PDA

View Full Version : Who is SSRC? And what is Relational Cycle Theory?



MAPNUT
2008-Jan-07, 02:34 PM
http://www.spaceandscience.net/id1.html

The Space and Science Research Center, Orlando, FL. They have a press release about a study claiming that Earth is heading for a cold spell due to the next solar cycle. Andre cited them in a post under Astronomy. I came here after seeing a reference to it on a skiing forum, where of course readers hope for colder winters. But from their website, the outfit sounds like one of those single issue think tanks, promoting the theory they call "Relational Climatology".

The qualifications of Mr. John L. Casey remind me of others we've seen trying to claim "expert" status - A ** in math and physics, a Master's in management, and 30 years of experience stated only vaguely. A google search for John L. Casey only turns up a microbiologist at Georgetown. Furthermore if they have a staff of top experts I would expect to see names and resumes on the site. There isn't much on the website but a picture of a nice office building and the press release.

Ken G
2008-Jan-07, 05:11 PM
I think you've applied the appropriate critical thinking and background research to the whole matter, and would pay it no further attention.

orionjim
2008-Jan-07, 05:21 PM
I am a “man made global warming” skeptic and I had never heard of John L. Casey until your post. I think you have the guy figured out; see:
http://junkscience.com/blog/2008/01/07/more-on-the-space-and-science-research-center-hoax/
Anyone using a name of The Space and Science Research Center needs to be criminally investigated; well anyone except NASA or ESA.
What Casey is doing is taking information from NASA’s Dr. David Hathaway about solar cycle 25 being off the chart to the low side and connecting it to the lack of solar activity in 1645 called the Maunder Minimum which has been related to the mini Ice Age of that time. Also low solar activity has been tied to the Spörer, Dalton and Wolf minimums which seemed to cause colder weather.
If you Google “david hathaway” +”cycle 25” you will find what he is saying about the solar cycle. I have never seen Hathaway tie solar cycles to weather.
Hathaway and others are predicting high solar activity in cycle 24 which we are just starting. Many people are predicting doomsday scenarios in the 2012 time frame. What these people don’t seem to understand is we have been in a period of high solar activity for the past 20 years, and 2012 is only slightly higher.
I do believe we (the earth) will see a cold spell from 2020 that will last 50 to 75 years.

Jim

Andre
2008-Jan-08, 07:41 PM
A most excellent example of groupthink (http://www.psysr.org/groupthink%20overview.htm). Couldn't be better:


...Groupthink, a term coined by social psychologist Irving Janis (1972), occurs when a group makes faulty decisions because group pressures lead to a deterioration of “mental efficiency, reality testing, and moral judgment” (p. 9). Groups affected by groupthink ignore alternatives and tend to take irrational actions that dehumanize other groups. ...

4. Stereotyped views of out-groups – Negative views of “enemy” make effective responses to conflict seem unnecessary.

So here comes **fill in your own choice of the worst villain ever in here**, claiming that water freezes at 0 degrees celsius / 32 F. So of course he is wrong since he is **fill in the same worst villain ever in here**.

So when is it going to be science talk again? In which, surprisingly enough, appears to be some substantiation for attributing warmth to the sun. For instance:

http://www.spacecenter.dk/publications/scientific-report-series/Scient_No._3.pdf
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/nov/18/guardianletters.globalwarming
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/11/warm11.xml
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/07/020731080631.htm
http://www.spacecenter.dk/research/sun-climate/cosmoclimatology
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/01/050111175828.htm
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,313966,00.html
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20030320/
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/02/980212184713.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/10/061023193345.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/09/030926070112.htm
http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=597d0677-2a05-47b4-b34f-b84068db11f4&p=4
http://www.nature.com/news/2000/001207/full/news001207-6.html
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/10/051001100950.htm
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn4321
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200712/NAT20071211a.html
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/sun_output_030320.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1045327.stm
http://motls.blogspot.com/2004/09/sunspots-correlations-with-temperature.html
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070801174450.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/12/011210164606.htm
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/07/18/wsun18.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/07/18/ixnewstop.html
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Library/SORCE/sorce_04.html

So, it's probably going to be increasingly tough to demonize all those people talking sun and spread the rumor that they may occasional fill up the gas tank at EXXON.

