Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

The sun, the climate, El Nino, and stuff

Expand Messages
  • David
    Long-Range U.S. Drought Forecast (16 Mar 03) www.vision.net.au/~daly/#drought By John L. Daly Following from his stunning success in predicting the timing of
    Message 1 of 2 , Aug 2, 2003
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      Long-Range U.S. Drought Forecast (16 Mar 03)

      www.vision.net.au/~daly/#drought

      By John L. Daly

      Following from his stunning success in predicting the timing of the
      current El Niño over 4 years ago, Dr Theodor Landscheidt has now
      applied his solar analysis technique to the problem of periodic
      drought conditions in the U.S. He has developed a long-range forecast
      covering the period up to 2030.

      He predicts that the next extended wet period should begin around 2007
      and last about 7 to 8 years. A drought peak is to be expected from
      2025 onwards and should last about five years.

      There are many Australian farmers who must now wish they had heeded
      his prediction, made in January 1999, that an El Niño would strike
      in
      late 2002, calling it nearly 4 years ahead of time when the best
      advance warning the major climatic institutions could manage was only
      a few months.

      Dr Landscheidt's new paper is here:

      Long-Range Forecast of U.S. Drought Based on Solar Activity
      www.vision.net.au/~daly/s...rought.htm

      by Dr Theodor Landscheidt

      Schroeter Institute for Research in Cycles of Solar Activity
      Klammerfelsweg 5, 93449 Waldmuenchen, Germany
      th.landscheidt@...

      What John L. Daly says of Australian farmers is of course true of
      North American farmers, whose livelihood is affected just as
      extensively by the cyclical variations in solar activity.

      Dr. Theodor Landscheidt is a prominent scientist involved in studying
      the cyclical nature of solar activity and its impact on climate
      trends. As such he contributed a large amount of very precise
      information useful for the debunking of the man-made-global-warming
      hype promoted by climate alarmists. Not too surprisingly, the hard and
      cold scientific facts provided by Dr. Landscheidt and his
      collaborators are being ignored by the climate alarmists whose very
      financial well-being is being threatened by anything that debunks the
      myth that global warming is man-made.

      Yet, the strong correlation between the cycles of solar variation and
      specific cycles of regional weather manifestations, as Dr. Landscheidt
      demonstrated, can be proven not only by relating solar variations to
      specific large-scale weather events in the past, such as the
      occurrence of floods in the River Po drainage basin, the end of the
      Sahelian drought in Africa and the big El Niño event of 2002-2003,
      it
      was used to predict with astounding accuracy - years in advance - when
      those three events were to occur and when others like them will
      happen.

      In the report identified above, Dr. Landscheidt focuses his attention
      on the correlation of the measured cycle of solar activity with North
      American measured variations in the extent of drought conditions since
      1900 (as per the Palmer Drought Index). Dr. Landscheidt predicts that
      general drought conditions will prevail until 2007, when the cycle of
      drought conditions caused by the variations in the cycle of solar flux
      will revert to a period of a few years of wet weather.

      It is doubtful that Dr. Landscheidt's prediction will find many
      adherents. Instead, when his predictions are born out by reality, that
      reality will be used to "prove" that all of the efforts and trillions
      of dollars spent world-wide in curbing the effects of man-made global
      warming will have had the result of bringing an end to the drought
      conditions in whose grip we presently find ourselves.

      It is fairly safe to assume that, driven to blind obedience by their
      climate-alarmist handlers, the governments who are signatories to the
      Kyoto Accord will continue to ignore all evidence to the contrary of
      their belief in the ideology of man-made global warming. It appears
      that they have got their minds firmly made up and that absolutely no
      facts will confuse them, not even when those facts are presented by
      Dr. Theodor Landscheidt who has a flawless record of making accurate
      long-term predictions of specific instances of fluctuations in climate
      events, predictions with an accuracy completely unmatched by any
      simulations produced by means of the general circulation models (GCMs)
      that the climate alarmists have become so very fond of.

