Project Astrometria:Global Cooling until 2100?

[Reality Check]

PC seems to getting noticed more and if he's right, that the Sun determines our weather and climate, then we'd best prepare for a cooling climate as he and the head of the Astrometria project both predict.

Parroting PC's guesses just makes him look more more and more evil in killing people by keeping his technique secret.

The prediction is wrong. The Sun is heating up. We would have to prepare for more warming not cooling.
But you may be talking about sunspots - see the cited evidence that these have a minimal effect on the climate.

 

[Dancing David]

I'm having some trouble understanding why folks bother responding ad infinitum to those who clearly are not operating from reason. For example:

Because then this would not be the JREF, Haig has a long history of just spamming the forum with nonsense and then not responding to critiques except to repeat the posting of nonsense.

Now, some of the responses of others are sort of unproductive, but admirable in their tenacity in pointing out the consistent errors and foolish unsupported assertions made.

Haig has yet to show a single blinded or measured metric to support Corbyn's nonsense. There has yet to be any statitical analysis of data or presentation of any real reason to support Corbyn's self agandizement. The idea of bench marks, variation is the sample, signal defintion, metric of alleged signal and ratio of signal to noise has escaped Corbyn consistently.

Yet Haig just routinely posts whatever nonsense that Corbyn's supporters throw out there.

And it should be refuted.

 

[Haig]

Because then this would not be the JREF, Haig has a long history of just spamming the forum with nonsense and then not responding to critiques except to repeat the posting of nonsense.

Now, some of the responses of others are sort of unproductive, but admirable in their tenacity in pointing out the consistent errors and foolish unsupported assertions made.

Haig has yet to show a single blinded or measured metric to support Corbyn's nonsense. There has yet to be any statitical analysis of data or presentation of any real reason to support Corbyn's self agandizement. The idea of bench marks, variation is the sample, signal defintion, metric of alleged signal and ratio of signal to noise has escaped Corbyn consistently.

Yet Haig just routinely posts whatever nonsense that Corbyn's supporters throw out there.

And it should be refuted.

Thanks for the unbiased testimonial

I don't see you applying your high standards to this posters analysis of Corbyns predictions. Where's all your "single blinded or measured metric" in that case?

Just NOTHING from DD

 

[Pixel42]

I don't see you applying your high standards to this posters analysis of Corbyns predictions.

At least my (admittedly rather tongue-in-cheek) testing of Corbyn's predictions listed the ones I was going to use, and the criteria by which I would assess their accuracy, in advance. So my standards are way higher than both Corbyn's and yours.

 

[lomiller]

Oh good, more Corbyn predictions to add to my list.

At the end of March I shall award Corbyn hits for those Haig (or anyone who lives in the areas in question) can provide evidence did indeed happen, and misses for those that didn't.

idk, these predictions seem to be of questionbable value. Take the following two for example:

· USA forecast add-in spells out 12 tornado / flood / biting cold events through March.

· Major deluges floods & tornadoes to hit USA 23/24 March

Both floods and cold events are commonplace in the US in spring and tornados are not uncommon. Since we already know we are going to get some of these events around this time and we don’t have any way to validate they numbers are* exactly* what he’s put on paper these don’t seem to have any predictive value.

 

[Furcifer]

This is correct: The energy budget is a budget of energy . By definition it does not include entropy.

I suppose if you knew nothing about energy, namely heat transfer, this might make sense.

For those of us who do, we know this is in fact completely inconsistent with the laws of thermodynamics. By definition the energy budget MUST include entropy or it is incomplete. (except possibly if it were in equilibrium)

 

[Dancing David]

Thanks for the unbiased testimonial

I don't see you applying your high standards to this posters analysis of Corby'ns predictions. Where's all your "single blinded or measured metric" in that case?

