|
Post by scpg02 on Jan 5, 2011 16:09:00 GMT
Piers is selling a product. All he has to worry about is unhappy clients. Is forecasting a product? If that's the way one wants to look at it. It is when people are paying you to make it. Piers sells his forecasts.
|
|
|
Post by Maui on Jan 6, 2011 21:37:48 GMT
Piers is selling a product. All he has to worry about is unhappy clients. Well, looking at it from a forecaster's point of view, listen, this is hard work and it isn't easy either. Applied astrophysics or astronomic forecasting, is tough work and there are few who are proficient at it, so there's not a lot of time to mingle with the masses like some TV talking heads who require everything to be explained to them dumbed-down in third-grade language that can be Twittered. Is forecasting a product? If that's the way one wants to look at it. Long-range forecasters come far and few between and the demand is more than any one-man entity can handle while operations with staffs in the hundreds and budgets well over a million+ dollars can hardly forecast two weeks in advance, much less a month. Forecasters work. The mention of terms like "peer review" is academic language which often emanates from theorists who do not forecast. If they did, then they would not have all the time in the world to ramble on about papers. Piers forecasts. He lets it all hang out. The guy is not a entertainer, he's a forecaster. I can relate to that, because so am I. We've been living in an age of dumbed down climate science, of which the great majority does not know how to practice because that is borne out in the real wold of forecasting - where the weather really happens - and not in some climate journal, or "peer-reviewed paper." Those who like to hide behind their credentials while proving that they cannot forecast should temper their comments because in order to be able to put anyone down, you'd at least better be equal to them in forecasting proficiency. Theo, you know that at least since 2006, I have PREDICTED that a low-count sunspot cycle would cause increased volcanic activity.
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Jan 7, 2011 9:57:06 GMT
Well, looking at it from a forecaster's point of view, listen, this is hard work and it isn't easy either. Applied astrophysics or astronomic forecasting, is tough work and there are few who are proficient at it, so there's not a lot of time to mingle with the masses like some TV talking heads who require everything to be explained to them dumbed-down in third-grade language that can be Twittered. Is forecasting a product? If that's the way one wants to look at it. Long-range forecasters come far and few between and the demand is more than any one-man entity can handle while operations with staffs in the hundreds and budgets well over a million+ dollars can hardly forecast two weeks in advance, much less a month. Forecasters work. The mention of terms like "peer review" is academic language which often emanates from theorists who do not forecast. If they did, then they would not have all the time in the world to ramble on about papers. Piers forecasts. He lets it all hang out. The guy is not a entertainer, he's a forecaster. I can relate to that, because so am I. We've been living in an age of dumbed down climate science, of which the great majority does not know how to practice because that is borne out in the real wold of forecasting - where the weather really happens - and not in some climate journal, or "peer-reviewed paper." Those who like to hide behind their credentials while proving that they cannot forecast should temper their comments because in order to be able to put anyone down, you'd at least better be equal to them in forecasting proficiency. Theo, you know that at least since 2006, I have PREDICTED that a low-count sunspot cycle would cause increased volcanic activity. Yes, this is true Phillip, and you were correct. It appears that 2011 will continue volcanic activity as you predicted back in 2006. Excellent call by the way.
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Jan 14, 2011 14:33:43 GMT
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Jan 27, 2011 20:38:14 GMT
1000 x this and "It would explode with a force a thousand times more powerful than the Mount St Helens eruption in 1980. Spewing lava far into the sky, a cloud of plant-killing ash would fan out and dump a layer 10ft deep up to 1,000 miles away. Two-thirds of the U.S. could become uninhabitable as toxic air sweeps through it, grounding thousands of flights and forcing millions to leave their homes. But hampered by a lack of data they have stopped short of an all-out warning and they are unable to put a date on when the next disaster might take place" "The University of Utah's Bob Smith, an expert in Yellowstone's volcanism told National Geographic: ‘It's an extraordinary uplift, because it covers such a large area and the rates are so high. ‘At the beginning we were concerned it could be leading up to an eruption.’ But he added: ‘Once we saw the magma was at a depth of ten kilometres, we weren't so concerned. ‘If it had been at depths of two or three kilometre we'd have been a lot more concerned." www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/article-1350340/Super-volcano-Yellowstones-National-Park-soon-erupt.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
|
|
|
Post by richdo on Jan 28, 2011 1:58:44 GMT
1000 x this and "It would explode with a force a thousand times more powerful than the Mount St Helens eruption in 1980. Spewing lava far into the sky, a cloud of plant-killing ash would fan out and dump a layer 10ft deep up to 1,000 miles away. Two-thirds of the U.S. could become uninhabitable as toxic air sweeps through it, grounding thousands of flights and forcing millions to leave their homes. But hampered by a lack of data they have stopped short of an all-out warning and they are unable to put a date on when the next disaster might take place" "The University of Utah's Bob Smith, an expert in Yellowstone's volcanism told National Geographic: ‘It's an extraordinary uplift, because it covers such a large area and the rates are so high. ‘At the beginning we were concerned it could be leading up to an eruption.’ But he added: ‘Once we saw the magma was at a depth of ten kilometres, we weren't so concerned. ‘If it had been at depths of two or three kilometre we'd have been a lot more concerned." www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/article-1350340/Super-volcano-Yellowstones-National-Park-soon-erupt.html?ito=feeds-newsxmlThe Yellowstone volcano is a facinating topic. I enjoyed Bill Brysons discussion of it in his book A Short History of Nearly Everything, similar to what is discussed in the dailymail piece. It is interesting to note that the uplift which began ~2004 has pretty much stopped (~2009-10). This is from the Dec 2010 Yellowstone Volcano Observatory monthly update: "Careful analysis of the Yellowstone GPS data shows that the period of accelerated Yellowstone caldera uplift, beginning in 2004, has decreased. Some GPS stations exhibit little change and others appear to reflect slight subsidence." volcanoes.usgs.gov/yvo/activity/archive/2010.phpthe gps data can be found here: pboweb.unavco.org/shared/scripts/stations/?checkkey=WLWY&sec=timeseries_plots×eries=raw
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Jan 28, 2011 2:17:40 GMT
Its illegal, Hansen and Jackson to the breach.
