|
|
Post by icefisher on Oct 15, 2010 18:48:51 GMT
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. Thats a bit of an overstatement. He did miss the start of the La Nina and I think he missed the strength of it also but that has yet to play out. But I don't find that surprising as we have gone through almost a hundred years of quite mild effects from extraterrestrial sources. I am reminded of how NOAA and NASA who studies the solar system with thousands of employees completely botched the solar cycle call three years ago. Lets face changes are afoot for which few records exist. We have yet to see just what is coming. The disappearing sunspots might suggest changes not seen since the early 17th Century. I think we need to let this play out and learn from it. 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). Wow! Thats a pretty strong statement when in fact all I do is run around with a long pin poking at the balloons you float like deriving numbers of warming from artificial assumptions of zero feedback and your claims of no significant solar effects when we know we have not documented well the full range of solar effects. Then there are the claims of the Arctic effects being CO2 driven when the science clearly shows Arctic ice has been probably lower during the Holocene without explanation (it must not be impossible) and when the current effect are clearly water cycle driven (with the warmists claiming that the reason temps stay near zero during the summer are water cycle effects that turn off in the Winter when what drives the summer effects are in reverse). And of course that doesn't include how the so-called experts called the warming of the 80's and 90's had overridden natural variation when I was sitting here watching the Pacific go through a routine oscillation that has been documented well in the fossil record. So you are simply mistaking the popping of a lot of hot air balloons as believing in alternative theories. You are just mistaking what skeptics do.
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 phaseThose are good questions. But you cannot simply rule out any explanation. You still have not provided an explanation why the CET record shows a period of 40 years of warming in the early 18th Century in excess of the most recent warming. Its simply my view is that you can't just blow it off because of a flat interlude. Unless you understand the mechanism you can't rule anything out. |
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Oct 15, 2010 18:52:25 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. Again, Glc, you just do not get it. From CSA - "El Niño events happen irregularly. Their strength is estimated in surface atmospheric pressure anomalies and anomalies of land and sea surface temperatures. The El Niño phenomenon dramatically affects the weather in many parts of the world. It is therefore important to predict its appearance.
Various climate models, seasonal forecasting models, ocean-atmosphere coupled models, and statistical models attempt to predict El Niño as a part of inter-annual climate variability.
Predicting El Niño has been possible only since the 1980s, when the power of computers became sufficient to cover very complicated large-scale ocean-atmosphere interactions."
And predict ENSO I did - in advance, from several years back. Trying to skip over this fact only goes to prove just how dense you are. It is not impossible to predict astronomically. I do so all the time, and it is astronomical forecasting that makes it possible. Astronomical forecasting is not done by chance. It is accomplished by using astronomical analogs that correlate to climate events of the past, and then applied to forecasting the future climate and weather. Of course, you would prefer opinion to substitute for actual forecasting, but that dog doesn't hunt, because opinions do not forecast, and neither do you. The so-called "mechanism" you are looking for is right above your head, in the heavens, that is where the Earth lives - in space - and it is where all our climate and weather comes from. Period. From the content of your comments on climate and weather what you are missing is the central principle, which, in your quest to find "mechanisms" you fail because of ideology (very bad for science) and because you are not a forecaster. Poor attitudes, a false skepticism, and lack of knowledge about the facts behind what produces climate and weather has you running around like a dog chasing his own tail. Until you learn the basic principle - astrophysical (causes) to geophysical (effects) - you will learn absolutely nothing about the mechanisms that control the Earth's climate and weather. |
|
|
|
Post by steve on Oct 16, 2010 12:27:36 GMT
It is correct that you made a prediction of ENSO 4 years ago. It is also correct that your prediction wasn't borne out. We aren't skipping over the fact. We are saying that your forecast was based on a build up of the solar cycle which hasn't happened, and: If August through to next spring is going to be La Niña then this is just not the case. If La Niña currently exists, then your forecast for fall, which was predicated on El Niño, fails. You predicted drought for Indonesia, and Indonesia got flooded. You tried to pretend the Indonesian floods were predicted by you. You have refused to fairly evaluate your forecast. In March 2008 I made a quite good prediction of two years stable followed by one year warm temperatures based on: solarcycle24com.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=globalwarming&action=display&thread=95&page=1My record is clearly better than yours and was based on my assessment of a climate model-based prediction. |