Just NOTHING from DD

Haig, I gave my reasons for what I have said what I said, I have noted why I don't feel that your posts of Corbyn's bragging have any merit and stated so in the post

They are not high standards, they are the standard set of things used in a statistical analysis:
Bench marks, variation in the sample, signal definition, metric of alleged signal and ratio of signal to noise

This is Statistics 101 Haig, and the fact that Corbyn has not set a benchmark or baseline of events is significant, the fact that there is no baseline or benchmark means that the variation within the standard sample is unknown, there is no definition of what these alleged events are, there is no metric to say what events are marked as 'not normal', and therefore there is no way to see if the marked events fall within the variation of the baseline sample.

That is not the fault of anyone other than Corbyn, it is what I said earlier in the thread. If Corbyn wanted to be taken seriously then he would do these things. the fact that you do not even acknowledge that these are important issue for Corbyn's claim’s says to me that you really don't understand statistics and that you are just spamming the forum without any understanding of what claims you are supporting.

You can address the open questions from earlier in the thread Haig.

I can restate them for you:
1. Corbyn does not establish any sort of baseline for what 'normal is, why not?
2. Corbyn doe snot have any metric or definitions for what constitutes an 'event' that he claims is not 'normal', why is that?
3. Since Corbyn does not establish:

• 
  -baseline or bench mark level of 'normal' events
  -variation within the 'normal' events
  -definition of 'marked' events
  -metric for measuring 'marked' events
  -evidence that there is any occurrence of marked events that rise above the normal variation within the sample of time that solar weather is not driving 'marked' events

There is absolutely no way that Corbyn's substantiates his claim that space weather is a predictor of extraordinary weather events.

I have stated this multiple time Haig, in this thread, it was true then and it is true now.

The fact that you have not addressed it is a problem, which shows that you do not really seem to understand the specious nature of Corbyn's claims.

 

[Dancing David]

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

Here is one you haven't addressed yet Haig

 

[lomiller]

I'm having some trouble understanding why folks bother responding ad infinitum to those who clearly are not operating from reason. For example:

> What is climate sensitivity, [frequent poster]?
> A: The amount of energy needed to change the temperature by 1 degree.

After this (among many things), I'm not seeing the value of discourse with such folks.

I’m not sure who you are referring to, bit FWIW the answer there is incorrect. Climate sensitivity is how much global temperature will change for a given change in forcing. The using of forcing *is not* energy it’s energy/time AKA power which has a unit of W, where energy is measured in J.

You can initially think of is as the difference in energy coming into and going out of a system in a given period of time, but this isn’t quite correct since this gap only exists in the transient state. IOW if I change either the energy entering or leaving the Earth’s atmosphere so that 2W/m^2 more power is entering than leaving this is a forcing of 2W/m^2.

This will cause the earth to warm, and as it does so the energy that exits the atmosphere so at some point when the plant has warmed enough the energy entering the atmosphere in a given period will balance the energy going out. Climate sensitivity is the measure of how much the planet will warm before this new equilibrium is reached.

Note that climate sensitivity is described entirely as energy flux. Entropy flux is something else entirely, and while it’s possible it could impact the value for climate sensitivity no evidence has been presented that it will and certainly no evidence has been presented for any quantified value for such a change.

Furthermore there are completely separate lines of evidence for climate sensitivity. If climate sensitivity is to low it’s not possible for the earth to enter of exist a glaciations, if it’s too high the earth’s climate would swing wildly and we need to revise our estimate of greenhouse warming upwards. Climate models already give sensitivities that are within this range so any significant change to their sensitivity estimates would mean there are not 1 but 2 problems. The first would take you outside the plausible range for sensitivity which would be an indicator that there is a second missing element in the other direction. Once both are accounted for, sensitivity would need to be around what the models already say.

While this scenario isn’t impossible Occam’s razor says we don’t invoke it unless we have strong evidence there is a need. The simplest answer is that GCM’s already have nearly the right answer and the big issues have already been addressed in them.

 

[Dancing David]

I don't see you applying your high standards to this posters analysis of Corbyns predictions.

Considering that it is an analysis of the crappy data set you are presenting it is rather ironic of you to complain about the quality of the data set.

