Firstly there is no "extract" from the paper - it is an abstract.
Sure, I meant to say abstract. A bit like you mixing up WeatherNet with WeatherAction, we ALL makes mistakes, right?
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
Actually, an abstract can state much more than just conclusions, see here:
“An abstract is a brief summary of a research article, thesis, review, conference proceeding or any in-depth analysis of a particular subject or discipline, and is often used to help the reader quickly ascertain the paper's purpose.”
“The abstract can convey the main results and conclusions of a scientific article”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstract_(summary)
So, I repeat, TellyKNeasuss view of the paper didn’t convince me because of the important points he omitted but you are free to “believe” who and whatever you like.
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.
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
That is a lie. The papers in that list have evidence about the probable connection between cosmic rays and climate.
The question I didn’t understand is the one you shouted and then apologized, remember? It’s this from you:-
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.
To which I replied:-
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.
Your other piece I do understand and your changes make no difference and my answer is still the same and it’s not a lie, you may not like it but try to understand my point.:
One more time:
Originally Posted by Haig
Answered on 24 April 2010 here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5857023#post5857023
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"?
Your right when you say “But I may be wrong”. Just because YOU can’t “Google it” doesn’t mean "Evidence-based science" only exists in medicine.
Historical science, experimental science, and the scientific method -2001
ABSTRACT
Many scientists believe that there is a uniform, interdisciplinary method for the practice of good science. The paradigmatic examples, however, are drawn from classical experimental science. Insofar as historical hypotheses cannot be tested in controlled laboratory settings, historical research is sometimes said to be inferior to experimental research. Using examples from diverse historical disciplines, this paper demonstrates that such claims are misguided. First, the reputed superiority of experimental research is based upon accounts of scientific methodology (Baconian inductivism or falsificationism) that are deeply flawed, both logically and as accounts of the actual practices of scientists. Second, although there are fundamental differences in methodology between experimental scientists and historical scientists, they are keyed to a pervasive feature of nature, a time asymmetry of causation. As a consequence, the claim that historical science is methodologically inferior to experimental science cannot be sustained.
SUMMARY
When it comes to testing hypotheses, historical science is not inferior to classical experimental science. Traditional accounts of the scientific method cannot be used to support the superiority of experimental work. Furthermore, the differences in methodology that actually do exist between historical and experimental science are keyed to an objective and pervasive feature of nature, the asymmetry of overde-termination. Insofar as each practice selectively exploits the differing information that nature puts at its disposal, there are no grounds for claiming that the hypotheses of one are more securely established by evidence than are those of the other.
http://spot.colorado.edu/~cleland/articles/Cleland.Geology.pdf
So RC, if you understand the above paper you may understand Piers Corbyn and evidence–based science and why it is valid.
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.
If this does pan out and we are heading into another LIA as the authors of Project Astrometria, CERN CLOUD and WeatherAction suggest, then, their view of what drives climate change is far more important than other possibilities, although it may be a combination of all of them ie the Sun and modulated GCR’s.
GHG’s and the notion of AGW can’t explain past climate change when C02 was much higher than it is now and (according to the Greenland ice cores) lagged the warming by some 800 years! So, your fear of "the greenhouse effect" may be misplaced and C02 concentrations shown to be irrelevant.
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.
Sure, I’m aware of the scientific method and I’m also sure, Piers Corbyn, Dr. Dennis Wheeler from The University of Sunderland and WeatherNet are ALSO aware of the scientific method.
PC predictions HAVE been tested and to quote D.Wheeler “reveal a degree of success that cannot readily be accounted for by chance”
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001JASTP..63...29W
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).
PC predictions using his SWT are impressive and HAVE given better results than ANY other method (I won’t mention the Met Office here because it would be like kicking a man when he’s down) If you can name another method that give similar results MONTHS in advance and HAS been validated by an independent authority (or in PC case TWO) lets hear about it.
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?
Good question and I would say such a person would be immoral in IMHO. If you had watched PC's videos and read his spiel on his web site you may have realised that he recognised the implications of his SWT and has issued warnings for free to anyone who would listen when there was a risk to people or property. Also, he has been under contract from his backers to keep secret some of the key aspects of his methods. In the last year he has revealed and explained more and more and soon, he promises, ALL will be out.
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.
