Future Timeline

[skierinvermont]

Yes he uses Rz, TSI, Geo-AA, and references GST to correlate. Look at page #1045. He uses a PSD (power spectral density) analysis. Do you know what that is, and why it is important when measuring a complicated system like the climate? Stochastic processing is used here, as even if there is a known beginning, where the processing leads is based on severla factors (in this case, climactic drivers). What one aspect (Geo-AA, for example) may demonstrate, temps do not match the time of occurance, but more of the response from the climate system based on how long it takes for feedbacks to occur.

Using a statistical analysis for what, now? Makes no sense to simple stat this.

1) You did not Describe the Peer review process in detail within the National Academic Journal of Physical sciences.

2) You do not understand the procceses used in creating a correlating GST-SOlar graph

3) You have not stated any evidence for an alternative hypothesis to the widely accepted theories.

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. To get anywhere in life, you must learn to recognize your limits instead of just trying to make up answers when you don't know them. I just explained to you what PSD is.

Again, no quantitative correlation test is used in this study. He performs a PSD analysis to determine the periodicity of sunspots, TSL, and Geo-AA. He then makes qualitative comparisons to surface temperature. This is not a sound statistical method for drawing conclusions.

[BethesdaWX]

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. To get anywhere in life, you must learn to recognize your limits instead of just trying to make up answers when you don't know them. I just explained to you what PSD is.

Again, no quantitative correlation test is used in this study. He performs a PSD analysis to determine the periodicity of sunspots, TSL, and Geo-AA. He then makes qualitative comparisons to surface temperature. This is not a sound statistical method for drawing conclusions.

You're absolutely Clueless, very pathetic.

Your argument makes no sense, because we do not know exactly how much warming has resulted from solar activity, solar correlation is measured qualitatively/more generalized. There is no exact attributation of measurement to attribute a quantitative measurement of solar activity per/yr, in trendlines etc. You think we can accurately distribute a trend among forcings accurately? Ha!

And regardless, until you understand that you cannot just correlate Solar = Temperature directly, this discussion is pointless.

[skierinvermont]

You're absolutely Clueless, very pathetic.

Your argument makes no sense, because we do not know exactly how much warming has resulted from solar activity, solar correlation is measured qualitatively/more generalized. There is no exact attributation of measurement to attribute a quantitative measurement of solar activity per/yr, in trendlines etc. You think we can accurately distribute a trend among forcings accurately? Ha!

And regardless, until you understand that you cannot just correlate Solar = Temperature directly, this discussion is pointless.

I've never argued that we should be able to find perfect correlations for all climate variables. By far the most important thing to look at is causative mechanism. There is no causative mechanism whereby solar flux significantly alters global temperatures.

Absent a causative mechanism, the only other proof one could offer is a correlation. And the study you have provided does not present us with a quantitative correlation. He makes qualitative observations such as "geomag-aa peaked in 1990, then temps peaked 8 years later, then geomag aa peaked in 2003 and temps peaked again 3 years later." This isn't a quantitative correlation and I could do the same thing he is doing with geomag-aa for piracy or some other random variable. This is a qualitative observation. If we actually conduct a quantitative test, we find that geomag-aa and temperature started diverging 20 years ago after solar flux peaked in 1990 followed by a protracted minimum, weaker peak, and then record lows.

So we don't have a causative mechanism and we don't have a quantitative correlation. We have qualitative comments from obscure researchers which frankly make very little sense. The lag period is constantly changing and the general decrease of geomag aa contrasting with the rapidly rising temperatures over the last 20 years is ignored.

Basically the assumption you and these researchers are starting with is that solar flux does affect climate and then you are trying to fit it into the box to find qualitative similarities with temperature.

[BethesdaWX]

I've never argued that we should be able to find perfect correlations for all climate variables. By far the most important thing to look at is causative mechanism. There is no causative mechanism whereby solar flux significantly alters global temperatures.

Absent a causative mechanism, the only other proof one could offer is a correlation. And the study you have provided does not present us with a quantitative correlation. He makes qualitative observations such as "geomag-aa peaked in 1990, then temps peaked 8 years later, then geomag aa peaked in 2003 and temps peaked again 3 years later." This isn't a quantitative correlation and I could do the same thing he is doing with geomag-aa for piracy or some other random variable. This is a qualitative observation. If we actually conduct a quantitative test, we find that geomag-aa and temperature started diverging 20 years ago after solar flux peaked in 1990 followed by a protracted minimum, weaker peak, and then record lows.

