Steve Schulin wrote:
June 10, 2005

News Release

Weather Action Long Range Forecasters say:
NO SUPERHEATWAVES THIS SUMMER
& 'This lousy weekend - We told you so!

There will be NO SUPERHEATWAVES in Britain this summer announced Weather
Action Long range forecasters this morning in a forthright contradiction
of claims from other quarters publicised last month. "There will be
hotspells - and we know when - but none of them will be long enough to
be record-breakers. Nowhere will reach 101 degF" said Piers Corbyn
astrophysicist of Weather Action. "I am ready to bet with anyone on
this", he said


Well whoop-de-doo, Piers is really putting his neck on the line with
that one.

I'll bet my house we don't get snow in Tokyo this summer either.

You'll have noted that he pointedly refuses to bet on his "climate
forecast" of cooling in coming decades.

http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/20...ith-piers.html

James

In article , Steve Schulin writes:
In article ,
"Rob Overfield" wrote:

Steve Schulin wrote:
"Rob Overfield" wrote:

My analysis: Piers Corbyn = fraudster.

You ask him to put his method under scientific analysis, and see
what he says!

Gee whiz, he might just refer to Dennis Wheeler's peer reviewed
article which reports exactly that which you appear to think undone:
Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 63:29-34, 2001


And on the basis of that one favourable study you're willing to say he's
right? ...

I've never claimed that Corbyn is right. I do offer my observation that
the group whom I've come to call the "global governance crowd" of
calamitologists seem to focus exclusively on solar irradiance changes
when considering how much of recent temperature changes can be
attributed to sun.

No they don't.


...Corbyn appears well ahead of them in following the
data to other aspects of solar effects on Earth.

So who provides this data, if people are focusing exclusively on what you
term "solar irradiance"?

You've just contradicted yourself.



... Piers loves to brag about the results but yet he is not willing to
let his methods be reviewed and tested, and for heavens sake, he's a
physicist not a meteorologist.

He's a businessman. I sure understand his reluctance to give away that
which feeds his and his employees' families.

Exactly. He couldn't hack it within his own scientific discipline, so
he turned to business?


No Cheers,

keith




---
Iraq: 6.5 thousand million pounds, 80 UK lives, and counting...
100,000+ civilian casualties, largely of coalition bombing...

In article ,
"Waghorn" wrote:

"Lloyd Parker"
Most scientific theories hold up quite nicely -- quantum mechanics,
relativity, evolution, plate tectonics, black holes, etc. Please tell
uis
all these scientific theories that have been overturned recently.

In the current context it might be pedantic to point out that all the
theories you quote have 'exotic' or alternative models proposed,many in
the
peer reviewed literature-
Quantum Mechanics-plethora of interpretations including 'Many
Worlds',Hidden Variables etc.

Interpretations of QM -- they are not competing theories to QM. Copehagen
and Many Worlds are the 2 major interpretations. Hidden variables doesn't
rise to the level of "theory" because there's no evidence for it.

Special Relativity-eg Aether theories , results of Michelson Morley

Not really. M-M disproved aether before Einstein's theories.

Experiment and modern equivalents questioned to this day.
Evolution-Creationism,'Punctuated Equilibrium'.

You're not seriously saying creationism is a scientific theory, I hope. And
punctured eq. is a variation of evolution, not a competing theory.

Plate Tectonics-Expanding Earth,Plate Driven Tectonics Vs Plume Driven .
(In theory of the core-the nuclear reactor
model)
Black Holes-Gravstars,Condensate Stars.

All part of the same theory.


If you read New Scientist you'll find an almost weekly diet of such 'left
field' stuff.It would seem that healthy mainstream theories always attract
alternative ideas,some with more credibility than others.Is it a sign of
the
vitality and relevance of canonical theories that they attract or leave
room for alternatives?

Also by concentrating on Corbyn the thread seems to ignore other work going
on in the field of Solar-Geomagnetism-Weather-Climate.For a recent snapshot
of research in the peer reviewed literature see-
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...&_auth=y&_acct
=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md 5=4655039ac8561ae96010ffa9
73acee75
Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics
Volume 67, Issues 1-2, Pages 1-218 (January 2005)
Solar Activity Forcing of the Middle Atmosphere
Free issue online,

"Lloyd Parker" "Waghorn""Lloyd Parker"
Most scientific theories hold up quite nicely -- quantum mechanics,
relativity, evolution, plate tectonics, black holes, etc. Please tell
uis
all these scientific theories that have been overturned recently.

