*EL NINO/LA NINA FORECAST 2010-2011*

[steve]

astromet,

I note you ignored my post. I haven't insulted you. glc did not insult you - he merely paraphrased in a blunt way my assessment of your forecast. All I want is for you to acknowledge when details of your forecast are wrong in the same manner as you acknowledge things you got right.

You might have forecast an El Niño followed by La Niña happening about now four years ago, but El Niño's follow La Niña's a lot. You were still backing your forecast earlier this year, but the La Niña has come 6 months earlier and is deeper than you thought. So I don't see how you can call it a success. If the El Niño had been a year later and La Niña 6 months after your forecast, would that have been good enough?

You did not predict the Russian heat wave, the Pakistan floods or the South American freeze. I could not find your prediction of Atlantic hurricanes (which most weather organisations seem to be predicting quite well these days).

What I mean by "get it," is that there is no synthesis in anything you say about global warming, the climate, or the weather in general, and I am at once surprised, and also baffled as to why you would show interest in climatology yet would propose to call astronomical forecasting of weather (which has be done since the dawn of humanity) simply "garbage" yet knowing not a thing about that which you speak?

Again. glc was giving his paraphrase of my assessment of your forecast . Not your technique or anything else. I think you are being deliberately sensitive so that you can attack glc rather than be drawn on giving a detailed point-by-point assessment of your forecast, which is what I asked for. If you want us to "get it" you could start by clarifying in advance what you consider to be the uncertainties in your forecast.

[AstroMet]

Oct 11, 2010 13:44:11 GMT steve said:

astromet,

I note you ignored my post. I haven't insulted you. glc did not insult you - he merely paraphrased in a blunt way my assessment of your forecast. All I want is for you to acknowledge when details of your forecast are wrong in the same manner as you acknowledge things you got right.

You might have forecast an El Niño followed by La Niña happening about now four years ago, but El Niño's follow La Niña's a lot. You were still backing your forecast earlier this year, but the La Niña has come 6 months earlier and is deeper than you thought. So I don't see how you can call it a success. If the El Niño had been a year later and La Niña 6 months after your forecast, would that have been good enough?

You did not predict the Russian heat wave, the Pakistan floods or the South American freeze. I could not find your prediction of Atlantic hurricanes (which most weather organisations seem to be predicting quite well these days).

What I mean by "get it," is that there is no synthesis in anything you say about global warming, the climate, or the weather in general, and I am at once surprised, and also baffled as to why you would show interest in climatology yet would propose to call astronomical forecasting of weather (which has be done since the dawn of humanity) simply "garbage" yet knowing not a thing about that which you speak?

Again. glc was giving his paraphrase of my assessment of your forecast . Not your technique or anything else. I think you are being deliberately sensitive so that you can attack glc rather than be drawn on giving a detailed point-by-point assessment of your forecast, which is what I asked for. If you want us to "get it" you could start by clarifying in advance what you consider to be the uncertainties in your forecast.

Well, with all due respect, why should I have to do that in the first place? Isn't enough that I forecasted it - meaning I did the hard work that it takes to do such a thing?

And, it is a no-brainer for anyone who read my long-range forecast of ENSO back from 2006 for this time to know what this would mean for the weather of 2010 - especially the torrential rains, and floods.

It is quite obvious where my long-range forecasts are correct, and where they are not - this common with any forecasts. You guys snick and snark as if you are some kind of cherry-pickers of forecasts when you can barely forecast your own local weather two weeks in advance. I did that when I was a kid - without computers and models.

And - I do it months and years ahead of time.

So give credit where credit is due, okay?

The problem with some of you guys is that you peer at the climate and weather through your tiny microscopes and models when you should see the bigger picture and clearly know where the Earth's weather comes from - that is from space.

Excuse me if I am not able to give you a "detailed point-by-point assessment" but I'm busy enough forecasting.

My long-range forecasts speak for themselves, in the resulting climate and weather - in the real world - the weather either confirms it or not.

I just work here pal, and I don't play with computer models.

You want to do better? Please, be my guest.

[steve]

Well, with all due respect, why should I have to do that in the first place? Isn't enough that I forecasted it - meaning I did the hard work that it takes to do such a thing?