Halcyon Dayz
2008-Jan-08, 07:49 PM
You're not helping Andre.
None off that has anything to do with the claims made by Casey. He's just a nutter.

And yes, you should use your bicycle more often. It's good for your health. ;)

Andre
2008-Jan-08, 07:55 PM
Trying to help. Just demonstrating that with groupthink you can promote anything to the truth by shooting the messengers / myth busters.

Problem is that trying to solve alleged problems following from truthiness fiction is only making matters worse.

Ken G
2008-Jan-08, 10:27 PM
Problem is that trying to solve alleged problems following from truthiness fiction is only making matters worse.

Then I suppose it has not occurred to you that this is precisely what you just did. Your "groupthink" says that "any time a nutter is identified as a nutter, as in the OP, if they are also a global warming skeptic, then they are being judged by groupthink, rather than by the very obvious evidence that they are a nutter". That's the trouble with logic-- it's a double-edged sword.

orionjim
2008-Jan-09, 12:00 AM
Trying to help. Just demonstrating that with groupthink you can promote anything to the truth by shooting the messengers / myth busters.

Problem is that trying to solve alleged problems following from truthiness fiction is only making matters worse.

Go back and reread my post #3, then ask yourself; what am I saying that is any different than Casey. MAPNUT, Ken and I are only questioning why Casey needs to call himself The Space and Science Research Center and use an address that is simply a mail stop if he is legit.

Since you appear to be promoting him you should take the time to check him out. YOU NEED TO THINK.

Jim

Neverfly
2008-Jan-09, 12:15 AM
It's ok Andrehttp://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/emoticons7/6.gif

We still love ya. A little bit. Mostly.


Kind of ummm... Like a brother you know?

Not romantically.

:neutral:

I mean like... you know like a man loves his dog or something...

No wait...:doh:

That didn't come out right at all!...

Andre
2008-Jan-09, 10:22 AM
I still suggest that shooting the message should happen, before shooting the messenger. Only then you could ask if he was mistaking or lying. My list proved that at least there was some substantiation to tying climate to solar solar cycles. Therefore the credentials of the messenger are irrelevant. Actually could it be that the global warming tyranny has generated "nutters"?

I guess it all boils down to believing the logic. The problem here is that the studies, which are refuting strong effects of greenhouse gasses on global temperature, are published with an ever increasing rate. For instance:

http://www.aai.ee/~olavi/EE2007-ok.pdf

which is not on this listing:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport

Now of course you can routinely spout your vitriol on the messenger and dismiss the 400, but he is only showing what is publisehed peer reviewed. And BTW, for the warmers, how much more years of not warming more than previous, are required to realize that there might be some problems with the IPCC stance?

Ken G
2008-Jan-09, 02:29 PM
I still suggest that shooting the message should happen, before shooting the messenger.You wouldn't make much of a trial lawyer with that view. It sounds nice, but in the real world, we have "messengers" all over the map with all kinds of crazy views, and it is an essential part of the analysis to include the reliability of the messenger in the deliberations.
Only then you could ask if he was mistaking or lying.That's like saying, you first have to figure out if what the witness is saying really happened, and use that to assess the reliability of the witness. But we are forming an impression of what happened, and using the reliability of the various witnesses is a very central element in that process, just as it is in a courtroom.

My list proved that at least there was some substantiation to tying climate to solar solar cycles.None of which had anything to do with the OP, as has already been pointed out.

Therefore the credentials of the messenger are irrelevant. Again, that statement is simply absurd.


Actually could it be that the global warming tyranny has generated "nutters"?The "global warming tyranny", now there's a solid argument in favor of your position. Argument by labeling.

Now of course you can routinely spout your vitriol on the messenger and dismiss the 400, but he is only showing what is publisehed peer reviewed."Vitriol"-- more argument by labeling. If you really had a leg to stand on, you would be a scientist, not a rhetoricist. If you believe that lists of citations constitutes an argument, then I suppose someone will just have to post the thousands of citations that refute your position. Of course, you'll just say that citations that dispute your conclusions are the "tyranny", so the more there are, the more it establishes your position. Convenient, that-- citation lists are only admissable in support of your opinion.