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Oct 16, 2010 14:17:56 GMT
It is correct that you made a prediction of ENSO 4 years ago. It is also correct that your prediction wasn't borne out. We aren't skipping over the fact. We are saying that your forecast was based on a build up of the solar cycle which hasn't happened, and: If August through to next spring is going to be La Niña then this is just not the case. If La Niña currently exists, then your forecast for fall, which was predicated on El Niño, fails. You predicted drought for Indonesia, and Indonesia got flooded. You tried to pretend the Indonesian floods were predicted by you. You have refused to fairly evaluate your forecast. In March 2008 I made a quite good prediction of two years stable followed by one year warm temperatures based on: solarcycle24com.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=globalwarming&action=display&thread=95&page=1My record is clearly better than yours and was based on my assessment of a climate model-based prediction. Steve, or whomever you are, I never saw your so-called "forecast" anywhere, and know nothing about your own forecast record? This is the first time you've claimed to "forecast" El Nino - so I do not believe you. I also do not care if you think my ENSO forecast made four years ago for this time was borne out or not . I published it several times since 2006, and re-issued it again in 2008 - long before NOAA or anyone else - including you (who supposedly now after the fact says he forecasted El Nino. What are you smoking dude?) Regarding drought, ENSO, and Indonesia - "In general drought in Indonesia can be predicted from intensities of El Nino that can be defined by using time series of sea surface anomaly on Pacific Ocean (SSTA 3.4).
It can be shown that when El Nino with strong intensities occur then more than 65% regions in Indonesia the precipitations are below normal (drought in Indonesia).
The correlation between strong El Nino intensities and percentages of regions in Indonesia with precipitations below normal are high, but when the intensities are weak the correlations are low.
In this case other phenomena such as on Indian Ocean Dipole Mode (IOD) can contribute to drought in Indonesia. Clustering of climatic regions in Indonesia based on monthly rainfall pattern using fuzzy set, fuzzy relations or Kohonen's neural network will help to clarify drought on these regions.
It can be shown that climatic regions in Indonesia can be clustered based on monthly rainfall patterns that are strongly influence by Australian monsoon which is known as North Australia Indonesian Monsoon (MAIM) and Maritime Continent (MC) which has equatorial precipitation characteristic.
The climatic clustering is based on the ground that ENSO and IOD are regional atmospheric dynamic so the clustering should be based on average monthly pattern or geo-potential height.
The east MC and NAIM will be influence strongly by ENSO and the western MC especially south Sumatra and west Java is influence also by IOD."As for ENSO - El Nino does not just turn off like a switch. El Nino and La Nino are part and parcel of the same oscillations, with one warm and the other cool - both deliver ungodly amounts of precipitation, as has been observed with this most recent El Nino which is releasing heat into the Earth's atmosphere as La Nina builds. If you are a "forecaster" of climate, then you would already know this, but our comments show that you clearly are not because you lack even the most basic understanding of climate and weather. So, for heaven's sake, do yourself a favor and learn how to forecast first, and stop playing with yourself. |
|
|
|
Post by glc on Oct 16, 2010 14:29:24 GMT
The so-called "mechanism" you are looking for is right above your head, in the heavens, that is where the Earth lives - in space - and it is where all our climate and weather comes from. Period.
You say "The mechanism is in the heavens". Gosh - I feel really silly now for my allegations of "vague, mystical claptrap".
What the #!?#@ is that gobbledegook supposed to mean.
From the content of your comments on climate and weather what you are missing is the central principle, which, in your quest to find "mechanisms" you fail because of ideology (very bad for science) and because you are not a forecaster.
Sorry - no idea what you're talking about. Has it got anything to do with tidal effects?
Poor attitudes, a false skepticism, and lack of knowledge about the facts behind what produces climate and weather has you running around like a dog chasing his own tail.
Listen, Pal, you told us all that the El nino was going to last until 2011. You told us that less than 6 months ago. If I'd been the slightest bit bothered about your ramblings I'd have told you quite definitely that it wasn't going to last until 2011. One or two other bloggers who responded to your 'predictions' (in quotes) did express some scepticism.
You were wrong (very very wrong) and they were right.
Icefisher
Thats a bit of an overstatement. He did miss the start of the La Nina....