My feeling is that you had a lot of detail in your forecast that did not come about, but enough detail that some of it would have happened. Therefore anything remotely resembling climatology would have allowed you to pick somethings in your forecast that would have come true. If you took us step-by-step through your forecast rather than pick out the one or two things you think you got right then either we might be more convinced or you might be faced with your failure.

Eg. from your January forecast:

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.

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.

We all know that the Sun then fizzled and flopped for about 6 months, so the astronomical conditions that your forecast is predicated upon didn't pan out. Why would you have expected your weather forecast on which it apparently depends to pan out as well? If your forecast is right then your method must be wrong!

And, it is a no-brainer for anyone who read my long-range forecast of ENSO back from 2006 for this time to know what this would mean for the weather of 2010 - especially the torrential rains, and floods.

Torrential rains and floods happen very often indeed. For a forecast to be useful or interesting, you have to tell us when *and* where.

It is quite obvious where my long-range forecasts are correct, and where they are not - this common with any forecasts. You guys snick and snark as if you are some kind of cherry-pickers of forecasts when you can barely forecast your own local weather two weeks in advance. I did that when I was a kid - without computers and models.

I'm not snicking and snarking at your forecast. I'm snicking and snarking at your assessment of your forecast. I expect to continue to snick and snark at anyone who says they can give me a detailed non-probabilistic forecast for more than a few months ahead.

[AstroMet]

Oct 11, 2010 15:42:34 GMT steve said:

Well, with all due respect, why should I have to do that in the first place? Isn't enough that I forecasted it - meaning I did the hard work that it takes to do such a thing?

My feeling is that you had a lot of detail in your forecast that did not come about, but enough detail that some of it would have happened. Therefore anything remotely resembling climatology would have allowed you to pick somethings in your forecast that would have come true. If you took us step-by-step through your forecast rather than pick out the one or two things you think you got right then either we might be more convinced or you might be faced with your failure.

Eg. from your January forecast:



We all know that the Sun then fizzled and flopped for about 6 months, so the astronomical conditions that your forecast is predicated upon didn't pan out. Why would you have expected your weather forecast on which it apparently depends to pan out as well? If your forecast is right then your method must be wrong!



Torrential rains and floods happen very often indeed. For a forecast to be useful or interesting, you have to tell us when *and* where.

It is quite obvious where my long-range forecasts are correct, and where they are not - this common with any forecasts. You guys snick and snark as if you are some kind of cherry-pickers of forecasts when you can barely forecast your own local weather two weeks in advance. I did that when I was a kid - without computers and models.

I'm not snicking and snarking at your forecast. I'm snicking and snarking at your assessment of your forecast. I expect to continue to snick and snark at anyone who says they can give me a detailed non-probabilistic forecast for more than a few months ahead.

Steve, your feeling as you say, should be focused on the world's real weather and climate, and my ENSO forecast, along with my seasonal forecasts over the time periods indicated.

As for a step-by-step - you do not seem to understand what seasonal forecasts are, which continues to be a problem with you.

Regarding my astronomical methods, I explained them long ago, here - solarcycle24com.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=globalwarming&action=display&thread=986

I suggest you try to learn more about astronomical long-range forecasting before you continue with me, because you seem to think that forecasts should read like college papers.

They don't.

My seasonal and long-range forecasts which I publish are for the general public to gain an overview of the climate conditions months and years in advance.

Your comments are also not valid in the sense that you misunderstand the value of forecasts months in advance.

Seasonal forecasts are written in general language, but I am more specific than most long-range forecasters, and there are few skilled ones on the planet right now.

The ignorance of basic meteorology and climatology is widespread (climategate shows this) and among those interested in meteorology, most sound like they are running for office rather than doing anything that remotely is forecasting in the real world.

Arguing ain't forecasting, nor is pettiness, nor is ignorance about how your own weather is generated.

I don't think it is funny. The climate is going to get much more serious in the years and decade ahead, so rather than go on with this prissy kind of cherry-picking, etc., etc., why not learn to forecast long-range by asking good, quality questions rather than playing some kind of critic contrarian act (which you are not since you must be a forecaster to do so.)

Moreover, you can barely get a forecast that is accurate two weeks to a month out, much less months out, and that is because unless the forecaster does so astronomically - then it is impossible.

Even NOAA knows this which is why they are bad at seasonal and long-range forecasting.

Conventional forecasters first must see that all climate and weather comes from space (astrophysical causes) to the Earth (geophysical effects.)

That is the first rule.

I suggest you unlearn what you have learned, and stay away from conventional modeling until you have a basic understanding of how your own local weather functions, where it comes from, and then expand out from there regionally, then nationally, and globally.

I forecasted El Nino, and La Nina four years ago for 2010-2011, and many other weather events thousands of times by astronomical means. My forecasts speak for themselves. It is the climate and weather that confirms all forecasts.

This year, 2010, has been a major climate year, as predicted, and next year will continue this trend according to my astronomical outlook for the world's climate and weather.

[steve]

astromet,

Why would I need to care what method you use. When I watch the BBC forecast, I don't think about whether they have started using 4D assimilation or whether all the satellite feeds were working correctly when the model was run. If I want to use a forecast, then I want to do so to find out what weather *I* am expecting. If I live in the Mississippi area and you tell me that there may be widespread floods in 2010 then I want to know why there weren't widespread floods.

If you say:

By this time in fall 2010, the Mid-Atlantic should be well within the throes of El Nino, with above average rainfall, and warmer than average temperatures.

Make best friends with all your rain gear, and umbrellas next fall. It's going to be a longer stretch of warm and wet than most people will have expected.

Then what am I supposed to do if, as what happens, the El Niño has vanished by fall? Put my brolly away?

This year, 2010, has been a major climate year, as predicted, and next year will continue this trend according to my astronomical outlook for the world's climate and weather.

Where in your forecast did you predict a "major climate year"? Your only "major" predictions involved things that don't seem to have happened:

According to my calculations, the year 2010 will go down as one of the warmest and wettest years in recent memory in North and South America, and Europe - affecting about 50-percent of the planet. I expect major floods on those continents in 2010.

I don't see anyone else agreeing that 2010 was a major climate year for the reasons you have given.

[AstroMet]

Oct 11, 2010 16:20:08 GMT steve said:

astromet,

Why would I need to care what method you use. When I watch the BBC forecast, I don't think about whether they have started using 4D assimilation or whether all the satellite feeds were working correctly when the model was run. If I want to use a forecast, then I want to do so to find out what weather *I* am expecting. If I live in the Mississippi area and you tell me that there may be widespread floods in 2010 then I want to know why there weren't widespread floods.

If you say:

By this time in fall 2010, the Mid-Atlantic should be well within the throes of El Nino, with above average rainfall, and warmer than average temperatures.

Make best friends with all your rain gear, and umbrellas next fall. It's going to be a longer stretch of warm and wet than most people will have expected.

Then what am I supposed to do if, as what happens, the El Niño has vanished by fall? Put my brolly away?



Where in your forecast did you predict a "major climate year"? Your only "major" predictions involved things that don't seem to have happened:

According to my calculations, the year 2010 will go down as one of the warmest and wettest years in recent memory in North and South America, and Europe - affecting about 50-percent of the planet. I expect major floods on those continents in 2010.

I don't see anyone else agreeing that 2010 was a major climate year for the reasons you have given.

Listen Steve, um, you need to be actually watching and recording the world's weather much more closely. If you are not aware of all the torrential rains, and floods of 2010 to this point - then you've been out of touch with your own planet's climate.

Try learning more, you know, most people use less than 10% of their own brainpower, which means that there's a lot more to learn - try astronomical weather forecasting, and perhaps your comments and questions may perhaps be more cogent to me as your knowledge improves in this area. Thanks.

[icefisher]

Oct 11, 2010 15:42:34 GMT steve said:

I'm not snicking and snarking at your forecast. I'm snicking and snarking at your assessment of your forecast. I expect to continue to snick and snark at anyone who says they can give me a detailed non-probabilistic forecast for more than a few months ahead.

LOL! Non-probabilistic forecast!!!

Whoever claimed that!

The Farmers Almanacs claim like an 80% of better forecasting rate. . . .completely obliterating the Met's and IPCC records.

Astromet didn't bullseye his forecast hitting about the 7 ring on the target but he was more right than the Met or the IPCC who completely missed the target and instead shot themselves in the foot.

Claiming a 5% chance of being wrong and then being wrong doesn't make a completely wrong forecast any better than one about 2/3rds accurate.

You are still out there claiming the models are right and that probabilities just dealt you a bad hand. Uh-huh!!!

Now you are out there with a .2 to .4degC temperature increase over the next decade. What will your excuse be then? That adverse probabilities double downed on the 20 to 1 longshot to take you to the cleaners?

[steve]

Listen Steve, um, you need to be actually watching and recording the world's weather much more closely. If you are not aware of all the torrential rains, and floods of 2010 to this point - then you've been out of touch with your own planet's climate.

You might have noticed that I have mentioned three examples of extreme weather that you have not forecast. So your forecast was no good to the citizens of Russia, China and the Bolivian and Chilean Andes.

True there may have been extreme weather happening that I am not aware of, but as I said nobody seems to have identified any that supports your view, it is unusual for unusual weather not to make the news, and you have not thought it worth bringing to my attention.

Try learning more, you know, most people use less than 10% of their own brainpower, which means that there's a lot more to learn - try astronomical weather forecasting, and perhaps your comments and questions may perhaps be more cogent to me as your knowledge improves in this area. Thanks.

If there is anything useful to learn about astronomical forecasting, then the 10% of my brain that I do use will be quite capable of absorbing it. To decide whether it is worth my while it would be nice to have some evidence of its worth, such as a step by step analysis of the successes and failures of the forecast you made in post 1 of this thread.

[icefisher]

Oct 11, 2010 16:49:25 GMT steve said:

If there is anything useful to learn about astronomical forecasting, then the 10% of my brain that I do use will be quite capable of absorbing it. To decide whether it is worth my while it would be nice to have some evidence of its worth, such as a step by step analysis of the successes and failures of the forecast you made in post 1 of this thread.

There is plenty of evidence. The 200+ year success of the Farmer's Almanacs.

I think Astromet gave an important clue. "I suggest you unlearn what you have learned, and stay away from conventional modeling until you have a basic understanding of how your own local weather functions, where it comes from, and then expand out from there regionally, then nationally, and globally."

One problem with our current society is the degree of specialization that is out there. Youngsters that have never even camped out for a night in the wild toil in windowless offices of research institutes catering to direction dictated by pots of money carried into the offices by NGOs and politicians. This is the Eisenhower warning a lesson he perceived both looking at what he fought against and what he feared our nation could become.

Astromet suggests observation is important. Getting a feel for how the system actually works so as to bind to reality rather than some "adjusted figures" provided by the top money distributor man.

This is what Lewis eludes to about the "giants" that came up without the pablum and built stuff from scratch.

I would think that at minimum a review of the Farmer Almanac claims or some kind of facsimile of that and a few years of actual observation work would be a minimal internship for being a climate forecaster.

Sensory experience and a broad understanding or our history are important elements in any discipline if you want to rise above simply phoning it in. It really is the difference between building on experience and building on gospel. One allows one to see the other blinds him. Gospel is an important element but it is no substitute for empirical experience.

[AstroMet]

Oct 11, 2010 16:49:25 GMT steve said:

Listen Steve, um, you need to be actually watching and recording the world's weather much more closely. If you are not aware of all the torrential rains, and floods of 2010 to this point - then you've been out of touch with your own planet's climate.

You might have noticed that I have mentioned three examples of extreme weather that you have not forecast. So your forecast was no good to the citizens of Russia, China and the Bolivian and Chilean Andes.

True there may have been extreme weather happening that I am not aware of, but as I said nobody seems to have identified any that supports your view, it is unusual for unusual weather not to make the news, and you have not thought it worth bringing to my attention.

Try learning more, you know, most people use less than 10% of their own brainpower, which means that there's a lot more to learn - try astronomical weather forecasting, and perhaps your comments and questions may perhaps be more cogent to me as your knowledge improves in this area. Thanks.

If there is anything useful to learn about astronomical forecasting, then the 10% of my brain that I do use will be quite capable of absorbing it. To decide whether it is worth my while it would be nice to have some evidence of its worth, such as a step by step analysis of the successes and failures of the forecast you made in post 1 of this thread.

Then I suggest you start Steve, because until you learn how to forecast "step-by-step" you will understand very little of the 90% of that which you possibly may not be using.

Forecasting is far from a perfect science, and since the Earth's atmosphere is highly fluid, and always in motion (like the Sun, Moon and planets of which system the Earth is a part) the best means for forecasting is astronomical - as it has always been.

The evidence is right in front of your eyes - that's the world weather.

[AstroMet]

Oct 11, 2010 17:10:19 GMT icefisher said:

Oct 11, 2010 16:49:25 GMT steve said:

If there is anything useful to learn about astronomical forecasting, then the 10% of my brain that I do use will be quite capable of absorbing it. To decide whether it is worth my while it would be nice to have some evidence of its worth, such as a step by step analysis of the successes and failures of the forecast you made in post 1 of this thread.

There is plenty of evidence. The 200+ year success of the Farmer's Almanacs.

I think Astromet gave an important clue. "I suggest you unlearn what you have learned, and stay away from conventional modeling until you have a basic understanding of how your own local weather functions, where it comes from, and then expand out from there regionally, then nationally, and globally."

One problem with our current society is the degree of specialization that is out there. Youngsters that have never even camped out for a night in the wild toil in windowless offices of research institutes catering to direction dictated by pots of money carried into the offices by NGOs and politicians. This is the Eisenhower warning a lesson he perceived both looking at what he fought against and what he feared our nation could become.

Astromet suggests observation is important. Getting a feel for how the system actually works so as to bind to reality rather than some "adjusted figures" provided by the top money distributor man.

This is what Lewis eludes to about the "giants" that came up without the pablum and built stuff from scratch.

I would think that at minimum a review of the Farmer Almanac claims or some kind of facsimile of that and a few years of actual observation work would be a minimal internship for being a climate forecaster.

Sensory experience and a broad understanding or our history are important elements in any discipline if you want to rise above simply phoning it in. It really is the difference between building on experience and building on gospel. One allows one to see the other blinds him. Gospel is an important element but it is no substitute for empirical experience.

Amen. Couldn't have said it better Icefisher. I am looking forward to the day when the majority of the pinheads in this field leave it to the professionals, and those with common sense.

Much time has been wasted on the AGW whitewash - and time is running short to refit for global cooling - which I continue to say is on the way for the world.

[AstroMet]

Oct 11, 2010 16:27:38 GMT icefisher said:

Oct 11, 2010 15:42:34 GMT steve said:

I'm not snicking and snarking at your forecast. I'm snicking and snarking at your assessment of your forecast. I expect to continue to snick and snark at anyone who says they can give me a detailed non-probabilistic forecast for more than a few months ahead.

LOL! Non-probabilistic forecast!!!

Whoever claimed that!

The Farmers Almanacs claim like an 80% of better forecasting rate. . . .completely obliterating the Met's and IPCC records.

Astromet didn't bullseye his forecast hitting about the 7 ring on the target but he was more right than the Met or the IPCC who completely missed the target and instead shot themselves in the foot.

Claiming a 5% chance of being wrong and then being wrong doesn't make a completely wrong forecast any better than one about 2/3rds accurate.

You are still out there claiming the models are right and that probabilities just dealt you a bad hand. Uh-huh!!!

Now you are out there with a .2 to .4degC temperature increase over the next decade. What will your excuse be then? That adverse probabilities double downed on the 20 to 1 longshot to take you to the cleaners?

I think one of the major problems in the field is that there are not many good forecasters out there. The last 28-30 years, and especially the AGW scare-tactics of the last 15 years has left many would-be forecasters no closer to getting seasonal forecasts correct, much less the AGW warming forever mantra for the next 50 years some foolishly go on about.

Sadly, those on the low end of the scale, who get less than 10% accuracy in their forecasts are those who depend on models, which, in most cases, is weather reporting - not forecasting.

I've done tons of weather reporting back in the 1980s and '90s, and know the difference.

The problem is the models. There are many amateurs and pros who could not forecast the 2-5 day without one. Forget monthly or seasonal forecasting when opinion, jealousy, and laziness intrude for some who just cannot seem to look up and observe, much less even forecast.

[atra]

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.

Why are you judging the accuracy of forecasters when you have proven that your own forecasts are compeltely inaccurate and only contain broad generalizations of weather that happens every year?

Seriously, being a member of this forum, you should at least know that cycle 24 wasn't going to be a "historic solar maximum."

[trbixler]

A picture is worth a thousand words
"With a rapid onset – the strongest La Niña since 1955-56"



wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/11/with-a-rapid-onset-the-strongest-la-nina-since-1955-56/

[s12a]

Regarding that picture, I tried adjusting the color scale to make it more linear and simpler. Tell me what you think: