|
|
Post by icefisher on Oct 13, 2010 17:40:43 GMT
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. You mean like evaluating for missing ocean heat, missing surface heat, missing red dogs, missing explanatory deviations (like major volcanic eruptions), and non-existent substantial deviations from any emission scenario plotted, etc.? I haven't seen the details of Astromet's forecast but if he got anything right at all. . . .he is beating the so-called pros. It must be some kind of a problem with the instruction manual! |
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Oct 13, 2010 19:04:56 GMT
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. Again, you just do not get it Steve. Long-range forecasts are written specifically for climate conditions that will predominate over any period of time, thus giving the world's weather in any period of time. Analysis is simply looking at the forecast for the period, and then observing the climate, and weather conditions forecasted. It is not rocket-science. Most of the people who know nothing about astronomical forecasting do not observe the climate and weather. Rather, they play with models and guess, and give opinion, when all that needs to be done is to search for the world's weather over the time period of the forecast. For instance, there are those on this forum jumping to all kinds of conclusions on my forecast when 2011 is not here, as well as ignoring that I forecasted ENSO for the cycle we are now in - from four years ago. What is really going on is that rather than learn about astronomical long-range forecasting (which they know nothing about) they would rather poo-poo than to exercise their own minds. These are people who cannot even forecast their own local weather much less long-range climate, so it is not a surprise they act out like babies. |
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Oct 13, 2010 19:10:33 GMT
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: (this just in, ENSO is always "here") My ENSO forecast was last re-issued here in 2008-09. It has not changed if you care to even notice. As for the early 2010s, well, if you find a calendar, you will see that it is only October 2010, which means that you are saying I am wrong - in advance - before the additional years of climate I forecast actually gets here. No very bright at all Atra. And - if you are dyslexic, as you say, then take your time before jumping the gun, making snap judgment comments, and use your spell-check before posting. That will help you to make common sense, because up to this time you have not been. Show patience before making comments as you have. That's not cool - dyslexic or not. |
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Oct 13, 2010 20:55:57 GMT
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. The problem with the AGW schemes is simply ideology Icefisher, as you well know. That has never been about climate science, or meteorology - just careerism, money, and hubris. The reality of my astrometeorological forecasts is on the climate, and if you look to southern California, people will see that the cooling climate I forecasted has already arrived, and resulted in the cool summer Californians experienced. The extreme high temperatures that arrived just after the autumnal equinox is gone, and was part of what I forecasted in the "extremes of weather" where in a transitional phase, anomalies occur such as these. The release of heat in the Pacific is a function of ENSO. Remember that the Pacific is the oven of the Earth, and as such, the release of heat announces the arrival of La Nina, which I forecasted would arrive on the back end of El Nino. Summer stated on June 21, and started warmer than normal in California, but then June ended with below-normal temperatures. July's average temperature was slightly above average in California - included a brief heat wave, but the climate showed that that event was due to a persistent onshore flow of ocean air and a deep marine layer causing temperatures to fall below normal in coastal regions, setting some records. The rest of the northern hemisphere experienced record-setting warm temperatures in July. The average in California in August 2010 was cooler-than-normal despite a record-setting heat wave, and August ended with a significant low-pressure system that raised concerns that hikers in the Sierra Nevada might be caught unprepared by summer snowfall. In September the cool temperatures continued until finally, after the fall equinox, another brief heatwave was experienced by Californians. What we are seeing here is ENSO. And what has been