And BTW, for the warmers, how much more years of not warming more than previous, are required to realize that there might be some problems with the IPCC stance?We'd all love to cross that bridge if we come to it, believe me.

Swift
2008-Jan-09, 02:33 PM
Trying to help. Just demonstrating that with groupthink you can promote anything to the truth by shooting the messengers / myth busters.

Problem is that trying to solve alleged problems following from truthiness fiction is only making matters worse.
But by posting all those links, some to articles in mainstream journals, you have disproven your own point - no one is shooting the messengers of alternative theories to AGW.

Swift
2008-Jan-09, 02:40 PM
http://www.aai.ee/~olavi/EE2007-ok.pdf

I have to admit that a lot of that paper was over my head. But I found one thing interesting. From the abstract:

Long daily surface air temperature series from 24 European and Asian stations are analyzed,
and from the conclusions:

Time series analysis results on the basis of 24 long temperature series from various European and Asian stations do not support the IPCC conclusion about the dominant role of positive feedback
One of the frequent criticisms I've seen about AGW and IPCC data analysis is that they used a distorted or too small data set. So, this study, disagreeing with their conclusions, uses a data set from only 24 stations on one landmass!

Andre
2008-Jan-09, 03:09 PM
I have to admit that a lot of that paper was over my head. But I found one thing interesting. From the abstract:

and from the conclusions:

One of the frequent criticisms I've seen about AGW and IPCC data analysis is that they used a distorted or too small data set. So, this study, disagreeing with their conclusions, uses a data set from only 24 stations on one landmass!

Now how many times is it needed to freeze water to determine that it happens at 0C/32F? Certainly more than once, as long as we don't accept it as a physical law that under the same atmospheric conditions it will always freeze at the same temperature.

What Olavi does, is trying to establish the feedback behavior of the atmosphere in general, not to measure as many trends as possible. The IPCC stance requires a positive feedback to be able to boost the assumed 1.2 degrees sensitivity to CO2 doubling to the 2.5 -4.5 degrees or something like that, required to justify the scaremongering.

Positive feedback means that something is pushing the temp out of equilibrium (persistency) while negative feedback would resist leaving that equilibrium, so the random one dimensional walk would have to show up with persistency to proof that positive feedback or resistancy to refute it.

In his first two papers he investigated the satellite temperature series
http://www.aai.ee/~olavi/2001JD002024u.pdf
http://www.aai.ee/~olavi/cejpokfin.pdf

But there where issues with these data, one of them that less than 30 years doesn't resemble climate, so he decided to use the longest temperature series available this time. And the outcome every time was resistancy - negative feedback.

So, he did the equivalent of doing three series of measurements the last one with 28 samples to see if water freezes at 0C/32F everytime.

But by all means, highly encouraged, do challenge him, ask his method, get your own station series and replicate the experiment. (Edit: I know he would love to see that happen)

Again if there is no positive feedback there is no catastrophic global warming coming up. That's logic. Logic of which it doesn't matter if it is brought by Kärner, me, or Joseph Stalin or whoever is the worst enemy of mankind.

orionjim
2008-Jan-09, 05:53 PM
Now how many times is it needed to freeze water to determine that it happens at 0C/32F? Certainly more than once, as long as we don't accept it as a physical law that under the same atmospheric conditions it will always freeze at the same temperature.

What Olavi does, is trying to establish the feedback behavior of the atmosphere in general, not to measure as many trends as possible. The IPCC stance requires a positive feedback to be able to boost the assumed 1.2 degrees sensitivity to CO2 doubling to the 2.5 -4.5 degrees or something like that, required to justify the scaremongering.

Positive feedback means that something is pushing the temp out of equilibrium (persistency) while negative feedback would resist leaving that equilibrium, so the random one dimensional walk would have to show up with persistency to proof that positive feedback or resistancy to refute it.

In his first two papers he investigated the satellite temperature series
http://www.aai.ee/~olavi/2001JD002024u.pdf
http://www.aai.ee/~olavi/cejpokfin.pdf
...

I took the time to read Olavi Karner’s papers on the negative feedback in the earths climate system. They are interesting, nothing really new, but I don’t see any major flaws except what Swift pointed out (only one land mass used). All and all I would expect to see a strong solar cycle to temperature correlation, and that is what he is showing.

