*EL NINO/LA NINA FORECAST 2010-2011*

[icefisher]

Let's add up the score. You got 1 out of 5 right, for an accuracy of perhaps 20%. Not very good. Looks like random chance so far.

Seems to me most of those misses are related to the solar prediction, putting Astromet in some rather illustrious company.

I don't expect him to get everything right but one has to be careful how you evaluate predictions. 6 predicted conditions as a result of one expectation that turns out wrong is a very common situation in weather forecasts and so far the rule for climate science forecasting.

I am not convinced of your analysis. It seems rather naive to the issues of prediction of weather and climate and whether or not the basis of astrometeorology has a genuine connection to astronomical phenomena.

I would expect a denier of celestial influences on our climate to miss such nuances as that is the nature of making up ones mind prematurely.

OTOH, predictability of such variation beyond the 11 year cycle or the intensity of the cycle still seems up in the air.

My experience has been that solar cycles tempt prediction by their regular cyclical nature and stuff based on that has a good record of accuracy. But I am not convinced of there being much to essentially the numerology stuff you see all over the Space Weather forum has much support.

[commonsense]

Sept 6, 2011 19:32:09 GMT AstroMet said:

That's your opinion, but again, doesn't make you right. My ENSO forecast was a long-range one, a climate forecast and ENSO occurred. I don't know anything about your 'random scoring' methodology since there's nothing random about my forecasts.

So, if you call that 'not very good' so be it but that's your opinion and it doesn't count for much at all. If you can do better, be my guest.

Sure, I scored you 1-5. That's my contribution. I welcome others to also rate your success or lack thereof. By consolidating everyone's opinion, we'll get a pretty good indicator of your skill.

Your claim that you make long range forecasts needs clarification. Of the five major forecasts you made in these two linked posts, the only prediction you got right was only two months before the fact. That's not very long term at all.

Challenging me to do better is a red herring. I don't claim to be able to do better than the experts and their super-computers. You are the one claiming great skill. I'm simply asking you to demonstrate it. So far, your score is 1 out of 5. I agree that my scoring should count for little, and sincerely hope that others add their input so we can average the scores. Note that I limited my scoring to the Big Picture items - solar cycles and ENSO. Much of the rest of your forecasts were "There will be non-specified storms, droughts, and rain" type stuff, so it looked hard to score. Others may want to try to untangle and translate it into a score.

[AstroMet]

Sept 6, 2011 19:48:21 GMT commonsense said:

Sept 6, 2011 19:32:09 GMT AstroMet said:

That's your opinion, but again, doesn't make you right. My ENSO forecast was a long-range one, a climate forecast and ENSO occurred. I don't know anything about your 'random scoring' methodology since there's nothing random about my forecasts.

So, if you call that 'not very good' so be it but that's your opinion and it doesn't count for much at all. If you can do better, be my guest.

Sure, I scored you 1-5. That's my contribution. I welcome others to also rate your success or lack thereof. By consolidating everyone's opinion, we'll get a pretty good indicator of your skill.

Your claim that you make long range forecasts needs clarification. Of the five major forecasts you made in these two linked posts, the only prediction you got right was only two months before the fact. That's not very long term at all.

Challenging me to do better is a red herring. I don't claim to be able to do better than the experts and their super-computers. You are the one claiming great skill. I'm simply asking you to demonstrate it. So far, your score is 1 out of 5. I agree that my scoring should count for little, and sincerely hope that others add their input so we can average the scores. Note that I limited my scoring to the Big Picture items - solar cycles and ENSO. Much of the rest of your forecasts were "There will be non-specified storms, droughts, and rain" type stuff, so it looked hard to score. Others may want to try to untangle and translate it into a score.

Well, your so-called 'scoring' system is highly suspect, since you deny ENSO arrived, you seem to totally avoid the Japan earthquake, and you do not want to see the droughts I've forecasted.

I do not claim 'great skill,' but perhaps that is what bothers you? I obtained my skill set by hard work and with open eyes, no more and no less. Your ignorance of the methodology of long-range forecasting needs attention. You ought to spend much of your time on that before making such unqualified comments and uninformed opinions.

What you need to do is 'untangle' is your own confused 'scoring system' which counts for little, and as Icefisher said translate that into some common sense, because it just isn't there on the Earth's climate and weather - in the real world. That's what you need to be doing.

