|
|
Post by sigurdur on Aug 20, 2011 3:16:18 GMT
Who is Joe Romm?
|
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on Aug 20, 2011 6:59:19 GMT
An opinionated ideolog from the other side compared with Anthony Watts! |
|
|
|
Post by codetalker on Aug 20, 2011 18:56:50 GMT
Just returned from Canada. 53° 32' N , 113° 29' W Locals said foliage was turning and they were expecting an early fall. Non scientific but fun.
|
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Aug 21, 2011 1:51:25 GMT
How can, as you say, that "the 2010s being the warmest decade" when it is only the year 2011? This is what I mean about people just taking data and turning into whatever their ideology happens to be at the time. I suggest you actually examine the 1930s to mid-1940s temperatures for yourself before you drink anymore of that AGW kool-aid. By the way, even the 'instrumental' temperature readings taken in the arctic are being disputed. See -> wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/18/flaw-found-in-arctic-temperature-analysis-exaggerates-warming/Astromet, I always get a chuckle when forum members post links to rabid climate delialist blog sites such as Wattsupwiththat. (As if this was some sort of substantive source!) This crank is an ideoligically driven denialist out to promote his personal agenda. His scientific credibility approaches absolute zero. By the way, I have a question about Astrometeorology. I recently met a Vedic Astrologist based in Sedona Arizona. They explained that Vedic Astrology is the best Astrology (and judging by their business volume, a lot of people agree). Are there various theories of astrometeorology and how does Vedic Astrolology compare with what you do? Well Tstat, I wouldn't call Anthony Watts a 'crank' and I certainly would not say that Watts Up With That blog is a 'climate denialist' blog of any sort. Science is discussed there as elsewhere and you would learn a lot more if you would drop the ideology and off-the-cuff labeling of anything that does not agree with your current perspective of climate science. You are bound to miss a lot more than you assume, so it is wiser to look at things from the point of objectivity, observation and reason rather from the stance of ideology and tagging of labels. re/ Vedic - There are no various theories of Astrometeorology. It is part and parcel of mundane astrological forecasting and has a very long history over the centuries. As for Vedic astrology, this is a sidereal technique, which I also practice in tandem with tropical techniques. I would not say that Vedic is the 'best' astrology, as there are various disciplinary techniques applied by advanced astrologers, among them the sidereal technique, which is most common among Indian Hindus. I apply both sidereal and tropical astrological techniques in my forecasting work. |
|
|
|
Post by glennkoks on Aug 21, 2011 3:44:21 GMT
astromet, I reviewed your original post and the vast majority of your predictions were way off base. One could even say that you were 180 degrees out on much of it. I don't want to come off as rude but an objective review of your predictions is not favorable.
|
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Aug 21, 2011 3:55:54 GMT
astromet, I reviewed your original post and the vast majority of your predictions were way off base. One could even say that you were 180 degrees out on much of it. I don't want to come off as rude but an objective review of your predictions is not favorable. The depends on what you call 'objective,' since we do not know if you actually 'reviewed' the vast majority of my forecasts (not predictions) of my long-range for seasonal and climate conditions. I wouldn't call forecasting ENSO four years in advance '180 degrees out.' Most people, and I don't want to come off as rude Glenn, are very short-term and myopic and do not spend the time, or attention to back up their opinions - since it is much easier to try to squeeze climatology and meteorology into very short attention spans. |
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Aug 21, 2011 5:27:49 GMT
Astromet, Like I wrote before, it's standard practice on a discussion forum to quibble. Regarding the warmest 'year' the recent distinction actually refers to the warmest 12 month period rather than the warmest January through December. The data comes from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Climatic Data Center. This warmest 12 month period ever recorded included months in our arbitrary 'years' 2009 and 2010. The actual point was that the warmest 12 months ever recorded just happened. (This is not what cooling looks like.) Again, that's just not true. Not only did NOAA miss the biggest climate event of this past decade - ENSO - it failed to even see it coming. I used to report on NOAA, NCAR, NWS daily and I know these institutions very well. The ideological careerists who succeeded into the management of these institutions have been so ideological and biased that I would question most - if not all - of the data coming out of them over the past 20 years. They've done a lot of damage with their bullshit. Climategate is but the tip of the proverbial iceberg on the fallacy of AGW. We did not have the 'warmest 12 months ever recorded, ' as that is a misnomer and just plain not true. If you believe that then you'll believe anything and that isn't scientific either. |
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Aug 21, 2011 17:30:48 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Aug 22, 2011 0:16:59 GMT
Again, I have to remind everyone that NOAA/NWS does not do seasonal or climate forecasts well at all. Neither forecasting ENSO before it arrives, but then taking part in the free-for-all atmosphere once an El Nino/La Nina appears to then fall over one another trying to 'predict' what level ENSO will reach, wax or wane based on various models. The professionals at conventional climate and met centers along with the many amateurs who follow their lead are not experienced forecasters. The great majority gaze at computer screens and models all day long and rarely understand or note space weather conditions. They are far, far behind. |
|
ant42
Level 3 Rank
Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 129
|
Post by ant42 on Aug 22, 2011 0:39:42 GMT
The reason the NOAA, NWS, and CFS Enso forecast are not good is simply because they are reactionary IMO.
JAMSTEC on the other hand has been outling a double dip La Nina from ealry this year, March IIRC.
I geuss this is hardly surprising given all the latest info regarding how bad the models actually are in regards to climate.
|
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on Aug 22, 2011 0:55:46 GMT
There seems to be a lot of emotion on this thread.
FYI, ENSO is a cycle that goes back and forth. It does not drive long term change, even as it does drive local transient events.
|
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on Aug 22, 2011 1:01:51 GMT
To elaborate, a cycle like ENSO that naturally goes back and forth, does not have the fundamental property required to drive a long term change in climate, such as a long term increase in solar irradiance, for example.
|
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Aug 22, 2011 1:58:04 GMT
To elaborate, a cycle like ENSO that naturally goes back and forth, does not have the fundamental property required to drive a long term change in climate, such as a long term increase in solar irradiance, for example. Thermostat: I used to think the same thing. Now that I understand climate better, I am almost certain that ENSO does drive climate. |
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on Aug 22, 2011 2:27:43 GMT
To elaborate, a cycle like ENSO that naturally goes back and forth, does not have the fundamental property required to drive a long term change in climate, such as a long term increase in solar irradiance, for example. Thermostat: I used to think the same thing. Now that I understand climate better, I am almost certain that ENSO does drive climate. sigurdur, That is a fascinating assertion! Please elaborate on why you think this. |
|
|
|
Post by commonsense on Aug 22, 2011 2:59:14 GMT
To elaborate, a cycle like ENSO that naturally goes back and forth, does not have the fundamental property required to drive a long term change in climate, such as a long term increase in solar irradiance, for example. Thermostat: I used to think the same thing. Now that I understand climate better, I am almost certain that ENSO does drive climate. Since ENSO cycles up and down, it's affect on temperatures also goes positive and negative. No, your assertion is most assuredly false. ENSO affects weather, not climate. |
|