Now that I agree with Karner’s papers does this mean Casey must be legit? Does this mean it makes perfect sense for one man to take on the name of The Space and Science Research Center and use a mail stop in Orlando FL as the location?

The message is OK so all messengers must be OK too? That is the logic you are suggesting.

This thread was about Casey and the Space and Science Research Center. Then you entered the scene accusing me, MAPNUT and Ken G of groupthink and all you want to do now is change the subject or focus of the thread.

You remind me of the Southwest Airlines commercials “Want to Get Away?”.

I think you owe MAPNUT, Ken G and me an apology, it is you who's using groupthink or “No Think” logic.

Jim

Andre
2008-Jan-09, 07:36 PM
No the big problem I see here is the ad hominem logic:

The man is a crook,........


The Space and Science Research Center, Orlando, FL. They have a press release about a study claiming that Earth is heading for a cold spell due to the next solar cycle. Andre cited them in a post under Astronomy. I came here after seeing a reference to it on a skiing forum, where of course readers hope for colder winters. But from their website, the outfit sounds like one of those single issue think tanks, promoting the theory they call "Relational Climatology".

The qualifications of Mr. John L. Casey remind me of others we've seen trying to claim "expert" status - A ** in math and physics, a Master's in management, and 30 years of experience stated only vaguely. A google search for John L. Casey only turns up a microbiologist at Georgetown. Furthermore if they have a staff of top experts I would expect to see names and resumes on the site. There isn't much on the website but a picture of a nice office building and the press release.

................THEREFORE he is wrong:


I think you've applied the appropriate critical thinking and background research to the whole matter, and would pay it no further attention.

But what if he said that water freezes at 0C/32F?

Ad hominems and demonisation of the opponent are amongst the central issues in groupthink according to Janis:


...Groupthink, a term coined by social psychologist Irving Janis (1972), occurs when a group makes faulty decisions because group pressures lead to a deterioration of “mental efficiency, reality testing, and moral judgment” (p. 9). Groups affected by groupthink ignore alternatives and tend to take irrational actions that dehumanize other groups. ...

All that Casey did is pass the message of predictions of a cold spell due to a solar minimum, so he got turned inside out to demonstrate that he is wrong. So since he is a crook there will not be a cold spell. Just trying to expose the logic.

Swift
2008-Jan-09, 08:12 PM
Andre,

You seem "focused" on groupthink. Do you think that BAUT is an example of groupthink?

...Groupthink, a term coined by social psychologist Irving Janis (1972), occurs when a group makes faulty decisions because group pressures lead to a deterioration of “mental efficiency, reality testing, and moral judgment” (p. 9). Groups affected by groupthink ignore alternatives and tend to take irrational actions that dehumanize other groups. ...

If you think the group of BAUT members is of one mind, that ignores alternatives, well, I think you haven't read enough of it. There are members with a wide variety of beliefs here, even on the topic of climate change.

If your groupthink comments are towards the wider, scientific community, then please address my point in post # 12.

And your analogy to the measurement of the freezing point of water is far too simplistic, compared to the issues of climate change.

Andre
2008-Jan-09, 08:38 PM
The main issue I see here is global warming, dismissing the possibility that a Sporer - Dalton type of solar minimum would not affect the climate significantly. So if I happen to use a less appropriate link to a person who merely conveys a message of others, he is demonized within hours. He is a crook, so he is wrong. I resent that. Science is not about shooting messengers, Groupthink is about shooting messengers. The message stands unless somebody substantiates why a Dalton type minimum would not affect the climate significantly.

And if you tick of the eight symtoms of groupthink against the structure of the global warming scaremongering, you would immediately nominate Irving Janis for the Nobel prize. Hair raising. Never have I seen such an extreme accurate analyzis/prediction in any non-exact science.

orionjim
2008-Jan-09, 08:46 PM
No the big problem I see here is the ad hominem logic:

The man is a crook,........

