|
|
Post by sigurdur on Sept 10, 2011 1:51:36 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Sept 10, 2011 1:57:25 GMT
As for Jupiter, Saturn and The Sun -The spin-orbital coupling of the Sun along with that of Jupiter and Saturn is well known to astronomic climate forecasters. See -> landscheidt.wordpress.com/2011/05/24/a-guide-to-understanding-the-solar-powerwave/"We present evidence to show that changes in the Sun’s equatorial rotation rate are synchronized with changes in its orbital motion about the barycentre of the Solar System.
We propose that this synchronization is indicative of a spin–orbit coupling mechanism operating between the Jovian planets and the Sun. However, we are unable to suggest a plausible underlying physical cause for the coupling.
Some researchers have proposed that it is the period of the meridional flow in the convective zone of the Sun that controls both the duration and strength of the Solar cycle.
We postulate that the overall period of the meridional flow is set by the level of disruption to the flow that is caused by changes in Sun’s equatorial rotation speed.
Based on our claim that changes in the Sun’s equatorial rotation rate are synchronized with changes in the Sun’s orbital motion about the barycentre, we propose that the mean period for the Sun’s meridional flow is set by a Synodic resonance between the flow period (~22.3 yr), the overall 178.7-yr repetition period for the solar orbital motion, and the 19.86-yr synodic period of Jupiter and Saturn."See -> www.publish.csiro.au/nid/138/paper/AS06018.htmThis one is in French -> la.climatologie.free.fr/soleil/soleil1.htmSee -> www.springerlink.com/content/w57236105034h657/ thanks for the response, Astromet. I note that all your sources admit that they have no clue as to an underlying physical cause, so they are based solely on correlation, as opposed to causation. That makes it weak, indeed. As I understand it, the sun is always in free-fall, and so is not affected, other than by tidal forces, which are small indeed. Tides on the sun are a few millimetres, I believe. Can you supply some insight? Further, the matter at hand is why SC24 will be an "historic maximum". I note nothing at all supporting that prediction. As a matter of fact, Landscheidt predicts a small SC24 in this graph: www.landscheidt.info/images/Powerwave.pngAre you saying Landscheidt is wrong? It is curious that you post sources which completely disagree with you as a reference. What did Landscheidt miss? Again, what astrometric data leads you to believe that SC24 will have an historic maximum? For one, it is still 2011, and the Sun is already out of minimum. You will see for yourself, as will the entire world, the Sun's maximum, saying that I am 'wrong' in advance is just bias, which constitutes the majority of your posts. That's plain silly and for you to sit there behind your keyboard, at the age you are, saying these things says volumes about your immaturity and knowledge at this point. It is up to you to improve that - no one can do it for you - I'm certainly not going to try. Study the history of the Sun and how it regulates and affects the Earth's climate, for instance ~ The theory by which solar activity affects volcanoes is explained by Khain and Khalilov: "When Solar activity increases, the corpuscular emission and solar magnetic field strength increase rapidly as well, inducing ring currents in various layers of Earth, particularly, in lithosphere and asthenosphere.
Currents in asthenosphere appeared as a result of solar activity increase cause mantle heating, its plasticity growth and as a result convection currents acceleration.
Convection currents acceleration leads to spreading acceleration, and increase of mantle temperature – to its heat expansion while Earth extension is taken place due to spreading.
In the periods of solar activity decrease the ring currents magnitude inducing in the mantle, decreases as well and as a result there decreases temperature and Earth compression, accompanying by the process of subduction."
