I was doing some browsing around at Climate Audit, Steve McIntyre's blog and came across a comment from Steve saying the discussion of astrology in relation to climate science was banned. Well you know me. I can't resist a challenge.
OK. I’m going to bite the astrology thing and risk banning.I found an article on Nelson's work published in the late 40s or early 50s. The accuracy given is around 80% not the 85% the commenter mentioned.
It seems that reliable ionosphere predictions re: short wave communications can be made by the relative positions of the Earth Mars and Jupiter.
A cursory search did not turn up the “astrology” connection to the ionosphere. I believe I read the piece in Analog Magazine 20 or 30 years ago in a science fact article. I’ll report back if I find a reference.
I found it here at Climate Audit.
Cross Posted at Classical Values
CA is the best!
Let me quote a bit from the CA comment linked above:J.H. Nelson received acclaim from people all over the globe - from those who are interested about what is happening in the earth’s ionosphere. The acclaim is the result of Mr. Nelson’s achievement of 85% accuracy in predicting magnetic storms affecting radio signals. In this book, long awaited by the scientific community, Mr. Nelson discusses in detail his unique method of charting planetary angles to make his predictions. J.H. Nelson became the president of RCA.”Climate is much more complicated than the IPCC scientists even imagine.
There is little doubt that Nelson’s methods were effective, and to this day the RCA forecasts derived by Nelson’s methods are accepted as reliable by their users, particularly airborne geophysical survey contractors and the like who are very sensitive to the impact of magnetic storms.
An interesting test for scientists is whether they are prepared to look into Nelson’s work from a scientific viewpoint. Unlike certain other scientists, Nelson provided his data and methods, and it has turned out that they are indeed replicable. However, we can anticipate that many “scientists” will dismiss his work as “astrology” or similar pejorative terms, without bothering to actually look at the work.
Here is an article about a guy who predicts stock market peaks and troughs by a similar method. According to reports I have read he seems to get good results.
Another article about a scientist, Dr. Landscheidt, who makes climate predictions based on planetary positions. Unlike the above guys who are empirical, he bases his theory on a model of the sun which seems to have some validity.
Here is a more technical explanation of Dr. Landscheidt's theories. Let me just quote from the grabber at the top of the article:
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.I still wonder if the climate change guys are using a valid model to predict the effects of solar output on the earth. Not just raw power output, but geomagnetism, and currents in space.
One interesting thing I learned through all this is that the orbital period of Jupiter, 11.9 years, is not too far off from the average sunspot cycle which is 11 years. It may just be a coincidence. Or it may be significant. The thing is the IPCC doesn't even address such questions.
I mean really. If climate change is strictly solar driven what will the Climate Changers do? Tax the sun?