On 02 Feb 2013, Carlos wrote:
Nice to meet you can you buy propecia online no prescription students to attend other conferences, seminars, and pharmacy continuing education programs.
imitrex no prescription 1 8-8 Space used to separate fields
cymbalta price with insurance Chinese Medicine, Chiropractic, Cupping Therapy, Homeopathy, Naturopathy, Ozone Therapy,
duloxetine hcl price TMC Library electronic journals and databases from anywhere Internet access is available.
lexapro generic cost 10. Student did not read the presentation and maintained good eye
On 03 Mar 2011, Anthony wrote:
Piers, I wish I wasn't an ocean away from you because it is very refreshing talking actual science with someone (I live in New Jersey, here in the USA). Thanks for clearing up the whole GCR/red herring thing. So to sum up, it is best to skip to the source, i.e solar wind/magnetic effects, when dealing with terrestrial/atmospheric connections, despite GCRs being an available proxy.
I noticed this year that when the solar wind dipped considerably, the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) tended to drop, relatively-speaking. Now, does this mean that a new moon is more likely to aid in these "blocking patterns" because it would sit between the sun/earth blocking some solar wind? Or did I simplify way too much here?
By the way, despite our recent warm spell here in the United States, I got the feeling we are not done yet with winter. I think 1 or 2 more snow jabs are coming for the East Coast.
On 03 Mar 2011, Piers_Corbyn (twitter address) wrote:
Anthony, THANKS, interesting. The moon interrupts the solar wind in various ways. Leaving that for now to consider Galactic Cosmic Rays: The energy and momentum they carry to Earth is about 1/300th part of that of the direct particles from the solar wind and so any effect they have is trivial compared with the sun's direct effects. GCR are a proxy for the Sun's magnetic activity - that is all for all practical physical purposes. They are no more of a cause of anything (or maybe 0.3%) than the column length of a mercury thermometer causes the air around it to be warm. ALL the claimed relations with GCR on any axis can equally be replaced with (reversed) solar magnetic activity All the fanciful explanations of GCR mechanisms can equally or rather better be carried out by solar particles which are much more abundant and 300 times more important. The high energy level of GCR is spurious red-herring. When they interact with the atmosphere they reduce to similar energies to solar wind.
On 03 Mar 2011, Anthony wrote:
Piers, sorry for my very late response. I agree that the general global warming/CO2 theories are complete trash. In fact, I know the ignorance first hand because I had it thrown down my throat attending Rutgers University, where many of the IPCC climatologists teach. Let me tell you, that was a painful experience because they never were open to anything else.
But, I want to focus on shorter time scales here that deal with storm predictions. When you say, "lunar modulators," do you mean the phases and how they would affect the solar wind or daily tides? Or is this more to do with perigee or perhaps eclipses? I am just trying to understand the physics behind it instead of the analog method or associative method to the forecast connections you have made to these parameters, which I agree are present. While GCRs may not explain global temperature, they certainly can affect length of day but slowing Earth's rotation, which from there can affect global winds. Do you agree?
On 18 Feb 2011, Piers_Corbyn wrote:
Anthony, thanks. What makes eg a USA east coast storm is many many things to do with whole circulation. We (I simplify) work out when in the past a whole set of mathematical WeatherAction indicators (parameters) (which includes lunar modulators) AND time evolution were similar to sometime in the future and the weather in the past similar states gives future approx weather - see films on this matter in Wanews2010No18 which is linked in comments to http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=3307&linkbox=true&position=3 which also deals with svensmark matters. The key about Galactic Cosmic Rays is they are a proxy for the sun's mean field so GCR graphs might just as well be solar activity graphs and the 22yr signal in temperatures shows GCR are not the agents of transmission of solar effects (or not more than 0.3%). Svensmark is a good guy and GCR is nice but fails. Thanks Piers
On 17 Feb 2011, Anthony wrote:
While I believe solar parameters do affect the atmosphere, this particular piece you wrote up here doesn't make much sense. There have been plenty of instances where a solar flare, proton burst or -Bz have occurred and there wasn't a big East Coast USA snowstorm etc. Why would these particular events be any different?
GCRs seem to have a pretty good correlation with Global Angular Momentum but you completely disregard it even though forbush weekly anomalies can explain day to day variations in weather.
Why would a proton burst make the atmosphere more convoluted and favorable for "superstorms" when proton destroys ozone? Wouldn't this be an agent for a +AO and more zonal patterns?
My comments are not meant to be derogatory in nature. I am a big fan of your work but would just like to understand what you are saying.
On 15 Feb 2011, Laurel wrote:
yesterdays M class Flare seems to be likely to give some X class input to us.
that sure wont help things?
and youre forecast for more weather for Aus is spot on, cyclone developing in darwin and also off wa coast.
On 14 Feb 2011, Ken Dwelley wrote:
Eastern Canada/Ocean, some time past had massive fish die-off, cod in particular. No cause found, but there was at least one offshore bouy/station that recorded "impossibly high CO2 Levels" and was changed out. Perhaps no connection, but, a data point, regardless
Are you aware Stan Deyo and ongoing experiment?
On 14 Feb 2011, waterfallearth wrote:
Post glacial rebound is in play and has been in play for decades. But melt accelerating exponentially. All started with atomic age. Nuclear fallout is heat generating, it is melting ice cores. Upwelling of warmer deep waters also said to be a factor in melting of sea ice. NASA states over 3 million undersea volcanoes. Degree of upwelling dependent on surface winds. Piers Corbyn's info combined with Scott Owen's info (believersunderground) gives a clearer picture of all the dynamics involved with climate changes. God Bless and protect them both because big money & gov't ops keeping public misinformed & ill-informed about the truth both gentlemen put out.
On 14 Feb 2011, Larry W wrote:
Piers,
I think the reason that volcanos and earthquakes become more active during solar minima is due to the fact that much of the heating that takes place during the solar maxima occurs in the core of the earth as solar energy captured in the magnetosphere during solar max. is converted to heat as it reacts with the earths core (which acts as a giant resistor).
Because this heat is produced in the earths core, there is a large lag time for this heat to reach the lithosphere and the crustal zone to produce volcanoes, and tectonic activity.
Thus, the core heating effects of the solar max. may become evident only during the solar min.
because of this time lag.
This time lag would be greater under the continents, as the oceanic crust in thinner and cooled by the oceans, and the continental plates are huge heat sinks.
What do you think?
On 14 Feb 2011, Marji wrote:
Piers, thank you for an honest voice in the wilderness. Please forgive a naive question, no one in the U.S. will address this, except conspiracy websites: Could you say yes or no, is there some Planet X out there... about to cause either a magnetic pole shift or, heaven forbid, an earth shift on its axis? People are actually moving away from coasts and low areas to avoid innundation from this forecasted event. Can you say one way or the other? Or are you likewise forbidden to talk? Thank you for any unmuzzled response, yea or nay.
On 14 Feb 2011, Piers_Corbyn wrote:
Thanks all....Rex, Tina, Ary. The jet stream changes and weather extremes we predict are all based on things which have happened in the past. In a sense there is NOTHING normal about the jet stream ever but also nothing 'NEW' in the true sense and the sun drives these changes - see our reports of action on sun and then PREDICTED events on earth. re HAARP many things may be going on but 'holes' in the magnetosphere is not one of them that is much to far away. HAARP can meddle with ionospere and/or reflet from it. The 'holes' in the magnetosphere - ie open rather than closed magnetic field structure - which let more solar charged particles into where they can influence eg the stratosphere and lower atmosphere happens often. The events referred to here are about larger fluxes of solar plasma than is common... NASA have talked about 'new' findings on this; they now have much better obs but the phenomena was recognised years ago first by Prof Dungey of Imperial College London in 1969
On 14 Feb 2011, Neel wrote:
Yous is the only sane voice in a sea of deception, disinformation, misinformation and corruption. When all has decayed with time - Only The Truth shall remain !! You speak The Truth.
On 13 Feb 2011, Rex wrote:
Piers,
Can you explain how the sun affects the JETSTREAM?? Seems like it can't, and the jetstream is clearly not normal.
On 13 Feb 2011, Tina wrote:
A hole in the Magnetosphere. Very likely produced by HAARP.
On 13 Feb 2011, Robert wrote:
Bless you Piers and thank you for your incredibly accurate forecasts. It allowed me to be prepared with firing and keep my home warm during the extreme cold. I now only follow your forecasts as I don't trust any of the others. You are a true and dedicated scientist and eventually those who tried to debase you will be forced to agree with your methodology and amazing solar impact knowledge. Again many, many thanks!
On 13 Feb 2011, Ary in Idaho wrote:
Hey Piers, How do you account for the ODD jetstreams, in both hemispheres? The sun ain't doin' that, fella. Weather is being diddled by such as HAARP and chemtrails.
On 10 Feb 2011, Piers_Corbyn wrote:
Paul, Thanks. Yes those volcanoes are too small but also I think there is a problem with the strength of the claimed volcano/ temp relationship because more volcanoes and earthquakes tend to happen near solar minima (for whatever reason) - which are also generally cooler on Earth; so at least part of the association is common cause rather than mutual cause of volcanoes driving temps down... . On temps note that for winter so far Britain has been VERY COLD because taking Central England it was coldest in Dec for over 100 years and Jan was below normal. We have a sort of world shift of patterns from 12th or so making Britain colder and you might notice our USA 'essence' map has it getting much warmer in South with thunderfloods & tornadoes especially from 18th.
On 09 Feb 2011, rob wrote:
Thanks Piers. Excellent explanation on Helium.com. Glad to contribute a little something to your tweets. Yours are breaths of fresh air in a sea of exploitative faux "journalism" where agendas are endlessly peddled .
Thanks again!
On 08 Feb 2011, Piers_Corbyn wrote:
Rob, Thanks. . . That YouTube of BOTH SIDES of the sun using Solar Orbiters is GREAT. . .
On the magnetic hype stuff. I have to say interesting but completely OTT see Comment I posted on Climate Realists . -
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=7175
On 08 Feb 2011, rob wrote:
I'm sure many of you have seen this but if not ....here's the source of our weather.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLB5ma2Yz1I
On 08 Feb 2011, rob wrote:
Just wondering if the information presented in this article is of interest to your weather predicting model.
http://www.helium.com/items/2083868-magnetic-polar-shifts-causing-massive-global-superstorms
On 07 Feb 2011, Paul wrote:
Are the erupting volcanos in Russia going to have an effect on the weather or are these to small .I see that America, South Korea and now Mexico which don't usually get that cold is having very cold weather but not the British Isles. Over the coming years i'd expect the amount of cold air over the poles especially the North pole will increase which means when it travels south, it can travel further, perhaps as far as the tropics.
On 07 Feb 2011, Gene Nemetz wrote:
More fallout from heavy snow:
"New York.... Record snowfall is turning the city's mean streets even meaner, with 65 manholes exploding or catching fire since New Years.....flying manhole covers are yet another symptom of winter's wrath. In the most recent serious case, a fireball erupting from a manhole in Brooklyn this week engulfed an SUV that had been parked over the opening only moments before..."
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/04/us-weather-manholes-idUSTRE71374I20110204
On 06 Feb 2011, Jesse B. wrote:
Dear Piers,
Your forecasts have been incredibly accurate this year. There is an impending snowstorm for the Eastern USA it seems (though forecasting models have it out to sea at this moment). Also I've noticed you have have gotten all the Eastern USA snowstorms correct this winter. I thank you for all your hard work and I will continue to follow your amazing forecasts.
Sincerely,
Jesse B.
On 06 Feb 2011, Vincent Jappi wrote:
To what extent are solar events predictable?
On 06 Feb 2011, len holliday wrote:
Dear Piers, You are the best. My son Matthew Holliday who is CEO of firsthandweather.com thinks you are the best weather forecaster in the world and he is probably right. We both love Joe Bastardi as well. Thanks for your life time of work you have done to make all our lives here on earth better due to your great weather forecast! If Matthew and I can be of help to you in any way just let us know. Keep up the great work. Let's keep the heat on Al Gore! HaHa. Len Holliday with first hand weather
On 05 Feb 2011, jo wrote:
It is the accuracy of your predictions that proves your theory as you know. Too bad the polluted media won't cover the story of your discovery. Too bad governments don't fund you.
Have you any opinion about any of the green house gases (methane,etc.)? We all know about things like acid rain, ozone damage, etc. Just asking so others know that you are pro-environment and not throwing away the baby with the bath water. Good science like yours is admirable and deserves much reward not a host of detractors.
On 05 Feb 2011, Scott CD wrote:
Thanks for the heads up Piers. I wish BBC would listen to you and use your forecasts as well as met office - which of late bears little resemblance to the actual weather, even a day ahead. Cheers and well done :)
|
