is this fight?

That is why I say you are a beleiver and not 'sitting on the fence' when it comes to Corbyn.

You can say what you like DD but how can you be sure I’m not just winding you up? Of course, I’m not! I just prefer the view from up on this fence, I just sneak down to play DA.

If he claimed a miracle treatment for some medical condition, that is exactly what would be expected, as in any other science endevour.

He doesn’t claim infallibility and his forcasts vary from 85% to as low as 60% confidence period. He’s very clear on how he does it, not by magic or guessing but by studying our Sun.

So you are not 'on the fence' because you do not hold his claims to any scrutiny.

Well I’ve posted his forecasts here on this thread, well before the events, and anyone can see if he was right. That seems like scrutiny, of a kind, to me. He’s been extremely accurate; don’t you wonder how he does it DD?

NASA 2006 to 2009 (notice how their view has changed)

May 10, 2006: The Sun's Great Conveyor Belt has slowed to a record-low crawl, according to research by NASA solar physicist David Hathaway. "It's off the bottom of the charts," he says. "This has important repercussions for future solar activity."

http://science.nasa.gov/media/media...ay_longrange_resources/predictions3_strip.jpg

Hathaway's prediction should not be confused with another recent forecast: A team led by physicist Mausumi Dikpata of NCAR has predicted that Cycle 24, peaking in 2011 or 2012, will be intense. Hathaway agrees: "Cycle 24 will be strong. Cycle 25 will be weak. Both of these predictions are based on the observed behavior of the conveyor belt."

If the trend holds, Solar Cycle 25 in 2022 could be, like the belt itself, "off the bottom of the charts."
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2006/10may_longrange/


http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2006/images/figpredic24-1.jpg

NCAR scientists have succeeded in simulating the intensity of the sunspot cycle by developing a new computer model of solar processes. This figure compares observations of the past 12 cycles (above) with model results that closely match the sunspot peaks (below). The intensity level is based on the amount of the Sun's visible hemisphere with sunspot activity. The NCAR team predicts the next cycle will be 30-50% more intense than the current cycle. (Figure by Mausumi Dikpati, Peter Gilman, and Giuliana de Toma, NCAR.)

Predicting Cycles 24 and 25
The Predictive Flux-transport Dynamo Model is enabling NCAR scientists to predict that the next solar cycle, known as Cycle 24, will produce sunspots across an area slightly larger than 2.5% of the visible surface of the Sun. The scientists expect the cycle to begin in late 2007 or early 2008, which is about 6 to 12 months later than a cycle would normally start. Cycle 24 is likely to reach its peak about 2012.
By analyzing recent solar cycles, the scientists also hope to forecast sunspot activity two solar cycles, or 22 years, into the future. The NCAR team is planning in the next year to issue a forecast of Cycle 25, which will peak in the early 2020s.
http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2006/sunspot.shtml

SOLAR STORM WARNING

March 10, 2006: It's official: Solar minimum has arrived. Sunspots have all but vanished. Solar flares are nonexistent. The sun is utterly quiet.
Like the quiet before a storm.
Like most experts in the field, Hathaway has confidence in the conveyor belt model and agrees with Dikpati that the next solar maximum should be a doozy. But he disagrees with one point. Dikpati's forecast puts Solar Max at 2012. Hathaway believes it will arrive sooner, in 2010 or 2011.
"History shows that big sunspot cycles 'ramp up' faster than small ones," he says. "I expect to see the first sunspots of the next cycle appear in late 2006 or 2007—and Solar Max to be underway by 2010 or 2011."
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2006/10mar_stormwarning/

NASA: Solar cycle may cause “dangerous” global cooling in a few years time January 13, 2008

Today, the Space and Science Research Center , (SSRC) in Orlando , Florida announces that it has confirmed the recent web announcement of NASA solar physicists that there are substantial changes occurring in the sun’s surface. The SSRC has further researched these changes and has concluded they will bring about the next climate change to one of a long lasting cold era.

Today, Director of the SSRC, John Casey has reaffirmed earlier research he led that independently discovered the sun’s changes are the result of a family of cycles that bring about climate shifts from cold climate to warm and back again.