I just work here pal.

[commonsense]

Sept 6, 2011 19:46:29 GMT icefisher said:

Let's add up the score. You got 1 out of 5 right, for an accuracy of perhaps 20%. Not very good. Looks like random chance so far.

Seems to me most of those misses are related to the solar prediction, putting Astromet in some rather illustrious company.

I don't expect him to get everything right but one has to be careful how you evaluate predictions. 6 predicted conditions as a result of one expectation that turns out wrong is a very common situation in weather forecasts and so far the rule for climate science forecasting.

I am not convinced of your analysis. It seems rather naive to the issues of prediction of weather and climate and whether or not the basis of astrometeorology has a genuine connection to astronomical phenomena.

I would expect a denier of celestial influences on our climate to miss such nuances as that is the nature of making up ones mind prematurely.

OTOH, predictability of such variation beyond the 11 year cycle or the intensity of the cycle still seems up in the air.

My experience has been that solar cycles tempt prediction by their regular cyclical nature and stuff based on that has a good record of accuracy. But I am not convinced of there being much to essentially the numerology stuff you see all over the Space Weather forum has much support.

I don't miss the nuances, plus I know that a score of 50% would be extremely high. His claim of 85-90% would be essentially supernatural. Chaos sees to that. Random chance is going to miss far more often than it hits. You don't have to be convinced of my analysis. I posted his quotes. Go ahead and refute my scores, or add further quotes of his to score. I'll be happy to change my scoring. Also, if you have input about how this whole analysis should be done, feel free to give it. This whole set-up is just my initial contribution. It's not perfect, and not cast in stone. Improve it if you like.

Also note that there are duplications. I limited my scoring to the two major, easily checked items - ENSO and solar cycle/output. His basic contention is that the sun is the source and ENSO follows. It seems logical that if Astromet can/can't get these two right, then his hypothesis is supported/rejected, and all the individual weather forecasts fade into random chance. Also, it is more fairly scored. How is one to score "There will be heavy rain/drought somewhere"? You'd need a lot of analysis, both current and historical, for the entire planet to convert such a nebulous prediction into a score.

My score could be challenged based on the duplications - his solar miss was huge, and appears to me to invalidate his entire contention all by itself (unless he could explain the discrepancy). but really, is it fair to count it more than once just because he mentioned it in more than one post?

I'm not looking for anything scientifically rigorous. This is a blog, and everyone is welcome to join. That includes you. Icefisher, would you do me the favour of assembling and posting your version of a score for Astromet's two posts he just linked to?

And Astromet, we're still waiting for a link to your Dec 2008 time-stamped forecast. That's holding up your score for the Jan 1 2010 forecast.

[commonsense]

Well, your so-called 'scoring' system is highly suspect, since you deny ENSO arrived, you seem to totally avoid the Japan earthquake, and you do not want to see the droughts I've forecasted.

ENSO has never left. It is ALWAYS here. Are you referring to the two latest El Ninos? Or perhaps the La Nina? Please, I gave you a hit on the September 2006 El Nino beginning. I'm sure others will as well. You predicted the 2006 Sept El Nino two months in advance. As to the Japanese earthquake, I mentioned it as well, and welcome adding it to the scoring. I just want to complete the posts we have in hand first before going on. I didn't see any particular drought predictions in the two posts - just generalizations - were there any? Let's take this step-by-step and be logical about it instead of flying all over the place willy-nilly. It is not acceptable to pluck a single specific hit out of a long list of predictions and claim successful forecasting. We have to pick a subject, such as ENSO or the sun, and look through all your forecasts, or we have to pick individual forecasts and look at each and every prediction contained within.

I do not claim 'great skill,' but perhaps that is what bothers you? I obtained my skill set by hard work and with open eyes, no more and no less. Your ignorance of the methodology of long-range forecasting needs attention. You ought to spend much of your time on that before making such unqualified comments and uninformed opinions.


You have claimed 85-90% accuracy. To me, that is not just great skill, but phenomenal skill. How is it an uninformed opinion to note that your ENSO and solar predictions mostly failed? I gave quotes from your posts and the historical data speaks for itself. Most of your predictions on these two matters missed, and the ones for the sun were abjectly miserable. Your solar predictions not only missed, they showed negative skill, if that's possible. For someone who claims all derives from solar changes, that speaks deafeningly of inability to forecast. Please explain why your forecast for solar output and cycles for the last five years have all been so miserably wrong, or give a quote of a time-stamped forecast where you correctly, or even less-incorrectly forecast solar conditions.