An overstatement? He missed the La Nina when it was just about to bite him on the ass. That's why he disappeared for a couple of months. You'd think he'd show just a tad more humility on his return- perhaps an explanation what went wrong, but - No -he's back telling us what a marvellous forecaster he is.
|
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Oct 16, 2010 14:41:04 GMT
The so-called "mechanism" you are looking for is right above your head, in the heavens, that is where the Earth lives - in space - and it is where all our climate and weather comes from. Period.You say " The mechanism is in the heavens". Gosh - I feel really silly now for my allegations of "vague, mystical claptrap". What the #!?#@ is that gobbledegook supposed to mean. From the content of your comments on climate and weather what you are missing is the central principle, which, in your quest to find "mechanisms" you fail because of ideology (very bad for science) and because you are not a forecaster.
Sorry - no idea what you're talking about. Has it got anything to do with tidal effects? Poor attitudes, a false skepticism, and lack of knowledge about the facts behind what produces climate and weather has you running around like a dog chasing his own tail.Listen, Pal, you told us all that the El nino was going to last until 2011. You told us that less than 6 months ago. If I'd been the slightest bit bothered about your ramblings I'd have told you quite definitely that it wasn't going to last until 2011. One or two other bloggers who responded to your 'predictions' (in quotes) did express some scepticism. You were wrong (very very wrong) and they were right. Icefisher Thats a bit of an overstatement. He did miss the start of the La Nina.... An overstatement? He missed the La Nina when it was just about to bite him on the ass. That's why he disappeared for a couple of months. You'd think he'd show just a tad more humility on his return- perhaps an explanation what went wrong, but - No -he's back telling us what a marvellous forecaster he is. I don't think so Glc. I am a "marvelous" (that's one "l" in marvelous - not two) forecaster because I've earned it over 36 years. I don't see you doing any forecasting at all, and frankly, your opinion does not matter. Everyone has an opinion like everyone has an ass****. The only gobbledygook (another word you mis-spelled) is your obvious ignorance at understanding what produces climate and weather on earth. You spend all your time, along with Steve, and two other numb skulls, patrolling as trolls pretending to know it all - when you know very little, and obviously are unwilling to learn anything about forecasting. You talk a lot, but you simply do not know much about climate science. Ideology, bias, and ignorance are not substitutes for forecasting - ever. Moreover, if you read my forecast - I never missed La Nina. I forecasted it - years in advance. That bothers you? So what? Big deal. I do it all the time with my astronomical forecasting. It isn't new, except to those who like to "think" they've learned all there is to know when they've barely scratched the surface. Moreover, this La Nina is building, and will not peak until 2011, as forecasted by me. However, you probably will not notice it unless you see it in a model so that you can now claim that La Nina is real. The problem with some of you guys is that you depend on computer models to tell you everything. If you read my forecast you will clearly note that I forecasted La Nina to follow El Nino, and, that I forecasted La Nina to peak in 2011 - not 2010 - and, the year 2011 is clearly not here yet, but that doesn't stop you from calling me "wrong" now, does it? This proves that you are dense. The hubris of some of you guys is amazing considering the fact that you can't forecast your own local weather outside of a couple days to a week - if that. And you want to tackle the world's climate? Give me a break. I did not need a computer model to tell me ENSO was coming. I forecasted that four years ago for this period of time - and ENSO has been here since late 2009, as forecasted. I also have ENSO forecasts for the future, but obviously some of you are not able to hold a thought longer than a few minutes, much less years in advance, so for the time being, I will wait to publish my ENSO forecasts for the next decade. I "disappeared" for a couple of months because I was taking care of a sick parent who suffered a stroke. So I do not appreciate you using my absence here on the board to make shit up that isn't true. Sorry to disappoint you man, but you've got a real problem with making things up and not knowing what it is you are talking about. If you cannot respect my thread, or my forecasts, I'd appreciate it if you would keep your snide comments to yourself, and do your own forecasting work. Considering your comments on AGW, Co2, and global warming, it is not a wonder why you are so lost to begin with. If anyone should show "humility" it's you because you have not earned the right to put others down with your smart ass comments that are not only rude, and wholly out of line - but also ignorant. The problem with you so-called "skeptics," (and you are really not skeptics at all, but wannabe forecasters) is that you do not have any of the basics of forecasting down, and understand little to nothing about the causes of climate and weather here on Earth. You like to cherry-pick through forecasts, adding things that were not included, so as to make you look as if you are knowledgeable when that is far from the truth. All the time you spend mouthing off and being a smart ass could be much better spent actually learning how to forecast - especially long-range - but then again, that isn't included in your personal skill set, is it? However, since you are so very wise GLC, why not forecast the next ENSO for the world in advance as I did several years back for this time? That way, we can all see just how superior you are to everyone else here on the board so we can all fall down and worship at your climate feet. |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Oct 16, 2010 15:39:17 GMT
