Originally Posted by g hall:
Astronomy and climate change - barely if at all related
I despair of people who make such assertions
If you study Astronomy it is bound to lead you to look at how bodies effect each other e.g. The Sun on The Earth.
There are the effects of gravity and radiation, other bodies in the universe also have an effect on The Earth's climate.
For a person to post serious arguments about climate change and make the statement that astronomy and climate change "are barely if at all related" proves I believe that they do not know as much about the subject as they imply

James Hansen is an astro-physicist.
[Rep]

GH, I am sure that you are right, and of course weather is affected by the movement of the planets.

If you can tell me how the movement of planets contributes to the present change in climate, then I would be extremely interested. I don't mean that cynically, I really would like to know more.

I know my way around energy and environment, and I was a lobbiest on behalf of Veteran's affairs for some years, and my work brings me into the orbit (pun intended!) of other policy areas, but I can honestly say that I never once heard of Astronomical evidence being cited in any policy making process. Perhaps that is a flaw... the more science the better, as far as I am concerned.

Perhaps that is where Graham Booth can take the lead. Other parties follow UKIP in other policy areas, so why can't we be the first to consider the importance of astronomical phenomena?

Seriously, why not? I don't know where we would apply such a discipline, but those in the know can guide us on that. I await (serious) suggestions....
[Rep]

Originally Posted by Baron von Lotsov:
Sorry but what standards are those?

Being polite and articulate.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by gc:
Wikipedia is always useful, but it is unreliable and if that is the source of BLV's "data" then I think my point is proven.

Oh come on that is such a vacuous criticism. It appears to be the default response from nearly every green that when you can't answer the question just attack the source. Now lets say Mr King tells us that the temp will increase by 4 degrees. Is that OK or do we have to check the source. Well we can't because the source data is under lock and key, but lets suppose that we could somehow sneak into the government buildings anyway. We get the computer model's output to confirm. But does it confirm it? No. For that we have to check the data input into the model, the raw data. But even that is not necessarily correct, we would have to go to the satellite company and request it, just to check. But again someone could have been lying so we have to get hold of the ground station controls and find out if it really is outputting said data. But again we are relying on computers and downlinks to send the data, then the sensors, the calibration and so on and so on.

They break one of the most fundamental tenets of science and that is to make your data available for peer review. Without that is ceases to be science.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by gc:
GH, I am sure that you are right, and of course weather is affected by the movement of the planets.

If you can tell me how the movement of planets contributes to the present change in climate, then I would be extremely interested. I don't mean that cynically, I really would like to know more.

I did NOT specifically say movement of the planets however here is a link to wikipedia about effects caused by The Sun

Precession (astronomy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
Milankovitch cycles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There has also been theories that Solar Flares linked to the Sun Spot cycle are related to The Earth's climate
link to a pdf about this be warned takes time to load
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/DonE...Transcript.pdf

The effect of The Moon is well known on tides but it is also slowing The Earth's rotation and it's own, indeed The Moon is already showing less of it's surface to us as it gets locked in off hand I can't remember if the distance between The Earth and The Moon is increasing or decreasing but if I remember correctly the theory is that it will get closer and break apart and The Earth will have a ring system like Saturn unless The Sun goes Novae before hand
[Rep]

Originally Posted by allanon:
James Hansen is an astro-physicist.

Just not very good at data modelling and programming or was he :-)
[Rep]

Originally Posted by Baron von Lotsov:
Oh come on that is such a vacuous criticism..

One of my colleagues altered Anna Ford's Wikipedia entry stating that she recorded a Christmas record with Noddy Holder. It was very funny, and this b'll'cks was picked up and printed as news by the Telegraph. Holder himself was asked about it, and simply stated that it may be true, he "couldn't remember"!

I myself posted "hard evidence" about Lukashenko's conviction for interfering with goats, which was reported on with much glee in an underground journal "Samizdat Minsk" in Belarus.

Wikipedia is useful, and I don't deny that I often go there myself, but no way can it be considered an academic source.

Not with buggers like us around!
[Rep]

Originally Posted by gc:
GH, I am sure that you are right, and of course weather is affected by the movement of the planets.

If you can tell me how the movement of planets contributes to the present change in climate, then I would be extremely interested. I don't mean that cynically, I really would like to know more.

I know my way around energy and environment, and I was a lobbiest on behalf of Veteran's affairs for some years, and my work brings me into the orbit (pun intended!) of other policy areas, but I can honestly say that I never once heard of Astronomical evidence being cited in any policy making process. Perhaps that is a flaw... the more science the better, as far as I am concerned.

Perhaps that is where Graham Booth can take the lead. Other parties follow UKIP in other policy areas, so why can't we be the first to consider the importance of astronomical phenomena?

Seriously, why not? I don't know where we would apply such a discipline, but those in the know can guide us on that. I await (serious) suggestions....

There is a lot of astronomy that is useful to climate science. A whole subsection for example deals with spectroscopy, which in case you have not studied it is all to do with finding out what is going on in a far off star by measuring atomic transitions that can be measured in the light. Each chemical has a certain signature so they can find out the composition of the stars and gas clouds surrounding them and gain a great deal of information using clever tricks, even measurements of velocity and much more. I'd say someone with expertise in astronomy has a useful part to play in a climate science team. Its basically applied physics and so is climate science. Mind you a CSE is a waste of time, you need to study it at university like I did and indeed I was at the one that specialises in astronomy and works at Jodrell Bank. Fascinating stuff.
[Rep]

Also, BLV, we need to discriminate between what we believe, what we want, and the Real Politik.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by gc:
One of my colleagues altered Anna Ford's Wikipedia entry stating that she recorded a Christmas record with Noddy Holder. It was very funny, and this b'll'cks was picked up and printed as news by the Telegraph. Holder himself was asked about it, and simply stated that it may be true, he "couldn't remember"!

I myself posted "hard evidence" about Lukashenko's conviction for interfering with goats, which was reported on with much glee in an underground journal "Samizdat Minsk" in Belarus.

Wikipedia is useful, and I don't deny that I often go there myself, but no way can it be considered an academic source.

Not with buggers like us around!

Yes but its official policy. You can double check it by asking the government and show me it is false if you like. At least if I were in your position and disagreed with something there would be a reason for it and I'd quote the opposing source and then we could investigate.
[Rep]