• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Project Astrometria:Global Cooling until 2100?

Status
Not open for further replies.
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!

This claim is silly. It shows a bit of ignorance about how tempertures are recorded.
  1. NASA does not have any weather stations so they did not remove any.
  2. You do not give citation for "since then they removed 62% of stations" (since 1980).
  3. Who is "they"?
  4. The removal of weather stations does not mean that the other weather stations magically start to record the wrong data.
    Though some conspiracy theory nuts might think that only weather stations that recorded warming were removed.
  5. The measurements from weather stations follow the same trends as the satellite measurements.
Global Temperature and Europe's Frigid Air
 
Originally Posted by Haig
Sure there is and in "reality" the Sun is less active and the Earth cools

wrong ...but we're not going to bother since the rest of your nonsense is just that and you patently haven't a clue how the physical systems of the earth work.

I'm quite sure you don't even know what "active" means in solar physics
 
I interpret the recent data as a long plateau. We have had them before, on the way up.

But if a cooling trend starts, it will start with a plateau. Simply because less than a plateau would be too short to be a trend.

So, warming, cooling, or 'no trend', too soon to call in such a noisy system.
 
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?
Haven’t had much time to post lately but I can spare the time to give my opinion on this. Piers Corbyns 85% success rate in long term forecasts is a puzzle to mainstream and even more so when you realise he has had this success for over two decades and he does it by studying the Suns output of charged particles (solar wind) and magnetic effects (over 22 yr Hale cycle), modulated by the Moons effect (19yr cycle, I think) and how they impact on the Earth's weather AND climate.

So does he keep all this secret? No (check out his website HERE) and he does give out free warnings to the media and governments when necessary but these have ALL been ignored up to now.

We wouldn't have these accurate forecasts if Piers wasn't in business doing his thing and the immoral ones IMHO, are those in power who fail to recognise this success and use it.
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.
As I've said he's tried and continues to try:-

Where is Weather, Climate and the Climate Change Con going?

5 new videos from Piers Corbyn
taken on 6th Jan 2010 at WeatherAction Office, London Bridge.

The 5 videos produced by MORRIS HERMAN as they come out are listed -

1. How Piers became a forecaster
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dx4CyCVTQd0

2. 'Cooling is Warming' is a CON!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KPMmCruPAWU

3. Fundamental solar-lunar driven changes in weather patterns have begun
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O76GO02LtlU

4. A failed Fiddling weather & Climate industry
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afv2sGa4rQA

5. Jet Stream & Gulf stream dynamics & Jet Stream "freezing" & "blocking"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkGrmrpbaCE&feature=related

Have Your Say
I do not know whether the solar weather technique is based on any actual detectable solar phenomena? Could you please elaborate?
http://www.weatheraction.com/displayarticle.asp?a=48&c=2
 
How many extreme weather events has Piers Corbyn missed

So does he keep all this secret? No (check out his website HERE) and he does give out free warnings to the media and governments when necessary but these have ALL been ignored up to now.

You misunderstand: I am talking about the evil act of not publishing the science behind his method so that
  1. It can be verified.
  2. 1000's of scientists with much better resources can make his method better.
So far all we know is that he is doing the equivalent of predicting that some days will be wet in winter. That is trivial.

But your comment about him publishing warnings leads to the question
How many extreme weather events has Piers Corbyn missed?
Perhaps you would like to make a list of the extreme weather events in 2010 and match them with his warnings. For example - did he warn the Australian government about the Queensland floods?

I also note that he is is global warming denier who thinks that the crank Christopher Monckton has valid things to say about climate change!
The ignorance of climate science on that page is quite astounding as you will see when you read it.

ETA:
Look at his letter to newspapers. It shows signs that typically appear in crank writings, e.g.
  • inappropriate capitalization ("WEATHER")
  • conspiracy fantasy about oil compaies and govenments.
  • idiotic demand:
    The IPCC has published the evidence that CO2 drives world temperature and climate. It is stupid to write to them and ask for the evidence when it has already been published.
  • cherrypicking data:
    Global temperatures declined from 1998 to 2008 because 1998 was an especially warm year. Take a slightly longer range, e.g. 1995 to 2008 and the temperatures increase.
    Global temperatures have been rising over scales that climate scients consider (mutilple decades).
  • And what looks like a failed prediction of floods in Britain and Ireland between 15th to 28th Sept 2008. There seem to be none.
 
