Do you intend to start piling garbage -the "links" you bring upon- as many have done to no avail? Remember that the fact that you can be here the next 600 messages -like Malcolm did no so long ago- only shows that to destroy is easier than to build. I mean, you'll fail in doing that, but it will take us some hours typing.
A paper published today in the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics finds a significant influence of solar activity upon Earth temperature during the second half of the 20th century
External forcing on air-surface temperature: Geographical distribution of sensitive climate zones
Abstract
In this paper we analyze the geographical distribution of the climate response to external forcing (solar, volcanic and geomagnetic) on the periods of 11 and 22 years. As a climate characteristic we use the data of the air-surface temperature (regional data sets). The analysis is performed by the wavelet phase/coherence technique which is applied to the solar (sunspot numbers), volcanic (Dust Veil Index), geomagnetic (C9-index) activities and the temperature data on interannual timescales for the common time interval covering most of the 20th century. Besides, we analyze the statistics of the temperature response to the solar and geomagnetic factors on the periods of 11 and 22 years for different geographical sectors. In particular, we find the existence of a combined forcing of solar and volcanic activity on the Earth temperature on the 11-year period in the second half of the 20th century over the globe, whereas a set of stations (mostly in North Atlantic) shows a coherence between solar activity and the Earth temperature on the 11-year periodicity even in absence of the combined effect; it was found that the maximal number of stations demonstrating statistically significant amplitudes of wavelet spectra corresponds to the wavelet cross coherence between geomagnetic activity and the Earth air-surface temperature on the periods about 22 years during the time interval without intensive volcanic eruptions capable to change significantly the level of DVIGlobal.
Back in early 2011 Haig was kind enough to share with us many of Corbyn's prognostications. I teased out 10 specific predictions and monitored them over the next 9 months. The final update is here:
Do you know any of these churlish people Piers is talking about Pixel ?
On 19 Jan 2013, Piers_Corbyn (twitter address) wrote:
THANKS ALL FOR EXCELLENT INPUT ---- One point HANKSCORPION the prob is that a certain number of vocal people on the sites you refer to neither read our forecasts nor report accurtely on what they hear. I have received a number of insane claims that OTT things we did not say did not happen. These are from churlish people who have problems with ibe wonders. If there is truth in what you say it does not apply to the headline for this month, which if any less forthright would be an underforecast. NOTE (also applies to other below) on snow amounts this and other periods are not over yet. We referred to POSSIBLY FEET (ie 1ft plus esepc in drifts) that has occurred (and we dont say for everywhere - see forecast terminology guide on p6 of fc)...HEADLINE FOR 30d A stuttering cooling trend in early January then turning very cold especially in East. Exceptional snow/rain with major blizzards in many parts after mid-month and end Jan into Feb - probably becoming rain in SW England & S Eire.
The "standard" explanation is claiming the weather below is causing this :-
That takes a lot of energy Our aurora events take a huge amount of energy and it's been known for some time now this energy comes from the Sun in the form of CME's , Flares etc. Aurora can be successfully predicted from solar events. Similarly SSW's can also be predicted from solar events and their effects on our weather. See here:-
Updated 01/12/2013 @ 16:20 UTC Solar Update
solarham /archive/cottrell55.jpg
Edited by LashL:
Changed hotlink to regular link. Please see Rule 5.
solarham
Updated 01/12/2013 @ 10:20 UTC Solar Update / Impulsive M1.7 Flare
n3kl/sun/images/noaa_xrays.gif?
Edited by LashL:
Changed hotlink to regular link. Please see Rule 5.
n3kl/sun/noaa.html
solarham/[/b]
Edited by LashL:
Changed hotlink to regular link. Please see Rule 5.
JET STREAM SHIFT PUBLIC WARNING SOLAR CLIMATE CHANGE Solar Climate Change: Public Warning: This Weeks Major R5+ Solar Event To Produce Additional Stratospheric Warming
Changed hotlink to regular link. Please see Rule 5.
climaterealists/index.php?id=10944
So obviously our weather AND climate have the Sun as the main driver and as it goes further in to a new solar minimum we can expect a much cooler climate as was the case in the Dalton Minimum and Maunder Minimum. The Modern Warm Period will descend (quite quickly some say ) into another LIA period.
The Russia-Ukrainian project Astrometria on the Russian segment of International Space Station.
gao.spb/english/astrometr/sa_tsi_1600_en.jpg
Edited by LashL:
Changed hotlink to regular link. Please see Rule 5.
gao.spb/english/astrometr/index1_eng.html
Cold Climate Forecasters
Researchers who have predicted a long term solar minimum or ‘solar hibernation’ and/or a new climate change to a period of long lasting cold weather based upon solar activity.
1. Dr. Habibullo I. Abdussamatov: Russian Academy of Scientists. Head of space research at the Pulkova Observatory, St. Petersburg.
