Project Astrometria:Global Cooling until 2100?

[mike3]

The Earth has been cooling:

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

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

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

Answer the question. How do you know that Jones is right and NASA is wrong?

 

[macdoc]

that is way out of context and both Jones and NASA are correct for a the period in question.
Haig is just in denial .....along with the anti-evo cranks.

 

[Dancing David]

http://www.spaceandscience.net/id16.html

Perhaps those words have different meaning for you, where is the data and evidence that supports this May press release?

 

[Haig]

AKA as "none"...
meanwhile in reality....
and as afar as the junk science thesis goes....

Sure there is and in "reality" the Sun is less active and the Earth cools

and after the initial laughter check the reality at SSRC to renew the "gales"

That's right, attack the messenger.

Answer the question. How do you know that Jones is right and NASA is wrong?

By results.

that is way out of context and both Jones and NASA are correct for a the period in question.
Haig is just in denial .....along with the anti-evo cranks.

NASA say this: emphasising the importance of Meteorological station data and spatial coverage

GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP)

The analysis is limited to the period since 1880 because of poor spatial coverage of stations and decreasing data quality prior to that time. Meteorological station data provide a useful indication of temperature change in the Northern Hemisphere extratropics for a few decades prior to 1880, and there are a small number of station records that extend back to previous centuries. However, we believe that analyses for these earlier years need to be carried out on a station by station basis with an attempt to discern the method and reliability of measurements at each station, a task beyond the scope of our analysis.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

Yet NASA claims under their ‘data’ that 2010 was close to the warmest ever year. This is fraud. On that one should note that since 1950 the coldest decade in their data set was around 1971 to 80 for which there were the most weather stations and that since then they removed 62% of stations so the decade 2001-2010 with the least number of stations becomes the warmest!
Also NASA say this:

However, it is only a few hundredths of a degree warmer than 2005, so it is possible that the final GISS results for the full year will find 2010 and 2005 to have the same temperature within the margin of error.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2010november/

Perhaps those words have different meaning for you, where is the data and evidence that supports this May press release?

Hi DD I'm not trying to re-run the old arguments in this thread. Someone sent me the link to Space and Science Research Center and it was new to me and relevant to this topic.

BTW the "results" I mentioned above are still going the way of Project Astrometria:Global Cooling until 2100? IMHO.

e.g. http://www.weatheraction.com/docs/WANews10No27.pdf

NASA GISS – Adjusting the Adjustments
http://www.globalclimatescam.com/category/science/

(Still playing DA )

 

[Dancing David]

So the lack of data you present? Okay.

 

[Dancing David]

Considering you don't care for statistical rigor and don't even care to know what makes for statistical meaning and then pretend that you haven't made up your mind, why should we even read the alleged papers that you link to?

You show no understanding of science and just want us to see your pet rabbit.

It is cute and fuzzy, but still a rabbit!

Yup your first article is a bunny albeit one with some fancy titles.
http://www.gao.spb.ru/english/astrometr/abduss_nkj_2009.pdf

Please note that the only metric data we have on TSI is from ~1950 onwards and so any inferences from past measure of sunspots and the relationship to TSI is exactly that, an inference.

Then there is the fact that the chart in Fig 1 shows that cute little downward trend in TSI, well guess what Haig, this is the part you ignore and so I will ask you directly:

1. Why does the NASA data on average surface temperatures and extremes not show the exact same trend? (Over the last thirty years, the surface temps have been rising, if you want I can link you to the NASA data, not the IPCC)

Fig 6 is a freaking joke, for the last fifteen years the extent of the Artic ice has been decreasing, so let us suddenly pretend that it hasn't by showing just one year.

2. Haig do you really think that means something.

Then there is this gem:


This is based all upon what?
Extrapolated data, because it is directly contradicted by Fig 1-2, seriously Haig, this is not a very sound basis for claiming "The most significant solar event"

Concerning Fig. 3
Now this is where the rubber meets the road and you will ignore the important issues of statistical rigor and meaning, you have already chosen to accept this interpretation and ignore the statistics, we have two things we have a chart that shows 'watts per square meter' and is extrapolated back to the 1600s. based upon what?

3. What is that figure 'watts per meter' based upon Haig?

It is certainly not a measured value until ~1950, so it is what ? A guess.

Then there is the chart at the bottom of Fig 3, what does it show?

It shows only one cycle that is any higher than the others!

Cycle 19 is one cycle, the rest of them are all within the range of the others! Is this really the 'most significant solar event of the 20th century', really, one cycle is the basis for that statement?

And this is where the statistics matter Haig:


In that chart we have a total sample of 23 cycles, and I am not sure of the observation reliability of the early ones, I think it is probably good but I am not sure.

23 samples Haig, of which we don't know more?

4. So what inferences can we draw from 23 samples?

Seriously, that is what we have, we can come up with a mean for the highs, the mean for the lows and the overall mean, but then the only decent (an not really even then) standard deviation we can get if for the overall cycles. We can't really get any sort of standard deviation at all, we don't have enough data!

I will derive the means and the standard deviation later, but seriously Haig, all we have is one cycle , cycle 19 that is notably higher than the others.

Considering you have not addressed the past questions yet, perhaps you should start there?

 

[Haig]

So the lack of data you present? Okay.

Considering you have not addressed the past questions yet, perhaps you should start there?

THE SUN DEFINES THE CLIMATE
Habibullo Abdussamatov, Dr. Sc. Head of Space research laboratory of the Pulkovo Observatory, Head of the Russian/Ukrainian joint project Astrometria (translated from Russian by Lucy Hancock)

Determinative role of the Sun in variations in the climate of the Earth
The Earth, after receiving and storing over the twentieth century an anomalously large amount of heat energy, from the 1990's began to return it gradually. The upper layers of the world ocean, completely unexpectedly to climatologists, began to cool in 2003. The heat accumulated by them unfortunately now is running out.

Over the past decade, global temperature on the Earth has not increased; global warming has ceased, and already there are signs of the future deep temperature drop (Fig. 7, 11). Meantime the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere over these years has grown by more than 4%, and in 2006 many meteorologists predicted that 2007 would be the hottest of the last decade. This did not occur, although the global temperature of the Earth would have increased at least 0.1 degree if it depended on the concentration of carbon dioxide. It follows that warming had a natural origin, the contribution of CO2 to it was insignificant, anthropogenic increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide does not serve as an explanation for it, and in the foreseeable future CO2 will not be able to cause catastrophic warming. The so-called greenhouse effect will not avert the onset of the next deep temperature drop, the 19th in the last 7500 years, which without fail follows after natural warming.

The earth is no longer threatened by the catastrophic global warming forecast by some scientists; warming passed its peak in 1998-2005, while the value of the TSI by July - September of last year had already declined by 0.47 W/m 2 (Fig. 1).

For several years until the beginning in 2013 of a steady temperature drop, in a phase of instability, temperature will oscillate around the maximum that has been reached, without further substantial rise. Changes in climatic conditions will occur unevenly, depending on latitude. A temperature decrease in the smallest degree would affect the equatorial regions and strongly influence the temperate climate zones. The changes will have very serious consequences, and it is necessary to begin preparations even now, since there is practically no time in reserve. The global temperature of the Earth has begun its decrease without limitations on the volume of greenhouse gas emissions by industrially developed countries; therefore the implementation of the Kyoto protocol aimed to rescue the planet from the greenhouse effect should be put off at least 150 years.

Consequently, we should fear a deep temperature drop, but not catastrophic global warming. Humanity must survive the serious economic, social, demographic and political consequences of a global temperature drop, which will directly affect the national interests of almost all countries and more than 80% of the population of the Earth. A deep temperature drop is a considerably greater threat to humanity than warming. However, a reliable forecast of the time of the onset and of the depth of the global temperature drop will make it possible to adjust in advance the economic activity of humanity, to considerably weaken the crisis.
http://www.gao.spb.ru/english/astrometr/abduss_nkj_2009.pdf

Project Astrometria: Global Cooling until 2100?
http://www.gao.spb.ru/english/astrometr/index1_eng.html

 

[Dancing David]

So you won't answer the questions I asked and just give teh same respons ethat the questions were posed to in the first place?

Figures.

 

[macdoc]

do you think repeating nonsense in a science forum furthers your cause??

Just what don't you get about the rather simple physics of AGW?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9SGw75pVas&feature=player_embedded

 

[CapelDodger]

The earth is no longer threatened by the catastrophic global warming forecast by some scientists ...

Did you ever think it was?

... warming passed its peak in 1998-2005, while the value of the TSI by July - September of last year had already declined by 0.47 W/m 2 (Fig. 1).

For several years until the beginning in 2013 of a steady temperature drop, in a phase of instability, temperature will oscillate around the maximum that has been reached, without further substantial rise.

See you in early 2013 to discuss how that works out for you. Not long to wait.

 

[CapelDodger]

So you won't answer the questions I asked and just give the same respons that the questions were posed to in the first place?

Figures.

I doubt much will change between now and 2013.

