Wednesday, June 06, 2007

Climate: The Astrology Model

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.

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

With cites.

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.”

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.
Climate is much more complicated than the IPCC scientists even imagine.
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.

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?


LarryD said...

James Lewis, at American Thinker, wrote an essay entitled Global Warming as European Imperialism. I think he nailed it.

Accordingly, I think that when
GW jumps the Shark, that they'll look for something else to try and put the world under their control with.

They may be thinking about that now, with China going to pass the US in CO2 emission this year, the embarrassing failure of their carbon trading scheme in Europe, and Bush's pre-emptive end run around Kyoto II.

Anonymous said...


The climate change people will take into account new scenarios for how the Sun behaves when the experts on the Sun agree that they make sense. Not before.

A relevant example from the history of science: One of the great physicists of the day, Lord Kelvin, estimated the age of the Earth to be about 24 Million years, based on his model of how it would have cooled off after formation. This created a problem for geologists generally, and for Darwin's theory specifically. This couldn't be resolved by any discussion among geologists and biologists: The resolution came with the discovery of radioactivity, which invalidated Kelvin's calculation.

wrt taxing the Sun: Again, let's stick to the issue. If we're talking about causes and results, we're talking about science. If we're talking about cures, we're talking policies. Let's not confuse them.

They are more different than volts and amperes.

M. Simon said...

Neal says:

The climate change people will take into account new scenarios for how the Sun behaves when the experts on the Sun agree that they make sense. Not before.

It does make sense. You are just a denier.

However, I will grant you this: when the CO2 guys KNOW the sign of the water vapor term in their equations and the magnitude to within say 20% I'll give their prognostications more weight.

From where I sit the solar theories have as much weight as the CO2 theories.

If the solar guys are correct cutting back on energy production will be a disaster.

OTOH if the CO2 guys are right adaptation may be the best way to go. So I support the USA policy of developing technology and observing.

For the last 8 or 9 years global temperatures have stalled. It could be an inflection point (if the solar guys are right) or it could be a result of a confluence of internal cycles (if the CO2 folks are right).

In any case if we don't get the industrializing countries on board the CO2 band wagon none of the CO2 mitigation stuff is going to matter much re: global CO2 output.

Anonymous said...

M. Simon,

The problem is not that the climate scientists don't agree. The point is that the mainstream of solar scientists don't agree with these new models.

How can increases in cosmic-ray flux explain current GW, when for the last 3 solar cycles the CRF have been going up/down, up/down, up/down - but the GW has been going up pretty steady?

Likewise, how can the tightly constrained variation of solar luminosity (to within 0.1%) explain the current GW trend?

Because a vital point is that GW has not stalled. Because of the high degree of jumpiness and the multi-year rhythms in weather (El Nino-Southern Oscillation, etc.), to pull out the trend of the climate, the customary thing is to apply something like a 5-year smoothing filter: you get a running average that way. (This is a technique used in many areas of quantitative science.) When you do that, you are not confused by the peak at 1998 and the valley in 2000.

Here's what you get.

I agree with you that it will be necessary to get China, India and others on-board to stop the C-O2 train: However, I'll point out that so long as people keep trying to resuscitate the "it's not happening" and the "it's not due to us" opinions - opinions which mainstream scientists view as having gone 'way past their sell-by dates - so long will the developing countries have an excuse not to tackle their end of the problem. "If you rich people aren't going to do anything, why should we poor people?". "If you rich people don't believe it has anything to do with C-O2, then why should we poor people remain poor instead of using coal?"

But the reason for sticking to the science, and the scientific mainstream, on this matter is not for political-economic reasons. The right reason is that it is most likely correct. And your policy decisions will always be more appropriate when you're speaking to a correct understanding of the situation - not one informed mostly by wishful thinking.

Sowmya said...


I would like you to read this post and say your comments on it.

M. Simon said...


The link is interesting.

Anonymous said...

Get Your Personalized Astrology Reading and My "Practical Astrology" Book Now, 100 % FREE