Comment: RIA Novosti, August 25, 2006: “Khabibullo Abdusamatov said he and his colleagues had concluded that a period of global cooling similar to one seen in the late 17th century – when canals froze in the Netherlands and people had to leave their dwellings in Greenland – could start in 2012-2105 and reach its peak in 2055-2060….He said he believed the future climate change would have very serious consequences and that authorities should start preparing for them today….”
...
Edited by LashL:
Snipped for compliance with Rule 4.
A Cool White Christmas – almost two thirds of the USA has snow cover
Where’s that “global warming” when you really want it?
This map from NOAA’s National Snow Analyses page shows the snow depth data:
wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress/2012/12/nsm_depth_2012122605_national1.jpg
Edited by LashL:
Changed hotlink to regular link. Please see Rule 5.
The world continues to COOL over the last 4 years - FACT
Joe Bastardi graph
sphotos-e.ak.fbcdn/hphotos-ak-ash3/541712_313740038730778_99496468_n.jpg
Winter solstice brings deadly cold wave to northern Europe
theextinctionprotocol.wordpress/2012/12/22/winter-solstice-brings-deadly-cold-wave-to-northern-europe/
RUSSIANS FREEZE TO DEATH IN WORST WINTER SINCE STALIN'S GREAT PURGE
cdn.breitbart/mediaserver/Breitbart/Big-Peace/2012/12/20/russian_winter_reuters.jpg
Edited by LashL:
Changed hotlink to regular link. Please see Rule 5.
Tornadoes at Christmastime – Note to McKibben and Romm – not that uncommon wattsupwiththat/2012/12/26/tornadoes-at-chritmastime-note-to-mckibben-and-romm-not-that-uncommon/
Cold Weather Across Europe, Asia Kills Hundreds
blogs.the-american-interest/wrm/2012/12/26/cold-weather-across-europe-asia-kills-hundreds/
Edited for multiple breaches of Rule 5 and Rule 4.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic Posted By: LashL
Reading this, I can't tell you how much it makes me laugh. When I'm able to control my bursts of laugh while I'm reading it, I get back to you.
Meanwhile, about your "temperature plot" (which meaning of plot?), which doesn't even deserve the mention of the famous escalator, you should start getting information about how Dr Pirulus get that "information" and what scale unit has the x-axis. That is the first I'm going to ask you.
Piers Corbyn is the owner/operator of WeatherAction, a website that claims to accurately predict the weather in Britain & Ireland for much longer than the standard accuracy time frame of 5 days that most meteorologists agree on. Currently he makes predictions 30, 45, and 60 days in advance. In the past Corbyn claimed to be able to make predictions between 9 months and a year ahead. Corbyn has an honours degree in physics at Imperial College London, and studied astrophysics in 1979 at Queen Mary College (no degree recorded).
He also frequently bets on the accuracy of the results, and founded a company to profit off his predictions in 1997. It was later taken private in 1999 due to staggering losses of £70,000 in the first year, and £480,000 in the second.[1] Corbyn claimed that the failure was because of his companies small size compared to high overhead, which is bizarre after public statements that the business was doing great, "turning over" £250,000 compared to overhead costs of ~£70,000.
Most scientists on the other hand completely ignored him, as his estimates are so vague the weather needs to be well off to be wrong. Taking into account how vague he can be, like giving high winds and heavy rain as a prediction, he is still largely wrong when compared to actual.[2] In 2007 some people who had tired of his whining took a look at his forecast for killer storms to lash Britain on the 17th of October, and the last week of November[3]...which never happened. Undeterred by his abject failure he predicted January 2008 to be a period of intense cold (-17C)[4] - it turned out to be one of the warmest Januarys on record. Corbyn has made it a bit difficult after those highly mocked failures to criticize his inaccuracies due to him banning the use of extracts of his works, and suing most anyone who tries.
You really need to apply a bit more skeptical thought when you read these things. Your woo woo site is misrepresents the phenomenon it's discussing. The stratosphere is in fact cooling, this is well documented fact.
A paper published today in the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics finds a significant influence of solar activity upon Earth temperature during the second half of the 20th century
External forcing on air-surface temperature: Geographical distribution of sensitive climate zones
The paper doesn't say what you think it says. It suggests solar cycles can impact the region distribution of heat not that they cause measurable warming or cooling globally.
You were the one who quoted the predictions, Haig. You had ample opportunity to correct them before they were proved true or false, if you thought I had interpreted any of them incorrectly.
ETA: Incidently this
HEADLINE FOR 30d A stuttering cooling trend in early January then turning very cold especially in East. Exceptional snow/rain with major blizzards in many parts after mid-month and end Jan into Feb - probably becoming rain in SW England & S Eire.
Trying to locate it but there were a number of papers showing the 11 year cycle was at it's peak 20% or so of the GHG forcing. So saying it is more or less influential is only of interest within it's narrow range of forcing.
A "minimum" would simply be a slowing of the AGW increase.
How much warming would still happen if we would stop all our ghg gas emissions right now, forever?