In the current context it might be pedantic to point out that all the
theories you quote have 'exotic' or alternative models proposed,many in
the
peer reviewed literature-
Quantum Mechanics-plethora of interpretations including 'Many
Worlds',Hidden Variables etc.

Interpretations of QM -- they are not competing theories to QM. Copehagen
and Many Worlds are the 2 major interpretations. Hidden variables doesn't
rise to the level of "theory" because there's no evidence for it.

Special Relativity-eg Aether theories , results of Michelson Morley

Not really. M-M disproved aether before Einstein's theories.

Experiment and modern equivalents questioned to this day.
Evolution-Creationism,'Punctuated Equilibrium'.

You're not seriously saying creationism is a scientific theory, I hope.
And
punctured eq. is a variation of evolution, not a competing theory.

Plate Tectonics-Expanding Earth,Plate Driven Tectonics Vs Plume Driven .
(In theory of the core-the nuclear reactor
model)
Black Holes-Gravstars,Condensate Stars.

All part of the same theory.

Well,I could come back to you on the individual points,but my idea was that
no theory stands alone as an unassailable monolith.
(indeed in the Popperian sense any useful theory has to be refutable).But
good theories withstand attacks from the wings as you imply,though in the
sense of Kuhn some will eventually give way to new paradigms.But,I'm way off
the thread.........


--
regards,
David

add '17' to Waghorne to reply

In article , "CK" writes:

Thick? Well, maybe - but also able to make up my own mind...

Are you *really* sure about that?

"in the long run temperatures control CO2 - not the other way around" And
on Venus? How *did* it get to be so hot?


This is core to Corbyn's claims. Corbyn is implying that CO2 is not a greenhouse
gas, is he not? So, Chris, how *did* it get to be so hot on Venus, if
"temperatures control CO2 - not the other way around"? What have you made your
mind up about that?

By order of distance from the Sun...

Average surface temperature of Mercury about 430K with very thin H and He
Average surface temperature of Venus about 730K with an atmosphere of CO2
Average surface temperature of Earth about 288K with an atmosphere of O and N


Is Corbyn lying?


Cheers,

keith




---
Iraq: 6.5 thousand million pounds, 80 UK lives, and counting...
100,000+ civilian casualties, largely of coalition bombing...

In article ,
"Waghorn" wrote:

"Lloyd Parker" "Waghorn""Lloyd Parker"
Most scientific theories hold up quite nicely -- quantum mechanics,
relativity, evolution, plate tectonics, black holes, etc. Please tell
uis
all these scientific theories that have been overturned recently.

In the current context it might be pedantic to point out that all the
theories you quote have 'exotic' or alternative models proposed,many in
the
peer reviewed literature-
Quantum Mechanics-plethora of interpretations including 'Many
Worlds',Hidden Variables etc.

Interpretations of QM -- they are not competing theories to QM.
Copehagen
and Many Worlds are the 2 major interpretations. Hidden variables
doesn't
rise to the level of "theory" because there's no evidence for it.

Special Relativity-eg Aether theories , results of Michelson Morley

Not really. M-M disproved aether before Einstein's theories.

Experiment and modern equivalents questioned to this day.
Evolution-Creationism,'Punctuated Equilibrium'.

You're not seriously saying creationism is a scientific theory, I hope.
And
punctured eq. is a variation of evolution, not a competing theory.

Plate Tectonics-Expanding Earth,Plate Driven Tectonics Vs Plume Driven .
(In theory of the core-the nuclear reactor
model)
Black Holes-Gravstars,Condensate Stars.

All part of the same theory.

Well,I could come back to you on the individual points,but my idea was that
no theory stands alone as an unassailable monolith.
(indeed in the Popperian sense any useful theory has to be refutable).But
good theories withstand attacks from the wings as you imply,though in the
sense of Kuhn some will eventually give way to new paradigms.But,I'm way
off
the thread.........


Theories that are the cornerstones of science today have been repeatedly
tested and not disproved: atomic theory, evolution, quantum mechanics,
relativity, plate tectonics, to name to most obvious ones. Yes, they are
refined from time to time; yes, they are subject to different ways of
thinking about them; but disproven? No. Science is at the point today
where, by the time something is accorded the status of "theory", it's as
established as anything gets.