What you need to do is 'untangle' is your own confused 'scoring system' which counts for little, and as Icefisher said translate that into some common sense, because it just isn't there on the Earth's climate and weather - in the real world. That's what you need to be doing.


Then add to the discussion by giving suggestions for improvements. Anyone can whine, but those who give value-added are much more desired. I'd guess that everyone on this board wants objective data about your skill at forecasting. My suggestion for a method of roughly determining it is on the table. You're welcome to give your own suggestion for an alternative method or for improvements.
[/quote]

[steve]

astromet, I'm still waiting for that big Californian earthquake you predicted for April-May.

commonsense - the wall you are banging your head against doesn't move.

[AstroMet]

Sept 6, 2011 20:41:35 GMT commonsense said:

Well, your so-called 'scoring' system is highly suspect, since you deny ENSO arrived, you seem to totally avoid the Japan earthquake, and you do not want to see the droughts I've forecasted.

ENSO has never left. It is ALWAYS here. Are you referring to the two latest El Ninos? Or perhaps the La Nina? Please, I gave you a hit on the September 2006 El Nino beginning. I'm sure others will as well. You predicted the 2006 Sept El Nino two months in advance. As to the Japanese earthquake, I mentioned it as well, and welcome adding it to the scoring. I just want to complete the posts we have in hand first before going on. I didn't see any particular drought predictions in the two posts - just generalizations - were there any? Let's take this step-by-step and be logical about it instead of flying all over the place willy-nilly. It is not acceptable to pluck a single specific hit out of a long list of predictions and claim successful forecasting. We have to pick a subject, such as ENSO or the sun, and look through all your forecasts, or we have to pick individual forecasts and look at each and every prediction contained within.

I do not claim 'great skill,' but perhaps that is what bothers you? I obtained my skill set by hard work and with open eyes, no more and no less. Your ignorance of the methodology of long-range forecasting needs attention. You ought to spend much of your time on that before making such unqualified comments and uninformed opinions.


You have claimed 85-90% accuracy. To me, that is not just great skill, but phenomenal skill. How is it an uninformed opinion to note that your ENSO and solar predictions mostly failed? I gave quotes from your posts and the historical data speaks for itself. Most of your predictions on these two matters missed, and the ones for the sun were abjectly miserable. Your solar predictions not only missed, they showed negative skill, if that's possible. For someone who claims all derives from solar changes, that speaks deafeningly of inability to forecast. Please explain why your forecast for solar output and cycles for the last five years have all been so miserably wrong, or give a quote of a time-stamped forecast where you correctly, or even less-incorrectly forecast solar conditions.

What you need to do is 'untangle' is your own confused 'scoring system' which counts for little, and as Icefisher said translate that into some common sense, because it just isn't there on the Earth's climate and weather - in the real world. That's what you need to be doing.


Then add to the discussion by giving suggestions for improvements. Anyone can whine, but those who give value-added are much more desired. I'd guess that everyone on this board wants objective data about your skill at forecasting. My suggestion for a method of roughly determining it is on the table. You're welcome to give your own suggestion for an alternative method or for improvements.

You said, "ENSO has never left. It is ALWAYS here."

Wrong, ENSO is not always here. That statement, along with many others that come from you 'common sense' are typical of people who think their opinions serve as facts. They do not.

How is ENSO always with us? How is that even possible?

the problem with you is that you want to see only through a biased myopic lens what you want. That's intellectually dishonest, something I continue to say is true about you until you prove otherwise.

Since you want to be 'logical' and all, for example, in my ENSO Forecast, I ended with these comments:

Comments on 2010 Climate -

A stormy year is ahead for many countries in 2010. According to my forecast the year will be warmer and much wetter than normal leading to widespread floods on three continents; parts of Asia, the Americas, and Europe.

Flooding of regions has been recorded in late December 2009 in parts of the Americas and Europe and continues into early January. Heavy rains have led to widespread floods in Argentina, Spain, and Portugal. This will become more common in other regions as 2010 progresses.

I expect many more regions to experience significant flooding in a year dominated by El Nino. This particular El Nino, from my analysis, appears to be a combination of the 1982-83 ENSO and the 1997-98 ENSO, but will exhibit unusual features not seen in previously recorded ENSO states.