happening is that the Pacific is cooling as forecasted with La Nina to follow with heavy rains, and continued cooler than average temperatures to arrive in the fall and early winter for California, and then to the rest of the United States. I forecasted La Nina would, for the rest of the country east of California would dominate through the months of February, March and April, with cooler than normal temperatures and a wetter climate. The next thing to watch is the (NAO) North Atlantic Oscillation. It has been mainly negative since 2009. Then, the (AO) Arctic Oscillation will turn negative. This allows the shift in the jet stream to go head south, and bring with it, polar air into two-thirds of the U.S., just as La Nina in the Pacific makes impact on the rest of the nation. In my estimation, all these factors combine, so that by February 2010, and into March and April 2011, the eastern third of the nation is impacted by La Nina with a colder-than-normal and wet winter. |
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Oct 13, 2010 21:35:44 GMT
astromet your thoughts? "Scafetta on 60 year climate oscillations" "Nicola Scafetta has published the most decisive indictment of GCM’s I’ve ever read in the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics. His analysis is purely phenomenological, but he claims that over half of the warming observed since 1975 can be tied to 20 and 60-year climate oscillations driven by the 12 and 30-year orbital periods of Jupiter and Saturn, through their gravitational influence on the Sun, which in turn modulates cosmic radiation." wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/13/scafetta-on-60-year-climate-oscillations/ |
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Oct 13, 2010 23:41:06 GMT
astromet your thoughts? "Scafetta on 60 year climate oscillations" "Nicola Scafetta has published the most decisive indictment of GCM’s I’ve ever read in the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics. His analysis is purely phenomenological, but he claims that over half of the warming observed since 1975 can be tied to 20 and 60-year climate oscillations driven by the 12 and 30-year orbital periods of Jupiter and Saturn, through their gravitational influence on the Sun, which in turn modulates cosmic radiation." wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/13/scafetta-on-60-year-climate-oscillations/Thanks Trbixler, This, and the other recent conventional "discoveries" relating to solar, lunar, and planetary cycles and the resulting climate oscillations are well-known to astrometeorologists. We use the planetary cycles to forecast advance climate and weather so it is no surprise to see more evidence coming out that it is in space where the Earth's climate weather is caused. |
|
|
|
Post by dartman321 on Oct 14, 2010 5:07:15 GMT
The Astromet, I can't believe that you are rearing your bombastic head after so many months absent from this stream. Let me remind you of your words, the core of your prediction,
"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.
and.."By this time in fall 2010, the Mid-Atlantic should be well within the throes of El Nino,.." and..."For over two years, I continued to forecast that a new El Nino was on the way from my astronomic calculations. This ENSO will dominate the world's weather events through all of 2010, into 2011 and 2012, "
Your prognostication was soooooooo far off, it's not even funny anymore.
Begone. Go back to the nether regions you have inhabitable lo these many months.
|
|
|
|
Post by steve on Oct 14, 2010 10:00:00 GMT
astromet
I get it very well.
If you are forecasting the "climate conditions that will predominate" why did you use a single storm in a (deluded) attempt to validate your forecast?
It may not be rocket science. So why have you have failed to present evidence of the *climate* for the period matched up against your forecast?
And this is what you do not get. Most people looking at a forecast care whether it is accurate or not. They don't care whether it was generated by a model, by astronomical forecasting or by consulting Sybil.
Ridiculous. You were the first to jump to a conclusion when you wrote in post 442 of this thread:
It is quite clear that a lot of jaws hit the floor at your cheek.
You are not interested in people who will learn your techniques. You are interested in people who will swallow your outputs without asking questions, and will similarly swallow your self-assessments.
When people do ask questions you childishly invoke names like "pinhead", "jerk" and "bumbler".
It is not acceptable and disrespectful of our intelligence.
