THERE is a new forecast from a panel of international scientists who study the sun. In a media release from Science@NASA, Tony Phillips explains they predict that the sun will remain generally calm for at least another year and this means low solar activity which can have “a profound effect on Earth’s atmosphere, allowing it to cool and contract”.
Summarizing comment from the expert panel, Dr Phillips explains that “cosmic rays that are normally pushed back by solar wind instead intrude on the near-Earth environment.
The graph shows yearly-averaged sunspot numbers from 1610 to 2008. Researchers believe upcoming Solar Cycle 24 will be similar to the cycle that peaked in 1928, marked by a red arrow.
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/29may_noaaprediction.htm
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Presnell says to mark the calender for 2013, but use a pencil.
We’re living in very interesting times with expected increase in cosmic rays effecting earth and contracting plus cooling of the atmosphere.
What does contracting and cooling do to AGW I wonder?
Certainly interesting times.
Earth’s atmosphere to cool and contract, with increased cosmic rays. Add the possibility that increased cosmic rays increase cloud cover, plus, according to a the recent post indicating correlation with the theory that added atmospheric C02 reduces relative humidity, and what does that indicate about drought risk and cooler climates?
Climate research may in the end pay, if we can get to the botton of what really are the drivers of the whole system.
This is what I’ve been saying. Separate out the science evidence from the science sentiment and general bullshitartistry. And you see what an incredibly idiotic movement this global warming racket is. Imagine being so stupid and science-challenged that you start trying to fight phantom-warming toward the end of an interglacial. There is no synonym for stupid that covers it. That this movement has gone on so long is telling us we have to start coming down on the appeasers. The sort of people who want a carbon tax anyway, even though they cannot argue for the stupid side and keep a straight face. Its these sort of traitors that we really ought to come down on at this point. The whole momentum of this movement appears to have been taken up by fellow travelers.
Question : With all of the political to-ing and fro-ing over the ETS , why isn’t this NASA report being screamed from every newspapers headline ?
From memory, Louis H. mentioned a while ago, that more attention should be paid to cosmic rays
and the plasma-electric universe around us in general.
Looks like when the wheels are falling off the spin machine, some real science is emerging?
Anyone have any idea how sunspots were recorded back before satellites? one would assume that more sunspots would be identified these days with the new technology.
What real science – it was “not predicted” hahahahahahaha
You clowns. You’d jump on anything.
Even the url reads “prediction”
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/29may_noaaprediction.htm
Chuck,
Sunspots were recorded by indirect observation – this technique was described by Stuart Clark in his recent book “The Sun Kings”, documenting the career of Carrington and the origins of solar science. The technique was to project the sun’s radiation indirectectly onto a flat matte surface and then count the spots from the shadows cast on the board.
In those times science was not funded by government but by wealthy individuals driven by curiosity. No such thing as peer review or other consensus forces.
Re. Marcus’ recollection, just remember that all matter is comprised of electrically charged particles, but for reasons that are not clear, mainstream science feels that the electric field and the electricity have no role to play in geophysics or astrophysics.
What if mainstream science is wrong? It was during Galileo’s time.
“What if mainstream science is wrong? It was during Galileo’s time.”
Louis, yeah but it hasn’t been since. Just ask Luke.
Spanglers – there’s an unwritten law of self delusion. The instant you mention Galileo you’re having yourself on.
“Spanglers – there’s an unwritten law of self delusion.”
Lukey, there doesn’t need to be any law about self delusion. It’s mainstream normal.
Reality is the scarce commodity!
That’s what makes Louis’ statement so fundamental. The question that the faithfull and the MSM never ask.
WHAT IF MAINSTREAM SCIENCE IS WRONG?
What if mainstream science is wrong? It was during Galileo’s time.
Galileo was mainstream science. His conflict was with the dogma of the church.
What if mainstream science is wrong? What if my heart stops beating? What if I have cancer? These are useless questions. You can create insecurity about anything. Keep fit, don’t smoke, and try to understand the science.
Nick, I wish I was as optimistic as you. I see Galileo as being new science and the church as mainstream. Dogma, as you say, but what does that remind you of?
