|
|
Post by glc on Apr 6, 2011 9:06:13 GMT
Geomagnetic activity leads temperature by 4 to 8 years. Allowing for this temperature lag, an outstanding aa peak around 1990 could explain the high global temperature in 1998.
It could, I suppose.
After 1990 the geomagnetic aa data show a steep decline comparable to the decrease between 1955 and 1967, followed by falling temperatures from 1961 through 1973 in spite of growing anthropogenic CO2 emissions.
So why wasn’t there a steep decline in temperature after 1998. If the geomagnetic index is so well correlated with temperature there should have been a significant fall in global temperatures. The trend since 1998 is still positive.
This points to decreasing global temperature during the next 10 years.
As this was written over 10 years ago it points to decreasing global temperature over the LAST 10 years. The link between geomagnetic activity (aa) and temperature has clearly broken down - if it ever existed in the first place.
The total magnetic flux leaving the Sun, dragged out by the solar wind, has risen by a factor of 2.3 since 1901 (Lock-wood et al, 1999). Concomitantly, global temperature has increased by 0.5° C.
No it hasn’t. Lockwood now accepts he was not correct on this.
Astromet
You then say
If we observe a lag in geomagnetic activity leading world temperatures between 4 to 8 years, then we should see by the year 2017 radical temperature extremes globally - officially opening a new phase - that of global cooling.
Why quote Landschiedt who talks about the aa peak in 1990 - followed by a decline (which there was). You seem to be suggesting that there is currently an aa peak. You are totally confused or you are being deliberately misleading.
Landscheidts predictions are clearly wrong.
|
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Apr 6, 2011 16:18:47 GMT
Geomagnetic activity leads temperature by 4 to 8 years. Allowing for this temperature lag, an outstanding aa peak around 1990 could explain the high global temperature in 1998. It could, I suppose. After 1990 the geomagnetic aa data show a steep decline comparable to the decrease between 1955 and 1967, followed by falling temperatures from 1961 through 1973 in spite of growing anthropogenic CO2 emissions. So why wasn’t there a steep decline in temperature after 1998. If the geomagnetic index is so well correlated with temperature there should have been a significant fall in global temperatures. The trend since 1998 is still positive. This points to decreasing global temperature during the next 10 years.As this was written over 10 years ago it points to decreasing global temperature over the LAST 10 years. The link between geomagnetic activity (aa) and temperature has clearly broken down - if it ever existed in the first place. The total magnetic flux leaving the Sun, dragged out by the solar wind, has risen by a factor of 2.3 since 1901 (Lock-wood et al, 1999). Concomitantly, global temperature has increased by 0.5° C. No it hasn’t. Lockwood now accepts he was not correct on this. Astromet You then say If we observe a lag in geomagnetic activity leading world temperatures between 4 to 8 years, then we should see by the year 2017 radical temperature extremes globally - officially opening a new phase - that of global cooling.Why quote Landschiedt who talks about the aa peak in 1990 - followed by a decline (which there was). You seem to be suggesting that there is currently an aa peak. You are totally confused or you are being deliberately misleading. Landscheidts predictions are clearly wrong. Landscheidts predictions are clearly wrong. And yet you think Hansen is clearly right ;D |
|
|
|
Post by glc on Apr 6, 2011 18:08:16 GMT
And yet you think Hansen is clearly right
I don't think Hansen is "clearly right", but Hansen predicted warming and we got warming. I think Hansen is more right than Landscheidt. It would be inconsistent for anyone to claim that Landscheidt is right but Hansen is wrong.