“We today confirm the recent announcement by NASA that there are historic and important changes taking place on the sun’s surface. This will have only one outcome – a new climate change is coming that will bring an extended period of deep cold to the planet. This is not however a unique event for the planet although it is critically important news to this and the next generations. It is but the normal sequence of alternating climate changes that has been going on for thousands of years. Further according to our research, this series of solar cycles are so predictable that they can be used to roughly forecast the next series of climate changes many decades in advance. I have verified the accuracy of these cycles’ behavior over the last 1,100 years relative to temperatures on Earth, to well over 90%.”

“All records of sunspot counts and other proxies of solar activity going back 6,000 years clearly validates our own findings that when we have sunspot counts lower then 50 it means only one thing – an intense cold climate, globally. NASA says the solar cycle 25, the one after the next that starts this spring will be at 50 or lower. The general opinion of the SSRC scientists is that it could begin even sooner within 3 years with the next solar cycle 24. “

“If NASA is the more accurate on the schedule, then we may see even warmer temperatures before the bottom falls out. If the SSRC and other scientists around the world are correct then we have only a few years to prepare before 20-30 years of lasting and possibly dangerous cold arrive.”

“Given the importance of the next climate change Casey was asked whether the government has been notified. “Yes, as soon as my research revealed these solar cycles and the prediction of the coming cold era with the next climate change, I notified all the key offices in the Bush administration including both parties in the Senate and House science committees as well as most of the nation’s media outlets. Unfortunately, because of the intensity of coverage of the UN IPCC and man made global warming during 2007, the full story about climate change is very slow in getting told. These changes in the sun have begun. They are unstoppable.”

“ In the meantime we will do our best to spread the word along with NASA and others who can see what is about to take place for the Earth’s climate. Soon, I believe this will be recognized as the most important climate story of this century.”
http://aftermathnews.wordpress.com/...dangerous-global-cooling-in-a-few-years-time/

NASA, routinely, note the possibility of GCR’s affecting our climate, see here (my bold):-

Voyager Makes an Interstellar Discovery
December 23, 2009: The solar system is passing through an interstellar cloud that physics says should not exist. In the Dec. 24th issue of Nature

lead author Merav Opher, a NASA Heliophysics Guest Investigator from George Mason University.

“Additional compression could allow more cosmic rays to reach the inner solar system, possibly affecting terrestrial climate”
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2009/23dec_voyager/

 

[macdoc]

Poptech incarnate ??

 

[Haig]

Poptech incarnate ??

Doesn't make me a bad person, does it?

 

[Reality Check]

Do you know that you are still wrong, RC !
Sure, I just read the extract but what I did read and the points I posted, makes me doubt TellyKNeasuss interpretation of the paper and NO, I don’t feel the need, to pay, to see it for myself. Mmmm “conformity bias” as I understand it is following the herd, clearly that’s not me.

It depends on what herd you are following. You are certainly following the AGW denier herd.

http://lesswrong.com/lw/m9/aschs_conformity_experiment/
Sure there is and it’s called “evidence based science”

Sure there is no evidence that PC's prediction are better than informed guesses.

Your wrong here RC and a bit mixed up. WeatherNet is the company that confirmed Piers Corbyn’s company, WeatherAction, has 85% success rate in its best predictions of extreme weather.

And there you go again with your inability to understand the point.
I apologize for shouting at you but:

I know that Piers Corbyn’s company, WeatherAction, has 85% success rate in its best predictions of extreme weather.
This is what I would expect from a person making random informed guesses.
​

Yes, he did and it’s a matter of public record that he made those 5 correct predictions, months before the event (three winters and two summers) and that’s “evidence based science” of his SWT.

No he did not.
There is no evidence that PC's prediction are better than informed guesses.

Sure it is RC. ...

Sure it is not.
This is well known principle in scientific logic:
You have 2 theories A and B. If theory A makes predictions and these are invalid then that states that theory A is incorrect. This states nothing about theory B.

So the Met Offace tries to make long-range weather forecasts using the standard weather models. These weather models state that their accuracy declines rapidly with the future date used. This is proven correct, thus validating the weather models. The MetOffice does the sensible thing and no longer makes long-range weather forecasts.

Yes, he has an excellent reputation. I don’t agree with your assessment of his paper on WeatherAction.

That is because you have never read it and I trrust TellyKNeasuss who has read it.

One more time: RC:

1. No one doubts that their accuracy is high for the predictions that they do, 85% is agreed.
2. There is evidence-based science that their predictions are more accurate than informed guesses.

One more time: Haig:

1. No one doubts that their accuracy is high for the predictions that they do, 85% is agreed.
2. There is no evidence-based science that their predictions are more accurate than informed guesses.

AR4 is advertising. It is an analysis of the existing AGW biased scientific literature.

That is nonsence. AR4 is an an analysis of the existing climate science literature.

Do you know that you are still wrong, RC ? My lists of papers are on the probable effects of cosmic rays on cloud formation show, IMHO, the supposed breakdown of the correlation between cosmic ray flux in the last few decades and cloud formation/global temperatures is mistaken. Note what I posted, those papers give a clear correlation of GCR and climate.

Do you know that you are still wrong, Haig ?
None of the papers listed address the breakdown in correlation in the papers.

The Laut 2003 paper, you quote, is only a “caution” of some errors on graphs used in “previous” papers as is clear from these quotes:-
...

I do know that Laut 2003 - Solar activity and terrestrial climate: an analysis of some purported correlations does include cautions about previous papers. I also know that does not make the paper only a list of cautions.

What you are ignoring is the section "Low cloudcover andgalactic cosmic ray intensity" which states that the breakdown occurs.

...snipped usual wall of text with papers that have nothing to do with the breakdown of GCR corrleation woth climate...

See the next post which will be the start of a list of unasnwered questions

 

[Reality Check]

Please cite the papers that rebut the current non-correlation between GCR and climate

First asked 17 April 2010
Haig
Please cite the papers that rebut the current lack of correlation between GCR and climate as shown in following papers.

• The correlation between global temperatures and cosmic ray flux has broken down after 1970 as in Krivova 2003.
• The correlation between low clouds and cosmic rays is the reverse after 1991 - clouds formation changes 6 months before cosmic ray flux changes. See Laut 2003 - Solar activity and terrestrial climate: an analysis of some purported correlations.

Hint: If the paper does not cite these papers than it probably has nothing to do with the correlation breakdown.

If you cannot then there is no recent correlation between cosmic rays and climate. This means that cosmic rays currently have a minor effect on climate and so are not responsible for global warming.

 

[Dancing David]

Um Haig, you really need to read around the Forum, and not just this thread.

No time DD. I’m sure your right but, as I’ve said before on this thread, my work and family takes most of my spare time. Actually, it’s set to get much worse for me, as far as JREF is concerned, a two week holiday at start of May (volcano’s permitting), after that, a frail relative coming to stay for a month and, now Spring is finally here, my two outdoor sports are calling me, so free time at a PC will be very rare indeed.

My questions about 1. Measurement of event. 2. Defintions of prediction. 3. Random sampling. 4. Blinding. Are the way that science is practiced, as is the introduction of control groups.

Sure DD, I understand your point but if you read what’s on PC’s web site and watched his videos he answers that with “all I ask is a level playing field” I know what he means, do you? He’s had 25 years of abuse, and B/S from the AGW crowd and he’s still here, a thorn in their sides, and gaining support. He’s on record as saying he will reveal all his methods and submit papers to his peers, watch this space! (should that be “watch this Sun?)

Until those are done, there is no 'effect', there are the confounding factors of possible sample bias (which is why random samples and controls are used), lack of clarity is what 'event' is to be measured (hence defintions of 'evidentiary event' and 'predictions') and then confirmation bias, hence the blinding of both the judging of 'evidence' and 'prediction'.

I don’t agree DD. The evidence-based science Piers Corbyn has produced is valid. Sure, he can submit to your method but “first” he needs a level playing field. The confirmation bias, you allude to, fits more snugly on the mainstream rather than an outsider like him.

Instead you offer the appeal to authority fallacy multiple times.

So, it’s your way or no way? BTW I thought you said you hadn’t got a dog is this fight?

That is why I say you are a beleiver and not 'sitting on the fence' when it comes to Corbyn.

You can say what you like DD but how can you be sure I’m not just winding you up? Of course, I’m not! I just prefer the view from up on this fence, I just sneak down to play DA.

If he claimed a miracle treatment for some medical condition, that is exactly what would be expected, as in any other science endevour.

He doesn’t claim infallibility and his forcasts vary from 85% to as low as 60% confidence period. He’s very clear on how he does it, not by magic or guessing but by studying our Sun.

So you are not 'on the fence' because you do not hold his claims to any scrutiny.

Well I’ve posted his forecasts here on this thread, well before the events, and anyone can see if he was right. That seems like scrutiny, of a kind, to me. He’s been extremely accurate; don’t you wonder how he does it DD?