This will make the developing ENSO state not only an historic one, but also an unusual climate phenomena worthy of lengthy study after all is said and done.

From NOAA -

"There was a strong La Niña episode during 1988–1989. La Niña also formed in 1995 and from 1998–2000, and a minor one from 2000–2001. In recent times, an occurrence of El Niño started in September 2006 and lasted until early 2007.

From June 2007 on, data indicated a moderate La Niña event, which strengthened in early 2008 and weakened by early 2009; the 2007–2008 La Niña event was the strongest since the 1988–1989 event.

The strength of the La Niña made the 2008 Atlantic hurricane season one of the most active since 1944; there were 16 named storms of at least 39 mph (63 km/h), eight of which became 74 mph (119 km/h) or greater hurricanes.

El Niño conditions were in place in the equatorial Pacific Ocean starting June 2009, peaking in January–February. Positive SST anomalies (El Niño) lasted until May 2010.

Since then, SST anomalies have been negative (La Niña) and expected to stay negative for the next northern winter.

The 2010-2011 La Niña was one of the strongest ever observed."

Yet, despite this, you call me 'wrong.' So despite my ENSO Forecast being validated by the climate of the real world, you would choose to nickel-and-dime with your 'random' method rather than simply looking at what the climate/weather was doing in the real world.

That is intellectually dishonest so you are in no position to put anything on the table since you obviously are blind to the weather and climate in the real world - you who says that ENSO is always with us?

Here's another gem of yours, "Your solar predictions not only missed, they showed negative skill, if that's possible. For someone who claims all derives from solar changes, that speaks deafeningly of inability to forecast. Please explain why your forecast for solar output and cycles for the last five years have all been so miserably wrong, or give a quote of a time-stamped forecast where you correctly, or even less-incorrectly forecast solar conditions."

Really? "On January 4, 2008, a reversed-polarity sunspot appeared—and this signals the start of Solar Cycle 24," says David Hathaway of the Marshall Space Flight Center.

See -> science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2008/10jan_solarcycle24/

Then this happened -> wattsupwiththat.com/2008/08/21/australian-space-weather-agency-pushes-solar-cycle-24-up-6-months/

This is what I said in my ENSO Forecast, on this thread.

SOLAR CYCLE #24

It is important not to take this particular El Nino lightly. The Sun is beginning to pick up activity, a sure sign of coming climate changes on Earth.

In 2008, out of the year's 365 days, the Sun was blank (no sunspots) 73% of the year, about 266 days. The Sun has been in the longest known solar minimum recorded since 1901 and 1913.

All that ended in 2009, and going into 2010, the Sun is seeing a continued pickup in sunspot activity which signals the start of Solar Cycle #24.

Recent measurements by NASA show a direct correlation to the Sun's minimum to cooler global temperatures. The opposite of what has been forecasted by man-made global warming advocates.

I have continued to state that the causes of all climate change is astronomical - global warming and global cooling - and is solar-forced.

NASA recently stated December 17, 2009 that -

"New measurements from a NASA satellite show a dramatic cooling in the upper atmosphere that correlates with the declining phase of the current solar cycle. For the first time, researchers can show a timely link between the Sun and the climate of Earth’s thermosphere, the region above 100 km, an essential step in making accurate predictions of climate change in the high atmosphere."

A new sunspot imaged on September 23, 2008, is in the expected location to signal the start of Solar Cycle #24, see -

www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/soho/sunspot_20080923.html

A new sunspot group issuing frequent solar flares was detected December 14, 2009 on the Sun's surface. Stretching the length of nine Earths, this new sunspot group continues to signal that the Sun's three-year minima cycle is coming to an end -

See - soho.esac.esa.int/pickoftheweek/

I also expect this new Solar maximum cycle to grow stronger into the early-to-mid-2010s, which will mean a very active several years of climate changes, featuring intense weather patterns on the Earth.

This will be an historic solar maximum lasting to about the year 2015-16 - three years longer than expected by most scientists.

In my estimation, since the Cycle of The Sun began in May 1980 causing the eruption of Mount St. Helen's and opening up the current 36-year phase of global warming.

I expect the Sun's new maximum to close on its cycle with a very active series of sunspot activity to rival many previous maximums and cause the Earth's climate to react powerfully between 2010 through to the year 2016.