No Andre the problem here is not ad hominem logic, the problem is YOU are not taking the time to read and understand what people are writing. Nobody on this thread has said that the possibility of a period of global cooling won’t or could not happen. What you call the message or global cooling is not an issue. The whole issue is John L. Casey taking on the name of The Space Science Research Center, and setting up a mail drop address in Orlando FL. You need to spend time studying this guy’s background before jumping on his bandwagon. There are many ligament people advocating a cooling period coming with solar cycle 25, but for reasons stated Casey isn’t one of them. It’s not the message it is the messenger.

Jim

Andre
2008-Jan-09, 09:07 PM
How about taking the time to read yourself? We not talking about solar cycle 25 but cycle 24. Again you still don't see the difference between:

Al Gore says (hypothetically) that cycle 24 is getting us pretty cool weather or
Stalin (avoiding Godwins law) says that cycle 24 is getting is pretty cool weather.

And for what it's worth I know a lot of very decent people who predict that cold spell and you seeing a lot of "ligament people advocating a cooling period" demonstrates the creepy effectiveness of the demonization campaign of the global warming groupthink

Swift
2008-Jan-09, 09:07 PM
By the way, as counters to the idea that the current climate change is caused by the sun, I offer this graph (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.png), this article (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/07/the-lure-of-solar-forcing/), and this one (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/08/did-the-sun-hit-record-highs-over-the-last-few-decades/), and here (http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/28/090/30666).

Andre
2008-Jan-09, 09:47 PM
By the way, as counters to the idea that the current climate change is caused by the sun, I offer this graph (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.png), this article (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/07/the-lure-of-solar-forcing/), and this one (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/08/did-the-sun-hit-record-highs-over-the-last-few-decades/), and here (http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/28/090/30666).

You have found the:

Self-appointed ‘mindguards’ (http://www.psysr.org/groupthink%20overview.htm) –
Members protect the group and the leader from information that is problematic or contradictory to the group’s cohesiveness, view, and/or decisions.

We have just discussed the Kärner papers here, demonstrating that the vital positive feedback is lacking, meaning that even a strong possibly 100% correlation between CO2 and temperature still means that CO2 could not have caused all that warming, simply because the negative feedback ensures that the climate sensitivity must be less than the alleged basic 1.2 degrees per doubling CO2. Remember, it takes only one refutation to demostrate that the causility is not CO2.

Another graph that suggest some correlation between solar activity and temperature:

http://www.kowabunga.org/images/pictures/misc/sunspot.gif

Swift
2008-Jan-09, 10:03 PM
Andre,
I don't know if you mean it this way, but I find it insulting that you dismiss all counter-arguments as groupthink. Just because others come to different conclusions than you, doesn't mean that it was the result of some sort of false logic. If you want to debate science, then just debate it. Stop with the name calling.

As far as your graph, what is the source of this graph? And how exactly is "temperature anomaly" defined. And how exactly is sunspot cycle length defined? I assume it is something like the number of years between minimums or maximums - how do they define that number to a specific year? Is that year the midpoint or one end of the cycle?

I also notice that it ends at 1990. What does it look like if you extend it forward to 2008?

I don't think anyone contends that CO2 is the only forcer of climate. I could believe that for the period before 1990 that the strongest forcer was solar cycle changes. Certainly, natural factors would be the most important before humans got into the act. But, what about since then?

orionjim
2008-Jan-09, 10:16 PM
How about taking the time to read yourself? We not talking about solar cycle 25 but cycle 24.

This is from Casey's website:


As to what these changes are Casey says, “The sun’s surface flows have slowed dramatically as NASA has indicated. This process of surface movement, what NASA calls the “conveyor belt” essentially sweeps up old sunspots and deposits new ones. NASA’s studies have found that when the surface movement slows down, sunspot counts drop significantly. All records of sunspot counts and other proxies of solar activity going back 6,000 years clearly validates our own findings that when we have sunspot counts lower then 50 it means only one thing - an intense cold climate, globally. NASA says the solar cycle 25, the one after the next that starts this spring will be at 50 or lower.


Now you try reading!


Jim

Andre
2008-Jan-09, 10:20 PM
Sorry, the idea is not to insult but to open eyes. Equally insulting could be the adamantly refusal of that mindguard team to accept that there are more parameters for the sun than energy output alone (which hardly fluctuates) the solar wind and magnetic activicity could play a role. There are hypotheses about that, about which the evidence shows some consistency.