|
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Apr 6, 2011 20:58:53 GMT
Geomagnetic activity leads temperature by 4 to 8 years. Allowing for this temperature lag, an outstanding aa peak around 1990 could explain the high global temperature in 1998. It could, I suppose. After 1990 the geomagnetic aa data show a steep decline comparable to the decrease between 1955 and 1967, followed by falling temperatures from 1961 through 1973 in spite of growing anthropogenic CO2 emissions. So why wasn’t there a steep decline in temperature after 1998. If the geomagnetic index is so well correlated with temperature there should have been a significant fall in global temperatures. The trend since 1998 is still positive. This points to decreasing global temperature during the next 10 years.As this was written over 10 years ago it points to decreasing global temperature over the LAST 10 years. The link between geomagnetic activity (aa) and temperature has clearly broken down - if it ever existed in the first place. The total magnetic flux leaving the Sun, dragged out by the solar wind, has risen by a factor of 2.3 since 1901 (Lock-wood et al, 1999). Concomitantly, global temperature has increased by 0.5° C. No it hasn’t. Lockwood now accepts he was not correct on this. Astromet You then say If we observe a lag in geomagnetic activity leading world temperatures between 4 to 8 years, then we should see by the year 2017 radical temperature extremes globally - officially opening a new phase - that of global cooling.Why quote Landschiedt who talks about the aa peak in 1990 - followed by a decline (which there was). You seem to be suggesting that there is currently an aa peak. You are totally confused or you are being deliberately misleading. Landscheidts predictions are clearly wrong. Really? Again, glc, you confuse argument over methodology to then make a blanket statement that Landschiedt is wrong, but you will not even notice the major gaps in Hansen's so-called 'logic?' Hansen never 'predicted warming.' By the time he accepted that the atmosphere was warming, it was already apparent that the Earth was in a solar-forced warming phase, which, I remind you, was laughed at by most scientists (including Hansen) prior to the flooding of federal dollars into climate science. I remember this time clearly, as I reported on climate science in the 1980s. I first observed how the great majority of scientists who formerly laughed their asses off at "global warming" suddenly did a 180-degree about face - when they saw the money. That was when the ideology bullshit began. It continues today, in the mainstream media, on many climate and weather boards by those who gulped down all the AGW kool-aid and remain under the influence. Patrick Michaels on Global Warming's Corrupt Science:"Climate science has painted itself into a corner, seriously damaging the public’s faith in the field — as precious a commodity as there is in civil society.
Like lab rats that will do anything to keep the cocaine flowing, climate scientists, universities, and federal laboratories are addicted to the public’s money.
The latest illustration of this sad new reality is the letter of resignation from the American Physical Society (APS) of one of the lions of science, Harold Lewis, emeritus professor at University of California–Santa Barbara.
In his letter, Lewis rightly states that it is the global-warming-research industry, “with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS with it like a rogue wave.”
Specifically, Lewis objects to the heavy-handed way in which APS quashed and impeded any attempt to modify its outrageous 2007 “national policy” statement on climate change.
The statement is remarkably misleading, and commits the same rhetorical mayhem as similar statements from the American Geophysical Union and the American Meteorological Society.
APS’s solemn declaration — “The evidence is incontrovertible. Global warming is occurring.” — has recently been part and parcel of all such statements.
But to a scientist, to declare that the planet is warming is like announcing that the sun will rise tomorrow.
One fact of the matter is that we are still emerging from an ice age, as evinced by the massive glaciers and ice fields on Greenland.
Ice ages are defined by large accretions of ice being displaced abnormally equator-ward.
Eventually, most of Greenland should look like Scotland, which suffered a similarly lingering glaciation from which it eventually escaped.
The other fact is that we are putting carbon dioxide in the air and, everything else being equal (dangerous words in science), there should be some additional warming.
The important word is “some.”
The real questions are, “how much, and how fast?”
Computer models often predict doom and gloom, but APS ignores the fact that these models are failing.
Only about 5 percent of hundreds of runs of these simulations predict the lack of a significant warming trend that has been observed in the last 14 years — even in the Climategated University of East Anglia temperature history.
In other words, the Earth’s climate is behaving in a way that would normally compel scientists to reject, on statistical grounds, the hypothesis that these models are predictive.
APS isn’t interested in publicizing such details.
Instead, it shakes the public down for even more money. The statement continues: “The APS urges an enhanced effort to understand the effects of human activity on the Earth’s climate.”
And why should APS say otherwise?
What Lewis has uncovered is that climate scientists are behaving normally. They are responding to the incentives of financial and professional security and advancement.