|
|
|
|
Post by glc on Oct 14, 2010 10:23:12 GMT
astromet your thoughts? "Scafetta on 60 year climate oscillations" "Nicola Scafetta has published the most decisive indictment of GCM’s I’ve ever read in the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics. His analysis is purely phenomenological, but he claims that over half of the warming observed since 1975 can be tied to 20 and 60-year climate oscillations driven by the 12 and 30-year orbital periods of Jupiter and Saturn, through their gravitational influence on the Sun, which in turn modulates cosmic radiation." wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/13/scafetta-on-60-year-climate-oscillations/Thanks Trbixler, This, and the other recent conventional "discoveries" relating to solar, lunar, and planetary cycles and the resulting climate oscillations are well-known to astrometeorologists. We use the planetary cycles to forecast advance climate and weather so it is no surprise to see more evidence coming out that it is in space where the Earth's climate weather is caused. From the Scafetta paper, it's clear these "conventional discoveries" do not explain the underlying rising trend in temperatures. Scafetta has used the old favourite trick of detrending the temperature data. Perhaps we should refer to it as "hiding the incline". |
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Oct 14, 2010 21:05:47 GMT
The Astromet, I can't believe that you are rearing your bombastic head after so many months absent from this stream. Let me remind you of your words, the core of your prediction, "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. and.."By this time in fall 2010, the Mid-Atlantic should be well within the throes of El Nino,.." and..."For over two years, I continued to forecast that a new El Nino was on the way from my astronomic calculations. This ENSO will dominate the world's weather events through all of 2010, into 2011 and 2012, " Your prognostication was soooooooo far off, it's not even funny anymore. Begone. Go back to the nether regions you have inhabitable lo these many months. So, ENSO is not here? Wow. What world do you live on? It is just amazing that for all your huffing and puffing that you cannot average up the record amounts of precipitation which has fallen in 2010 due to the ENSO state I forecasted for this time years ago. Try taking your own advice and "be gone" kid. Go back to your Playstation, and leave the serious climate forecasting to people who actually know what they are doing. Oh, and those "nether regions" you talk of is called the world of work. Perhaps you ought to try it sometime rather than sitting on your arse sounding off like a doofus Dartman321. |
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Oct 14, 2010 21:08:53 GMT
astromet I get it very well. If you are forecasting the "climate conditions that will predominate" why did you use a single storm in a (deluded) attempt to validate your forecast? It may not be rocket science. So why have you have failed to present evidence of the *climate* for the period matched up against your forecast? And this is what you do not get. Most people looking at a forecast care whether it is accurate or not. They don't care whether it was generated by a model, by astronomical forecasting or by consulting Sybil. Ridiculous. You were the first to jump to a conclusion when you wrote in post 442 of this thread: It is quite clear that a lot of jaws hit the floor at your cheek. You are not interested in people who will learn your techniques. You are interested in people who will swallow your outputs without asking questions, and will similarly swallow your self-assessments. When people do ask questions you childishly invoke names like "pinhead", "jerk" and "bumbler". It is not acceptable and disrespectful of our intelligence. What's not "acceptable" is the fact that you presume to have "intelligence." That's you. Coming up with this other word "our" presumes that you speak for everyone. You don't. You are aware, Steve, that the world has been in an ENSO state which I forecasted well in advance? And no, I will not answer your so-called "questions," because you've shown that you have no interest in learning a thing, nor show much interest in climate science from the contents of your posts on this board. You're just being silly, and you know it. Either you are lonely, do not have a life, or simply piss off at anything that catches your eye. That's the level of a child Steve. What's childish is that you can presume to even be in my league, much less address me in the immature manner common from you on this board, where the great majority of members are serious, and conscientious people, unlike the 2-3 babies who sound very similar in their writing. Isn't one member name enough for you Steve? Again, go play elsewhere... |
|
|
|
Post by glc on Oct 15, 2010 8:16:19 GMT
You are aware, Steve, that the world has been in an ENSO state which I forecasted well in advance?
Who are you trying to kid? You claim you predicted an El Nino 4 years ago - so what? ENSO events occur with a frequency of between 2 to 7 years. There's a more than decent chance one will occur within 3 to 5 years which you'd claim as a success anyway. More recently (just a few months ago) you told us the EL NINO would last into 2011. Everyone on this blog who had an opinion thought this unlikely but you kept insisting you were right - even as the El Nino was fading.
This was just about the words piece of forecasting I've seen. It was a bit like the Iraqi general who assured the crowd that Iraq was winning the war just at the moment american tanks came rolling into view.
It's not as though you even try to explain the possible mechanisms for your 'theories'. We just get some vague, mystical claptrap which impresses no-one (apart from icefisher who will swallow anything as long as it runs counter to AGW).