So if you are insulted about the mindguard element. Think about this: How come that the Kärner papers are unknown to virtually everybody. Why is there no newpaper whatsoever shouting: "Climate Disaster Warded Off, whew, No positive feedback. Planet saved from impending disaster. Kärner saved us". Why not?



About the graph, Perhaps it was made before the ending of cycle22. I don't know. It's late here. I'll be back on that.

Swift
2008-Jan-09, 10:49 PM
Sorry, the idea is not to insult but to open eyes. Equally insulting could be the adamantly refusal of that mindguard team to accept that there are more parameters for the sun than energy output alone (which hardly fluctuates) the solar wind and magnetic activicity could play a role. There are hypotheses about that, about which the evidence shows some consistency.

Please explain a possible mechanism where by solar wind and magnetic activity have an effect on global temperatures on Earth. You say that energy output hardly fluctuates - wouldn't that energy output have the biggest impact? If that doesn't fluctuate, then how do these other solar factors have a bigger impact?

Atraveller
2008-Jan-09, 11:20 PM
Please explain a possible mechanism where by solar wind and magnetic activity have an effect on global temperatures on Earth. You say that energy output hardly fluctuates - wouldn't that energy output have the biggest impact? If that doesn't fluctuate, then how do these other solar factors have a bigger impact?

Paper by Henrik Svensmark studies the possible mechanism:
http://www.dsri.dk/~hsv/

Swift
2008-Jan-10, 03:32 AM
Paper by Henrik Svensmark studies the possible mechanism:
http://www.dsri.dk/~hsv/
One counter argument about the cosmic ray theory (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/10/taking-cosmic-rays-for-a-spin/)
http://www.realclimate.org/images/cr.jpg

Press release from the American Geophysical Union (http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/prrl/prrl0405.html) about the idea.

Eleven Earth and space scientists say that a recent paper attributing most climate change on Earth to cosmic rays is incorrect and based on questionable methodology. Writing in the January 27 issue of Eos, published by the American Geophysical Union, Stefan Rahmstorf of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and colleagues in Canada, France, Germany, Switzerland, and the United States challenge the cosmic ray hypothesis.


A British newspaper article (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/11/warm11.xml) about the research that Atraveller links to. Presents both sides of the discussion (so much for the "groupthinkers" suppressing discussion).

I'll quote some of the counter argument:

Some climate change experts have dismissed the claims as "tenuous".

Giles Harrison, a cloud specialist at Reading University said that he had carried out research on cosmic rays and their effect on clouds, but believed the impact on climate is much smaller than Mr Svensmark claims.

Mr Harrison said: "I have been looking at cloud data going back 50 years over the UK and found there was a small relationship with cosmic rays. It looks like it creates some additional variability in a natural climate system but this is small."

HenrikOlsen
2008-Jan-10, 08:13 AM
Andre, Swift and several others, could you please get back to the original discussion.

We're not here to discuss whether global temperatures are related to solar cycles, we're discussing whether John L. Casey's Space and Science Research Center is a reliable source for information about this.

To do this, arguments based on what he's saying about this won't work, since that would be arguing from the conclusion.

So stop discussing temperature variations and solar cycles right now and get back to discussing John L. Casey.

Andre
2008-Jan-10, 08:53 AM
Andre, Swift and several others, could you please get back to the original discussion.



Sorry I did not see this post while working on the other. But I still don't understand why the message is dependent on the messenger. Perhaps it's possible to split up the thread or shall I start a new one on solar cycles.

MAPNUT
2008-Jan-10, 02:24 PM
You already started one on solar cycles in Astronomy, Andre, and I came here from there to start a separate one on "SSRC". I was concerned about a poor New England skier getting his hopes up for colder winters.

If Casey is going to propose a whole new theory and give it a scientific-sounding name, I think it appropriate that he be a scientist. And I think that if his website claims he has a staff of top experts, it would be appropriate to say who they are. It sounds like he is looking for grant money for telling people what they want to hear - that is, those fortunate people not victims of groupthink.

MAPNUT
2008-Jan-10, 04:25 PM
LOL!!! SSRC has added the following words to its home page: "It has activated with a virtual office site and will transition from its current location to permanent facilities >with its next round of funding<. This start is but the very first though important step as the SSRC begins the normal process of growth toward establishing long term capability and resources to perform its mission."