The 1980s — the period in which global-warming money began to flow — saw the rise of scientists as environmental activists, hand in glove with the political process, soaring along with the fortunes of Al Gore, who very nearly rode his climate hysteria to the White House.
The most prominent and clever of them all was the late Steven Schneider, a plasma physicist who wrote the book on how scientists can game policy and enrich themselves at the same time.
Schneider started his own refereed journal, Climatic Change.
As the journal’s editor, he was able to define the paradigm, because that’s what the refereed literature does.
In 1989, he rejected a very straightforward paper of mine showing that temperatures after 1980 were actually quite similar to those seen in the early part of the 20th century.
He wrote to me that he had to hold my paper to a higher standard of review because it was “counter-paradigm,” which it was not; it was just counter to the paradigm he wanted to establish.
At the same time, he shamelessly promoted global-warming hysteria, exhorting his colleagues (over whom he held the power of a major journal editor) in Discover magazine in 1989 that -
'... we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see our world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change...
To do that we have to get some broad-based public support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage...
So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have...
Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest..."
Schneider and his ilk got their way.
An incredible outlay of money to academic researchers has ensued.
And any incentive to write a paper describing the exaggeration of global warming all but disappeared — indeed, the disincentive to publish such a finding became, and remains, strong indeed.
And so, APS has no incentive to do anything but flog global warming.
Professor Lewis is, of course, right, and so is Schneider: 'We are not just scientist but human beings as well. It is important that the public come to realize this.'
People often ask me how to stop the hysteria.
It’s simple: Stop feeding our addiction.
How many of us were once wringing our hands over acid rain?
When it finally became obvious that it, too, was real but over-hyped by its proponents, the issue left the public consciousness.
The public can certainly make the same thing happen to global warming. But rest assured that scientists will find something else to worry you over.
P.S.: The next hysteria will be something called “ocean acidification.”
Stay tuned."So the ideologues all stopped laughing and got aboard that global warming money train. When that train stops, they will all jump off, fattened like careerist hogs off of tens of millions of dollars in research grants. You say that Landschiedt's predictions are clearly wrong, but then provide no evidence of this. Also, you have shown repeatedly in discussions on the Sun's forcing of the Earth's climate to be 'deliberately misleading,' so as to nickel-and-dime research to the point of never being able to accept that which is scientifically self-evident. Moreover, you have shown no knowledge of how the Sun forces the climate and weather on Earth to see how it plays out in the real world. Try going outside every now and then rather than constantly pushing out argumentative points via papers ad nausea but never able to accept the truth. Leif Svalgaard, Ed W. Cliver, and Philippe Le Sager stated that "The aa-index enters into the expression for the predictor fp with such a large exponent (to the 5th power) that, in the end, the aa-index effectively controls whether or not we think we have a high-speed solar wind.
This is not new, of course, authors too numerous to mention (e.g. Svalgaard 1977, am ~ V 2.25) have shown that aa (or ap and am) vary with at least the square of the solar wind speed, V, but only linearly with the interplanetary magnetic field, B, so the wind speed usually wins.
But not always; high aa-values can also be caused by high interplanetary magnetic fields (which can be recurrent too), so we have not achieved a clear-cut separation of B and V, however plausible the above interpretation is.
Although there is little doubt that the very strong peaks in aa (e.g. in 1973 and 1930) were caused by strong high-speed solar streams, it is somewhat more difficult to a put solid number to what is due to V and what is due to B, and even more so if we consider times with moderate activity.
The suggestion by Lockwood et al. has merit as a step on the way, but we have to watch out for subtle quantitative effects of taking our assumptions too far."Lockwood himself says he does not know what causes global climate change: "There are many interesting palaeoclimate studies that suggest that solar variability had an influence on pre-industrial climate.
There are also some detection–attribution studies using global climate models that suggest there was a detectable influence of solar variability in the first half of the twentieth century
and that the solar radiative forcing variations were amplified by some mechanism that is, as yet, unknown.