Last edited:
Haven’t had much time to post lately but I can spare the time to give my opinion on this. Piers Corbyns 85% success rate in long term forecasts ...

How is "success" defined in this context? And who has calculated it as 85%?

... is a puzzle to mainstream and even more so when you realise he has had this success for over two decades and he does it by studying the Suns output of charged particles (solar wind) and magnetic effects (over 22 yr Hale cycle), modulated by the Moons effect (19yr cycle, I think) and how they impact on the Earth's weather AND climate.

That would indeed be a puzzle. Does Corbyn have any physical explanation for this himself, or did he get it from mining data? The source of such inspiration is naturally of interest.

For 20 years he's been using the 22-year Hale cycle and one whole 19-year solar cycle. Interesting methodology. I wonder how the next Solar and Lunar cycles will work out for him?

So does he keep all this secret? No (check out his website HERE) and he does give out free warnings to the media and governments when necessary but these have ALL been ignored up to now.

According to Corbyn. You seem to put a lot of faith in a self-publicist with a money-making scheme. I doubt the media have ignored his warnings if they're free. There's always call for editorial, and if he's wrong it can just die on the vine. If he's right, of course, even if everybody else is as well, there's more free column-inches for the benefit of both parties.

We wouldn't have these accurate forecasts if Piers wasn't in business doing his thing and the immoral ones IMHO, are those in power who fail to recognise this success and use it.

I rather doubt that this "success" exists outside Corbyn's own promotional activity. His "method" appears to be making a lot of noise when he guesses right and laying low when he's wrong.


Who's pulling the con, do you think? And who's getting conned?

As the world gets warmer I'm sure Corbyn will keep predicting cooling, and his true believers will ignore his failure like modern Millerites.
 
So far all we know is that he is doing the equivalent of predicting that some days will be wet in winter. That is trivial.

But successful .

But your comment about him publishing warnings leads to the question
How many extreme weather events has Piers Corbyn missed?
Perhaps you would like to make a list of the extreme weather events in 2010 and match them with his warnings. For example - did he warn the Australian government about the Queensland floods?

References to the warnings he has issued would be interesting, as long its to all of them.

I doubt he does the Southern Hemisphere, since the Moon's in an opposite phase there so all bets are off.

I also note that he is is global warming denier who thinks that the crank Christopher Monckton has valid things to say about climate change!

UKIP is very fond of Piers Corbyn. Dear old Munchkin, where would we be without him?

http://www.ukipmeps.org/blog_view_2751_Piers-Corbyn-Warm-Weather-Not-Causing-Cold-.html


Look at his letter to newspapers. It shows signs that typically appear in crank writings ...
Everything but the green ink is there.
 
This is a really dumb video. Piers Corbyn just rants on about climate science is being ******** (his word). I wonder what he thinks he is doing :jaw-dropp.
He has basically made up his mind that global warming does not exist and cannot get his mind around the simple fact that global temperatures have been measured to have increased over the past 140 years.

And then there is his assertion that "they" have removed 62% of weather stations. Who is they?
This shows his ignorance of climate science - the fact is that temperatures are also measured using satellites and these measurements match the weather station measurements.
 
Last edited:
Haven’t had much time to post lately but I can spare the time to give my opinion on this. Piers Corbyns 85% success rate in long term forecasts is a puzzle to mainstream

Sloppy protocols for measurement of effects is a great way to have supposed success.

1. How does it work against a blind metric?

Same old same old.
 
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?

back in April you were asked the same, same old same old.
 
back in April you were asked the same, same old same old.
Yes, but Piers keeps getting it right and mainstream can't.

It's not us causing the climate to change it's just nature doing what it's always done. Now the cycles are going into a cooling period:

Apparent Relations Between Solar Activity and Solar Tides Caused by the Planets
A solar storm is a storm of ions and electrons from the Sun. Large solar storms are usually preceded by solar flares, phenomena that can be characterized quantitatively from Earth. Twenty-five of the thirtyeight largest known solar flares were observed to start when one or more tide-producing planets
(Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Jupiter) were either nearly above the event positions (<10° longitude) or at the opposing side of the Sun. The probability for this to happen at random is 0.039 percent.
http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/Citations.aspx?id=330

Conclusions
In view of the statistics and the issues presented and discussed in this report, one must acknowledge the possibility that some type of tide-solar activity relation may truly exist, despite the widely accepted thought that believes otherwise. Evidence of apparent relations between planet positions and solar activity was observed and
presented:

(1) Twenty-five of the thirty-eight largest known solar flares were observed to start when one or more of the tide-producing planets (Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Jupiter) were either nearly above the event positions (<10° longitude) or at the opposing end of the Sun. The probability of this to happen at random is 0.039 percent. This observation supports the hypothesis that the force or momentum balance (between
the solar atmospheric pressure, the gravitational field, and the magnetic field) on the plasma in the looping magnetic field lines in solar corona could be disturbed by tides, resulting in magnetic field reconnection, solar flares, and solar storms.