So we don't have a causative mechanism and we don't have a quantitative correlation. We have qualitative comments from obscure researchers which frankly make very little sense. The lag period is constantly changing and the general decrease of geomag aa contrasting with the rapidly rising temperatures over the last 20 years is ignored.

Basically the assumption you and these researchers are starting with is that solar flux does affect climate and then you are trying to fit it into the box to find qualitative similarities with temperature.

Please read my post, Please, I beg Ya!

The Geo-AA Index peaked in 2003-04, and was still quite "high" (base) into 2006, why do you keep straying off topic to the Flux itself (standalone), when there are several sources of magnetism? The Lag Time for The Geomagnetic-AA Index is not the same as the TSI, but there are problems in finding it out, quantitiave analysis cannot be used, I'll explain why at the End.

There have been certain fluctuations in the GTA that do not correlate to anything except the Geo Activity of the Sun, temperature impressions that match Geo-Flux Changes are evident in a 4-11yrs Lag, Depending on the IMF (interplanet Magnetic Field), its not as simple as Geo-Flux = Temperature = 1 Lag time. Nope. One period was in the Mid-2000's. The AA-Index Leveled off somewhat in the Late 1990's,but still continued a small Net Increase! (did NOT plummet util 2007), and impressions of GTA & GeoAA Match quite well to an extent in a longer Lag depending on the IMF, but much better after PDO/AMO/IOD are impemented into the equation. When the Geo-AA index was still high into 2006, in seeing a the Lag, we should not expect any significant impacts yet.

NOW

Here is why quantitative statistical analysis CANNOT be used.

When it comes to the Magnetic aspect of the Sun, we Do not Yet Know of a Causative Mechanism, because our knowledge is very Limited, and is a reason why there is Zero Proof that Magnetic Impacts of the Sun even affect the temperature. All we have are correlation, and they are very good when factoring in PDO/AMO/IOD/HLB/GSST, etc. But we do not yet know of anything that could lead to them yet......how many "causative mechanisms" there are on Global Temperatures? Alot Bro.

Thus a quantitative analysis does will not work.

[skierinvermont]

Please read my post, Please, I beg Ya!

The Geo-AA Index peaked in 2003-04, and was still quite "high" (base) into 2006, why do you keep straying off topic to the Flux itself (standalone), when there are several sources of magnetism? The Lag Time for The Geomagnetic-AA Index is not the same as the TSI, but there are problems in finding it out, quantitiave analysis cannot be used, I'll explain why at the End.

There have been certain fluctuations in the GTA that do not correlate to anything except the Geo Activity of the Sun, temperature impressions that match Geo-Flux Changes are evident in a 4-11yrs Lag, Depending on the IMF (interplanet Magnetic Field), its not as simple as Geo-Flux = Temperature = 1 Lag time. Nope. One period was in the Mid-2000's. The AA-Index Leveled off somewhat in the Late 1990's,but still continued a small Net Increase! (did NOT plummet util 2007), and impressions of GTA & GeoAA Match quite well to an extent in a longer Lag depending on the IMF, but much better after PDO/AMO/IOD are impemented into the equation. When the Geo-AA index was still high into 2006, in seeing a the Lag, we should not expect any significant impacts yet.

NOW

Here is why quantitative statistical analysis CANNOT be used.

When it comes to the Magnetic aspect of the Sun, we Do not Yet Know of a Causative Mechanism, because our knowledge is very Limited, and is a reason why there is Zero Proof that Magnetic Impacts of the Sun even affect the temperature. All we have are correlation, and they are very good when factoring in PDO/AMO/IOD/HLB/GSST, etc. But we do not yet know of anything that could lead to them yet......how many "causative mechanisms" there are on Global Temperatures? Alot Bro.

Thus a quantitative analysis does will not work.