Nick, I suppose you saw this….
http://www.physorg.com/news162795064.html
Spangly
The fact that much of technology we have in the world works lends one to think that a fair bit of our “mainstream” science is indeed holding up. Otherwise don’t get in your car.
Obviously the planet’s atmosphere which one cannot contain experimentally in the classic sense is more difficult.
But face it – this issue is so political and so emotional who can be objective anymore.
If the was right wing aligned, incidental to your way of life, and not green aligned – say pro-nuclear – would you perceive it differently.
Who among us can separate the science, politics, and policy options clearly?
The sceptics here see a main-stream corruption of the science process for political ends.
The warmers see a corruption of the political process to stymie the science.
Can you simulate your opponent’s position. Put yourself in their paradigm?
We do it on you all the time 🙂
Nick Stokes,
Galileo was mainstream science? There was no science then – and if it was, it was the Church -mainstream means what it says – the dominant view.
Luke, you confuse pseudoscience for science. AGW is pseudoscience.
Perhaps you might show here why I am wrong.
Who among us can separate the science, politics, and policy options clearly?
The sceptics here see a main-stream corruption of the science process for political ends.
The warmers see a corruption of the political process to stymie the science.
Can you simulate your opponent’s position. Put yourself in their paradigm?
We do it on you all the time 🙂
yeah Luke
Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.” – Buddha (563BC-483BC)
Well Banana-PJs – if you seriously believed that position – you would use no high technology as the explanations are far from common sense. Believe nothing PJs – you’re living in a world of magic?
Louis – just words – just hollow words – I can say the same thing back to you. In fact I can simply do the same with all your little pet topics like abiotic oil and electric universe.
Anyway you’re suspect of our ethical motives on AGW. And we’re equally sceptical of the ethics of your scepticism.
This thread is a classic case in point – quite a few have suspended the usual deep suspicion of science matters on climate and suddenly embraced the solar hypothesis – why? Simply coz it’s a very comfortable fit with your POV. Hardly a science analysis?
Louis – no doubt the mainstream is not always right. Galileo and the Heliobacter pylori story well illustrate the point. But the sad reality is that most of the time – the mainstream view prevails – why?
Coz everyone would LOVE to be a modern Galileo.
But if you start bitching about difficulty getting published, I’m just misunderstood, they just don’t listen etc etc – for 99% of us it means unfortunately you’re ratshit – i.e. you’re simply wrong !
Invoking the memory of Galileo is even a symptom of your growing delusion.
Luke June 2nd, 2009 at 9:26 pm
Louis – no doubt the mainstream is not always right. Galileo and the Heliobacter pylori story well illustrate the point. But the sad reality is that most of the time – the mainstream view prevails – why?
Luke, because the mainstream is like being in government, they have all the power to suppress any opposing new idea if it’s in their interest.
If you spent years of your life developing your theory, have good funding, prestige etc. you are not going to give up easily.
And please make no false assumptions that all “scientists” are honest benevolent creatures, with the well being of humanity foremost in their mind.
Oh of course – but golly gee we have 100s of anti AGW blogs, heaps of dissenting views in the national newspapers, TV interviews with dissenters. Gee Marcus I wonder if the populace know there are dissenters ? Come on !
And governments never change ? – phhhfffttt !
So, Luke, now you equate blogs to science journals?
And I only mentioned governments as an example of established power, yes governments can be voted out but scientist cannot be, it’s not up to popularity, there cannot be a “consensus” there are only theories and facts to support those theories.
No facts = theory wrong!
“No facts = theory wrong!” – oh well – goodnight sweetheart for sceptics then !
Of course there are consensus statements on all manner of topics – do you honestly think a report to government on space exploration should mention that perhaps man never landed on the moon and it was all a hoax?
OK so it’s not a popularity contest – but every mug punter doesn’t get a go either !
‘..100s of anti AGW blogs, heaps of dissenting views in the national newspapers, TV interviews with dissenters..’ 100s? Heaps? interviews with dissenters – heaven forbid. Utter bollocks. The MSM are completely dominated by AGW alarmism – Annan’s ‘study’ just the latest manifestation – the result of years of baseless propaganda. So Luke says: disingenuous, moi?