(2) From the daily planet positions during the period from 1840 to 2000, an 11-year cycle of the alignment of Venus, Earth, and Jupiter is observed. This cycle approximately matches the sunspot cycle. When the two cycles were least matched, the sunspot numbers were low (1875 to 1930). When best matched, the sunspot numbers were high (late 1950s). This supports the hypothesis of resonance and beat
between the cycle of small tides caused by the planet alignment and the cycle of independent, large, and irregular nontidal solar activity. Mercury produces significant tides, but is not considered because it does not have an 11-year-cycle resonance with the nontidal solar activities, either by itself or by aligning with other planets.

The observed relation between the predictable planet position and unpredictable solar flare suggests a way to forecast the times of the largest solar flares (X9.0 and larger, both near- and far-side from Earth) shortly after giant sunspots appear: They are most likely to start when these sunspots rotate into a region where at least one of the four tide-producing planets is either overhead or underfoot (within 10° longitude). They are least likely to occur when these sunspots are at 36° longitude or further away from
the overhead or underfoot points of all these four planets.

The theory of resonance between the cycle of nontidal solar activity and the cycle of the alignment of Venus, Earth, and Jupiter forecast a low sunspot number in the coming solar cycle number 24 unless the current solar minimum would last for a few more years to reduce the current mismatch between these two cycles.
Further theoretical, instrumental, and statistical investigation is needed before there can be a final confirmation of the apparent relations observed in this research. One practical way to conduct a simple statistical study is to use the planet positions together with the available data and knowledge of solar physics to forecast, for the coming years, the solar flares in particular and solar activity in general. It would prove beneficial if such a prediction capability improves forecasting solar activity.
http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/reports/2007/TM-2007-214817.pdf

Quite a lot of agreement between NASA above and Landscheidt below
New Little Ice Age Instead of Global Warming?
Abstract:Analysis of the sun's varying activity in the last two millennia indicates that contrary to the IPCC's speculation about man-made global warming as high as 5.8° C within the next hundred years, a long period of cool climate with its coldest phase around 2030 is to be expected. It is shown that minima in the 80 to 90-year Gleissberg cycle of solar activity, coinciding with periods of cool climate on Earth, are consistently linked to an 83-year cycle in the change of the rotary force driving the sun's oscillatory motion about the centre of mass of the solar system. As the future course of this cycle and its amplitudes can be computed, it can be seen that the Gleissberg minimum around 2030 and another one around 2200 will be of the Maunder minimum type accompanied by severe cooling on Earth. This forecast should prove skillful as other long-range forecasts of climate phenomena, based on cycles in the sun's orbital motion, have turned out correct as for instance the prediction of the last three El Niños years before the respective event.
11. Outlook
We need not wait until 2030 to see whether the forecast of the next deep Gleissberg minimum is correct. A declining trend in solar activity and global temperature should become manifest long before the deepest point in the development. The current 11-year sunspot cycle 23 with its considerably weaker activity seems to be a first indication of the new trend, especially as it was predicted on the basis of solar motion cycles two decades ago
http://bourabai.narod.ru/landscheidt/new-e.htm

It all seems to fit in with the OP Project Astrometria: Global Cooling until 2100? and a Maunder or Dalton minimum type event.
 
not a single one of his papers that passed peer review is about climate, only about the sun.
Also his prediction that the Sun will peak 3 years after 2005 seem to contradict that the sun is the source for the warming, because 2009 and 2010 were warmer than 2008. fail.
Not so fast, the cooling has started:

El Niño and Global Temperature
A more interesting question then arises as to what `causes’ the cycles in the Southern Oscillation. We know it results from gargantuan changes in ocean currents and in deep water upwelling in the eastern Pacific, but as to what triggers this response is still an unknown. The answer may well lie in long-term solar changes. The Greenhouse industry readily blames greenhouse gases, but the idea that a few parts per million of CO2 can cause the overturning of trillions of megatonnes of sea water is fanciful to say the least, a reasoning based more on ideology than on science. Those who point to greenhouse gases as the `cause’ of El Niño fail to describe exactly what mechanism they imagine the gases to be performing to achieve such a feat.