I've heard a figure of 1.5c warming since the year 1900 even if we stopped everything now. Is this correct, and is it because CO2 stays in the atmosphere for, what, 1000 years? And in what time scale would that happen, by 2050, 2100, 2300? And what is the reason for this? A simple answer + link would be appreciated.
How much warming would still happen if we would stop all our ghg gas emissions right now, forever?
I've heard a figure of 1.5c warming since the year 1900 even if we stopped everything now. Is this correct, and is it because CO2 stays in the atmosphere for, what, 1000 years? And in what time scale would that happen, by 2050, 2100, 2300? And what is the reason for this? A simple answer + link would be appreciated.
0.6°C according to the IPCC, well is it correct? its what climate models tell us. and climate models are the most extensive collection of knowledge about our climate system.
lifetime of CO2 is the main issue here i guess, and there is alot of uncertainty in this afaik.
on the other hand even this slight warming could trigger tipping points. well actually some scientists say we triggered some already. according to them we blew it big time already and we are already far beyond the point of no return.
Doesn't that mean it's 0.6 rise from 1980 - 1999 levels if the CO2 concentrations were stabilised to year 2000 levels? I'm asking if we would stop them altogether, right now.
Doesn't that mean it's 0.6 rise from 1980 - 1999 levels if the CO2 concentrations were stabilised to year 2000 levels? I'm asking if we would stop them altogether, right now.
How much warming would still happen if we would stop all our ghg gas emissions right now, forever?
I've heard a figure of 1.5c warming since the year 1900 even if we stopped everything now. Is this correct, and is it because CO2 stays in the atmosphere for, what, 1000 years? And in what time scale would that happen, by 2050, 2100, 2300? And what is the reason for this? A simple answer + link would be appreciated.
Universal assertions and oversimplifications are very dangerous.
To stop emitting CO2 and CFC -let's leave aside other GHG- implies atmospheric CO2 dropping some 1 ppmv per year, so the planet would be likely warming a bit more and then stay there -or viceversa- for, let's say, 30 years, to then start a slightly cooling trend.
To keep the actual level of CO2 -396 ppmv probable 2013 average- implies no stopping with our emissions but curbing them about 50% and staying there. In that case, complex models that involve an adequate representation of the ocean system would probably give some raise of 1 to 1.2°C in 250 years with most of it in the next 60 or 70.
How much warming would still happen if we would stop all our ghg gas emissions right now, forever?
I've heard a figure of 1.5c warming since the year 1900 even if we stopped everything now. Is this correct, and is it because CO2 stays in the atmosphere for, what, 1000 years? And in what time scale would that happen, by 2050, 2100, 2300? And what is the reason for this? A simple answer + link would be appreciated.
There are long term equilibrations that take thousands of years. The real problem is figuring out how much of this equilibration involves releasing additional carbon from surface sinks (oceans, soils/permafrost, etc.). The short answer is that once we cease burning fossil fuels (and using fertilizers made from fossil fuel sources and anything else that releases previous sequestered fossil carbon into the active carbon cycle) the primary increases will be over within a few decades, but small increases will continue to occur for many centuries until full equilibration has occurred (unless natural sinks have been triggered into sources of emission).
I've heard a figure of 1.5c warming since the year 1900 even if we stopped everything now. Is this correct, and is it because CO2 stays in the atmosphere for, what, 1000 years? And in what time scale would that happen, by 2050, 2100, 2300? And what is the reason for this? A simple answer + link would be appreciated.
no simple answer - but for humans carbon is forever. However that has some caveats.
Nature Reports Climate Change
Published online: 20 November 2008 | doi:10.1038/climate.2008.122
Carbon is forever
Carbon dioxide emissions and their associated warming could linger for millennia, according to some climate scientists. Mason Inman looks at why the fallout from burning fossil fuels could last far longer than expected.
There's an effort underway to convince people that the MET didn't predict the current European cold spell (they did) nor the UK flooding last year (which, again, they did). Corbyn's claims of success are supported only by predictions he selects for analysis, as Haig kindly informed us last time he nailed his flag to Project Astronometria (how is that coming along, Haig? What's the latest on the expanding Sun hypothesis - is the expansion still invisible?).
If Corbyn released all of his predictions which are long past their commercially valuable date then he might have a little more credibility, but he is explicitly with the "long-term cooling trend" crowd since at least 2007. Pixel42 did the business on his known predictions the last time Haig indulged himself with this stuff, but Haig had gone pretty quiet by that point, only to emerge predictably unilluminated a few years later.
The likes of Haig are never going to go away, whatever happens. They are the long tail of denial.
You were the one who quoted the predictions, Haig. You had ample opportunity to correct them before they were proved true or false, if you thought I had interpreted any of them incorrectly.
As I recall, Haig had found other interests by the time you did your (much appreciated) analysis and has no doubt forgotten such an unpleasant experience (if he was capable of registering it in the first place; denial can no doubt be a great comfort to some). Given that Haig tends to emerge during boreal winter I conclude that he's not Australian, but I could be wrong. Antipodean denialists are mostly focused on finding hotter times in the past, not cold times in Moscow today.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