Yeehaa!
Luke,
You are slobbering. It takes away from the purely cynical pose you are trying for.
Skeptics, by the way merely have to show the thesis is wrong.
AGW has been shown to be wrong.
Deal with it like a good alien.
Again shows the point – pseudosceptics just continuing to froth on. Can I help it if there is no decent sceptical science. Which is why E&E exists. Years of ranting on every hypothesis under the Sun (get it !) except the obvious one. Remind me – what’s the alternative theory this week – do you lot have a choccy wheel – where you all get a go. Or is there a roster?
I have to say I did enjoy Quiggin’s classification of the so-called sceptic movement. Tribalists, Ideologists, Hacks and sufferers of Emeritus disease.
He forgot ….
MWUAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA … Clowns !
Is there anyone here who takes Luke seriously? If so, get thee off to a shrink.
On Hypothesii
“There is one great difficulty with a good hypothesis. When it is completed and rounded, the corners smooth and the content, cohesive and coherent, it is likely to become a thing in itself, a work of art. It is then like a finished sonnet or a painting completed. One hates to disturb it. Even if subsequent information should shoot a hole in it, one hates to tear it down because it once was beautiful and whole”.
Example given of a learned institution and sea otters – (Jen, sort of like the Murray cod!
“This is not set down in criticism; it is no light matter to make up one’s mind about everything, even about sea otters, and once made up, it is even harder to abandon the position. When a hypothesis is deeply accepted it becomes a growth which only a kind of surgery can amputate. Thus, beliefs persist long after their factual bases have been removed, and practices based on beliefs are often carried on even when the beliefs which stimulated them have been forgeotten. The practice must follow the belief. It is often considered, particularly by reformers and legislators, that law is a stimulant to action, or an inhibitor of action, when actually the reverse is true.”
John Steinbeck The Log from the Sea of Cortez. (First published 1951) Pan Books edition (1960)
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/02/lindzens-climate-sensitivty-talk-iccc-june-2-2009/#more-8127
Alan the Brit (08:32:27) :
Why is it that the people who are clearly rampant liars, in the pay of big oil, gas, & coal companies (fact), & of no technical significance within the Climate Change non-debate, always present their cases in such a calm, reflective, authoritive & considered, yet gentle manner? ;-))
Why are those who tell us the truth, the whole truth, & nothing but the truth, absolute experts in the field of Climate Science, always do so shouting from the highest steeple, procaiming impending doom & disaster & catastrophe, thumping the AGW bible at the pulpit, demanding that we repent of our sins against Gaia? :-((
Excellent piece! Looking forward to more soon!
Ian and Alan I think the answer’s easy, one side are funadamentalist followers of a green religious cult and don’t believe in natural CC, in other words they are nat CC DENIERS.
The other side are cc rationalists who insist on using reason to back up their understanding of cc instead of emotional levels of unreasonable belief in AGW.
“I have to say I did enjoy Quiggin’s classification of the so-called sceptic movement. Tribalists, Ideologists, Hacks and sufferers of Emeritus disease.”
Luke, how’s the foot, old chap. Hope the bullet hole’s not too big.
Taxonomy of Delusion J Quiggin
Anyone like Quiggin who begins a discussion from the position that all who disagree with him are in varying degrees of delusion is pretty deluded themselves.
It also says something about his supporters.
Meanwhile, back on the topic, we need to remember that this graph and the NASA prediction is an extrapolation from very limited data. They have no evidence, yet, to indicate the level of the peak. They only have evidence that the old cycle has ended and a new one has started. The peak could be much lower than their prediction.
The link to the NASA site makes it clear that the above graph is incomplete. http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/29may_noaaprediction.htm
Note that the shorter term graph shows more than 18 months of zero activity while the longer term graph shows the past cycle 23 bottoming out at about 10 spots. And when we go back over the past records we have to go back to 1917 to find a zero average and 1880 and 1900 to find an extended one. These events are followed by rather steep recovery and decline curves with the 1886 and 1908 peaks (c60) being well below that of the 1928 level (c75)predicted by NASA while the 1919 peak (c90) was about the same extent above 1928.