"japan's mount kirishima volcano erupts explosively 26.01.2011. "
|
|
djake
New Member
Posts: 46
|
Post by djake on Jan 28, 2011 3:15:26 GMT
"Eruptions" is a great blog about vulcanology and current volcanos. One of this weeks topics is the Yellowstone Caldera and the media's fixation with it. bigthink.com/blogs/eruptions/There are two posts about Yellowstone on the front page so be sure to scroll down to the larger one also.
|
|
|
Post by richdo on Jan 28, 2011 22:52:28 GMT
"Eruptions" is a great blog about vulcanology and current volcanos. One of this weeks topics is the Yellowstone Caldera and the media's fixation with it. bigthink.com/blogs/eruptions/There are two posts about Yellowstone on the front page so be sure to scroll down to the larger one also. Thanks for the link.
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Feb 21, 2011 15:18:21 GMT
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Mar 12, 2011 17:00:31 GMT
|
|
|
Post by matt on Mar 12, 2011 17:10:45 GMT
Applied astrophysics or astronomic forecasting, is tough work and there are few who are proficient at it, so there's not a lot of time to mingle with the masses like some TV talking heads who require everything to be explained to them dumbed-down in third-grade language that can be Twittered. Is forecasting a product? If that's the way one wants to look at it. Long-range forecasters come far and few between and the demand is more than any one-man entity can handle while operations with staffs in the hundreds and budgets well over a million+ dollars can hardly forecast two weeks in advance, much less a month. Forecasters work. The mention of terms like "peer review" is academic language which often emanates from theorists who do not forecast. If they did, then they would not have all the time in the world to ramble on about papers. Piers forecasts. He lets it all hang out. The guy is not a entertainer, he's a forecaster. I can relate to that, because so am I. We've been living in an age of dumbed down climate science, of which the great majority does not know how to practice because that is borne out in the real wold of forecasting - where the weather really happens - and not in some climate journal, or "peer-reviewed paper." Those who like to hide behind their credentials while proving that they cannot forecast should temper their comments because in order to be able to put anyone down, you'd at least better be equal to them in forecasting proficiency. Papers are fine, but in the wake of Climategate, we've all seen where the misuse of "peer-review" has placed climate science - not in a good light. Given that you spend endless hours spouting on blogs, I'd say by your own definitions you are not a forecaster, but an entertainer. I especially like this morning's after-the-fact "forecast" about Japanese nuclear plants. You and Piers are nothing but charlatans.
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Mar 12, 2011 17:26:45 GMT
|
|
|
Post by matt on Mar 12, 2011 18:19:04 GMT
easy question. Piers and Astrofaker take guesses and wrap them in astrology then call the result "science" when neither has a bit to do with science. The hockey stick is a valid attempt to scientifically explain climate. Astrofaker couldn't give a plausible explanation for anything if his life depended on it. Look at the Japanese earthquake. It happened with AVERAGE tidal forces. Nothing astrometrically relevant to the situation at all. He even read the news about a Japanese nuclear plant having trouble and "forecast" after the fact about meltdowns. As if meltdowns could possibly have anything related to the moon, the sun, the stars, and the planets. We're talking about a total FAKE vs science. Enough said.
|
|
|
Post by aupyramidos on Mar 12, 2011 19:08:23 GMT
new here but have been following SC24, USGS, and Wunderground(weather site) pretty regularly. There seems to me, to be corellations? between the 3. I would have to say something to do with the overall flow of electrons/protons per cubic? spherical? area and the direction as well of eddy/undertow ( in 4-D ) taking place through piezo-electrogravitically arc discharges. I dont know. I could be just crazy. * shrug *
|
|