This is factually incorrect. Geo-AA peaked in 1990 and has been declining since. The minimum between the 1990-2003 peaks was one of the longest deepest minimums since early last century. There was a brief spike in 2003. And since then we have decline, reaching record lows. Thus over the last 20 years, Geo-AA shows a complete divergence from global temperatures. The rapid decline has had no cooling effect, AS Landscheidt predicted it would. In 2000 Landscheidt SPECIFICALLY predicted global temperatures would drop based on the Geo-AA data from the 1990s. This was completely incorrect, which is not surprising considering there is no causative mechanism.

[BethesdaWX]

This is factually incorrect. Geo-AA peaked in 1990 and has been declining since. The minimum between the 1990-2003 peaks was one of the longest deepest minimums since early last century. There was a brief spike in 2003. And since then we have decline, reaching record lows. Thus over the last 20 years, Geo-AA shows a complete divergence from global temperatures. The rapid decline has had no cooling effect, AS Landscheidt predicted it would. In 2000 Landscheidt SPECIFICALLY predicted global temperatures would drop based on the Geo-AA data from the 1990s. This was completely incorrect, which is not surprising considering there is no causative mechanism.

No it didn't. We're NOT talking about the Open Flux...Or the Standalone Value either....Geeeeeesh, can you read? You obviously cannot understand HOW a plot in AA activity is used....There are many sources of Magnatism!

Official data from NASA/NOAA plotted for the Yearly Sum in Geomagnetic Acvitity.

[skierinvermont]

No it didn't. We're NOT talking about the Open Flux! Or the Standalone Value either! Geeeeeesh, can you read?

Official data from NASA/NOAA plotted for the Yearly Sum in Geomagnetic Acvitity.

I didn't post 'open flux' or 'standalone' values... I posted geomagnetic activity values. Which quite clearly have declined since 1990 which was the strongest peak of the century. Which is why Landscheidt predicted cooling.

I don't even think you know what open flux or 'standalone' is.

[BethesdaWX]

I didn't post 'open flux' or 'standalone' values... I posted geomagnetic activity values. Which quite clearly have declined since 1990 which was the strongest peak of the century. Which is why Landscheidt predicted cooling.

I don't even think you know what open flux or 'standalone' is.

The Highest peak of the AA INDEX was in 2003/04, not the Open Geomagnetic Activity. I'll Happily link you the description of the AA index, since you do not understand it obviously.

Either way, its not the highest peak that matters, its the base/or "mean" value that matters.

Look at the BASE of the AA index after the 2003 spike........A net increase from from 1995-2006...the highest base in the record! yes it Dropped heavily in 2007, but the lag time for correlations is not 1-2 yrs. Since we do not yet know of a mechanism, we cannot use quantitative analysis in regards to temparature correlation and what attribution is required! Lags have been found between 4-11 yrs depending on the Polarity of the IMF.....and that correlation gives somewhat better confidence ina better corelation. Based on configurations, it would be a Longer lag in this case.

[beneficii]

No it didn't. We're NOT talking about the Open Flux...Or the Standalone Value either....Geeeeeesh, can you read? You obviously cannot understand HOW a plot in AA activity is used....There are many sources of Magnatism!

This sort of thing seems to happen a lot. It makes the threads on the climate change forum difficult to follow.

[BethesdaWX]

This sort of thing seems to happen a lot. It makes the threads on the climate change forum difficult to follow.

i went over the top there i guess, im tryin to keep a level head, but its hard when i'm high as a motha****a

[skierinvermont]

The Highest peak of the AA INDEX was in 2003/04, not the Open Geomagnetic Activity. I'll Happily link you the description of the AA index, since you do not understand it obviously.

Either way, its not the highest peak that matters, its the base/or "mean" value that matters.

Look at the BASE of the AA index after the 2003 spike........A net increase from from 1995-2006...the highest base in the record! yes it Dropped heavily in 2007, but the lag time for correlations is not 1-2 yrs. Since we do not yet know of a mechanism, we cannot use quantitative analysis in regards to temparature correlation and what attribution is required! Lags have been found between 4-11 yrs depending on the Polarity of the IMF.....and that correlation gives somewhat better confidence ina better corelation. Based on configurations, it would be a Longer lag in this case.

For the last time, the image I posted WAS the AA Index (actually the AP index which is a different way of measuring the exact same thing). It quite clearly shows the 2003 peak to have been much weaker than the 1990 peak, and that Geo-AA has DECLINED since the 80s and early 90s. Moreover, Landscheidt agrees with me and disagrees with you. He said the strong decline in GEO-AA after 1990 would cause cooling in the 2000s. It hasn't.