Would you really like me to discuss what sample error and sample bias are Haig and why they are potential issues in making any claims about accuracy.

These are standard critiques of ANY claim, which is why I suggested you read around the JREF . You might find out that I am asking standard questions.

1. Methods of measuring prediction.
2. Methods of measuring effect.
3. Random samples.
4. Double blinding.
5. Control samples.

These are all common to statistical analysis, I am not holding Corbyn to a unique standard, it is the common standard.

If you would like I can explain why each of the five are important to declaring that there is an effect.

 

[Haig]

It depends on what herd you are following. You are certainly following the AGW denier herd.

Nope, I’m following nobody, don’t be fooled by the DA.
So RC, that “conformity bias” label stays pinned to you.

Sure there is no evidence that PC's prediction are better than informed guesses.

Sure there IS evidence that PC's prediction are better than informed guesses - Dr. Dennis Wheeler from The University of Sunderland and WeatherNet have confirmed that.

And there you go again with your inability to understand the point.
I apologize for shouting at you but:

I know that Piers Corbyn’s company, WeatherAction, has 85% success rate in its best predictions of extreme weather.
This is what I would expect from a person making random informed guesses.
​

No he did not.
There is no evidence that PC's prediction are better than informed guesses.

So you get a 85% success rate and you say - “This is what I would expect from a person making random informed guesses” Your right – I don’t understand your point, please spell out exactly what you mean.
Making correct predictions is also the measure of a theory that’s valid. That is my understanding (as a layman) of Piers Corbyn’s claim of “evidence based science” and his view of the Sun and it’s effects on our planets changing climate and weather.

Sure it is not.
This is well known principle in scientific logic:
You have 2 theories A and B. If theory A makes predictions and these are invalid then that states that theory A is incorrect. This states nothing about theory B.

Come on now RC! These two theories A and B are both concerned with the same event i.e. “weather” and theory B was correct on ALL it’s predictions and so it has Not been disproved and merits further study. Surely you can see that?

So the Met Offace tries to make long-range weather forecasts using the standard weather models. These weather models state that their accuracy declines rapidly with the future date used. This is proven correct, thus validating the weather models. The MetOffice does the sensible thing and no longer makes long-range weather forecasts.

Not quite right RC. The Met Office are still making long-range weather forecasts, they just won’t make them public in future. Why? Because the total failure of the forecasts made them a target for ridicule and anger at the waste of taxpayers money. They hope to get them right behind closed doors before starting again to make them public.
The fact that their AGW computer model failed to predict long-range weather casts doubt, for some, on their “other” predictions for climate change up to 2100:
As weather and climate experts we:
• predict the weather for tomorrow, next week, next season and beyond;
• are a significant contributor to the global understanding of climate change;
• are leading researchers of weather science;
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/about/what/
Our credentials
• World-class knowledge and experience to guide you through all the science.
• Practical experience of helping our customers manage the impacts of the weather and climate change.
• Significant contributor to the global understanding of climate change, from one day to 100 years ahead.
• Key science contributor to the UKCP09.
• We make substantial contributions to the Nobel Prize winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
• We help inform government policy.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/
Maybe now you see why “PC 5-0 Met” is significant.

That is because you have never read it and I trrust TellyKNeasuss who has read it.

That’s true; I made my judgement on what I did read of the paper, not what was behind the pay wall. Of course, you’re free to believe whom you like.

One more time: Haig:

1. No one doubts that their accuracy is high for the predictions that they do, 85% is agreed.
2. There is no evidence-based science that their predictions are more accurate than informed guesses.

Agree and disagree. Is your head getting dizzy? I know mine is.

That is nonsence. AR4 is an an analysis of the existing climate science literature.

That is correct AR4 is political propaganda of the existing climate science literature:
“Wasn’t the IPCC Assessment Report intended to be a scientific document that would merit solid backing from the climate science community – instead of forcing many climate scientists into having to agree with greenhouse skeptic criticisms that this is indeed a report with a clear and obvious political agenda.”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/...ng-no-scientific-merit-but-what-does-ipcc-do/

Do you know that you are still wrong, Haig ?
None of the papers listed address the breakdown in correlation in the papers.

I do know that Laut 2003 - Solar activity and terrestrial climate: an analysis of some purported correlations does include cautions about previous papers. I also know that does not make the paper only a list of cautions.

