In article , "Waghorn" writes:

He may be a 'charlaton' and a 'self publicist',however some recent results
suggest his ideas may not be so mad or easily dismissed-

Which ideas, exactly?

That he can determine the weather to very fine temporal and spacial resolutions
over periods extending many months?

Or something more vague, perhaps, for which he can claim no original authorship
whatsoever?



Nicola Scafetta and Bruce J. West

“Solar Flare Intermittency and the Earth's Temperature Anomalies”
Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 248701 (2003). PDF

http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/PRL48701.pdf


A broad statistical correlation (which is very difficult to follow). If it
holds up to scrutiny, the results are quite an achievement.



http://newton.ex.ac.uk/aip/physnews.642.html

This, on the other hand, is codswallop. It is headed "Solar Flares and
Global Warming" when the quoted work (above) has NOTHING to do with "global
warming" (as everyone understands the term) but with *temperature anomalies*,
which are, by definition, temporary.

It states "the research suggests that for the large part variations in
global temperatures are beyond our control and are instead at the mercy
of the sun's activity."

Obviously, the American Institute of Physics has NEVER HEARD of the effect
atmospheric carbon dioxide has upon temperature.

As far as I can see it, this is a deliberate attempt to mislead the public.



and

http://metlink.org/conf2003/detail.php?recordID=70

This, again, is dealing with transients. It does not deny the effect
increasing CO2 has upon our atmospheric temperatures. It is also well-known
that the Sun is currently stable within its known cycles...

I had the misfortune to hear Piers Corbyn interviewed about the current heat
wave on some news programme, where he wittered on about solar particles.
Of course, he may have been edited into idiocy... but no news reporter has
even the basic knowledge to remind him the solar maximum has passed.


Few Cheers,

keith

---
OIL: regime change starts at home..

Which ideas, exactly?
...as I understand it the predominant influence on weather and climate is the flux of high energy
particles from the sun-down to the synoptic scale-a pretty astonishing claim,even foolish I think.

Nicola Scafetta and Bruce J. West

A broad statistical correlation (which is very difficult to follow). If it
holds up to scrutiny, the results are quite an achievement.

The papers says -as I understand it-that the type of statistics of solar flares and of climatic
temperature records are almost exactly similar (Nb it makes no big claims about correlations).
An interesting coincidence at least.

It states "the research suggests that for the large part variations in
global temperatures are beyond our control and are instead at the mercy
of the sun's activity."Obviously, the American Institute of Physics has NEVER HEARD of the effect
atmospheric carbon dioxide has upon temperature.
As far as I can see it, this is a deliberate attempt to mislead the public.

-I agree that is a step too far,and I hope is due to poor editorial control.

This, again, is dealing with transients.
I think that's the point.

I had the misfortune to hear Piers Corbyn interviewed..but no news reporter has
even the basic knowledge to remind him the solar maximum has passed.
Few Cheers,
keith
I agree ,tho we have had a protracted solar max .
I'm not endorsing Corbyns thesis ,but surely an open mind must be kept in view of results such as
the above?

Keep calm Keith ,it's too hot!
;-)
--
regards,
david

In article , "Waghorn" writes:

me: Which ideas, exactly?

...as I understand it the predominant influence on weather and climate is the
flux of high energy particles from the sun-down to the synoptic scale-a
pretty astonishing claim,even foolish I think.


Solar coronal mass ejections simply cannot have as much influence upon the
Earth's climate as solar radiation (photons), because they are intermittant,
but they can, and do, have transient effects, some of which are well-known.

(Others, such as deflecting cosmic rays and thereby reducing high-level
cloud-seeding are suspected and under investigation)

Therefore, the use of the word "predominant" cannot be supported.

To lump both effects together would be to say "the sun is the predominant
influence on (the Earth's) weather", which is a truism and most unhelpful.

That both vary is undeniable, but the relationship between the two is
unknown. The Maunder Minimum, when the sun was very quiet, is well-known
as coinciding with very cold (European) winters.


Nicola Scafetta and Bruce J. West

me: A broad statistical correlation (which is very difficult to follow). If it
me: holds up to scrutiny, the results are quite an achievement.

The papers says -as I understand it-that the type of statistics of solar flares and of climatic
temperature records are almost exactly similar (Nb it makes no big claims about correlations).

Thanks for that correction. I understand your point.

An interesting coincidence at least.

Yes, and the time scales are important.


me: It states "the research suggests that for the large part variations in
me: global temperatures are beyond our control and are instead at the mercy
me: of the sun's activity."Obviously, the American Institute of Physics has NEVER
me: HEARD of the effect
me: atmospheric carbon dioxide has upon temperature.
me: As far as I can see it, this is a deliberate attempt to mislead the public.

-I agree that is a step too far,and I hope is due to poor editorial control.

me: This, again, is dealing with transients.
I think that's the point.

me: I had the misfortune to hear Piers Corbyn interviewed..but no news reporter has
me: even the basic knowledge to remind him the solar maximum has passed.
me: Few Cheers,
me: keith

I agree ,tho we have had a protracted solar max .
I'm not endorsing Corbyns thesis ,but surely an open mind must be kept in view
of results such as the above?

Not of Corbyn's claims. He has stepped outside of science. He cannot predict
just when and where the next solar flare is going to occur, and therefore cannot
possibly integrate this into weather predictions covering several months.

I don't think even the long-standing and broad eleven-year cycle feeds through
to weather patterns, so it simply doesn't stand up to scrutiny.



Keep calm Keith ,it's too hot!
;-)

OK. I'm taking the tablet right now...


Cheers,

keith




---
OIL: regime change starts at home..