[BethesdaWX]

For the last time, the image I posted WAS the AA Index (actually the AP index which is a different way of measuring the exact same thing). It quite clearly shows the 2003 peak to have been much weaker than the 1990 peak, and that Geo-AA has DECLINED since the 80s and early 90s. Moreover, Landscheidt agrees with me and disagrees with you. He said the strong decline in GEO-AA after 1990 would cause cooling in the 2000s. It hasn't.

NO, you're mis-understanding the factors invloved in measurement. Yes its the same "thing" (solar magnetism), but far different implications.

NOAA: http://www.ngdc.noaa...mag/aastar.html

AP index

Ap* is defined as the earliest occurring maximum 24-hour value obtained by computing an 8-point running average of successive 3-hour ap indices during a geomagnetic storm event without regard to the starting and ending times of the UT-day. It is uniquely associated with the storm event. Over many years, values of Ap* provide a maximum disturbance measure useful to identify major geomagnetic storms chronologically (by date and start time) and by amplitude from largest to the smallest. The earliest possible values are for 1932, because that is the first year for which the standard Kp and ap indices were produced. As NGDC staff or others have time to update Ap*, tables of values are available from 1932 to recent times. They are available by FTP transfer from the NGDC website.

AA index.

A simple global index of magnetic activity is produced in France from the K indices of two nearly antipodal magnetic observatories in England and Australia. This index aa, is the 3-hourly equivalent amplitude antipodal index. Daily average AA may be derived similarly to Ap. An historical advantage to using aa rather than ap is that these indices have been extended back in time through scaling of magnetic activity from magnetograms of earlier observations. The aa indices are derived from 1868 to the present. An AA* index has been derived that is the counterpart of Ap* but is available for a longer span of years. However, the AA* is derived from indices from only two magnetic observatories whereas Ap* incorporates indices from more observatories

AA index explained.

http://www.ukssdc.ac...ers/nature.html

What you seem to be doing here is Bunching all espects of the Sun into one Giant Clusterf**k. You need to understand HOW each system is used.

AA Index

AP Index. Being in the first storm in Geomag...you see a conparison to Sunspots.

Now do you understand?

[skierinvermont]

Yes I have read those descriptions, but apparently you haven't. Read again:

"Daily average AA may be derived similarly to Ap. The aa indices are derived from 1868 to the present. An AA* index has been derived that is the counterpart of Ap* but is available for a longer span of years. However, the AA* is derived from indices from only two magnetic observatories whereas Ap* incorporates indices from more observatories."

They measure the same aspect of the sun. All of the charts you are posting also clearly show that the the AA-Index peaked in 1990, and that the 2003 peak was weaker and shorter, and that we are currently at record low values. If AA-index has any significant effect, this dramatic drop since 1990 should have caused cooling. Which is exactly what Landscheidt predicted (DISAGREES with you). And he was wrong.

Sorry I am going to take Landscheidt's opinion over yours (and the fact that all of the charts of AA or AP show the 1990 peaker as stronger/longer than the 2003 peak, a protracted minimum between them, and record low values after the '03 peak).

[BethesdaWX]

Yes I have read those descriptions, but apparently you haven't. Read again:

"Daily average AA may be derived similarly to Ap. The aa indices are derived from 1868 to the present. An AA* index has been derived that is the counterpart of Ap* but is available for a longer span of years. However, the AA* is derived from indices from only two magnetic observatories whereas Ap* incorporates indices from more observatories."

They measure the same aspect of the sun. All of the charts you are posting also clearly show that the the AA-Index peaked in 1990, and that the 2003 peak was weaker and shorter, and that we are currently at record low values. If AA-index has any significant effect, this dramatic drop since 1990 should have caused cooling. Which is exactly what Landscheidt predicted (DISAGREES with you). And he was wrong.