Because of this, we are facing a strong six-to-seven-year series of climate events that will close the door on global warming and open up a new global cooling cycle, but the damaging effects of global warming caused by the Sun's activity since 1980 will last into the 2020s.

However, according to my longer-range calculations, the earth should begin to see signs and increasing frequencies of colder La Nina phases with weaker El Nino events into the late 2010s.

These cooler anomalies will indicate stronger signals that a new era of global cooling will begin in about the year 2016-17.

This globally cooler era should peak in the mid-2030s and last to about the year 2052 - a 36-year climate cycle of global cooling.

But remember common sense, you said, ""Your solar predictions not only missed, they showed negative skill, if that's possible. For someone who claims all derives from solar changes, that speaks deafeningly of inability to forecast. Please explain why your forecast for solar output and cycles for the last five years have all been so miserably wrong, or give a quote of a time-stamped forecast where you correctly, or even less-incorrectly forecast solar conditions."

The last five years? Can't you read? I said in my ENSO Forecast that "I expect the Sun's new maximum to close on its cycle with a very active series of sunspot activity to rival many previous maximums and cause the Earth's climate to react powerfully between 2010 through to the year 2016."

So you are saying I am wrong about the Sun retroactively? How is that even possible? What's your hurry? Oh, right, you just want to say I 'fail' before I fail, so that way, I can be what, a failure?

This is what I mean about ideology and bias in Science. And it is why climate science is in such a sad state because of idiots who cannot count. Sorry pal, but you're not qualified to 'random sample' anything since you obviously have shown you cannot count, much less read a calendar. Geez.

For those AGW and deniers of celestial regulation of the Earth's climate, take heart to what Steven Wilde says:

The Unifying Theory Of Earth’s Climate

"The claims of those who worry about human damage to the climate become ever more strident despite, or perhaps because of, the real world data rapidly diverging from that which they anticipated.

It is now 13 years since the 1998 culmination of a period of thirty years of unusual ocean surface warmth that resulted in the atmospheric temperature peak of that year.

Additionally during that period the sun was more active than ever previously recorded.

AGW proponents accept that the virtual cessation of warming over the past 13 years is a result of cooler ocean surfaces but refuse to accept the corollary that the primary cause of the warmer period was warmer ocean surfaces. Warmer oceans also expand and release natural CO2.

The apparent levelling off in the sea level rise is coincident with recent cooler ocean surfaces. It is a recent discovery that the oceans can act for decades at a time as net absorbers OR net emitters of previously accumulated solar energy on a vast and highly variable scale yet AGW proponents still ignore the overwhelming evidence because to acknowledge it would destroy years of fond memories of a publicly funded gold rush encouraged by their fanciful claims to understand climate and be in a position to influence it.

The AGW proponents ask us to believe many impossible things:

a) That despite a historically very active sun there was no solar warming in the latter half of the 20th Century.

b) That despite 30 years of anomalous ocean surface warmth the oceans were not the cause (but it is accepted that recent ocean cooling is the cause of recent atmospheric cooling).

c) That the Arctic has only warmed because of AGW and not as a side effect of warmer ocean water flowing into the Arctic Circle.

d) That although warmer ocean surfaces absorb less CO2 the observed increase in CO2 in the air is all or mostly our fault.

e) That a warmer ocean surface increases the surface/space temperature differential yet does not give rise to a significant increase in loss of energy to space.

f) That models which are abject failures in predicting changes in global temperature trend should be used to inform policy decisions up to 100 years hence.

g) That the current cooling is weather but the earlier warming was climate.

I could go one but readers will get the picture.

After ten years the assertions that everything since 1998 is ‘just weather’, ‘internal variability’ or ‘masking the underlying trend’, become ever more tiresome and unreasonable to expect us to believe.

"The AGW proponents must now pause, take stock and immediately advise the policy makers that the levels of confidence expressed in the IPCC reports are grossly overstated and now under serious question.

The attempts to dismiss all the accumulating real world evidence are perverse. Any suggestion that recent and current events represent merely a temporary cessation of CO2 induced warming must now stop.

AGW proponents have for long enough been demonising so called ‘deniers’ over climate issues yet we are now on the cusp of a complete reversal whereby AGW proponents should now be proclaimed as the deniers of reality.