Heck, the Sun is cooling, so if it gets too hot down here we can always move there.

 

[macdoc]

Quote:
... warming passed its peak in 1998-2005,

wrong already

hmmm

Warmest year on record
December 14, 2010 | Susanne Rust

xedos4/freedigitalphotos.net

NASA scientists say the most recent meteorological year, which ran from December 2009 through November 2010, was the warmest in 131 years of of record keeping.

The world’s average temperature in 2010 was 14.65 degrees Celsius, or 58.57 degrees Fahrenheit. In 2005, the former front-runner for warmest meteorological year, the temperature was 14.62 degrees Celsius, or 58.32 degrees Fahrenheit.

not a promising thesis...

 

[CapelDodger]

wrong already

hmmm



not a promising thesis...

Trust you to spoil the ending .

Some people will continue to live in 2009 for a while yet. (It's revealing that Haig uses the term "several years" until the beginning of 2013, when that's only a couple of years from now.) The 2000's were the Golden Decade of denial, and even then Arctic sea-ice surprised us all. As did the Sun towards the end, and still the planet warms. Which is no surprise to you or me, but must be terribly disappointing to deniers.

 

[macdoc]

The little irony that our ill informed poster has overlooked is the inverted aspect of the quiet versus active sun that came to light in 2010 and is the cause of much head scratching.

I figure when they do figure it out they will then start proclaiming see it was the QUIET sun that caused the warming not our tailpipes...

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=weaker-sun-may-equal-warmer-earth

off course Dear Anthony is nattering already....despite that fact that it's a magnitude down.

 

[DC]

Have those Russian "scientists" passed peer review in any respected journal?

 

[Reality Check]

Sure there is and in "reality" the Sun is less active and the Earth cools

In reality the Sun is more active and the Earth warms up .
But this has not been the case since the 1960s. During this period the Sun has been less active and the Earth has warmed up.
Solar activity & climate: is the sun causing global warming?
(the answer is no).

 

[Reality Check]

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

First asked 17 April 2010
Haig, since you are back posting in this thread maybe you can answer this question:

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.

 

[Reality Check]

Piers Corbyn: Saint or Demon

Haig, since you are back posting in this thread maybe you can answer this question (or not):
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]

That's right, attack the messenger.

macdoc is not attacking the messanger. He is pointing out that you are (again) citing a web site rather than the scientific literature.
Try reading the web site with a scientific or even skeptical eye and LOL .

http://issuepedia.org/Space_and_Science_Research_Center

Overview
The Space and Science Research Center (SSRC) is (apparently) a for-profit company located in Orlando, FL. They appear to have an anti-global warming agenda, though their arguments have yet to be examined in detail. They present an appearance of scientific grounding, but they do not seem to have any peer-reviewed papers on their theories.
The SSRC appears to have been created sometime in late 2007 or early 2008; their domain, spaceandscience.net, was registered on 2007-11-10, and a press release dated 2008-01-14 mentions says that it is "In just its first days of activation".
first take
It seems likely that this group is essentially in the business of getting paid to come up with scientific-sounding justifications for any anti-global-warming message the customer wants to get across.
Their "RC Theory" report, which has some of the trappings of science (in its acknowledgements, it thanks Dr. Boris Komitov, now on the SSRC staff, for his "peer review" of the report), seems to be arguing that global temperatures will cool as the sun enters an expected cooling phase. The explanation of how this works, however, appears extremely fuzzy – which might be forgiven in a truly scientific paper (e.g. if the writing was highly technical and specialized, and hence difficult for a layperson to read), but the introduction implies that laypeople are among the target audience: "An important aspect of the theory is that it results in a set of tools for the predicting of global climate change decades in advance. As such, it offers the scientific community as well as the general public, a plausible means for understanding the natural and predictable shifts from global cooling to global warming and back to global cooling that have occurred for thousands of years in the past and will likely do so in the future." (emphasis added)

 

[Reality Check]

The Earth has been cooling:

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

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

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

That is the rather ignorant interpretation of people about Prof Jones reply to the BBC question.

It is not statistically significant to anyone but it IS NOT cooling or warming.
That is what not statistically significant (i.e. statistically insignificant) means: You cannot whether there is a significant trend in the data. Noise introduced by short-term variations hides any trends.

Phil Jones says no global warming since 1995

And you are also quote mining by not quoting the full answer or the next question & answer:

BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

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

BBC: How confident are you that warming has taken place and that humans are mainly responsible?

Phil Jones: I'm 100% confident that the climate has warmed. As to the second question, I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 - there's evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity.
​