What you are ignoring is the section "Low cloudcover andgalactic cosmic ray intensity" which states that the breakdown occurs.

I’ve not ignored it RC it’s not a refutation of GCR’s correlation with climate and the Sun’s outputs (ALL of them)
Here are the conclusions from that paper and the acknowledgements: - (see my bold)

3. Conclusion
Several of the figures which are discussed above have attracted worldwide attention, both in scientific and in public discussions on climate change. Even though they have been obtained by some practices for data handling which do not live up to general scientific standards, there is very little recognition of the fact that they are misleading. Therefore I have found it worthwhile to deliver the present critical analysis.

As to the many publicized studies indicating potential mechanisms for solar-climate interactions through modulation of the atmospheric circulation (Bond et al., 2001; Haigh, 1996, 2001; Shindell et al., 1999, 2001) some of them may indeed have identified important physical mechanisms. However, further work is necessary to confirm their role.

Acknowledgements
I wish to thank JIon Egill KristjIansson for access to preliminary
results of his analyses of cloud and cosmic ray data.
http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/Laut2003.pdf

So, you can see your "points" are not even important enough to mention in the conclusions and the paper was based on “preliminary results”. The papers I cited are the “further work” Laut says is necessary. Have you read them? I doubt it!

The six month lag or similar (up to a year) is mentioned in some of those papers (don’t ask me which ones) and the active Sun is known to suppress the GCR effect. The magnetic output of the Sun has more than doubled in the last few decades. You need to do more research; I haven’t got the time now.

See the next post which will be the start of a list of unasnwered questions

First asked 17 April 2010
Haig
Please cite the papers that rebut the current lack of correlation between GCR and climate as shown in following papers.

• The correlation between global temperatures and cosmic ray flux has broken down after 1970 as in Krivova 2003.
• The correlation between low clouds and cosmic rays is the reverse after 1991 - clouds formation changes 6 months before cosmic ray flux changes. See Laut 2003 - Solar activity and terrestrial climate: an analysis of some purported correlations.

Hint: If the paper does not cite these papers than it probably has nothing to do with the correlation breakdown.

If you cannot then there is no recent correlation between cosmic rays and climate. This means that cosmic rays currently have a minor effect on climate and so are not responsible for global warming.

Answered on 24 April 2010 here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5857023#post5857023

Questions Unanswered by Reality Check (start of a list)

First asked 22 April 2010

Hey RC! Do you think if Laut did a 2010 paper on the errors and incorrect handling of the physical data in the IPCC AR4 and Climategate that would invalidate AGW? No! Why not?

Would you really like me to discuss what sample error and sample bias are Haig and why they are potential issues in making any claims about accuracy.

These are standard critiques of ANY claim, which is why I suggested you read around the JREF . You might find out that I am asking standard questions.

1. Methods of measuring prediction.
2. Methods of measuring effect.
3. Random samples.
4. Double blinding.
5. Control samples.

These are all common to statistical analysis, I am not holding Corbyn to a unique standard, it is the common standard.

If you would like I can explain why each of the five are important to declaring that there is an effect.

Thanks for the explanation DD but I’ll pass on that kind offer of further detail. Perhaps you could give your lecture to Dr. Dennis Wheeler from The University of Sunderland and WeatherNet who carried out the validation of Piers Corbyn’s weather predictions and who’s integrity and competence you doubt.

Do you understand evidence-based science?

 

[Reality Check]

Can you understand that the abstract of a paper does not report the flaws in a paper

Sure, I just read the extract but what I did read and the points I posted, makes me doubt TellyKNeasuss interpretation of the paper and NO, I don’t feel the need, to pay, to see it for myself.

Firstly there is no "extract" from the paper - it is an abstract.
First asked 25 April 2010
Haig,
Can you understand that the abstract of a paper does not report the flaws in a paper?
The abstract states the conculsions of the authors.
Thus basing an opinion on the abstract alone is stupid. You need to rread the paere. Failing that you nees somone to evaluate it for you.
TellyKNeasuss did this on 15th February 2010.