More importantly, we have to go right back to 1812 and Napoleon’s retreat from Moscow to find a cycle with a gradual ending like cycle 23 and the following peak of 1818 only got to about 30 before dropping back to zero again in 1823.
The other important point to note from the graph is the clear evidence of an approximately 100 year cycle with low point around the turn of each century from 1700, 1800, 1900 and now. And it would appear that the NASA modellers have not incorporated this cycle into their predictions for cycle 24 which, despite the early signs, has not actually started yet. A prediction of about 75 for the peak of cycle 24 is only likely if it is based only on the past 9 cycles, none of which have bottomed out at zero.
Of course, the prediction business is an unpredictable one. But if we were to apply weighted probabilities to a range of possible outcomes, as any competent predictive practitioner would do, then one would need to assign at least a 30% probability to an 1812 to 1823 type event and no greater probability to NASA’s 1928 type prediction. Most of the remaining 40% should be allocated to outcomes in between with, perhaps 10% for outcomes above and below the two main chances.
But of course, no-one in the IPCC mafia appears willing to apply this essential element of the prediction business. They would rather flog single estimates that are out of their context of realistic probability.
A bit of space age scatology shows they’re probably right about cooling.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jun/02/wildlife-poles
“A Layman’s Explanation of Why Global Warming Predictions by Climate Models are Wrong”
Why aren’t we discussing Roy Spencer’s latest work?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/05/a-layman%e2%80%99s-explanation-of-why-global-warming-predictions-by-climate-models-are-wrong/
Little Luke the DENIER states:
“What real science – it was “not predicted” hahahahahahaha
You clowns. You’d jump on anything.
”
I think you should be reading papers by real solar scientists. You know, like the gentleman who tries to keep people on track over at WUWT.
Here is his prediction from 2005:
http://www.leif.org/research/Cycle%2024%20Smallest%20100%20years.pdf
A prediction of RMAX 75.
Say hello to Leif Svalgaard and associates Lukey. He has a number of papers in his research directory you might want to read.
WUWT – you mean climate whore sceptic city – we’ll jump on anything !
Perhaps you should tell your mate Archibald to listen to Leif too. hahahahahahahahahaha
You clown KrappyCat
As for Lindzen – sigh – http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2009/03/31/lindzen-on-climate-feedback/
More of the ol’ shell game.
Luke,
Roy Spencer says he’s PROVED the computer models WRONG!
I know it’s a wild call, but maybe you could deal with that fact.
Thanks for the Svalgaard paper, kuhnkat. It clarifies the methodology but also confirms my suspicion that the predictions are made from observed relationships from only 4 cycles, and essentially similar cycles at that. We don’t know how an extended zero activity period will influence the validity of the precursor method. The fact that such anomalous cycles as the two from 1800 exist would tend to indicate that the precursor signals may not always apply. And in such situations the statistical method is likely to take precedence.
In any event, it would be a very refreshing change for the better if researchers would do us all the courtesy of giving us the benefit of properly weighted probabilities rather than these single predictions and an error margin.
luke; that Colose critique of Lindzen and an alleged decline in OLR has well and truly fallen on its face; see p 33 here;
http://portaldata.colgate.edu/imagegallerywww/3503/ImageGallery/LindzenLectureBeyondModels.pdf
Spencer’s work on clouds is dovetailing with a host of theories including Lindzen’s IRIS and Miskolczi’s general concept as it pertains to the role of water; that water should dominate CO2 is not new;
http:www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2007JD008431.shtml
It is scandalous that the IPCC and its various drones should ignore this while Wong and Rudd proceed with an ETS scheme which will cost $2 trillion by 2050, at its most low rate of 5% reduction in emissions referable to 2000.
“Why aren’t we discussing Roy Spencer’s latest work?”
Rick, I tried to explain to Luke about this lid on the pot trick a while back but it’s too complicated for him.