He has never claimed infallibility and he has given away broad area’s of his method but you should remember he has come through 25 years of abuse and B/S from detractors and yet he generously gives free warnings to those who will listen: Tuesday 27 Apr 2010 Latest News and Events
25th April 2010 WeatherAction News No 18
Killer tornado USA & major thunder Italy verify Weather Action warning
http://www.weatheraction.com/pages/pv.asp?p=wact2&fsize=0
Yet the Met Office with THEIR “scientific method”, computer models, of AGW weather and climate get thrashed 5-0 by PC who gives detailed results like these:
http://www.weatheraction.com/docs/WANews10No18.pdf
Should be enough to make people in power take notice, but NO as this correspondence shows:
Recent Correspondence:
Letters to Tim Yeo MP chair Parliament Environment Audit Committee and to Gordon Brown:
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=1538
or
http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/letters/Gordon_Brown.pdf
Links showing the centrality of Solar activity - 22 year cycle rather than 11 year:
2nd May 2008 entry 4 from Marc Morano
http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/pdf/Memo_1308.pdf
Guardian July 24 07 - Green politics needed at Westminster to weather storms ahead (2nd letter) :
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/jul/24/greenpolitics.climatechange
Guardian 18 Nov 06 letter - Basic physics supports solar activity as cause of global warming:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/nov/18/guardianletters.globalwarming
The role of the spotless sun:
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=1771
or
http://www.lowefo.com/forecast.php?s=Global
See
http://www.lowefo.com for WeatherAction forecast reportage which now includes climate forecasts and demonstrated improvement over standard meteorology hurricane forecasts that can help save lives in the all important 'end game' of forecasting hurricane landfalls using solar activity.
LETTER TO NEWSPAPERS BY Piers Corbyn, WeatherAction, Delta House 175-177 Borough High St, London SE1 1HR - 11 September, 2008
Sirs,
The King's North power station judgement wherby criminal damage to energy infrastructure is legitimized in the name of campaigning against 'Climate Change' must be subject to Retrial or Appeal which can expose the falsity of the new Green Religion on which the judgement relies.
The decision is a victory for brainwashing for the baseless ideology that every notable WEATHER event is presented as driven by man-made CO2 Global Warming and consequent 'CLIMATE Change'. Whatever seemed apparent 10 years ago the facts are: World temperatures have been falling for ten years while CO2 is rapidly rising; the Arctic was more melted than present from 10,000 to 1,000 years ago when there was much less CO2 and there is no evidence that CO2 has, does, or ever will drive temperatures or climate (indeed the relation is more the other way around).
Oil companies - check their websites - and governments love Global Warming hysteria because it enables them to profit from risng energy prices, carbon fixing, trading and 'Green' taxes. The problem now is that daily brainwashing by media and 'experts' on the green gravy train is so much past a tipping point that action from green zealots threatens law and order and energy infrastructure.
In July an international group of 13 independent scientists wrote to the UN Climate Committee (IPCC) asking for evidence that CO2 drives world temperature and climate. They have been ignored just as Tim Yeo MP - chair of the Commons Environment Audit Committee - is also unable to answer the question. Open government is now sacrificed to the New Green Religion.
To help readers prepare for the next deluge of climate hype note that Britain and Ireland will suffer a series of major damaging deluges and floods during the period 15th to 28th Sept and these were forecast by WeatherAction using solar activity 7 months ago. Green zealots will doubtless claim these events confirm their beliefs but will pause to ask: How many more very wet summers (these are not in their script!) must we suffer before the truth emerges?
PIERS CORBYN
Weather Action
http://www.weatheraction.com/pages/pv.asp?p=wact10&fsize=0
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?
Well RC, you do a fine job of defending the Met Office, sorry I mean theory A but they got the same thee winters and two summers wrong and PC, sorry I mean theory B, got them right! Surely you can see that?
Who said that the paper is "a refutation of GCR’s correlation with climate and the Sun’s outputs (ALL of them)". If you think that then you have grossly misread the paper. .
Ah! So if YOU didn’t intend to imply that, then I accept your apology.
They are not disputing that there are important physical mechanisms that connect cosmic rays and climate. Nor that there is further work (e.g. the CLOUD experiment) to be done to establish and quantify these mechanisms.
Here are the conclusions from that paper and the acknowledgements: - (see your bold, my bold)
It was nice of them to thank JIon Egill KristjIansson for the data and analysis.
I have no idea why you put it in bold.
To highlight the Paper was BASED on preliminary results of his analyses of cloud and cosmic ray data. Maybe he should have waited for the FINAL version?
You are not alone in thinking that. Looks like someone has another pseudonym. Either that, or clone machines now exist.
There is another possibility and that is you, and whoever else thinks that, are wrong. If you really think I had two ID's on this forum, report it, it's easily checked by the Admin. I don't have enough time to post as Haig let alone another ID but an interesting ad hom.