An overstatement? He missed the La Nina when it was just about to bite him on the ass. That's why he disappeared for a couple of months. You'd think he'd show just a tad more humility on his return- perhaps an explanation what went wrong, but - No -he's back telling us what a marvellous forecaster he is. With NASA setting the standard he is a marvelous forecaster. LOL! OK so his ego is bit fat but who isn't whose income depends upon their skill? Fact is stuff is happening we haven't seen for a long time and everybody has been missing the mark even if a little more humble pie would endear him a bit more. Lets face it there is nothing "magical" about astrological forecasting the Farmer's Almanacs have successfully been doing it for more than 200 years. Very clearly there is a link to the solar system regarding how our weather and probably our climate operates. I watch the moon lift the ocean several feet twice a day. . . .what a force!!!! How could it not influence our weather? It might get a little dicey with the gas giants so far away but we have hardly scratched the surface of this system, how it operates, how it interacts, people paying a lot of attention to the effects can predict stuff. NASA maybe on to something but right now its probably a minor forcing in comparison to natural variation in that the effects of it can largely just disappear and people cannot explain that by variations in TSI so obviously unless you are blind there are things at work we cannot explain. The AGW warmists are starting to recognize this kind of variation and even if they are right they are going to need to reckon with that when things line up you don't just get a La Nina and it goes back to the pattern of dominant El Ninos what happens is La Ninas dominate for decades like El Ninos dominated for decades just past. Its an artifact of in effect only measuring ocean surface temperatures for decades. The forces they are looking for aren't as robust as they think they need to be. The depth of the current La Nina speaks volumes. Since AGW is not subtracted from the ENSO index like it is for the PDO La Ninas should be getting shallower. Well so we have a once in a hundred years La Nina on the way as an explanation suggesting its just an anomaly that occurred even deeper before a lot of CO2 got into the system. After all El Ninos performed as expected over the past 33 years. But a once in a hundred years La Nina, considering the effects on global temperatures ENSO portends, has implications for weather cycles in excess of 66 years. So we know that the cycles we have seen that created the 40's bump is extremely closely tied to the PDO oscillations, but about the only thing we can see that ties to this La Nina is the solar cycle last seen 10 cycles ago. To clarify that last statement, if there is no significant CO2 effect on surface temperatures, then we don't need to look to solar for an explanation. Its just another deep ocean oscillation that is hitting the levels of the 1950's because CO2 has not warmed the oceans generally. But if CO2 has generally warmed the oceans we need to look beyond the 50's La Ninas for an explanation. Since the USA has not warmed since the 40's its not a slam dunk what we should be looking at. Its possible through a combination of bias and perhaps regional phenomena (like Europe's proximity to the exit to the Arctic) that the warming over the 40's has been globally exaggerated. |
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Oct 16, 2010 15:48:06 GMT
An overstatement? He missed the La Nina when it was just about to bite him on the ass. That's why he disappeared for a couple of months. You'd think he'd show just a tad more humility on his return- perhaps an explanation what went wrong, but - No -he's back telling us what a marvellous forecaster he is. With NASA setting the standard he is a marvelous forecaster. LOL! OK so his ego is bit fat but who isn't whose income depends upon their skill? Fact is stuff is happening we haven't seen for a long time and everybody has been missing the mark even if a little more humble pie would endear him a bit more. Lets face it there is nothing "magical" about astrological forecasting the Farmer's Almanacs have successfully been doing it for more than 200 years. Very clearly there is a link to the solar system regarding how our weather and probably our climate operates. I watch the moon lift the ocean several feet twice a day. . . .what a force!!!! How could it not influence our weather? It might get a little dicey with the gas giants so far away but we have hardly scratched the surface of this system, how it operates, how it interacts, people paying a lot of attention to the effects can predict stuff. NASA maybe on to something but right now its probably a