However, these findings are not relevant to any debates about modern climate change. Our results show that the observed rapid rise in global mean temperatures seen after 1985 cannot be ascribed to solar variability, whichever of the mechanisms is invoked and no matter how much the solar variation is amplified."See -> www.atmos.washington.edu/2009Q1/111/Readings/Lockwood2007_Recent_oppositely_directed_trends.pdfThe long-term drift in geomagnetic activity, that is the calibration of the aa index uses data from magnetometer stations around the world. (That is if our East Anglia friends & Co. haven't gone to work on this data as well.) According to Svalgaard & Cliver - "This last one was submitted to Annales Geophysicae, 2006: Longterm variation of geomagnetic activity (the IHV-index) and its use in deriving solar wind speed since 1882, which, in our opinion, is the likely cause of the major increase in the inferred coronal field that LSW99 report, but which we cannot confirm.
Both our method and that of LSW99 use extrapolations of correlations outside the range for which they were derived and thus both must be regarded with caution.
For this reason, in SC05 we substantiated our IDV-based results by using an independent method based on magnetic field measurements in the terrestrial polar caps, some of which were made during the crucial interval early in the last century for which LSW99 inferred very low coronal fields.
Our debate with Lockwood and colleagues on the long-term evolution of the coronal magnetic field and the solar wind may be resolved within the next few years if our prediction of a solar maximum with peak sunspot number comparable to that of cycle 14 bears out."
To this day, science continues to argue about solar variability, but continues to discover more and more new facts about the Sun. However, this in no way presupposes that the Sun has little to no influence on the Earth climate (as the irradiance argument has been used by AGW ideologues.) See -> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hale_cycleLastly, if you want to really learn how the Sun and the planets work as a "system," (as in solar system) then you should take the time to learn about the spin-orbit coupling between the Sun and the Jovian Planets and how they govern the solar cycle. For instance, on April 7, Jupiter will emerge from the far side of the Sun, so we should expect to see more solar flares as this commonly occurs when planets are in alignment with the Sun. See -> www.publish.csiro.au/nid/138/paper/AS06018.htmAlso, take a step up by intellect and learn serious astrology and more about torsion physics, which will help you greatly to understand how our Sun operates in space. See -> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovich_cycleSee -> www.americanantigravity.com/documents/Murad-on-Torsion.pdfThe entire system of planets work on the Sun and the Sun works on the planets. See -> www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2008/07/02/2292281.htm?site=science&topic=tech |
|
|
|
Post by glc on Apr 6, 2011 23:48:35 GMT
Astromet
Why don't you address the fact that you cited Landscheidt.
Your own post shows Landscheidt predicted cooling from 1998 - after somehow justifying an 8 year lag after the aa peak in ~1990.
You then used Landscheidt's same logic to claim that cooling should begin in 2017 - presumably implying that there is currently an aa peak.
Could you explain how your prediction of cooling in 2017 agrees with Landscheidt?
PS Could you also tell me why you are citing Leif Svalgaard as I know for a fact he does not agree with you, Landscheidt or any of the other pseudo solar scientists.
|
|
|
|
Post by matt on Apr 7, 2011 2:04:31 GMT
Astromet, why do you ignore the facts about the sun? It has been dimming since 1958, so climate has been warming in spite of variability of the sun. You really need to bone up on basic climate science and the sun. You continually spout erroneously that the sun controls our climate with ZERO evidence.