You are compaining about bliding, well you are the one presenting the unblinded data Haig.
You complain about an unmeasured metric, whose fault is that for presenting this **** Haig?

You!

 

[Pixel42]

idk, these predictions seem to be of questionable value.

I think you're right, as predictions of "extreme weather events" they just aren't specific enough. It's possible Corbyn is more specific in the forecast he sells, but I'm not about to give him any of my money.

I'll stick to my initial list of 9, plus the very specific one related to the solar flare.

 

[Reality Check]

For those of us who do, we know this is in fact completely inconsistent with the laws of thermodynamics. By definition the energy budget MUST include entropy or it is incomplete. (except possibly if it were in equilibrium)

For those of us who do, we know this is in fact completely consistent with the definition of energy budget. If you do not know what an energy budget is then I suggest that you read this.

The energy budget must and does include entropy. The physical process of energy transfer to and from the Earth changes the state of the Earth. That changes the Earth's entropy. This is completely consistent with the laws of thermodynamics.

 

[Trakar]

Both floods and cold events are commonplace in the US in spring and tornados are not uncommon. Since we already know we are going to get some of these events around this time and we don’t have any way to validate they numbers are* exactly* what he’s put on paper these don’t seem to have any predictive value.

With both weather and climate, we can take the predictive models plug in historic data and see how proficient the systems are at predicting known past conditions. In this case, it looks rather like someone has simply picked up the average numbers over the last decade or so and released them as a prediction for the coming seasons.

 

[CapelDodger]

The energy budget must and does include entropy. The physical process of energy transfer to and from the Earth changes the state of the Earth. That changes the Earth's entropy. This is completely consistent with the laws of thermodynamics.

Entropy is included by default, in a way. Of course, it's not a form of energy per se but something a bit more metaphysical.

A major difference between energy and entropy is that energy is conserved whereas entropy definitely isn't.

All that said, I don't think Piers Corbyn's post-normal astrology is derived from entropy, or thermodynamics at all. I suspect it's based on raging egomania and attention-seeking. The same is evident in many deniers and cranks in general.

 

[CapelDodger]

Just to for 3bodyproblem I will reply to CD

This is correct: The energy budget is a budget of energy . By definition it does not include entropy.

Shouldn't need saying, of course, but apparently still has to be .

This emphasizes why entropy flux is not part of the energy budget.
Energy (e.g. the raddiation fron the Sun and outward from the Earth) is the physical process.
Entropy is a change in the state of the system caused by that energy.

We can regard the Earth's climate system (which is essentially the surface fluid realm, atmosphere and water, plus ice) as a black-box as far as the energy budget is concerned.

I did mis-speak earlier in the thread but 3bodyproblem didn't notice. I said that in a stable climate entropy in would equal energy out, but in fact that ignores the entropy created within the climate system. In a stable climate, entropy in would equal entropy out plus entropy created by physical processes powered by incoming energy. A positive entropy balance will manifest as increased heat in the main. Entropy's like that.

The entropy created would include life processes, weathering and erosion, movement of fluids, and a whole bunch of other things. (Excuse the lecturing tone, I'm just laying this out for 3bodyproblem so he understands what we're talking about .) I have no clear idea what the proportions are (life processes generate massive amounts of entropy, but the oceans are enormous) but there it is.

Unfortunately the Laws of Thermodynamics are not in my blood. The last involvement that I had was post-graduate work on the theory of surfactants many years ago.

In my (very traditional) school The Laws were taught as foundational in science. My Physics teacher told us always to check any result we arrived at against The Laws. Before even that, check your dimensions .

This was the sort of school where the science curriculum remained rooted in the Steam Age. When I look at the North Atlantic on a globe a little voice pipes up "Heat Engine" at the back of my mind. I'm imprinted.

 

[CapelDodger]

After this (among many things), I'm not seeing the value of discourse with such folks.

I do it for entertainment. Also I'm a raging egomaniac who craves attention.

Are you hoping to "score points" that get acknowledged?

Yes, but by the audience, not the target.