Coming clean, you might say, perhaps in response to those who found out its address is a mail drop. Sounds a little different from their earlier claim to be an international leader in climate research!

HenrikOlsen
2008-Jan-10, 06:37 PM
Andre, Swift and several others, could you please get back to the original discussion.



Sorry I did not see this post while working on the other. But I still don't understand why the message is dependent on the messenger. Perhaps it's possible to split up the thread or shall I start a new one on solar cycles.
I moved the post to your existing solar cycle thread (http://www.bautforum.com/astronomy/68781-solar-cycle-24-a.html), which is where it belongs.

If you can't trust the messenger you can't trust his copy of the message.
The message may still be true, but he can't be counted in the "for" column.

Similarly, you can't prove the messenger trustworthy by showing his message to be true, if you only look at his message you can only prove him untrustworthy by showing his message to be false).

Ken G
2008-Jan-11, 11:38 PM
He is a crook, so he is wrong. I resent that.

If you interpreted anyone on here as saying (1) Casey is a crook, or (2) Casey is wrong because he is a crook, then you are not reading the posts. Instead, you will find us saying that Casey is not a qualified source, therefore his opinion is irrelevant and worth no further thought as reference material for discussion. That is all that was said, and all that was meant-- the rest you made up yourself so you could object to it. There's a name for that: strawman.

orionjim
2008-Jan-17, 05:43 PM
On several forums on this site I have seen comments and concerns about Solar Cycle 24 related to a news release from The Space and Science Research Center (or SSRC). The news release implied a connection to NASA and their prediction for Solar Cycle 25. The SSRC which is made up of one person, John Casey is predicting cycle 24 will have a very low sunspot count (less than 50).

I found an interview on earthfiles.com with Dr. David Hathaway, a NASA solar expert whose studies were referenced by Casey. He talks about solar cycle 24 and solar cycle 25 and the predictions made by Casey. I was going to copy and paste parts of the interview on this post but the earthfiles site makes it clear that it would be a copyright violation, so here’s the link:
http://www.earthfiles.com/news.php?ID=1371&category=Science

I was surprised that Dr. Hathaway talked about the cycles’ potential impact on the weather, but given that he did I wasn’t surprised by what he said.

Also there was a 12 person panel of solar experts from around the world who were given the job to predict the strength of solar cycle 24. See:
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/SC24

The report from this panel estimated the sunspot numbers to be between 90 and 140. There were two groups the low group was from NASA (including Dr. Hathaway) and predicted numbers around 90, the other group predicted numbers around 140. I’m sure Mausumi Dikpati from NCAR was in this group as she has been predicting a very active cycle 24. In either case the numbers are to the high side meaning they predict cycle 24 will be very active.

John Casey was not part of the group and his prediction of less than fifty not even mentioned.

In an earlier post I included a link to a junkscience site that had information on Casey, see:
http://junkscience.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/john_casey.pdf

The editor of Junk Science got an e-mail from Casey that sheds light on why he started SSRC, see:
http://www.junkscience.com/blog/2008/01/08/must-have-brass-ones/

Jim

Ken G
2008-Jan-17, 06:39 PM
Thanks for the research, that clears up a lot. My question is, when cycle 24 is over and Casey is wrong, does he give the money back? Do we ever hear about him again, or does he go on to used cars, while someone else takes up the torch with a whole new "angle"?

orionjim
2008-Jan-17, 08:27 PM
Thanks Ken!

One thing I didn’t mention is of the 12 people on the panel one was Leif Svalgaard from ETK (a Huston-based consulting firm) who is predicting the lowest of the panel at 75. What does he think of John L. Casey?
Here is a quote from ClimateAudit.org:

Leif Svalgaard says:
January 3rd, 2008 at 11:11 pm
222 (Richard): The ‘Space and Science Research Center’ and John Casey should not be relied on for valid research. I know of Mr. Casey and have checked his credentials and they are not legitimate. He has tried to recruit even me into his band of ‘experts’. I would not place any value on the ramblings of the press release.

You can find this on climateaudit.org see #223:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2534

Jim