Sorry I am going to take Landscheidt's opinion over yours (and the fact that all of the charts of AA or AP show the 1990 peaker as stronger/longer than the 2003 peak, a protracted minimum between them, and record low values after the '03 peak).

wow

1) 2003 was not weaker, it was actually a more directed at us than 1990 was.......why are you looking at Individual peaks instead of the Mean Value/Base? The AA index rose from 1994-2006, or from 1996-2005, 1 peak in 1990 means nothing. The Impacts of Magnetism are Long Term/cumulative, not Logorithmic, and the Lag Time for temperature is between 4-11yrs depending on the Polarity of the IMF.

I showed this to you in a link which you did not read.

2) My Chart below shows overall AA values by Year, since little spikes don't matter in the Long Run, its cumulative anyhow. The Amount of Magnetism in year 2003 was more than year 1990, not looking at individual spikes.

3) WHAT? Dude, Just because it can be derived similarly, doesn't mean it represents the same thing! You realize the AP index measures the 1st hrs of a Geomagetnic storm with 40+ days, while AA index requires 60+ days....right? And you fail to understand Lag.

AP

Ap* is defined as the earliest occurring maximum 24-hour value obtained by computing an 8-point running average of successive 3-hour ap indices during a geomagnetic storm event

AA

A simple global index of magnetic activity is produced in France from the K indices of two nearly antipodal magnetic observatories in England and Australia. This index aa, is the 3-hourly equivalent amplitude antipodal index.

For Historical Use, NOAA reccomends AA index, a simple global measurement of Magnetic activity.

4) The AA Index WARMED/Rose from 1994-2006, and solar magnetism has a Lag much longer than 1-2yrs. The 1990 peak cannot cause cooling when the base value remains higher through the 2000's...an individual peak doesn't matter You also have a warming PDO/AMO/IOD/GSST, essentially all drivers.

5) Until you can figure out the issue invloving LAG, you will keep flunking these arguments.

[skierinvermont]

Overall all the charts posted by either of us show the 1990 cycle as stronger than the 2003 cycle. End of story.

Geo-AA has dropped over the last two decades... and yet we have warmed. Landscheidt predicted cooling based off Geo-AA and he was wrong.

[BethesdaWX]

Overall all the charts posted by either of us show the 1990 cycle as stronger than the 2003 cycle. End of story.

Geo-AA has dropped over the last two decades... and yet we have warmed. Landscheidt predicted cooling based off Geo-AA and he was wrong.

You're scaring me dude...Say whaaa???

Wrong, don't look at individual spikes, look at the MEAN VALUE. Individual short lives spikes don't matter.

AA Mean value rose from 1994-2006, year 2003 had more magnetic activity than any other year in our history. He was wrong to assume it would continue to drop. Yearly values give us a better idea.

Remember, Its a cumulative thing, so the more high values we're exposed to, the more we'll warm.

The Lag is A DECADE when we see a directed force from the IMF (its polarity changes)...as we have in this case.

Here, I'll Be you

Heyyy, Each peak since 1968 has been higher!!

See how silly I sound? Mean value/impact is what needs to be stated.

[skierinvermont]

Yes.. the mean value is what should be looked at. And you are looking at a short lived 1-yr spike to claim 2003 was higher... which is wrong. the 1990 cycle had 5+ years of very elevated activity.

Here's one way of doing it. The 7 highest geo aa years since 1985 are (in order):

2003

1992

1990

1995

1993

1991

1994

So 6/7 of the highest years since 1985 occurred 1995 or earlier. The 7 lowest values since 1970 occurred after 1995 (1997,1998, 2006, 2007,2008,2009,2010)

[BethesdaWX]

Yes.. the mean value is what should be looked at. And you are looking at a short lived 1-yr spike to claim 2003 was higher... which is wrong. the 1990 cycle had 5+ years of very elevated activity.

Here's one way of doing it. The 7 highest geo aa years since 1985 are (in order):

2003

1992

1990

1995

1993

1991

1994

So 6/7 of the highest years since 1985 occurred 1995 or earlier.

???

Why do you keep posting Only Spikes? Spikes are not the mean Value.

Inlcude Everything, and look at the trend in the base. The late 1999-2005 period saw a Higher Magnetism Base any other period in history! So, coupled with the 2003 spike, there was no drop to counteract until 2007................Since the IMF is direct right now, expect a 10yr lag. If it has flipped its Polarity, it'd probably be 1/2 that.

IMF has to be superimposed on lag times.