I would suggest either ignoring these non-starters, or keeping very firmly in mind that the only worthwhile point it so educate lurkers who might otherwise think there is fire beneath that smokescreen, rather than hoping to make a dent on certainty with which such people operate. Getting drawn into name calling or lying accusations etc doesn't help that education.

Couldn't agree more.

It's up to each of us to form opinions of all posters, be we active participants or observers, and it's a plain fact that people will pay more attention to someone they have a relatively high opinion of.

There are times when it becomes necessary to eviscerate someone, but that isn't done by name-calling. It's done by gathering evidence, preparing the case, and setting it out clearly and coldly, without emotion.

... but getting into the back and forth of "you're lying" & "no, you're lying" is like dealing with the tarbaby.

I've got a Zippo .

"This is not actually the case" works so much better than "you're lying".

 

[CapelDodger]

idk, these predictions seem to be of questionbabble value.

Fixed your spelling there .

Take the following two for example:

Both floods and cold events are commonplace in the US in spring and tornados are not uncommon. Since we already know we are going to get some of these events around this time and we don’t have any way to validate they numbers are* exactly* what he’s put on paper these don’t seem to have any predictive value.

Quite. It's just babble, to be followed by self-congratulatory babble whatever happens (also known as "auto-correlation", which I think we can rely on Haig to present to us next month).

Warm events can cause rapid snow-melt and flooding, tornados require (as I understand it) a warm/cold atmospheric front, the US is large with a varied topography, and it wouldn't be unreasonable to include parts of Mexico and Canada. I reckon it's a shoo-in for Corbyn.

I love the way his February failure is explained by his marvellous new model, which is reverse auto-correlation. A negative lag-time - try working out the entropy flux in that if you dare .

 

[CapelDodger]

I'll stick to my initial list of 9, plus the very specific one related to the solar flare.

There's a solar flare prediction now? I missed that.

One is bound to wonder whether he came up with it before or after the recent actual flare.

If I had the patience or biddable undergrads I'd work up a chart of these predictions against previous years just to see how unlikely it is that he'd be wrong. Which he was in February.

Of course, for a solar flare prediction it would be comparitive to similar periods in the Solar Cycle, not just any year.

 

[Reality Check]

This is a quote from a weather action page that Haig has been fooled by:

The biggest solar flare for 4 years was reported early on 15 Feb http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12485104 and the ejected particles from it which hit Earth are a key part of the drivers of WeatherAction's long range forecasted world-wide TOP RED WARNING period 18/19 Feb.

As you can see Piers Corbyn is claiming that solar flares are a key deriver to his long range forecasts.

• If solar flares are a key driver of all his forecasts then he needs to have a method of predicting solar flares months in advance.
  Where is it?
  Why is he not claiming the Nobel Prize for such an astounding breakthrough in solar physics?
• If this flare was a key driver of this forecast then where is his forecast of the flare? And why just this forecast?

He is just being a typical crank.

 

[CapelDodger]

"Biggest flare for 4 years", after a remarkable few years of solar inactivity, and for Corbyn this is somehow special. It's in the news and Corbyn gloms onto it. Pathetic, really.

Solar scientists are making great strides in understanding solar dynamics, not least because of the observational tools which have become available. As problems go, solar dynamics even at the surface is a real bitch. Fluid dynamics is bad enough, but when a lot of the fluid is plasma and magnetic forces feeding back on each other ... Nightmare.

On the other hand, it doesn't have geography to contend with, as climate modelling does .

Corbyn's post-normal astrological and presumably statistical model, extracted from who knows what data-sets or by what methods, subject to amendment for the purposes of retroactive confirmation, doesn't really cut it, IMO. It does get him attention though, and an almost cult following. Not quite on the Monckton level, but heck, any attention is better than none.

So I predict this from Corbyn over the next few years : we are in a cooling period but it's getting warmer because of the solar cycle and the Moon being where it is rather than somewhere else, so Global Warming is Global Cooling. I'm depending on Haig to keep us updated.