|
|
Post by AstroMet on Aug 6, 2011 6:21:29 GMT
It's quite typical from NCEP, however, ENSO is history for the most part with La Nina also waning. My astronomic calculations have neutral conditions predominating into 2012. Next year's climate, generally speaking, is more or less warm, and dry with active storms, but without the force of ENSO. We're looking at a much drier year in 2012 with warmer temperatures across the board as well as significant drought in various regions. |
|
|
|
Post by codetalker on Aug 8, 2011 20:47:33 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Aug 11, 2011 4:45:38 GMT
Thermostat: I do believe the topic of disucussion is the ENSO models. My response was in regard to them. As far as models per se, most models in physics are modeling a known phenominum within known laws to obtain results with varying dynamics. They are simple models. Climate models are trying to project something using some known physics incorporating ideas that are not proven with parameters not proven with forces in play that are not well understood. The results are highly variable, which is to be expected. What the important theme that all should agree on, is the outcomes are useless in the real world. Sigirdur, You wrote, "Climate models are trying to project something using some known physics incorporating ideas that are not proven with parameters not proven with forces in play that are not well understood. The results are highly variable, which is to be expected." What do you refer to as 'forces not well understood'? To clarify, climate models are physical descriptions of the natural world based on historical observations and well understood physical principals. The act of projecting invariably involves something 'unproven''fair enough. Understood? a great question. Forces in play? Got some new ones? Yes, Thermostat, but I will show you why climate modelers are silly: I forecasted this recent ENSO event years in advance because I know how to forecast and apply astrometeorological principles. The reason why 22 international forecasting centers did not forecast ENSO in advance is because of this major problem they have with their modelers and their climate models that assume the Earth's climate is always in equilibrium. I know that it is not. This is the center of the conventional climate school of thought - those who foolishly say man is the cause of global warming - when anyone with common sense knows it is untrue and pure fiction the way AGW has been perpetuated on the world. The notion that the Earth's climate is in 'equilibrium' is absurd. Because if this were true then there would be no weather news - no weather or climate events at all - because everything would always be perfect. And that just isn't true in the real world. The reason why AGW believers hold tightly to their concept of climate equilibrium is because it has been the dominant belief system of this school of thought that you can only model the Earth's climate if it is in equilibrium. From my experience in astronomic forecasting - a real science -that school of thought which you adhere to is absurd. The Earth's climate is a dynamic climate system and like all dynamic systems - it must be out of equilibrium. In order to truly 'model' the climate, which is something I do astronomically to forecast, all one has to do is to apply differential equations; which I perform astrologically. Learning to observe the Earth's climate as it is and not play modelling games with it, while also learning to perform, read and interpret differential equations leads to the ability to forecast the climate and weather accurately. These are sophisticated forecasting tools I use to forecast because I follow the laws of physics and do not have an AGW ideological bone in my body. So, in order for you to clearly understand why climate modelers cannot forecast the weather (much less the climate) all you have to do is to see that they falsely come from a school of thought, of which you sadly belong, which sees equilibrium in our world's climate that does not - and never did - exist. |
|
|
|
Post by justwonderin on Aug 11, 2011 4:56:34 GMT
so it sound as if you proudly refuse to accept known science. Why? And what are the results?
|
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Aug 11, 2011 5:03:06 GMT
so it sound as if you proudly refuse to accept known science. Why? And what are the results? Which known science is that? Sheesh, not more Appeals to Authority. Thermostat does that well enough. |
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Aug 11, 2011 5:03:20 GMT
so it sound as if you proudly refuse to accept known science. Why? And what are the results? Lol! "Proudly refuse to accept known science?" What a load of total crap. Have you noticed that this so-called 'known science' cannot forecast the weather two weeks or a month out in advance, much less seasonally? Or is that something you just would rather ignore from this 'known science' that pontificates to all the world what the climate will be like 50 to 200 years from now? You cannot get a 'little bit pregnant.' Don't make me laugh. |
|
|
|
Post by hairball on Aug 13, 2011 0:01:20 GMT
The UK Met Office models had been predicting neutral to high ENSO, but they've switched to a weak Niña now.  |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Aug 13, 2011 0:25:45 GMT
hairball:
This is one thing that NOAA has gotten right. They tuned their ensemble to a negative PDO several years ago. They have been doing a much MUCH better job of forcasting than all of the other IPCC models.