|
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on Apr 7, 2011 2:14:58 GMT
Astromet, why do you ignore the facts about the sun? It has been dimming since 1958, so climate has been warming in spite of variability of the sun. You really need to bone up on basic climate science and the sun. You continually spout erroneously that the sun controls our climate with ZERO evidence. Well said. |
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Apr 7, 2011 2:18:01 GMT
Astromet Why don't you address the fact that you cited Landscheidt. Your own post shows Landscheidt predicted cooling from 1998 - after somehow justifying an 8 year lag after the aa peak in ~1990. You then used Landscheidt's same logic to claim that cooling should begin in 2017 - presumably implying that there is currently an aa peak. Could you explain how your prediction of cooling in 2017 agrees with Landscheidt? PS Could you also tell me why you are citing Leif Svalgaard as I know for a fact he does not agree with you, Landscheidt or any of the other pseudo solar scientists. So what? You will not find many scientists in 100% agreement on anything. What's your point? I don't see Svalgaard doing any climate/weather forecasting and in the final analysis that is what it all comes down to in the real world. Moreover, the late Theodor Landscheidt did forecast and he came to the same conclusions other astrometeorologists have since we use the same astronomic principles in forecasting. Duh. And I will continue to cite Landschiedt because his work is relevant. In my post above yours, I cited others as well, Lockwood, Svalgaard, Milankovitch, Hale and Murad. There is major global cooling on the way, but you won't believe it until you're freezing your ass off years down the line. Meanwhile, we all have to suffer through your "Hansen predicting warming forever" posts. What a load. You will not learn anything of the mysteries behind the workings of nature, i.e., the climate and weather, by remaining stagnant within your ideology. All you are doing is refusing to admit that perhaps there is much that you do not know. Calling people names like 'pseudo-scientist' further confirms just how biased and clueless you are as to matters you have not studied in-depth. I mean, you are the one who says we were not in a La Nina climate phase. Where have you been? What planet are you on? Glc, one of the essential things you just do not get (or do not want to get) is that your own opinion is one thing - but expertise in forecasting is quite another. You have been pontificating for a long time now that the earth's warming is caused by human activity (a totally unfounded finding) and then you go on to state that Landschiedt is wrong because he is a 'pseudo-solar scientist?" Who do you think you are? I'm sick and tired of you losers out here who cannot forecast next month's weather telling all of us what the longer-range climate will be while telling us who is a 'scientist' and who is not when you yourself don't even know what your own weather will be next month. Yet, you go on and on with your AGW fuzzy math nonsense ad nausea. And you call Landscheidt a "pseudo-scientist?" Who are you kidding? You are so far from reality that it is amazing you continue to post such total bunk on the climate and weather. When are you going to quit drinking the AGW kool-aid; get your head out of the sand and into the 21st century? Geez. |
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Apr 7, 2011 2:32:56 GMT
Astromet, why do you ignore the facts about the sun? It has been dimming since 1958, so climate has been warming in spite of variability of the sun. You really need to bone up on basic climate science and the sun. You continually spout erroneously that the sun controls our climate with ZERO evidence. Your comment above just goes to prove how vulgar you are Matt. Talk about the need "to bone up on basic climate science and the sun..." you ought to look in a mirror pal - that is after you notice that star up there called the Sun. Matt, without the Sun, you wouldn't be around very long to tippy tap on your little keyboard - you can bet your life on it. |
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on Apr 7, 2011 2:44:30 GMT
Astromet Why don't you address the fact that you cited Landscheidt. Your own post shows Landscheidt predicted cooling from 1998 - after somehow justifying an 8 year lag after the aa peak in ~1990. You then used Landscheidt's same logic to claim that cooling should begin in 2017 - presumably implying that there is currently an aa peak. Could you explain how your prediction of cooling in 2017 agrees with Landscheidt? PS Could you also tell me why you are citing Leif Svalgaard as I know for a fact he does not agree with you, Landscheidt or any of the other pseudo solar scientists. So what? You will not find many scientists in 100% agreement on anything. What's your point? I don't see Svalgaard doing any climate/weather forecasting and in the final analysis that is what it all comes down to in the real world. Moreover, the late Theodor Landscheidt did forecast and he came to the same conclusions other astrometeorologists have since we use the same astronomic principles in forecasting. Duh. And I will continue to cite Landschiedt because his work is relevant. In my post above yours, I cited others as well, Lockwood, Svalgaard, Milankovitch, Hale and Murad. There is major global cooling on the way, but you won't believe it until you're freezing your ass off years down the line. Meanwhile, we all have to suffer through your "Hansen