Cold is so much more dangerous than warmth that they are now likely to become responsible for far more damage to humanity than would have been possible through the actions of AGW skeptics."

One of the dumbest things you, Glc, Steve, and others on this board have adhered yourselves to is the false belief that you are able to quantify long-range forecasts.

You will highlight busts at will, but hardly if ever look at the successes as if any forecaster must be perfect. I have not met or heard one forecaster who ever claimed to be 'perfect,' but you fellas go on and on as if we said we were while you sit on your own asses not able to even forecast the monthly weather over your own heads. The hubris is amazing.

Moreover, you AGW fellas never look at the real world of climate as if they are non-existent, while you pine on about how the Sun isn't a factor, or a 'mere' factor, as if you know what you are talking about - when you don't.

Some of you are either very young, or old grouchy men who believe that they know it all, but who know very little about their own planet's climate - much less the local weather over your own heads.

You are dinosaur critics living in a dreamworld without a clue as to what century this actually is and guess what - you are going the way of the dinosaur too.

[AstroMet]

Sept 6, 2011 19:46:29 GMT icefisher said:

Let's add up the score. You got 1 out of 5 right, for an accuracy of perhaps 20%. Not very good. Looks like random chance so far.

Seems to me most of those misses are related to the solar prediction, putting Astromet in some rather illustrious company.

I don't expect him to get everything right but one has to be careful how you evaluate predictions. 6 predicted conditions as a result of one expectation that turns out wrong is a very common situation in weather forecasts and so far the rule for climate science forecasting.

I am not convinced of your analysis. It seems rather naive to the issues of prediction of weather and climate and whether or not the basis of astrometeorology has a genuine connection to astronomical phenomena.

I would expect a denier of celestial influences on our climate to miss such nuances as that is the nature of making up ones mind prematurely.

OTOH, predictability of such variation beyond the 11 year cycle or the intensity of the cycle still seems up in the air.

My experience has been that solar cycles tempt prediction by their regular cyclical nature and stuff based on that has a good record of accuracy. But I am not convinced of there being much to essentially the numerology stuff you see all over the Space Weather forum has much support.

Agreed, one of the issues in climate science has been that the ideology and ignorance of the Sun's role has totally clouded the laws of physics.

Then you have the boneheads who are unable to even see what the climate has been doing in the real world but who seem to believe that mankind is the cause of 'climate change' when the Earth's climate is always changing.

The variation of the Sun's output since its solar minimum peaked in 2008 matched the onset of ENSO less than a year later. La Nina is waning now, however we continue to see ENSO's effects by means of heavy precipitation and drought, quite typical of ENSO.

Those who deny celestial influences are in a dreamworld, as even the ancients accepted the laws of physics. The Earth is a planet and lives in space. Our planet is not flat, nor is it cut off by the celestial influences that regulate its climate.

What will be interesting about the next six or so years will be how global warming goes out before we officially enter a global cooling regime. The lack of preparation for global cooling is a serious matter since it is much more harmful to the Earth's climate than global warming could ever be.

[commonsense]

Sept 6, 2011 20:46:26 GMT steve said:

astromet, I'm still waiting for that big Californian earthquake you predicted for April-May.

commonsense - the wall you are banging your head against doesn't move.

Yes, Astromet does seem to reject any attempt to analyse the data. I have yet to see him directly answer my repeated pastes of his claims. Instead, he declares victory in a long, rambling post. This means one has to either simply re-post one's original bit, or try to answer three pages of far-out and diverse claims. Simple claims like, "Your forecast changed between THIS and THAT" are ignored. He's totally against drilling down to get to the truth. He's much more comfortable with shotgun scattershot techniques that cloud the issues.

One thing is proven - Astromet cannot predict solar activity with any skill at all, and since his entire forecasting technique is built on the premise that forecasting the sun is primary to predicting events on Earth, it follows that he's deluding himself and any correct predictions stem from simple luck.