[tacoman25]

Overall all the charts posted by either of us show the 1990 cycle as stronger than the 2003 cycle. End of story.

Geo-AA has dropped over the last two decades... and yet we have warmed. Landscheidt predicted cooling based off Geo-AA and he was wrong.

But the warming has slowed. Which means the Geo-AA could still be having an effect. And the real dramatic drop wasn't until the last few years.

[skierinvermont]

You want mean Bethesda? The red line is the 5 year mean.. clearly the 1990 cycle was higher. The trendline is strongly negative.

[skierinvermont]

But the warming has slowed. Which means the Geo-AA could still be having an effect. And the real dramatic drop wasn't until the last few years.

You are starting from the assumption geo-aa has an effect. There is no causative mechanism, and no correlation. If there is no mechanism, and no correlation, What reason, AT ALL, then do I have to believe geo-aa has the slightest effect?

The current geo-aa minimum is the lowest and most protracted in 150 years of records. We've gone from record highs to record lows. Landscheidt and the other moonbats that Bethesda is citing assert geo-aa is responsible for half the warming since 1900 and operates with a 4-8 year lag. Where is the rapid cooling?

The moderate decline from 1990 to 2003, and the rapid decline since 2003 are a powerful test of their hypothesis. Landscheidt SPECIFICALLY PREDICTED cooling during the 2000s based on the decline of geo-aa data up to 2000. This prediction failed. If you have the slightest regard for the scientific method, the hypothesis must be rejected.

[BethesdaWX]

But the warming has slowed. Which means the Geo-AA could still be having an effect. And the real dramatic drop wasn't until the last few years.

I think its interesting to note the longer Lag times during periods of stronger IMF as we have now (interplanet magnetic field), and how the earth's weakening Magnetic Field could theoretically affect solar influence and the lag time. When we last had similar IMF correlations in the 1990's, the Lag through Qualitative analysis displayed at 10 years/or 1 decade.

The reason I, and many other scientists, feel magnatism is significant, is simply because no other Indice/driver can explain that exact trend in Global temperatures, from the Late 90's to through 2005, which happens to coincide with the IMF cycle 10 years earlier.

[BethesdaWX]

You are starting from the assumption geo-aa has an effect. There is no causative mechanism, and no correlation. If there is no mechanism, and no correlation, What reason, AT ALL, then do I have to believe geo-aa has the slightest effect?

The current geo-aa minimum is the lowest and most protracted in 150 years of records. We've gone from record highs to record lows. Landscheidt and the other moonbats that Bethesda is citing assert geo-aa is responsible for half the warming since 1900 and operates with a 4-8 year lag. Where is the rapid cooling?

We do not know of a causative mechanism because our knowledge on these intricate processes are poor...not that there is none in existance. The correlation is fantastic when applying PDO/AMO/IOD/GSST indices.

Have you seen the correlation between the NAO/AO and the Geomagnetic Solar Activity? Its amazing...yet we do not know why. But we know the -NAO/-AO have Preceded Cold periods in the past....

The drop was in 2007, so considering the longer lag periods in direct IMF, we shouldn't see any yet. IMF needs to be superimposed on the lag times.

The 2011-2018 window is where we'd see the drop, meaning, could begin anywhere in this window. If it does not, then I'll be pissed.

Also do not forget what a 15% decrease means for magnetic Influence

The Best correlation of all is the Geo-AA and the AO/NAO.

[skierinvermont]

Well if Geo-aa has a lag of 4-8 years and is responsible for half the warming since 1900, as these moonbats say it is, then we should be dropping about .4C in the next 5 years.

The fact is we are talking about insignificant amounts of energy, there is no causative mechanism, and there is no correlation. I have no more reason to believe geo-aa affects climate than I have reason to believe piracy does.

[BethesdaWX]

Well if Geo-aa has a lag of 4-8 years and is responsible for half the warming since 1900, as these moonbats say it is, then we should be dropping about .4C in the next 5 years.

The fact is we are talking about insignificant amounts of energy, there is no causative mechanism, and there is no correlation. I have no more reason to believe geo-aa affects climate than I have reason to believe piracy does.