predicting warming forever" posts. What a load. You will not learn anything of the mysteries behind the workings of nature, i.e., the climate and weather, by remaining stagnant within your ideology. All you are doing is refusing to admit that perhaps there is much that you do not know. Calling people names like 'pseudo-scientist' further confirms just how biased and clueless you are as to matters you have not studied in-depth. I mean, you are the one who says we were not in a La Nina climate phase. Where have you been? What planet are you on? Glc, one of the essential things you just do not get (or do not want to get) is that your own opinion is one thing - but expertise in forecasting is quite another. You have been pontificating for a long time now that the earth's warming is caused by human activity (a totally unfounded finding) and then you go on to state that Landschiedt is wrong because he is a 'pseudo-solar scientist?" Who do you think you are? I'm sick and tired of you losers out here who cannot forecast next month's weather telling all of us what the longer-range climate will be while telling us who is a 'scientist' and who is not when you yourself don't even know what your own weather will be next month. Yet, you go on and on with your AGW fuzzy math nonsense ad nausea. And you call Landscheidt a "pseudo-scientist?" Who are you kidding? You are so far from reality that it is amazing you continue to post such total bunk on the climate and weather. When are you going to quit drinking the AGW kool-aid; get your head out of the sand and into the 21st century? Geez. My goodness Astromet, you are so long winded! Can you make a point concisely? or not? I gather, not... |
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Apr 7, 2011 2:52:50 GMT
So what? You will not find many scientists in 100% agreement on anything. What's your point? I don't see Svalgaard doing any climate/weather forecasting and in the final analysis that is what it all comes down to in the real world. Moreover, the late Theodor Landscheidt did forecast and he came to the same conclusions other astrometeorologists have since we use the same astronomic principles in forecasting. Duh. And I will continue to cite Landschiedt because his work is relevant. In my post above yours, I cited others as well, Lockwood, Svalgaard, Milankovitch, Hale and Murad. There is major global cooling on the way, but you won't believe it until you're freezing your ass off years down the line. Meanwhile, we all have to suffer through your "Hansen predicting warming forever" posts. What a load. You will not learn anything of the mysteries behind the workings of nature, i.e., the climate and weather, by remaining stagnant within your ideology. All you are doing is refusing to admit that perhaps there is much that you do not know. Calling people names like 'pseudo-scientist' further confirms just how biased and clueless you are as to matters you have not studied in-depth. I mean, you are the one who says we were not in a La Nina climate phase. Where have you been? What planet are you on? Glc, one of the essential things you just do not get (or do not want to get) is that your own opinion is one thing - but expertise in forecasting is quite another. You have been pontificating for a long time now that the earth's warming is caused by human activity (a totally unfounded finding) and then you go on to state that Landschiedt is wrong because he is a 'pseudo-solar scientist?" Who do you think you are? I'm sick and tired of you losers out here who cannot forecast next month's weather telling all of us what the longer-range climate will be while telling us who is a 'scientist' and who is not when you yourself don't even know what your own weather will be next month. Yet, you go on and on with your AGW fuzzy math nonsense ad nausea. And you call Landscheidt a "pseudo-scientist?" Who are you kidding? You are so far from reality that it is amazing you continue to post such total bunk on the climate and weather. When are you going to quit drinking the AGW kool-aid; get your head out of the sand and into the 21st century? Geez. My goodness Astromet, you are so long winded! Can you make a point concisely? or not? I gather, not... For someone who goes on and on and on about the IPCC's "long-winded" literature; yet who tells others that they are ignorant of climate science (as you have said to Magellan) it's a wonder that you can complain Thermostat. |
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on Apr 7, 2011 3:04:14 GMT
My goodness Astromet, you are so long winded! Can you make a point concisely? or not? I gather, not... For someone who goes on and on and on about the IPCC's "long-winded" literature; yet who tells others that they are ignorant of climate science (as you have said to Magellan) it's a wonder that you can complain Thermostat. an astrologist lashes out!... |
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on Apr 7, 2011 3:25:18 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Apr 7, 2011 4:10:27 GMT
All of Earth's weather is variable, so I don't understand your point. As for La Nina, when it returns to neutral remains to be seen. |
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on Apr 7, 2011 4:17:10 GMT
All of Earth's weather is variable, so I don't understand your point. As for La Nina, when it returns to neutral remains to be seen. My point is quite basic, the El Nino Southern Oscillation is a well known natural cycle. The La Nina phase is now ending, and the system is moving into the neutral phase. |
|
