VK Logger Ham Radio Forum Archive

Here is an interesting article I was made aware of about NASA predicting Cycle 25 to be even worse than the current one.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... again.html

As if you could rely on the Daily Mail to accurately and dispassionately cover either of the primary issues they've conflated in this highly biased "story" (it doesn't make the status of "report"). Some nice "cherry picking" of factoids and experts' comments there

It's easy to find credible scientific commentary that lays out the data and the facts in a rather more cautious manner, without the expressed and implied solar doom (Dalton/Maunder) and global freezing (anti-global warming/Thames icing over).

The article is junk. Not even remotely "science".

73, Roger Harrison VK2ZRH

But Roger,

This is the new way of thinking - the new paradigm for Science!

If it's on Facebook, Twitter, one of the on-line newspapers, or God forbid(!), one of our politicans says it to be so - THEN IT MUST BE TRUE!

Cheers

Peter VK3QI

It may be a "new paradigm" . . . but it AIN'T science.

73, Roger Harrison VK2ZRH

Gee look at that projection, cycle 25 non existent even though all consistentlymeasured activity has been far far above that level. Scattered measurements in the Mauder minimum are pretty well irrelevant as they're an incomplete record.

Total rubbish article to the point of being entertainment. We still have a lot to learn about the climate and solar activity.

If people are interested in climate (specifically temperature) impacts of astronomical events then you may find this article interesting: Empirical evidence for a celestial origin of the climate oscillations and its implications.

It was later published in the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics (owned by Elsevier, a quality (but ripoff) science publisher) so don't be too concerned by the fact that the link goes to arxiv.

Basically what the authors did was take temperature data and look at it's power spectrum (ie: looked for periodic behaviour in the data). Figure 6 shows the power spectrum from several datasets, with the solar and lunar cycles highlighted, along with other periodicities which are as yet unexplained. Figure 12 shows the predicted global temperature given both the periodic behaviours and a quadratic fit of global warming.

The conclusion I draw from the article is that by taking account of both the global warming trend and periodic temperature behaviour (presumed to be caused by astronomical effects) the current trend of steady temperatures is explained well. The prediction is stable temperature until about 2030 after which a sharp increase in temperature can be seen on Fig 12.

Now, forming a solid opinion or 'scientific consensus' from one paper is academic suicide, but I feel that this thread could do with some real science to balance out the crap seen in the media.