minor forcing in comparison to natural variation in that the effects of it can largely just disappear and people cannot explain that by variations in TSI so obviously unless you are blind there are things at work we cannot explain. The AGW warmists are starting to recognize this kind of variation and even if they are right they are going to need to reckon with that when things line up you don't just get a La Nina and it goes back to the pattern of dominant El Ninos what happens is La Ninas dominate for decades like El Ninos dominated for decades just past. Its an artifact of in effect only measuring ocean surface temperatures for decades. The forces they are looking for aren't as robust as they think they need to be. The depth of the current La Nina speaks volumes. Since AGW is not subtracted from the ENSO index like it is for the PDO La Ninas should be getting shallower. Well so we have a once in a hundred years La Nina on the way as an explanation suggesting its just an anomaly that occurred even deeper before a lot of CO2 got into the system. After all El Ninos performed as expected over the past 33 years. But a once in a hundred years La Nina considering the effects on global temperatures has implications for weather cycles in excess of 66 years. So we know that the cycles we have seen that created the 40's bump is extremely closely tied to the PDO oscillations, but about the only thing we can see that ties to this La Nina is the solar cycle last seen 10 cycles ago. Cycles Icefisher, have to do with astronomical forces. This is the principle, and no amount of opinion, or trying to ram some silly theory into the mix is going to change this princip - Astrophysical = causes
Geophysical = effectsAnd, this is not about ego. I never wanted to be a forecaster, and have no ego about it. It is one of the things I do well, and I've earned that right with lots of blood, sweat and tears over the years. The problem with some today is that they do not want to work, or to earn the right to talk down, and complain because these wannabe forecasters simply muck up what is already a mess in climate science, and it is my view that they should simply go away because the world's weather is serious business for adults - not spoiled man-boys playing with computer models. While some are sitting around expounding their "theories" and arguing over the climate, the astronomical forces that control and direct the Earth's weather keeps chugging right along. Mother Nature could care less about weather boarders yapping about what they "think" is happening while doting over computer models. The world should be 30 years ahead in climate science, not 30 years behind as is the case presently. All of this is going to have dire consequences for the future, and that future includes heavy rains, floods of major proportions, and a much colder climate that will stress all infrastructures and cause untold levels of destruction while some sat on their behinds talking up man-made global warming, which always has been a farce. So, while it may be funny to some who like to play with computer models like toys, I don't find it humorous in the least. Climate and weather is very serious business - lives are lost because of it, and forecasting far in advance can save lives and property by the simple act of preparation. The more time in advance, the better That is why I share my forecasts - not to build my so-called "ego" - but to help save lives, to instruct, and to be of help. I do not have time to take part in ego, I'm too busy working. Leave the ego bubble land to the wannabe forecasters, they like that stuff - they want to "be somebody," rather than earning that right with talent, and a skill set that is built on years of hard work and commitment. Not ego. |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Oct 16, 2010 15:51:55 GMT
That is why I share my forecasts - not to build my so-called "ego" - but to help save lives. I believe you Astromet. Lets just hope you have not become too old to learn some new tricks. |
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Oct 16, 2010 15:55:12 GMT
That is why I share my forecasts - not to build my so-called "ego" - but to help save lives. I believe you Astromet. Lets just hope you have not become too old to learn some new tricks. I'm not that old. I started learning astrometeorlogy as a kid. I am only in my 40s. |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Oct 16, 2010 16:35:32 GMT
I'm not that old. I started learning astrometeorlogy as a kid. I am only in my 40s.I wasn't suggesting you were. I wasn't referring to chronological age anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Oct 16, 2010 16:50:41 GMT