Well Ricky – PROVED in caps eh? ooooooo – we’re all so impressed. Swoon. And Spanglers – don’t just trail around in my wake – make the case.
Coho – mate you’re getting like the bag man – collecting whatever you can find – even Sir Stephen Short has given up on Miskolczi – it’s over amigo. As for Spencer and the MJO – well who says the mojo works anywhere else. Talk about extrapolation.
And it looks like the data series that Lindzen is referring to is another chooks brekky of unprocessed satellite sensor drift.
Ya got nuttin’. But like climate whores you’ll jump on anything that passes for a theory.
I mean really Cohers – do you think playing 5th columnists running around in the secret Climate Sceptics party is having one scintilla of influence on the direction of CSIRO or Hadley’s science program.
When sceptics stop the secret handshakes and come out of the closet you might find a way to formally engage the science. Until then you’re just flies in the ointment. Spoiling a good look.
Luke
“Louis – just words – just hollow words – I can say the same thing back to you. In fact I can simply do the same with all your little pet topics like abiotic oil and electric universe.
Anyway you’re suspect of our ethical motives on AGW. And we’re equally sceptical of the ethics of your scepticism”
No apologies for a tardy response – I just returned from the NT.
Nopw as for the “little pet topics like abiotic oil and electric universe”, you will have to explain to Jen’s readers why the late Tommy Gold enumerated the Abiotic oil theory, or why Nobel Laurates such as Irving Langmuire and Hannes Alfven peddle the Electric Universe theories (Aka the Plasma Model), also supported by Hilton Ratcliffe (Astrophysicist) and Halton Arp.
Oh, and I omitted the work of Anthony Peratt as well as Eric Lerner’s.
Now Luke, what is your publication record ?
For what it’s worth, My article recently published in E&E is to be reproduced in NCGT Newsletter shortly.
Yours are probably published in Tharunka?
“When sceptics stop the secret handshakes and come out of the closet you might find a way to formally engage the science.”
Whatta ya gotta do to stop the bleedin’ faithful from believing in Kofi Annan’s 300,000 plus dead a year due to AGW and prevent them from spending all our hard earned on dumb solutions for no benefit etc.
But I suppose when they still need potty training explained it’s always going to be difficult.
Folks,
You have the physics wrong – Agw ASSUMES an inert earth suspended in vacuao, receiving solar radiation, and from this precondition, then deduces a greenhouse effect.
Those who have published most papers on this is in the peer reviewed journals are invited to attend their elevation to the D.BS, when, Her Majesty, The Red Queen, will award her appreciation for scientific excellence in the Whethers of the Land of Oz.
Luke is havin’ another hissy:
“Ya got nuttin’. But like climate whores you’ll jump on anything that passes for a theory.”
So Lukey, exactly where are all the empirical measurements supporting the MODELS??
Oh yeah, someone removed their “FINGERPRINTS” so you couldn’t find them!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Ian Mott,
” We don’t know how an extended zero activity period will influence the validity of the precursor method. ”
What extended zero activity period? Do you mean the current very low activity period? I don’t think the physics allow zero activity.
Sorry if I am being too literal here.
Hey Luke There’s this charismatic crank called Al Gore. He’s not a scientist ,he’s a politician , right . And this politician is standing up in front of the classroom with pointer and charts trying to teach you science .He wants you to believe in an old crackpot Arrhenius CO2 theory because its ca-ching big paydirt for him and maybe his name up in lights saying “Albert Gore’s Nobel Prizewinning CO2 Theory”
You’re the sort of sucker he’s looking for Luke , so go ahead ,follow, join the other useful idiots Al’s got tagging along behind him.
That’s why you’re called an ‘alarmist’ Luke ,you’ve substituted your brain for a set of ringing bells.
The short term graph showed almost 6 months of no sunspots, kuhnkat which, if not unprecedented, is quite rare. But I concede that on a graph of annual totals a reading of zero activity is unlikely. Shall we substitute the words “an extended period of very low activity”, then?
Do you agree that the more anomalous a cycle is found to be, the less reliable a predictive tool derived from previous consistencies will become?