Last posted 18th February 2010

That is the paper you mentioned before and as I replied:
A verification of UK gale forecasts by the ‘solar weather technique’: October 1995–September 1997. Google Scholar gives only 4 citations for the paper which was published in 2000.
This has been discussed elsewhere:

Originally Posted by TellyKNeasuss
I do have access to this paper at work. I think that my intuition that the author didn't normalize the statistics for climatology was basically correct. The skill scores were vastly inflated by the fact that forecasting non-occurrences of a "rare" event yields a high success rate. In this case, gales are rare in England in the summer so Summertime forecasts of no gales occurring are almost guaranteed to be correct.

Corbyn issues forecasts of events happening in intervals which are between 3 and 6 days long. Even given this amount of leeway, only 23 of the 41 gales during the study period occurred in an interval that Corbyn had forecast a gale for, and there were 21 intervals for which Corbyn forecast a gale but none occurred.

So the paper has flaws and makes it clear that Piers Corbyn is basically saying bad weather will happen in winter and not in summer. Big surprise!

 

[Reality Check]

Please cite the papers that rebut the current non-correlation between GCR and climate

First asked 17 April 2010
Haig,
Since you cannot understand the question as originally stated here is it with some changes.

Please cite the specific papers that rebut the current lack of correlation between GCR and climate as shown in following papers.

• The correlation between global temperatures and cosmic ray flux has broken down after 1970 as in Krivova 2003.
• The correlation between low clouds and cosmic rays is the reverse after 1991 - clouds formation changes 6 months before cosmic ray flux changes. See Laut 2003 - Solar activity and terrestrial climate: an analysis of some purported correlations.

Hint: If the paper does not cite these papers than it probably has nothing to do with the correlation breakdown.

If you cannot then there is no recent correlation between cosmic rays and climate. This means that cosmic rays currently have a minor effect on climate and so are not responsible for global warming.

You replied

Answered on 24 April 2010 here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5857023#post5857023

That is a lie. The papers in that list have evidence about the probable connection between cosmic rays and climate.

 

[Reality Check]

Please cite the papers using "evidence-based science" in climate science

First asked 22 April 2010
Do you understand evidence-based science?

Answered 25 April 2010
"Evidence-based science" does not exist. Evidence-based medicine does exist and is sometimes called evidence-based science.

The scientific method exists and is used to evaluate evidence in science.

But I may be wrong:
First asked 25 April 2010
Haig,
Please cite the papers that explicitly state thay are using "evidence-based science" in climate science?
How about a few climate science textbooks using "evidence-based science"?

 

[bit_pattern]

Even if this panned out, there is still a very good reason to reduce CO2 concentrations because after 2100, or whatever arbitrary date you want to put on it, we would get hit with the full force of of the greenhouse effect that would otherwise have been masked by the soalr cooling.

 

[Reality Check]

So you get a 85% success rate and you say - “This is what I would expect from a person making random informed guesses” Your right – I don’t understand your point, please spell out exactly what you mean.

This is part of the scientific method that you seem unaware of.

• The predictions must be testable.

This means that they must be distinguishable from random coincidences. That in turn means that any analysis of the testing of the predictions has to include a method to distinguish the results from random coincidences.
That is the failure of A verification of UK gale forecasts by the ‘solar weather technique’: October 1995–September 1997 as noted in TellyKNeasuss's post.

You seem to think that Piers Corbyn's secret technique is better than any other. That adds another constraint on the predictions from this secret theory. It needs to be better than than other theories, e.g. someone making random guesses from theoir own knowledge. That is whay I have my tongue-in-check example whwer I can predict the winds where I live better than 85% (Piers Corbyn's success rate).

 

[Reality Check]

Piers Corbyn: Saint or Demon

Haig,
This is a moral question not a scientific one so feel free to ignore it.
What do you think about someone who has a way of saving many lives and many billions of dollars, keeping it secret?

Piers Corbyn has only issued vague (and in at least one case wrong) statements about his method.
Yet he is 85% correct! One would think that a good person would publish his method so that the weather offices throughout the world can use it to save lives and money. This would have the additional advantage that the resources of 1000's of climate scientists would be applied to the method. Lots of supercomputers, government money, resources, etc. Within a short time the predictions will be much more accurate.

 

[Reality Check]

Come on now RC! These two theories A and B are both concerned with the same event i.e. “weather” and theory B was correct on ALL it’s predictions and so it has Not been disproved and merits further study. Surely you can see that?

Come on now Haig!
That theories A and B are about the same event - "weather" - is basic. If they were about different events then they cannot be conpared !

The correctly tested predictions of theory A state nothing about the correctness of theory B.
Surely you can see that?