*EL NINO/LA NINA FORECAST 2010-2011*

[AstroMet]

Oct 12, 2010 17:26:47 GMT steve said:

Then you should have done THAT a while ago Steve, since it is quite OBVIOUS that I use astrological means to forecast the climate and weather.

The fact that you are BOTHERED should tell you a lot about yourself that perhaps you ought to look into so that way, you don't have to bother the rest of us who care about the climate, the weather, and the impacts on populations.

I bother about these things because I don't like the proliferation of pseudoscience. There is no point in being upfront about my lack of belief as I need *you* to expose *yourself*, which you eventually did.

Prove it. If you pronounce something as a pseudo-science, then it is incumbent upon to prove your statement, which you have failed to do so repeatedly.

I hear a lot of talk from you, but then again, talk is cheap Steve.

I proven my practice of astrometeorology with my forecasts. I walk my talk, which is something you are not doing Steve, you just "talk the talk," but you're not walking your talk Steve. That's what man-up means.

If you would like to prove that you are correct about this being a pseudo-science then we can easily discover this -

Forecast the weather in your local region this winter and spring, where you live, and I will do the same - for your region, and do so publicly, here on this forum.

Your forecast, on your local area, and I will forecast for your local area.

Then, we will see who has the better score and who is really practicing a "pseudo-science."

Are you going to man up, or girl-out? Which one will it be?

[northsphinx]

If You can provide 100% forecast Astromet, why spend Your time here?
With that gift would You easily be doing a fortune in just a season.
And with 4 season a year would You be very rich.
Why try to convince some of us misfits here that You are able to do forecasts?

[AstroMet]

Oct 12, 2010 17:46:00 GMT northsphinx said:

If You can provide 100% forecast Astromet, why spend Your time here?
With that gift would You easily be doing a fortune in just a season.
And with 4 season a year would You be very rich.
Why try to convince some of us misfits here that You are able to do forecasts?

No forecaster can provide 100% forecasts. Several scientists who compiled my long-range astronomical forecasts gave me a rating between 88%-97%. I try to maintain 85% average, but even that is a lot of time-intensive forecasting work.

Clients pay for my forecasts for their own regions, according to their specific needs since they have to prepare long in advance to make adaptations due to climate changes. So, the more time in advance, the better.

Moreover, I do not practice this science just for the money. It is one of my abilities, and I prefer to share my forecasts with the public, and to teach it to those interested.

Money is not the final arbiter of climate science. Look what the AGW pinheads did to climatology. They did it all for the money and to serve their overblown egos and careers - and now look at where it has gotten them.

[steve]

Prove it. If you pronounce something as a pseudo-science, then it is incumbent upon to prove your statement, which you have failed to do so repeatedly.

No it is not incumbent upon people to prove something is pseudoscience. It is up to the promoters to show the evidence that their technique works.

But I got you to prove it for me when you claimed that the Indonesian floods verified your forecast despite the fact that you predicted droughts in Indonesia. Were you merely showing that the Indonesian floods were the 15% of the forecast that was wrong? If you can make such erroneous claims then you can also erroneously claim implausibly high accuracy figures for your forecasts, and you can also make unverifiable claims that "several scientists" were able to apply metrics to your somewhat waffly and general forecasts.

Verifying forecasts is quite a technical challenge, but there are agreed methods for verifying them which you don't seem to be aware of.

[AstroMet]

Oct 12, 2010 19:28:56 GMT steve said:

Prove it. If you pronounce something as a pseudo-science, then it is incumbent upon to prove your statement, which you have failed to do so repeatedly.

No it is not incumbent upon people to prove something is pseudoscience. It is up to the promoters to show the evidence that their technique works.

But I got you to prove it for me when you claimed that the Indonesian floods verified your forecast despite the fact that you predicted droughts in Indonesia. Were you merely showing that the Indonesian floods were the 15% of the forecast that was wrong? If you can make such erroneous claims then you can also erroneously claim implausibly high accuracy figures for your forecasts, and you can also make unverifiable claims that "several scientists" were able to apply metrics to your somewhat waffly and general forecasts.

Verifying forecasts is quite a technical challenge, but there are agreed methods for verifying them which you don't seem to be aware of.

There is no "technical challenge" to verifying forecasts. Again, do you actually believe everything you say? I wouldn't if I were you. All you need to do is to see what the climate and weather is doing that is specified in the forecast. That's it.

I forecast what I am able to see, and I see a lot happening climate wise because of astronomical transits. You can go on and on trying to put me and my forecasts down - but it is all for naught.

I claim nothing for myself. My forecasts are verified by the climate and weather, which I forecast in advance. People have counted my hits and misses, and compiled my accuracy rate without any input from me except on the value of my forecasts, which you shit on without provocation, and without basis.

So, you can sit over there in England, and piss off all you want, but you'd be far better off facing the facts of astronomical forecasting, rather than being so hot and bothered about something you call "garbage."

You sure like to spend a lot of time with this so-called garbage though, don't you?

You also do not read much, because if you did, you would know that there are three basic kinds of weather forecasts -

Weather Reporting = 1-5 day
Bi-Weekly & Monthly Forecasts = 2 weeks to a month
Seasonal Climate Forecasts - three months to a year

I prefer to specialize in long-range seasonal forecasts. This includes the climate. My expertise is here since I've already done plenty of monthly forecasts, and tons of daily weather reporting over the years.

What you should be doing , is learning to observe and be much more aware of your own weather there in Devon, rather than sitting on your arse tapping away on your keyboard complaining so much as a misfit.

Again, the weather verifies all forecasts. Period. Every forecaster knows this, and live by the creed.

However, you would not know this because you appear to be living the life of the fake contrarian - who has little time for work, study and practice, but plenty of time for talk, opinions, and more talk.

That dog does not hunt. Nor does it forecast.

Meteorology is not difficult to learn, as long as you clearly understand where climate and weather begins, and where it ends.

You do not seem to have learned this elementary fact, so I do not find it difficult to believe that you are unlearned in this field, or, that it was astrologers who invented meteorology. This is history, and you obviously do not know this, or, do not want to know, of which the latter is worse than the former.

You throw around a lot of loose and stupid talk Steve. You offer a plethora of unrequested and unsubstantiated comments, attacks, etc., etc., but these are nothing but your biased opinions smelling up the place.

I've offered more substance in my 200+ posts here than you have in your 2,160+ posts. Again, talk is cheap. You should always choose quality over quantity, but it seems you have also failed to learn this as well.

I see you continue to fail to take my challenge to forecast the coming winter and spring 2011 for Devon and for you to do the same. Is this still you talking the talk but never walking the walk?

[atra]

Oct 12, 2010 16:24:38 GMT AstroMet said:

Oct 12, 2010 16:18:34 GMT astroposer777 said:

Astromet,

Were your predictions based on a typical solar minimum, or an extended solar minimum( Which I don't think was forecast by anyone)?
If you were to recast based on the extended minimum, would that effect the timing of the ENSO predictions?

Hi Rob, some of my forecasts were based on the solar minimum, but I also use the planets, which modulate the magnetic field of space associated with where the Earth orbits.

I use a wide variety of astronomical methods, then I synthesize all of it to forecast, according to hemispheric region, and the seasons.

The extended solar minimum was known by me based on my calculations for the start of Solar Cycle #24, which many scientists jumped the gun on too fast several years back.

The overall cycle for the current solar activity remains within the global warming range of 36 years in total. We are in the 30th year of this phase, with about six more years to go.

So the Earth will experience the effects of global warming from 2011-2016, more or less, but we are in the down-phase of this cycle in my estimation, and transitioning towards global cooling, which is worse than global warming.

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.

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.

You're either a chronic liar or a troll. Either way it is pathetic.

astromet said:

The coming summer in the southern hemisphere will at first appear to be warmer than normal, but will then cool off because of La Nina, with wetter conditions in some regions, and drier climates in other regions.

Warm and cold and wet and dry in various regions! Wow, that's not completely ambigious, what a great forecast.

[AstroMet]

Oct 12, 2010 23:47:40 GMT @atra said:

Oct 12, 2010 16:24:38 GMT AstroMet said:

Hi Rob, some of my forecasts were based on the solar minimum, but I also use the planets, which modulate the magnetic field of space associated with where the Earth orbits.

I use a wide variety of astronomical methods, then I synthesize all of it to forecast, according to hemispheric region, and the seasons.

The extended solar minimum was known by me based on my calculations for the start of Solar Cycle #24, which many scientists jumped the gun on too fast several years back.

The overall cycle for the current solar activity remains within the global warming range of 36 years in total. We are in the 30th year of this phase, with about six more years to go.

So the Earth will experience the effects of global warming from 2011-2016, more or less, but we are in the down-phase of this cycle in my estimation, and transitioning towards global cooling, which is worse than global warming.

You're either a chronic liar or a troll. Either way it is pathetic.

astromet said:

The coming summer in the southern hemisphere will at first appear to be warmer than normal, but will then cool off because of La Nina, with wetter conditions in some regions, and drier climates in other regions.

Warm and cold and wet and dry in various regions! Wow, that's not completely ambigious, what a great forecast.

Oh, you're so funny! By the way, it's spelled "ambiguous."

Now, a short lesson on the bigger picture of climate concerning ENSO ~

Both features of ENSO, that is El Nino, and La Nina, are major events for the globe, affecting 50%+ of the Earth.

However, there are regions of the world which experience either event, that is El Nino, and La Nina in altogether different ways:

For instance, one region can receive above-average amounts of precipitation, while a region right next door can see the opposite effect, and receive little to no precipitation.

What's "pathetic," Atra, is that you would make a comment like you did without doing your homework on ENSO.

The same goes for temperature.

So, before you go on your merry way shouting "troll" and "liar" you might want to look in a mirror.

Lesson: Don't throw stones at glass houses.

[atra]

How about you respond to my questioning of your blatent lies instead of dodging by pointing out a typo.

[AstroMet]

Oct 13, 2010 0:09:43 GMT @atra said:

How about you respond to my questioning of your blatent lies instead of dodging by pointing out a typo.

Simple. If you call it a typo [is your next mis-spelling of the word "blatant" a second so-called typo as well?

Usually, when you accuse someone of lying, and then ask them to respond to your questioning, you do not get a good response.

Then, when you do so, you obviously cannot write in easy English (as well as misspelling of words) I can only assume that you cannot learn to ask a question without - 1.) sounding like a jerk, and 2.) unable to pose a decent question without being rude and stupid, and 3.) writing like a Neanderthal on a serious climate forum.

How's that for an answer? I don't like trolls. They stink up the place, so go play elsewhere. Have a nice day.

[atra]

It is extremely shameful that you continue to lie about your own forecast and constantly reinterpret it at a whim. No serious forecaster would ever consider doing that.

I happen to be dyslexic and find it very disrespectful and ignorant of you to suggest that because i misspelled a word that I lack the qualification to post on this forum.

If you don't want to be accountable for your predictions then don't post.

For reference:

I remind you (not everyone) that I was the one who forecasted ENSO for 2010-11 over four years ago for this time, and ENSO is here, as you can see.

(this just in, ENSO is always "here")

From an astronomical and climate perspective, we are in for a healthy dose of La Nina, as forecasted.

From my long-range astronomical calculations for North America, I've forecasted 2010-11 to be a very strong El Nino year.

The extended solar minimum was known by me based on my calculations for the start of Solar Cycle #24, which many scientists jumped the gun on too fast several years back.

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.

[steve]

There is no "technical challenge" to verifying forecasts. Again, do you actually believe everything you say? I wouldn't if I were you. All you need to do is to see what the climate and weather is doing that is specified in the forecast. That's it.

There is nothing "specified" in your forecast. A forecast is only useful if a) it improves on climatology and b) gives people enough information that they have the option of changing their plans. The method for producing the forecast is irrelevant to the end user.

Your comments include only vague comments about droughts here and there and torrential rain here and there, all of which happen every year.

The technical challenge is for you to agree on some particular metrics that you say your forecast will predict. The metrics can be examined against climatology, and the probability of you hitting your forecast calculated. Your forecast accuracy can then be compared with a forecast that simply assumes average climatology.

Probably you should take a proper forecasting course and then come back to us.

[icefisher]

Oct 12, 2010 19:28:56 GMT steve said:

No it is not incumbent upon people to prove something is pseudoscience. It is up to the promoters to show the evidence that their technique works.

You mean like warming as predicted? No wonder Hal Lewis calls AGW the biggest pseudoscience fraud in history. But dang you are selective you do bite on that like a cod on a clam. Hal is just a tougher kettle of fish.

[steve]

Icefisher,

You mean like warming as predicted?

Forecasting and climate prediction are different. If astromet wants to be a forecaster there are plenty of forecasters to be compared with and well established techniques for judging the accuracy of a forecasting technique.

[icefisher]

Oct 13, 2010 12:08:47 GMT steve said:

Icefisher,


You mean like warming as predicted?

Forecasting and climate prediction are different. If astromet wants to be a forecaster there are plenty of forecasters to be compared with and well established techniques for judging the accuracy of a forecasting technique.

Huh? Are you saying that climate prediction doesn't need to be right to be a true science?

[steve]

Oct 13, 2010 15:21:26 GMT icefisher said:

Oct 13, 2010 12:08:47 GMT steve said:

Icefisher,


You mean like warming as predicted?

Forecasting and climate prediction are different. If astromet wants to be a forecaster there are plenty of forecasters to be compared with and well established techniques for judging the accuracy of a forecasting technique.

Huh? Are you saying that climate prediction doesn't need to be right to be a true science?

No. I mean that evaluation of a climate projection is different from the evaluation of a forecast. There are agreed formal methods for evaluating a forecast because forecasting has been done and been evaluated for decades.

Evaluating a climate projection is different because a projection is dependent on estimates of, for example, emissions, volcanoes and so forth, and because you are evaluating your projection against climatology rather than specific weather events.

Evaluating a long term forecast also requires comparison with climatology, but the timescales usually mean that emissions estimates are less relevant (though volcanoes may be relevant).

I would say that the style of astromet's forecast is mangling short term and long term forecasting. He is making some relatively specific predictions (Mississippi flooding, timing and strength of ENSO) and some climatological predictions (more storms in some places more droughts in others). But he is judging specific outcomes (a particular storm in Indonesia leading to flooding) against his climatological prediction (ignoring the fact that this particular storm didn't fit his climatological prediction).

A proper analysis of his climatological prediction requires an analysis of all the weather in all the specified areas over the period, and a comparison with what is average weather for those areas.