|
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Sept 10, 2011 2:04:16 GMT
NOAA did not forecast ENSO, neither did the other 21 major climate centers. I did. Also, quit with the silly NOAA product maps (more than half of them are not valid and biased to reflect their AGW ideology. Michael Mann had lots and lots of help in 'hiding the decline' you know and some of them work at NOAA.) And I don't appreciate you coming off telling me I did not forecast ENSO and nickel-and-diming me. You should know better at age 63 to mind your manners, but then again you are a baby boomer right? Listen man, don't come off telling me of my 'errors.' You're in no position to do that and there is not 'wriggling,' just a lot of hot air from you based on that AGW ideology. If you cannot accept my answers then don't ask stupid questions while coming off as a smart ass. The fact you believe in AGW shows how silly you are. I don't have the time to play games with you. I am a serious person and work for a living. Please, go play your games elsewhere and stop taking your AGW craps here. Use your own bathroom and wash your hands. Thank you very much. Rant On!!! Beware of spittle. Small children may need to leave the room. Asstroboy. wrong again. Last month NOAA issued a La Niña watch. On the 9th NOAA’s Climate Prediction Center upgraded last month’s La Niña Watch to a La Niña Advisory. I'm pretty sure everyone here knows that a La Niña is coming except you. I predicted the exact course of ENSO months ago. And I am an IT guy, not a weather guy. You were arrogant, insulting, and wrong when you predicted ENSO neutral for this fall at that time. I quoted all of your posts so that you can not delete them or modify them. You are provably, repeatedly, wrong. You cover this up by being an insulting blow hard. Please stop being such an arrogant ah. I don't mind people making predictions, I like hearing about what other people think. I think being able to forecast the weather 6 months to a year in advance would be wonderful. Being able to forecast ENSO is necessary for this. No one, can do this, but we are trying. Your ENSO prediction is currently so wrong as to be laughable. La Niña conditions returned in August 2011. In less then two months it will be official. I was right you were wrong. Everyone on this board knows this. Admit that you were wrong and move on. Denying it this point makes you look more then just active stupid. Have you taken your meds lately? Furthermore, I want to hear what others have to say, your insulting, arrogant, and erroneous rants are interfering with the sharing of information on this thread. We need to get back to talking about the approaching La Niña and what it might be like without having to work around you and your unbelievably awful posts. I am not the only one on this thread that has a problem with you. A number of others have come forward to try and explain to you that you are not being helpful. Miraculously in your case all three camps (AGW supporters, AGW sceptics, and Lukewarmers) agree on this. I'm not sure we have ever agreed to anything before. Please wake up to the fact that everyone who has posted recently to you is asking you to respond to the clue bat that you are being repeatedly pummeled with and take a chill pill. /rant Sorry people, just needed to get that off my chest. I do not know if you, as you say, "predicted the exact course of ENSO months ago. And I am an IT guy, not a weather guy..." as I sure didn't see your "prediction." That's pretty arrogant to claim you did as well since you're not a forecaster but an 'IT guy.' Climate forecasting is not a hobby kiddo. It is not a game dontgetoutmuch, and few people are actually true forecasters. So don't confuse your 'opinion' with forecasting - they are not the same. As for ENSO, come back in two months time and see what La Nina is doing in the run up to winter so we can all see how NOAA makes yet another seasonal forecast that is 50/50 and non-committal (as usual) since they do not do long-range forecasting but do so from current trends based on radar and their models. You cannot believe what the current management of the climate centers say about the climate and weather. When will you learn? Do you think that these centers, which are filled with ideological AGW bobble-heads, can actually forecast with their climate models? They always misread nearly every spike on their models and were dead wrong about the climate over the course of this recent ENSO (2009-2011.) See for yourself, but remember what astromet told you about NOAA and their forecasts - NOAA and 21 other major climate centers did not see ENSO coming and did not forecast it, and are making the same mistakes they always do, but go right ahead and see for yourself as the winter season approaches right into the early spring 2012 I've forecasted that will have warmer-than-average temperatures. |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Sept 10, 2011 2:10:37 GMT
Astromet:
You do need to follow NOAA's La Nina forcast a bit closer. They have had a La Nina bias in their forcast for 6 months now. In fact, for the past 3 months I have been planning on a back to back La Nina as far as field drainage, selection of next years crops etc.
They have had a quit good track record for three years since they switched the model to a cold bias. I got attacked in another forum for stating that La Nina would be back this fall. They said all the models show it to be neutral with a El Nino coming. I remember it well, as all the signs were pointing to La Nina, not only NOAA, but the weather pattern in the SW and Southern USA. Also the weather pattern in the NW and the Upper central USA. Anyone who looks at the sky, is old enough to remember, can predict general trends months in advance.
The hue color of the sky portends what will show up. Not so much in the dead of winter, but in spring, summer, and fall it is quit easy to do.
|
|
|
|
Post by glennkoks on Sept 10, 2011 3:37:50 GMT
sigurdur, are you a farmer? And if so where and what are your primary crops if you don't mind me asking?
How do you rate NOAA's forecasts with that of Astromet's and are either of any predictive value?
|
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Sept 10, 2011 3:54:02 GMT
sigurdur, are you a farmer? And if so where and what are your primary crops if you don't mind me asking? How do you rate NOAA's forecasts with that of Astromet's and are either of any predictive value? Yes, I am a farmer. Primary crops are potatoe, soybeans, corn, wheat and edible beans. (Pinto type) How do I rate NOAA's forcasts? 1. The present record of NOAA forcasts has been very good. They are the only one's who changed the dynamics of their model to a cold bias. I can't remember the version off the top of my head, but the last one works. The other major IRI models are worthless. 2. Astromet was correct in his forcasts for 2011. I have not done an analysis of his previous forcasts, so won't speak yea nor nay to that question. 3. I don't know what his current forcasts are for 2012. 4. I put a certain value on Astronomic forcasts. Old Farmers almanac, I believe, uses this type of forcasts for their seasonal forcasts. They are on par with NOAA at present, and they beat the IRI forcasts hands down. This does bring credibility to astronomical forcasts, as the long term success rate is over 80% of this publication. |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Sept 10, 2011 3:59:45 GMT
Glennkoks:
Here is a link to the Old Farmers Almanac's forcast for my geographical area. It indicates a cold September/October with early snow.
I am on pins and needles as the potatoes won't be ready to harvest for 2 more weeks. The threat of a hard freeze to these vegtables.....makes me shudder. I will just have to continue to work hard, and harvest hard when the skin set is firm enough to do so. The economic loss of a hard freeze is hundreds of millions of dollars in my area.
|
|
|
|
Post by commonsense on Sept 10, 2011 4:14:44 GMT
thanks for the response, Astromet. I note that all your sources admit that they have no clue as to an underlying physical cause, so they are based solely on correlation, as opposed to causation. That makes it weak, indeed. As I understand it, the sun is always in free-fall, and so is not affected, other than by tidal forces, which are small indeed. Tides on the sun are a few millimetres, I believe. Can you supply some insight? Further, the matter at hand is why SC24 will be an "historic maximum". I note nothing at all supporting that prediction. As a matter of fact, Landscheidt predicts a small SC24 in this graph: www.landscheidt.info/images/Powerwave.pngAre you saying Landscheidt is wrong? It is curious that you post sources which completely disagree with you as a reference. What did Landscheidt miss? Again, what astrometric data leads you to believe that SC24 will have an historic maximum? For one, it is still 2011, and the Sun is already out of minimum. You will see for yourself, as will the entire world, the Sun's maximum, saying that I am 'wrong' in advance is just bias, which constitutes the majority of your posts. . Did you bother reading my post? I didn't say you were wrong. I said that the source you posted predicts a small SC24 and I asked you why it was wrong. I asked you to support your forecast, which is very reasonable of me, especially since the traditional experts, your sources, and the actions of the sun all tend to point towards a small SC24 maximum. |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Sept 10, 2011 4:17:05 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Sept 10, 2011 4:38:15 GMT
For one, it is still 2011, and the Sun is already out of minimum. You will see for yourself, as will the entire world, the Sun's maximum, saying that I am 'wrong' in advance is just bias, which constitutes the majority of your posts. . Did you bother reading my post? I didn't say you were wrong. I said that the source you posted predicts a small SC24 and I asked you why it was wrong. I asked you to support your forecast, which is very reasonable of me, especially since the traditional experts, your sources, and the actions of the sun all tend to point towards a small SC24 maximum. We shall see the size of the Sun's coming maximum in the very near future. At this time, we are witnessing increased solar activity with CMEs, as another geomagnetic storm is now progress following the impact of a CME around 1130 UT on Sept. 9th, 2011. This could be the first of several hits from a series of CMEs expected to strike the Earth this weekend. See -> www.spaceweather.com/ |
|
|
|
Post by commonsense on Sept 10, 2011 4:55:22 GMT
sigurdur, are you a farmer? And if so where and what are your primary crops if you don't mind me asking? How do you rate NOAA's forecasts with that of Astromet's and are either of any predictive value? Yes, I am a farmer. Primary crops are potatoe, soybeans, corn, wheat and edible beans. (Pinto type) How do I rate NOAA's forcasts? 1. The present record of NOAA forcasts has been very good. They are the only one's who changed the dynamics of their model to a cold bias. I can't remember the version off the top of my head, but the last one works. The other major IRI models are worthless. 2. Astromet was correct in his forcasts for 2011. I have not done an analysis of his previous forcasts, so won't speak yea nor nay to that question. 3. I don't know what his current forcasts are for 2012. 4. I put a certain value on Astronomic forcasts. Old Farmers almanac, I believe, uses this type of forcasts for their seasonal forcasts. They are on par with NOAA at present, and they beat the IRI forcasts hands down. This does bring credibility to astronomical forcasts, as the long term success rate is over 80% of this publication. That's interesting that you rate Astromet's 2011 forecasts a success. Could you expand on that a bit? In any case, it's duly noted and congratulations Astromet! Your claim of 80+% accuracy for the Farmer's Almanac is also interesting. That's suspect as it happens to match the Farmer's Almanac's own claims. I looked and found one reference to a study. It found: articles.chicagotribune.com/2010-04-14/news/ct-wea-0415-asktom-20100414_1_farmer-s-almanac-accuracy-forecasts"A few years ago "The Old Farmer's Almanac" cited an accuracy rate of 80 percent. That seems high, at least based on the admittedly limited personal experiences of the people here in the WGN weather center. The results of a study in the middle 1980s by Dr. John Walsh of the University of Illinois seem more believable. His study focused exclusively on the almanac's monthly temperature and precipitation trend predictions — whether the month was to be above or below normal. Walsh was quite lenient: If the outlook called for slightly above-average temperatures but the month turned out to be much above, he credited that as an accurate prediction. On that basis, the almanac scored 52 percent accuracy — hardly exceptional, but, as Walsh put it, on the "right side" of the 50 percent accuracy of a coin flip." Thus, the one study I found concluded that the Farmer's Almanac is essentially as good as a coin toss in predictive power. |
|
|
|
Post by astroposer777 on Sept 10, 2011 5:53:27 GMT
Yes, I am a farmer. Primary crops are potatoe, soybeans, corn, wheat and edible beans. (Pinto type) How do I rate NOAA's forcasts? 1. The present record of NOAA forcasts has been very good. They are the only one's who changed the dynamics of their model to a cold bias. I can't remember the version off the top of my head, but the last one works. The other major IRI models are worthless. 2. Astromet was correct in his forcasts for 2011. I have not done an analysis of his previous forcasts, so won't speak yea nor nay to that question. 3. I don't know what his current forcasts are for 2012. 4. I put a certain value on Astronomic forcasts. Old Farmers almanac, I believe, uses this type of forcasts for their seasonal forcasts. They are on par with NOAA at present, and they beat the IRI forcasts hands down. This does bring credibility to astronomical forcasts, as the long term success rate is over 80% of this publication. That's interesting that you rate Astromet's 2011 forecasts a success. Could you expand on that a bit? In any case, it's duly noted and congratulations Astromet! Your claim of 80+% accuracy for the Farmer's Almanac is also interesting. That's suspect as it happens to match the Farmer's Almanac's own claims. I looked and found one reference to a study. It found: articles.chicagotribune.com/2010-04-14/news/ct-wea-0415-asktom-20100414_1_farmer-s-almanac-accuracy-forecasts"A few years ago "The Old Farmer's Almanac" cited an accuracy rate of 80 percent. That seems high, at least based on the admittedly limited personal experiences of the people here in the WGN weather center. The results of a study in the middle 1980s by Dr. John Walsh of the University of Illinois seem more believable. His study focused exclusively on the almanac's monthly temperature and precipitation trend predictions — whether the month was to be above or below normal. Walsh was quite lenient: If the outlook called for slightly above-average temperatures but the month turned out to be much above, he credited that as an accurate prediction. On that basis, the almanac scored 52 percent accuracy — hardly exceptional, but, as Walsh put it, on the "right side" of the 50 percent accuracy of a coin flip." Thus, the one study I found concluded that the Farmer's Almanac is essentially as good as a coin toss in predictive power. How does that success rate compare to other long range meteorological forecast? I am merely suggesting accuracy could be quite subjective in this case. |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 10, 2011 6:14:05 GMT
The results of a study in the middle 1980s by Dr. John Walsh of the University of Illinois seem more believable. His study focused exclusively on the almanac's monthly temperature and precipitation trend predictions — whether the month was to be above or below normal. Walsh was quite lenient: If the outlook called for slightly above-average temperatures but the month turned out to be much above, he credited that as an accurate prediction. On that basis, the almanac scored 52 percent accuracy — hardly exceptional, but, as Walsh put it, on the "right side" of the 50 percent accuracy of a coin flip."
Thus, the one study I found concluded that the Farmer's Almanac is essentially as good as a coin toss in predictive power.
I wouldn't take such a test at face value. Too much undefined. Though I would think the 80% figure would require quite a lenient test to achieve.
What is more important is the context. Weather forecasts mean a lot of different things to a lot of different people. People screw up a lot of things simply from having a different perspective. A wet month is usually thought of as a cold month. But the truth is you can have fewer freezes in a wet month and to a farmer that can be a "warm" month. Average temperature can mean a lot less and what is remembered isn't the average temperature but instead the freeze or the heatwave. Even stuff like floods are weird. Its not average precipitation its how much you get at one time.
If you study the science of language you will find that meanings of words and phrases are always changing. I have watched your critique of Astromet and chuckle over your very strict interpretation you expect from his forecasts. I suspect that maybe under a strict interpretation the success rate is far lower.
Weather to people who depend on the weather is something extremely contextual. I have known fishermen who can look at the sky and predict the next day weather as good as and often better than the weather service. Of course my test of that was pre-satellite days and maybe not so much now but even now the weather service seems to mess up more than I can recall those fishermen messing up.
This fact speaks to experience. There is not much in common between the fisherman and the astrometeorologist other than the need for experience.
I haven't tried to rate Astromet's record either. I did note that he did a good job over the past year. When folks were haranguing him over some ENSO stuff last fall; I pointed out that there was still time for him to be right and he pretty much turned out right.
Last year despite the arrival of a declared La Nina far earlier than his prediction, the effects of that La Nina were very much delayed in concert with how Astromet called it.
He did say La Nina but like I say the "official definition" of La Nina isn't part of the language of a Astrometeorologist. Its part of the language of NOAA. You get my drift?
I think you almost have to go out and feel the weather to actually understand it. A lot gets lost in averages, changing definitions, and other statistics. In many respects that's whats wrong with climate science as well.
When the rings of a single tree, processed by some math whiz with way too much statistics education and way too little knowledge over rides stuff that has been conventional knowledge passed down by huge numbers of people who actually experienced the warm and cold periods it kind of makes your jaw drop.
A little too young, a little too stupid. Not enough to keep you from getting a degree or finding a wealthy patron though. Far too much credence is given to form over substance. Substance is what keeps giving and only can be measured in retrospect and even then its not real precise as by then a lot is forgotten and history may get recorded by some guy in a cube somewhere that spent only a few hours outdoors commuting to and from work.
|
|
|
|
Post by glennkoks on Sept 10, 2011 15:03:02 GMT
I don't put much faith in any detailed forecast more than 10 days out. What I mean by detailed is specific weather events for specific towns. For instance predicting rain, sleet, snow for Houston, Texas.
That holds true for Astromet, NOAA, or The Farmers Almanac. There are just too many variables and mother nature is quick to change.
I think there is a limited amount of seasonal forecasting accuracy. For instance the effects of La Nina and El Nino are well established and a forecast for a dry, cool Fall/Winter can be semi-valid and have merit for farmers and fishermen that still make their living out in nature.
I am in the process of writing a book "Back in the Day, Weather Lore from Fishermen and Farmers" in which I am trying to link weather lore with semi scientific reasoning. For example spiders may build their webs higher in trees because of certain changes in the PDO, or AMO or other subtle hardly detectable weather phenomenon that may be a pre-requisite for a colder winter.
Any and all help with this project from some of you regulars would be more than welcome.
|
|
|
|
Post by glennkoks on Sept 10, 2011 15:11:42 GMT
Here is a link to the Old Farmers Almanac's forcast for my geographical area. It indicates a cold September/October with early snow.
I am on pins and needles as the potatoes won't be ready to harvest for 2 more weeks. The threat of a hard freeze to these vegtables.....makes me shudder. I will just have to continue to work hard, and harvest hard when the skin set is firm enough to do so. The economic loss of a hard freeze is hundreds of millions of dollars in my area.[/quote]
Thanks for the link. As a farmer do you put any faith weatherlore? Wooly Worms, Spider web height in trees etc? and their ability to forecast seasonal weather?
I hope the weather cooperates with your harvest. Hopefully you have mineral rights on your land because I here that drilling in North Dakota has gone crazy with the Bakken Shale boom.
Good luck and thanks for your impute.
|
|