- Remember its a cumulative thing, 5 years of record Low Geo-AA during intra-cycle solar will not be sufficient erase a Century of Increase. (1999-2005 had the Highest GeoAA Base number of all time). I'd expect us to see a .15C drop (not including PDO/AMO) by 2020 if Geo remains low, though not necessarily record low. If it increases a bit, but remains lower than the recent mean, then probably .1C in addition to PDO/AMO cooling.

- Remember to superimpose the IMF

- Remember what a 10-15% decrease in the Earths Magnetic Field will do to Magnetism.

[tacoman25]

You are starting from the assumption geo-aa has an effect. There is no causative mechanism, and no correlation. If there is no mechanism, and no correlation, What reason, AT ALL, then do I have to believe geo-aa has the slightest effect?

The current geo-aa minimum is the lowest and most protracted in 150 years of records. We've gone from record highs to record lows. Landscheidt and the other moonbats that Bethesda is citing assert geo-aa is responsible for half the warming since 1900 and operates with a 4-8 year lag. Where is the rapid cooling?

The moderate decline from 1990 to 2003, and the rapid decline since 2003 are a powerful test of their hypothesis. Landscheidt SPECIFICALLY PREDICTED cooling during the 2000s based on the decline of geo-aa data up to 2000. This prediction failed. If you have the slightest regard for the scientific method, the hypothesis must be rejected.

I am saying just because we have not seen the cooling that Lanscheidt predicted does not rule out correlation. In fact, there is a correlation, since the warming has slowed notably since Geo-AA has dropped (Geo-AA favoring cooling, CO2 increase favoring warming during this period). The big drop didn't occur until the past few years, so with a 4-8 year lag, it's still too soon to say this recent big drop hasn't had the effect it should.

I don't have any assumption about Geo-AA having a certain effect. I'm just saying that it is possible the effect is there, but perhaps not as strong as Landscheidt predicted, given CO2 forcing. But to say there is no correlation just because there has not been rapid cooling is not a fair statement.

[tacoman25]

Well if Geo-aa has a lag of 4-8 years and is responsible for half the warming since 1900, as these moonbats say it is, then we should be dropping about .4C in the next 5 years.

I don't get your math here. What formula are you using?

[BethesdaWX]

I don't get your math here. What formula are you using?

He's assuming all the cumulative warming since 1900 related to Geomag will be erased by a 5 year drop. It would take an extended minimum to do that.

[skierinvermont]

I am saying just because we have not seen the cooling that Lanscheidt predicted does not rule out correlation. In fact, there is a correlation, since the warming has slowed notably since Geo-AA has dropped (Geo-AA favoring cooling, CO2 increase favoring warming during this period). The big drop didn't occur until the past few years, so with a 4-8 year lag, it's still too soon to say this recent big drop hasn't had the effect it should.

I don't have any assumption about Geo-AA having a certain effect. I'm just saying that it is possible the effect is there, but perhaps not as strong as Landscheidt predicted, given CO2 forcing. But to say there is no correlation just because there has not been rapid cooling is not a fair statement.

No there isn't a correlation... the strongest cooling should have begun 4-8 years after the last peak (1992). We had fairly normal warming 1998-2005 after correcting for ENSO (which is right when the strongest cooling should have been occurring). Basically their whole argument exists in saying that sometimes the lag is 3 years sometimes it is 10 years. Well that is not a quantitative correlation.

I could pick just about any variable in the universe and correlate it to temperature if you let me say the lag was sometimes 3 year sometimes 10 years, sometimes 12. They are picking a random variable for which there is no causative mechanism and trying to fit it into a box. IF there was a causative mechanism, then I would probably accept the idea that the lag changes. Since there is no causative mechanism, and no correlation, I find no evidence.

It's complete nonsense. Fluctuations in global temperature actually do statistically correlate to TSI, unlike geo-aa. Which is what explains the slowing of warming since the TSI peak.

[skierinvermont]

He's assuming all the cumulative warming since 1900 related to Geomag will be erased by a 5 year drop. It would take an extended minimum to do that.

Oh I see. Of course it would.

That's what Landscheidt hypothesized anyways. He claimed the 1960s and 70s cooling was related to geomag-aa. Geomag-aa is far lower than it was in the 60s and 70s. So the cooling effect should be even larger.

(The cooling in the 60s and 70s has nothing to do with geo-aa, and everything to do with aerosols, the pdo, volcanoes, and weaker tsi)