It will be noticed from the chart that the two volcanic eruptions had no effect whatever on the course of El Niño or La Niña. The SOI cycled back and forth, quite oblivious to the cooling being imposed by the eruptions. Thus the Southern Oscillation is not dependent on, or influenced by, changes in atmospheric temperature, whether these changes are caused by volcanic eruptions or, by alleged changes in temperature due to greenhouse gases. In fact, it is quite the opposite - the Southern Oscillation forces the temperature to change, not the other way around.

And now to prediction

Based on the the assumption that the Southern Oscillation is the primary driver of year-to-year global temperature, with a 6 to 9 month lag time, we can now predict that since the SOI has now gone sharply into La Niña mode in the last 6 months, global temperature will follow (with the predicted time lag) and fall to below the zero line (the long term average of temperature) in the next few months. The latest monthly value for temperature was +0.33°C in October 1998, after reaching a peak of +0.72°C in April. Since the SOI moved into La Niña mode in June, we can expect global temperature to fall below the zero line by March 1999.
http://www.john-daly.com/soi-temp.htm

Update: 20th March 2000

Since writing the above article over 15 months ago, global temperature did indeed fall below the long-term average by March 1999. Since then, the earth has continued in La Niña mode with consequent below-average temperatures as measured by the satellites. Temperature continues to closely track the SOI with a time lag.

For the latest version of the comparison chart, click here - John L. Daly
 
Last edited:
And then there is his assertion that "they" have removed 62% of weather stations.

A classic denial line. Nobody removed any weather stations. One great effort was made to bring in records from stations which do not regularly report, at great expense in time and effort, once and once only. And lo, the resulting time-series was in no way different from the regularly-reporting series.

Now comes the beauty of the line. The weather stations which are not normally included are remote and irregular, which mostly means in cold places. Since they are cold (goes the denier line) then they are the ones which are warming less. Straight up, that's the line. I'm not actually surprised how many people buy into it. People are, on the whole, stupid.

Who is they?

Good luck with that, I've never managed to find out who they are. They're into everything, though.

This shows his ignorance of climate science - the fact is that temperatures are also measured using satellites and these measurements match the weather station measurements.

And more importantly, the physical effects are clearly visible.

The obsession with surface temperature measurements is a simple means of distracting from what's actually going on. Droughts, floods, vanishing ice, pests extending their ranges, all the predicted impacts. No wonder they stay focused on graphs they can find on the internet and on gurus, such as Corbyn or McIntyre. Or, gawdelpus, Monckton.
 
It all seems to fit in with the OP Project Astrometria: Global Cooling until 2100? and a Maunder or Dalton minimum type event.

The problem you're going to have is that it doesn't fit with reality. In reality the world is going to get warmer. We already have very low solar activity, at least of the aforementioned Minima type, and 2010 was very warm. There was also a La Nina.

Solar activity seems to be picking up again, and the La Nina won't last forever. It's not looking good for cooling, is it? Still, time will tell, and no doubt it'll tell us what it has for the last thirty years or so. No doubt some people still won't be listening, and Corbyn will still be talking.
 
back in April you were asked the same, same old same old.

Of course Corbyn has to protect his method for commercial reasons - would you deny a man his livelihood? You'll be questioning his self-proclaimed success-rate next, you bounder.

It's those climate scientists who publish that are in it for the money, you know. Not the likes of Corbyn, who's just trying to make a living from a profound insight.

I hope Corbyn has it written down somewhere, along with how he was brought to this inspired discovery, to be revealed after his death. If not, the History of Science will be much the poorer for it. These amazing leaps by single individuals displaying apparent ignorance of the subject in hand are few and far-between.

Belief in conspiracy theories does not, of course, preclude great scientific insight. A lot of great scientists have been complete fruit-loops in the common sense of the term. Not all complete fruit-loops or con-artists have been great scientists, but that's a different matter altogether.
 
He doesn't understand "inside the box" variation versus a forcing....

Pinatubo and fossil C02 are forcing...

Enso ( NAO etc ) is just shuffling the energy around in different spots at different times - it neither heats nor cools globally but engages the ocean with the atmosphere differently and so affects local climate regimes.

and Daly is a fraud.

read the science instead of the cranks who can't even understand energy budgets and radiative balance

http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/~atw/enso/
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom