|
Post by hrizzo on Jun 13, 2014 18:13:30 GMT
"A bunch of words?" ..."Amusing?" Wasn't trying to entertain you. And the last time I checked one has to prove one's assertion that astrology is what you say, and you haven't done anything even close to that. Yes, sir. Amusing. For as you should know, if you really understand what science is, that the astrological conjecture is the one that has to prove its assertions and demonstrate its predictions... something it has never done in the last few thousand years. Do you have any astrological prediction, with numbers and parameters to be checked against reality? If so, you would be really great. If not, just amusing.
|
|
|
Post by hrizzo on Jun 13, 2014 12:52:37 GMT
Nevertheless, Astromet, nowadays and by definition, astronomy is science and astrology is fraud. And a bunch of words cannot change that, like you or not.
But keep on with your efforts. They are amusing.
|
|
|
Post by hrizzo on Jun 13, 2014 11:26:06 GMT
Hrizzo, using the term *logy* that follows *astro" and then to state that it is 'no science', is a contradiction in terms. Do you realize that? No contradiction in terms, sir. Use your dictionary. Astrology is pre-science. When the time of differentiation came, the science took the name of astronomy, and astrology kept its share of religion, fraud, swindle and deception. Those are their respective parameters. So, now they cannot be confused... although astrologists keep pretending they are scientists. Which they are not, of course.
|
|
|
Post by hrizzo on Jun 13, 2014 7:11:25 GMT
For the last several years I have read Astromet's seasonal forecasts and revisited them line by line a few months later. And like his ENSO predictions there is really not enough meat on them to verify one way or the other. The few rare specific events he forecasts don't seem to be much better than chance. Some seem to be right on the money others are clearly busts. Astrology is no science, as you know. Chance and credulity is what it relies on.
|
|
|
Post by hrizzo on Jun 13, 2014 2:06:20 GMT
AstroMet:
You keep saying that you predicted/predict a La Niña phase and/or an El Niño phase of ENSO... but how can we know that what you say is true? You are not defining any of them, so you may be predicting anything and telling us that you predicted another thing altogether, because you does not tell us your definition of the term... unless you are using NOAA parameters for the predicted phenomenon... do you?
You keep talking and talking (or rather, writing and writing), but you make me remember of a famous mexican comic, Cantinflas, who had the hilarious capability of discoursing for hours without saying anything remotely cogent.
Come on, man. And you pretend to be taken seriously? Give us a break.
And no, I make no predictions. I am serious, and I use my own name, as you can see. And I don´t like to fool anyone or to be fooled by anyone. I am curious, that´s all. I am curious and skeptic, just that, and I like to ask questions. Sometimes it is bothering to some people, of course, but that is their problem, not mine.
|
|
|
Post by hrizzo on Jun 12, 2014 10:14:25 GMT
AstroMet says:
La Niña represents the cool phase of the El Niño/Southern Oscillation (otherwise known as the ENSO cycle) or the Pacific cold episode. And of course El Niño is the warm phase, also known to forecasters as the Pacific warm episode. There is no misuse of the term by me, except by those who still don't understand it.
Ok. We are entering the realm of my question, the one that you have not answered yet, AstroMet:
What are the parameters of those phases? In your definition, How cool and for how long it must be (whatever it may be) to be considered a La Niña? And how warm and for how long it must be to be considered an El Niño?
|
|
|
Post by hrizzo on Jun 10, 2014 7:24:43 GMT
Yes, AstroMet, but... how do you define El Niño o La Niña o La Nada? How do you differentiate them? In short, what are the parameters you apply to know when we are in one or other of those phases?
As you said, science is about the ability to predict, and in order to do that you must crearly define in simple numbers and/or characteristics what you are predicting.
That is the difference with religion, even with AGW cult.
|
|
|
Post by hrizzo on May 23, 2014 8:34:49 GMT
AstroMet:
So essentially and in a nutshell, it is your prediction that until 2020 we will only have La Nada?
|
|
|
Post by hrizzo on May 5, 2014 12:55:07 GMT
hrizzo 4.8 zaphod 4.3 throttlup 4.2 dontgetoutmuch 4.0 icefisher 3.9
2013 - 3.55
flearider 3.3 neilhamp 3.3 karlox 3.1 kenfeldman 2.7 sigurdur 2.5
2012 - 2.33
birder 2.2
|
|
|
Post by hrizzo on Aug 20, 2013 12:33:33 GMT
numerouno:
Old soviet joke:
"The future is settled, the past is not"
|
|
|
Post by hrizzo on Jun 13, 2013 15:16:08 GMT
Please, put me down for 4.25, but maybe I´ll fall short...
|
|
|
Post by hrizzo on Jun 12, 2013 15:19:21 GMT
"Study the past if you would define the future." Confucius
|
|
|
Post by hrizzo on May 6, 2013 15:43:05 GMT
Regulation, its all settled and my model includes everything. "Organic vapors affect clouds leading to previously unidentified climate cooling"
"University of Manchester scientists, writing in the journal Nature Geoscience, have shown that natural emissions and humanmade pollutants can both have an unexpected cooling effect on Earth's climate by making clouds brighter. Clouds are made of water droplets, condensed onto tiny particles suspended in the air. When the air is humid enough, the particles swell into cloud droplets. It has been known for some decades that the number of these particles and their size control how bright the clouds appear from the top, controlling the efficiency with which clouds scatter sunlight back into space. A major challenge for climate science is to understand and quantify these effects which have a major impact in polluted regions."
linkOh, yes, we human are so bad! But, of course, this could explain why places as polluted and wet as Antarctica have been cooling for at least 30+ years.
|
|
|
Post by hrizzo on Mar 4, 2013 15:09:46 GMT
Steve wrote:
Many, many years ago, Isaac Asimov wrote about an historian who "weighed" the opinions of the great historians of the past in order to find the truth, and said that was what the scientific method, at least the way he understood it. Of course, it was a comical character.
|
|
|
Post by hrizzo on Mar 3, 2013 14:27:11 GMT
Steve said:
Evidence, please. Models not allowed.
|
|