He is what he is, and I suppose he's an addition to the internet community, but obviously he's "entertainment value only". From what I've seen, there is no skill or science to his craft. Too bad, as astronomical principles do influence things a bit. The atmospheric and Earth tides affect weather and earthquakes, for example. Fortunately, experts in those fields take such effects into consideration. From the Wiki page on atmospheric tides:
"The tides form an important mechanism for transporting energy input into the lower atmosphere from the upper atmosphere, while dominating the dynamics of the mesosphere and lower thermosphere. Therefore, understanding the atmospheric tides is essential in understanding the atmosphere as a whole. Modeling and observations of atmospheric tides are needed in order to monitor and predict changes in the Earth's atmosphere."
From the Wiki page on Earth tides:
"Volcanologists use the regular, predictable Earth tide movements to calibrate and test sensitive volcano deformation monitoring instruments. The tides may also trigger volcanic events. Seismologists have determined that microseismic events are correlated to tidal variations in Central Asia"
Thus, Astromet is bringing nothing new of value to the table. Others already have incorporated the science into their work, and will continue to do so. Given the great amount of effort he has put into his craft, it is unfortunate that he did not choose to work on actual science instead of "astrometeorology".

Perhaps it would be better to just let him play by himself on this thread instead of trying to engage and analyse? What do you think?

[glennkoks]

Astromet, The first problem I have with your forecasts is the size of the region. I can call for floods, heat waves and cold for North America and be right and wrong every single time. If you would like to debate the merits of your forecasts I am game.

First lets start with the biggest bust.

"From my long-range astronomical calculations for North America, I've forecasted 2010-11 to be a very strong El Nino year. This is caused mainly by the activity of the Sun, which will undergo an historic solar maximum that will bring to an end the 36-year global warming phase that began in the year 1980 while opening a new global cooling phase that will get underway by the year 2017."

As has been pointed out this is a terrible bust. It clearly was the exact opposite of a strong el nino. It was a strong la nina year. Now solar cycle 24 is far from over but up to this point it has been very very quite.

If your going to put out forecasts, I don't think it unfair for us to review the accuracy of these forecasts. There is no need for name calling or insults just a fair assessment of your claims.

[AstroMet]

Sept 6, 2011 21:52:45 GMT glennkoks said:

Astromet, The first problem I have with your forecasts is the size of the region. I can call for floods, heat waves and cold for North America and be right and wrong every single time. If you would like to debate the merits of your forecasts I am game.

First lets start with the biggest bust.

"From my long-range astronomical calculations for North America, I've forecasted 2010-11 to be a very strong El Nino year. This is caused mainly by the activity of the Sun, which will undergo an historic solar maximum that will bring to an end the 36-year global warming phase that began in the year 1980 while opening a new global cooling phase that will get underway by the year 2017."

As has been pointed out this is a terrible bust. It clearly was the exact opposite of a strong el nino. It was a strong la nina year. Now solar cycle 24 is far from over but up to this point it has been very very quite.

If your going to put out forecasts, I don't think it unfair for us to review the accuracy of these forecasts. There is no need for name calling or insults just a fair assessment of your claims.

Long-range forecasts, those which are seasonal (this is three months and longer) are written for the general climate conditions to cover as much ground as possible.

If you want to see how any long-range forecasts are, then you have to look globally at what the climate is doing. Some people have short-range views because that is how you are taught to think, but, in reality -

A) Short-Range - 5 days to 10 days
B) Medium-Range - 10 days to 14 days
C) Long-Range - monthly, seasonal, yearly or more

You said, "As has been pointed out this is a terrible bust. It clearly was the exact opposite of a strong el nino. It was a strong la nina..."

I forecasted the 2009-2011 ENSO - that's El Nino to be followed by La Nina - before it occurred. How is that the biggest bust?

The exact opposite of a strong El Nino, you say? You're kidding, right? Is it a short memory, or none at all Glenn?

Just what planet were you on in 2010 while all this was going down?

PAPEÉTE, Tahiti (Tahitipresse, Feb. 19, 2010) - The current El Nino causing havoc with weather conditions worldwide has been labeled "the strongest in a decade." And that takes into consideration the 1997-1998 El Nino.

See -> www.indigenousportal.com/Climate-Change/POWERFUL-EL-NINO-CAUSING-HAVOC-IN-PACIFIC.html

Powerful El Nino Winter Storms Slam California, Jan. 17-23, 2010. El Nino has unleashed its full fury. California has been pounded by 5 storms in a matter of just a week's time.

See -> vimeo.com/9032477

NOAA reported that - "El Niño conditions were in place in the equatorial Pacific Ocean starting June 2009, peaking in January–February. Positive SST anomalies (El Niño) lasted until May 2010. Since then, SST anomalies have been negative (La Niña) and expected to stay negative for the next northern winter. The 2010-2011 La Niña was one of the strongest ever observed. The effect on Eastern Australia was devastating."