But the real problem for all solar theorists is typified by the Scafetta paper. Scafetta's correlations rely on DE-TRENDED data. In other words they don't explain the underlying trend - and it is the underlying trend we are interested in. Whether the sun or the oceans or a combination of both is responsible for the short/medium-term cycles is irrelevant. Why is the current warm phase warmer than the last warm phase? Why was the last cold phase warmer than the previous cold phase and why will the next cold phase be warmer than the last cold phase - or why will the next cold phase be warmer than the previous warm phase.
|
|
|
|
Post by steve on Oct 15, 2010 10:03:57 GMT
Another method of charlatans is to pretend that their critics are critical because we have deep-seated emotional issues, and to try to turn the discussion onto their critic's personality. But I'm afraid that as I only have one user name - which is my real name, and that all of the other dozen or so people who have criticised your forecast (including those with whom I disagree on most other subjects) are separate from me. If I was running two accounts, then I would add to the fun by making one of my personalities supportive of you  |
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Oct 15, 2010 16:44:04 GMT
You are aware, Steve, that the world has been in an ENSO state which I forecasted well in advance? Who are you trying to kid? You claim you predicted an El Nino 4 years ago - so what? ENSO events occur with a frequency of between 2 to 7 years. There's a more than decent chance one will occur within 3 to 5 years which you'd claim as a success anyway. More recently (just a few months ago) you told us the EL NINO would last into 2011. Everyone on this blog who had an opinion thought this unlikely but you kept insisting you were right - even as the El Nino was fading. This was just about the words piece of forecasting I've seen. It was a bit like the Iraqi general who assured the crowd that Iraq was winning the war just at the moment american tanks came rolling into view. It's not as though you even try to explain the possible mechanisms for your 'theories'. We just get some vague, mystical claptrap which impresses no-one (apart from icefisher who will swallow anything as long as it runs counter to AGW). But the real problem for all solar theorists is typified by the Scafetta paper. Scafetta's correlations rely on DE-TRENDED data. In other words they don't explain the underlying trend - and it is the underlying trend we are interested in. Whether the sun or the oceans or a combination of both is responsible for the short/medium-term cycles is irrelevant. Why is the current warm phase warmer than the last warm phase? Why was the last cold phase warmer than the previous cold phase and why will the next cold phase be warmer than the last cold phase - or why will the next cold phase be warmer than the previous warm phase. Scafetta's correlations rely on DE-TRENDED data. Do you even know the purpose for detrending data? HINT: It's not for making trends disappear. Why is the current warm phase warmer than the last warm phase? You mean like 1998? Why was the last cold phase warmer than the previous cold phase and why will the next cold phase be warmer than the last cold phase - or why will the next cold phase be warmer than the previous warm phase. Finally glc makes a prediction that can be tested, except that the term "phase" is not defined. Is that minimum, yearly average, seasonal....what? Now if you would, which temperature product will this be tested against? |
|
|
|
Post by glc on Oct 15, 2010 18:09:47 GMT
Do you even know the purpose for detrending data? HINT: It's not for making trends disappear.
There are many reasons for wishing the detrend data but the end result is that the trend is removed.
Finally glc makes a prediction that can be tested, except that the term "phase" is not defined. Is that minimum, yearly average, seasonal....what? Now if you would, which temperature product will this be tested against?
You're still thinking in terms of short-term weather. When I refer to phases I'm referring to periods of at least a decade but in the context of the above post I'm referring to the 'cycles' of ~30 years. If the 'cycles' are solely responsible for the recent warming then temperatures in ~2030 shoul be at 1970s levels.
1998 is not a "phase" - it's just one year. The 1990s (i.e. 1990-1999) - which includes 1998 - were 0.2 deg cooler than 2000-2009. 1998 was an exceptional year - way off the scale. It was a 1 in 100 event. Even with global warming at 0.2 deg per decade, we would not expect the 1998 global temperature to be exceeded until ~2014.
|
|