      Nevertheless, the GCMs suffer from a malady that affected especially
      large-scale computing models since the advent of computers and gained
      a degree of infamy under the acronym GIGO (garbage in, garbage out).
      Not too surprisingly, the results of GCM simulations attempting to
      verify what the climate was in the past and will be in the future
      suffer from glaring inaccuracies due to them not taking into account
      entirely predictable fluctuations in solar activity and their impact
      on climate trends.

      Nevertheless, we should count ourselves lucky, in spite of being made
      to pay through the nose, ostensibly to fight the "man-made" global
      warming announced by some of the same government-funded climate
      alarmists who announced with great gusto in the 1970's that we would
      all begin to perish by about 1985 from the man-made ice age that they
      claimed was then in the making. The Kyoto accord will affect how much
      money we can keep to ourselves after we gave to Caesar, it will not in
      the least affect the weather. Kyoto accord or not, as far as the
      climate goes, global warming will remain as absent during the next few
      decades as it has generally done for the last century.

      Weather and climate depend on the sun and not on the false predictions
      made by GCMs that as of now don't even remotely simulate with an
      acceptable degree of accuracy what the climate trends were, let alone
      forecast them.

      In the meantime we would be well advised to put our money – what
      little is left of it after the government is through paying for the
      folly of the Kyoto accord – on Dr. Landscheidt and other people
      like
      him whose research and predictions shine with stunning accuracy and
      not on account of misguided, taxpayer-funded government largesse.

      We can't change the climate or the weather, but we can control to some
      extent how much money is being vacuumed out of our pockets, by voting
      out of office all politicians who either promote the Kyoto Accord or
      fail to oppose it. Besides thus addressing the pressing problem of
      ever escalating taxation, we will thereby also solve quite a few more
      social ills caused by escalating government control in many other
      areas of our lives.

      ______________________


      Schroeter Institute for Research in Cycles of Solar Activity
      Klammerfelsweg 5, 93449 Waldmuenchen, Germany

      th.landscheidt@...

      Abstract:

      Analysis of the sun's varying activity in the last two millennia
      indicates that contrary to the IPCC's speculation about man-made
      global warming as high as 5.8° C within the next hundred years, a
      long
      period of cool climate with its coldest phase around 2030 is to be
      expected. It is shown that minima in the 80 to 90-year Gleissberg
      cycle of solar activity, coinciding with periods of cool climate on
      Earth, are consistently linked to an 83-year cycle in the change of
      the rotary force driving the sun's oscillatory motion about the centre
      of mass of the solar system. As the future course of this cycle and
      its amplitudes can be computed, it can be seen that the Gleissberg
      minimum around 2030 and another one around 2200 will be of the Maunder
      minimum type accompanied by severe cooling on Earth. This forecast
      should prove skillful as other long-range forecasts of climate
      phenomena, based on cycles in the sun's orbital motion, have turned
      out correct as for instance the prediction of the last three El
      Niños
      years before the respective event.

      Entire Document: mitosyfraudes.8k.com/Cale...idt-1.html
    • Mike Doran
      The corporative state is disfunctional, because the human element is the only thing that can rise above and problem solve collectively. The corporative state
      Message 2 of 2 , Aug 3, 2003
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        The corporative state is disfunctional, because the human element is
        the only thing that can rise above and problem solve collectively.
        The corporative state is too self serving an organization of society
        to ever solve a collective problem that is not having to do with
        short term profits and materialism.

        A good example from my narrow interest on climate on this is the ASU
        climatology head. Arizona State has a new wing to its climatology
        department added. Not long after, the climatology department chair
        was a so-called skeptic.

        Like the rest of the skeptics, ASU's head of climatology has no
        electrical or biological sciences background. This feature of buying
        the debate is not just limited to the global warming debate, extends
        to the whole spectrum of political and intellectual discourse that
        occurs in this country and more and more, around the world.

        One of the more common talking points put out by the fascists is that
        the wealth that the corporative state creates will overcome
        ecological problems (disasters).

        But in point of fact, instead of problem solving with that wealth,
        the ASU example is quite the other direction. It is unsolving the
        problem, going so far as to institutionalize a rationalization for
        subsidies that actually are an economic disaster to go along with an
        ecological one. Hubbert's peak looms, and the economic consequences
        of subsidy toward the structure of the society in the face of a very
        limited resource is economic suicide over time. The corporate state
        could care less--it isn't into "planning", but the bottom line of
        each entity involved.

        Currently, this is being achieved politically by transfers of wealth
        that are occurring between high density and low density regions, and
        the power base situated in the low density areas. But the subsidies
        are becoming less and less effective at creating this wealth
        transfer.

        The science and politics is about to get ugly.

        +++++++

        Where should the climate debate actually go? I myself am interested
        in combated the latest talking points of the fascists, which
        essentially goes like this. The sun causes climate change all by
        itself. Climate is chaotic and beyond human control. Therefore,
        support massive wealth transfers and subsidies toward low density
        growth and a fossil fuel economy. It is part of a corporative state
        propaganda that also has hurdles on the economy side of the house,
        with problems like Hubbert's peak looming.

        Leading the fascist talking points is an internet OZ man, John Daly.
        Right now the only climate theory Daly pushes on his own (as opposed
        to propaganda like critical commentary of other people's work) is by
        Dr. Theodor Landscheidt. This is some of the statistics behind the
        propaganda. As it has been said, there are lies, [expletive] lies,
        and statistics.

        Here is a drought paper based on the solar forcing espounsed by Dr.
        Landshceidt.

        http://www.john-daly.com/solar/US-drought.htm

        Dr. Landscheidt writes in conclusion:

        "Anyway, the correct forecast of the U.S. drought beginning in 1999
        and a dozen of further successful climate forecasts, exclusively
        based on solar activity, show already now that the IPCC's claim that
        there has only been a negligible solar effect on climate change in
        recent decades is not tenable. Ironically, just drought, the
        greatest threat attributed to alleged man-made global warming, has
        turned out to be regulated by variations in the sun's eruptional
        activity."


        And another Dr. Landscheidt paper entitled La on Decadal-Scale
        Variations in El-Niño Intensity located here:

        http://www.john-daly.com/theodor/DecadalEnso.htm

        Dr. Landscheidt writes in conclusion:

        "Contrary to the vague "storylines" the IPCC publicizes to speculate
        about man-made global warming as high as 5.8° C by 2100, the forecast
        presented here is based on data covering half a millenium. There is a
        theoretical background, but the forecast does not rely on it. The
        reliability of the involved solar motion cycles has been checked by
        13 well-documented long-range forecasts of diverse climate phenomena
        that turned out correct without exception (Landscheidt, 1983-2003).

        Pertinently, this includes the last three El Niños. I have been told
        by IPCC adherents that there is nothing special about correctly
        forecasting El Niño events. They cited the report of Kerr (1998) in
        Science entitled "Models win big in forecasting El Niño." Landsea and
        Knaff (2000), who employed a statistical tool to evaluate the skill
        of twelve state-of-the-art climate models in real-time predictions of
        the development of the 1997-1998 El Niño, found however that the
        models exhibited essentially no skill in forecasting the event at
        lead times ranging from 0 to 8 months. It should be noted that my
        last rather precise El Niño forecast, exclusively based on solar
        activity, was made more than three years before the event
        (Landscheidt, 2002).

        When dealing with an utterly complex system like climate, there is no
        other way to check hypotheses than by non-trivial forecast
        experiments. So this further long-range climate forecast solely based
        on solar activity may serve as a touchstone of the IPCC's claim that
        since 1950 or at least in recent decades the Sun's variable activity
        has practically had no effect on climate change. "

        Comments:

        On the drought in the U.S.--he claims this matches, but in point of
        fact the drought in, say, Florida effectively ended in 2002 and the
        one in the SW is just ending now. Nothing in the regional impacts
        can be addressed by the statistics sited because it is of the whole
        U.S. I would agree that the sun w/ its radiative and electrical
        aspects does have a cycle that inputs into the cloud forcing, what is
        not described is how the modulation of the system by the biosphere
        interplays with this input. Thus, the 500 year El Nino in 1998
        brought huge amounts of rain to Southern California yet the
        one "predicted" by Landscheidt brought Landscheidt ended the drought
        in Florida but did not end the drought in the SW. Why? How does the
        Dust Bowl and the Colorado, Mississippi, and Rio changes correlate--
        what does the microbial biosphere's health have to do with
        conductivity if the issue is the signal from the sun that creates
        cloud behaviors? Again, the correlative studies don't get to cause
        of modulation, which are biological and electrical. The very fact
        that a signal is even recognizable as an input depends on this
        variabel resistance, impedance. This is where human activity causes
        change--in the modulation side. Recently, CAP and the specific
        REGIONAL drought in the SW are contrary to both the prediction of
        drought and the ENSO forecast but is consistant with reduction in the
        biosphere that results in conductivity decreases in the Gulf of
        California, and hence poor conductivity of electrical ion waves to
        bring convection to the SW.

        A global look is dangerous when Gaia modulations, chemical and
        temperature, are LOCAL. A year or so ago, Ben Cash of Princeton and
        I discussed this very issue online, and here on this group our
        discussion can be found with a search of his name, and he had his
        butt handed to him pretty much over the same issue of local
        limitations of modeling. His own complex models, much like
        Landschiedt's, could not describe local changes. Likewise, inputs to
        climate can have grand impact but at the end of the day it is the
        local modulations that create chemistry modulations. If an area is
        gaia healthy from a chemical standpoint, rain fed back will wash that
        chemistry to the oceans and maintain its living chemistry range.
        Likewise, local temperature feedbacks determine upwelling by SST
        stratification and hence nutrient levels--that is the essence of
        ENSO. ENSO is a biological flip of conductivities brought about by
        upwelling and nutrients. This is how an essentially uncoupled SST
        (thermal energy of ocean surface) to cloud behavior reverses itself.
        Upwelling is cold, but biologically helpful--hence the paradox is
        described. It is electrically described as well, as colder
        conditions of salt water are more resistive, or offer more impedance
        to large scale low frequancy ion movments, or electrical alternating
        currents.

        Landscheidt's ideas fail to include what the luner cycle does to the
        LIA. It fails to include the recent Dane research on cosmic rays, or
        corralations of Milankovitch to climate. But electrical/thermal
        conditions do give a good picture. Cosmic rays are electrical in
        impact and Milankovitch will alter the signal noise ratios of the
        solar ion input gathered by the earth magnetic poles in relation to
        the convection brought about charge separations, in addition to
        changing solar insOlation. Finally, the LIA and the luner
        correlations are interesting because the moon's gravity wave stirs
        the oceans and alters local conductivities in so stirring. This
        stirring directly impacts cloud behaviors and cummulatively, with the
        pattern of the luner orbit, alters climate. Keeling and Whorf have
        associated luner patterns with the Little Ice Age cycle.

        Finally, the fundimental flaw in the Dr. Landschiedt approach can be
        understood by a mystery presented by Carl Sagan. In his paper on the
        sun, he queried about how the sun was about 25% more lumenous on
        longer timescales. The problem, it is framed, is how a more lumeous
        sun did not boil the oceans, or why the earth wasn't an ice block in
        the past. The answer is biological, in that the signal from the sun
        is a highly modulated one by the biosphere. In the past, biological
        conductivities would have had to be more intense to capture the solar
        activity's electrical and radiative outputs. The Eocine's lack of
        microbial activity with its warming is a more recent example of the
        same issue going the other way.

        So, as Dr. Landschiedt frames and concludes about the problem, it is
        yet another strawman. That is because the problem is modulation
        then, modulation now, don't add huge quantities of a biological
        forcing that had been sequestered out of the biosphere because you
        create defects in BIOLOGICAL feedback loops. Just like our bodies,
        when we are hot we sweat, cold we shiver. When we are sick, he have
        chills and fever. But as our fever rises to 108 degrees F. and
        above, our organs fail, and soon the modulation ends, and we become
        the temperature of our surroundings. That temperature could be that
        of the ice block of Mars or the gas ball of Venus! By looking only at
        the system as closed and physical, scientists like Dr. Landschiedt,
        uneducated in EMFs or biological systems, do this debate far more
        harm than good. But sadly, it is a problem that has existed
        throughout this debate . . .
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.