Getting back to the OP Project Astrometria and more support, it seems:-
Scientists discover surprise in Earth's upper atmosphere
“Satellite instruments and ocean sensors are limited in their ability to measure Earth's heat build-up”
“Either the satellite observations are incorrect, says Trenberth, or, more likely, large amounts of heat are penetrating to regions that are not adequately measured, such as the deepest parts of the oceans.
Compounding the problem, Earth's surface temperatures have largely leveled off in recent years. Yet melting glaciers and Arctic sea ice, along with rising sea levels, indicate that heat is continuing to have profound effects on the planet.”
"Our concern is that we aren't able to entirely monitor or understand the imbalance. This reveals a glaring hole in our ability to observe the build-up of heat in our climate system.”
http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=116766&org=OLPA&from=news
Seems like more support for Project Astrometria and a cooling climate?
Low sunspots and a cooling Earth
The planetary index shows a steady decline in the past few years. The high spot does correspond to the warming measured on the planet in 2003, but not seen since. This is from the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO), and NASA.
http://www.examiner.com/ExaminerSlideshow.html?entryid=695965&slide=8
The full story here:
Climate Change Debate Video: CO2 not to blame but sun may cause cooling
http://www.examiner.com/x-11224-Bal...eo-CO2-not-to-blame-but-sun-may-cause-cooling
Arctic research may be threatened by global cooling, says Russian scientist -April 23, 2010
“Prof. Oleg Pokrovsky of the Voeikov Main Geophysical Observatory (MGO) said the cold snap began in 1998 and the temperatures are predicted to return to the lows of the 1950s-1960s and reach their peak in 15 years.
Despite the predictions of global warming, which has been the greatest economic and political challenge, most parts of the world have recently seen widespread low temperatures and extremely heavy snowfalls.
"Now all the components of the climate system are entering the negative phase. Politicians who placed their bets on global warming may lose the pot," Pokrovsky said at a conference on marine research in the Polar regions ”.
http://www.aljazeerah.info/News/201...by global cooling, says Russian scientist.htm
Atmospheric Sciences -
Galactic Cosmic Rays, Clouds, and Climate I
Evidence for a Link Between Low Cloud Cover and Galactic Cosmic Ray Flux.
Satellite observations covering the past 20 years have provided the clearest indications yet of a link between galactic cosmic rays (GCR) and Earth's cloud cover. Detailed analysis of these observations has made it possible to identify regions of the `cloudy' atmosphere that are apparently sensitive to ionization. A significant correlation has been found between GCR and {\it low} cloud properties below 3.2 km. However, solar irradiance is also correlated with these low cloud parameters and it has not been possible, from globally averaged cloud data, to uniquely distinguish between one or other of these solar related indices. Recently, inter-annual variability in low cloud cover over a wide range of latitudes was found to exhibit a highly significant one-to-one relation with GCR induced ionization. This suggests that geomagnetic shielding of GCR is indirectly reflected in low cloud cover, and supports the hypothesis that cloud properties are modulated by GCR rather than solar irradiance which cannot naturally explain such a latitudinal dependence.
The cosmic ray-cloud connection and climate change
We show that, under the most favorable conditions, a reduction in low cloud cover since the late 19th century, combined with the direct forcing by solar irradiance can explain a significant part of the global warming over the past century, but not all. However, this computation assumes that there is no feedback or changes in cloud at other levels
Solar Variability and Climate Change from Analyses of Historical Sunspot, Auroral and Weather Records
Fifty years of galactic cosmic ray data show changes with the solar cycle. Deflection of the highly energetic particles from exploding supernovae by the solar wind and associated magnetic field also modulates cosmogenic radioisotope production high in the atmosphere. The same trends are seen in carbon-14 and beryllium-10 abundances from long-lived trees and polar ice cores, respectively.
The Global Circuit, Electroscavenging, and Effects on Clouds
The solar wind modulation of the energy spectrum of the galactic cosmic ray (GCR) flux is only one of several causes of redistribution of the current density (Jz) in the return path of the global electric circuit. Recent analysis of satellite and ground based data show high latitude as well as low latitude changes in cloud cover associated with changes in Jz, some of which are not associated with GCR changes. Thus the proximate cause of many of the observed cloud cover and climate changes associated with solar activity changes may be Jz, with GCR changes just one among the several intermediate sources. The changes in Jz affect space charge (which is proportional to the difference between the concentrations of positive and negative ions) that accumulates in conductivity gradients, especially at the lower and upper boundaries of clouds.
http://www.agu.org/meetings/wp04/wp04-sessions/wp04_A13B.html
This will be my last post for quite a while. Going on holiday until mid May (volcano’s permitting) then lots of more important things will take my time, get back when I can.
Thanks to Reality Check, in particular, but also ALL those taking part in this thread. It made this interesting, for me at least.
Haig
?
?