The other models keep wanting to show a El Nino.....instead of being real.
OH well.....at least the Brits are catching on now?....Maybe?
I am sorry, you being from Ireland and all......but your Met Office was so comical to watch...make forcasts...and then it was exactly the opposite.
That only certifies Astromets point in an above post.
|
|
|
|
Post by hairball on Aug 13, 2011 0:46:01 GMT
Heh, they don't get any of my taxes, Sigurdur (as far as I know). Hard not to call a Niña now, the surface is really cooling off and the heat that was in the depths a couple of months ago has vanished. 90-day SOI has been positive for a record length of time (and the record goes back to 1876)***.   I've read an awful lot to get me to believe that La Niña warms the ocean, but it doesn't seem to have done it this time - and Eastern Pacific cloud cover was at a record low there for a while. I may have to rethink these things. If Niña cools the atmosphere and the ocean (which is what I thought before I started reading on the subject) then we might all be in trouble. *** Now that I take another look, it was positive for longer in 1916 and the 1970's :/ |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Aug 13, 2011 0:57:04 GMT
hairball:
I really don't know what to think anymore. I have read the literature, and what seemed to be correct is now seeming not to be correct. I know that climate science is shaky at best....the agw part.....and is based on a tremendous amount of assumptions.
Now that some of those assumptions have been in play long enough to show they are wrong, the resistance to observed temps/hot spots/etc is truely amazing.
The models need work......really badly. What this is showing is that the models have been wrong with the warming bias. I do want to know what is going on, but it is apparant that something very important is being undervalued, and undervalued dramatically it would seem.
|
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Aug 13, 2011 6:06:29 GMT
The UK Met Office models had been predicting neutral to high ENSO, but they've switched to a weak Niña now.
Not surprising since Nino 3.4 went into La Nina territory over the past 5 days.
Of course the GCMs are still stuck solid on neutral. . . .all the sign in the world can't override bias.
|
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on Aug 14, 2011 1:15:45 GMT
The UK Met Office models had been predicting neutral to high ENSO, but they've switched to a weak Niña now.Not surprising since Nino 3.4 went into La Nina territory over the past 5 days. Of course the GCMs are still stuck solid on neutral. . . .all the sign in the world can't override bias. Icefisher Good to see you are catching on with these particular sorts of models. This is one particular issue in geophysics is about extrapolating current events forward in a particular geographical region. Climate models come at related issues from the other end; moving from broad, general trends to understandig events in particular regions. I think we can agree, it is not all figured out. |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Aug 14, 2011 2:34:26 GMT
I think we can agree, it is not all figured out.
Kind of ties into the Anthropocene thread huh? The issue here is now a series of La Ninas is what is causing the variation. But one needs to note that when it was cooling in the 1950's and 60's it was La Nina dominate too. Then it became El Nino dominate. In fact we were told to expect El Nino to become permanent suggesting that the shift from La Ninas to El Ninos was not regional and due to AGW.
Now that its going back its now regional. . . .again. . . . huh? Oops! Not again. . . .for the first time! LOL!
|
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on Aug 14, 2011 2:58:36 GMT
I think we can agree, it is not all figured out.Kind of ties into the Anthropocene thread huh? The issue here is now a series of La Ninas is what is causing the variation. But one needs to note that when it was cooling in the 1950's and 60's it was La Nina dominate too. Then it became El Nino dominate. In fact we were told to expect El Nino to become permanent suggesting that the shift from La Ninas to El Ninos was not regional and due to AGW. Now that its going back its now regional. . . .again. . . . huh? Oops! Not again. . . .for the first time! LOL! icefisher, This is where were we meet the conceptual disconnect. ENSO goes on and on, back and forth. ENSO is not the climate driver. |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Aug 14, 2011 3:18:16 GMT
This is where were we meet the conceptual disconnect. ENSO goes on and on, back and forth. ENSO is not the climate driver.
I am good to go on that Tstat. So why is it not warming?
|
|