In February 2010, NOAA added that, "The 2009-10 El Niño cycle is heading to exceed all predictions of intensity. Starting with abundant rainfall last autumn, and continuing through the Midwest, and in the South USA. The last two most powerful El Niño were the1997-1998 cycle, followed by the 1982-83 event."

What planet were you living on? How was that my "biggest bust? Just where were you when El Nino was raging? Open your eyes and check out what the climate was doing in the real world before you start calling 'busts' why don't you.

[commonsense]

Sept 6, 2011 20:51:04 GMT AstroMet said:

Wrong, ENSO is not always here. That statement, along with many others that come from you 'common sense' are typical of people who think their opinions serve as facts. They do not.

How is ENSO always with us? How is that even possible?

ENSO is an oscillation which is always in one of three states, El Nino, ENSO neutral, or La Nina. To talk about the coming ENSO is meaningless, as it doesn't specify which of the three states you are talking about. Such terminology is unclear and confusing. Now, you could say that the ENSO neutral state doesn't count as ENSO, and I suspect that is what you are doing. That still doesn't clear up the ambiguity caused by talking of the "coming ENSO". For a scientific discussion, such a statement is useless. Use the proper terms, El Nino and La Nina.

[AstroMet]

Sept 6, 2011 22:15:13 GMT commonsense said:

Sept 6, 2011 20:51:04 GMT AstroMet said:

Wrong, ENSO is not always here. That statement, along with many others that come from you 'common sense' are typical of people who think their opinions serve as facts. They do not.

How is ENSO always with us? How is that even possible?

ENSO is an oscillation which is always in one of three states, El Nino, ENSO neutral, or La Nina. To talk about the coming ENSO is meaningless, as it doesn't specify which of the three states you are talking about. Such terminology is unclear and confusing. Now, you could say that the ENSO neutral state doesn't count as ENSO, and I suspect that is what you are doing. That still doesn't clear up the ambiguity caused by talking of the "coming ENSO". For a scientific discussion, such a statement is useless. Use the proper terms, El Nino and La Nina.

Geez Louise.

[AstroMet]

Sept 6, 2011 22:25:34 GMT commonsense said:

THEN

From my long-range astronomical calculations for North America, I've forecasted 2010-11 to be a very strong El Nino year. This is caused mainly by the activity of the Sun, which will undergo an historic solar maximum that

AND NOW

I forecasted the 2009-2011 ENSO - that's El Nino to be followed by La Nina - before it occurred. How is that the biggest bust?

That's a very specific forecast, 2010-1011 very strong El Nino. You now warp El Nino into ENSO, leave off the "very strong", and change the dates. You shouldn't expect others to swallow such obvious lies. Yes, you are smart enough to read simple direct quotes of your own posts, and certainly know that the above two claims are mutually exclusive. Thus, you must be lying.

How is El Niño not ENSO? How does one "lie" about that? Why would anyone even try to? That's ludicrous. The problem is that it is you who do not know what ENSO constitutes - which includes La Niña as well.

The El Niño/La Niña Southern Oscillation - known as ENSO - is a quasi-periodic climate pattern that occurs across the tropical Pacific Ocean.

Get your facts and terminologies straight before you start throwing around wild opinions claiming how 'smart' you are common sense. ENSO continued into 2010 and 2011. I should know what ENSO is, as I forecasted it.

Just what are you smoking man? I'm about to put you on ignore bro, you are just too weird. Jesus.

[glennkoks]

Astromet, the last el nine ended in may 2010. This from Wiki.

According to NOAA, El Niño conditions were in place in the equatorial Pacific Ocean starting June 2009, peaking in January–February. Positive SST anomalies (El Niño) lasted until May 2010. Since then, SST anomalies have been negative (La Niña) and expected to stay negative for the next northern winter.[46]
The 2010-2011 La Niña was one of the strongest ever observed. The effect on Eastern Australia was devastating.[47].

Your original post did not say ENSO it said and I quote "I've forecasted 2010-11 to be a very strong El Nino year." The Nino was over by May and the strongest La Nina in years ensued.

Perhaps not a "total bust" but five out of seven months is less stellar.

Would you like to continue the review of your predictions?

Once again the key word in your original quote is "El Nino" which was over by may.