I'm not that old. I started learning astrometeorlogy as a kid. I am only in my 40s.I wasn't suggesting you were. I wasn't referring to chronological age anyway. I know, but experience is important in climate and weather forecasting nonetheless. It is also essential to remember that computer models are tools, not a philosophy in itself. This is why it is so very difficult for the majority of forecasters and amateurs to nail down the climate accurately, because most do not, and they know it. Frustration is not a good thing in forecasting. The idea forecaster synthesizes, and accepts observation of all of nature, which includes outer space, as causes so that the variable mathematics can be done, and that is very difficult enough to do, so getting the basics of what causes climate and weather down as soon as possible is essential. So, those "new tricks" are really old ones, but this must be first observed, recorded, and studied before forecasting can be done with regularity and success. I am an authority in my own field of astronomical forecasting. As such, I know my work, and have enough confidence in my forecasts to publish them. I've learned as much from my failures as I have from my successes. That is part of the job of forecasting. That is also what separates the pro from the amateur, in that all pro forecasters know that "busts" are also paths into future successes and hits on weather and climate events. What some amateurs, and even conventional forecasters do not do is understand that forecasting has always been a function of humanity - since the dawn of humanity - and astronomical forecasting has been done for thousands of years because that is how the weather is to be forecasted - cause to effect. The problem in climate science today, beyond the obvious AGW scams perpetuated on the world, is that common sense, and practicality has been all but absent among the crackpots who played the man-made global warming fraud on the world for well over a decade. This encouraged others who lacked even less climate knowledge to follow in the AGW tracks, all trying to outdo one another with their dire "warming forever forecasts" that were simply nothing but a load of crap perpetuated as the truth. It was anything but. Long-range forecasts is my specialty, and I found no "forever warming," - what I saw astronomically was something far worse - global cooling, which few forecasters were talking about 4-6 years ago. I was one of them. You can find my thoughts and comments in my post on 'Why The Sun is the Cause of Global Warming,' here on this board. I published that back in 2006. In that year, all the talk was all about warming, warming, warming. Now that some sense is returning to the chatter, perhaps we can get back to diversity in the field of climate science, and then toward synthesis, because that is the key to being accurate in forecasting climate and weather. That is the future of this science. |
|
|
|
Post by steve on Oct 16, 2010 16:59:28 GMT
astromet, You say that your La Niña forecast was "clearly" for it to "peak" in 2011  What you actually said was: The "clear" interpretation of what you said is that La Niña does not start till 2011. The post-analysis you are now plugging is that you really meant that La Niña will peak in the months you stated but may start earlier. Surely you understand that your choices are either "unclear" or "wrong". Your quotes in yellow really doesn't explain away your original prediction of drought for Indonesia, followed by floods in Indonesia, followed by you post-analysing your prediction to say you really meant that floods would happen in Indonesia. Ha ha! You *depend* on people not being able to hold thoughts from between the time you made your forecast to the time you analysed your forecast. Your problem here is that I, glc, magellan, poitsplace and lots of other people are prepared to check what you said. glc and I are not trolling. We are simply continuing to compare quotes from your forecast with reality and are determined not to allow you to get away with your own favourable verification. By the way, if you followed my link you would see my "forecast" from March 08. Of course I don't claim to be a forecaster, yet I my forecast was more accurate than yours. So lets be clear about your La Niña forecast. The Aug/Sep MEI index is -1.99 - the "clear" interpretation of your new prediction is that it will be below -1.99 for Feb-April. Do you stand by this new prediction? BTW there are two ways of spelling marvellous and when you said "the astronomical forces that control and direct the Earth's weather keeps chugging right along" you should have said "keep" not "keeps". Your attempt to be a cleverclogs has failed. If you want sympathy for having been away please show sympathy for people who may have difficulty with spelling (and I don't mean glc who writes very clearly). |
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Oct 16, 2010 17:04:18 GMT
astromet, You say that your La Niña forecast was "clearly" for it to "peak" in 2011 What you actually said was: The "clear" interpretation of what you said is that La Niña does not start till 2011. The post-analysis you are now plugging is that you really meant that La Niña will peak in the months you stated but may start earlier. Surely you understand that your choices are either "unclear" or "wrong". Your quotes in yellow really doesn't explain away your original prediction of drought for Indonesia, followed by floods in Indonesia, followed by you post-analysing your prediction to say you really meant that floods would happen in Indonesia. Ha ha! You *depend* on people not being able to hold thoughts from between the time you made your forecast to the time you analysed your forecast. Your problem here is that I, glc, magellan, poitsplace and lots of other people are prepared to check what you said. glc and I are not trolling. We are simply continuing to compare quotes from your forecast with reality and are determined not to allow you to get away with your own favourable verification. By the way, if you followed my link you would see my "forecast" from March 08. Of course I don't claim to be a forecaster, yet I my forecast was more accurate than yours. So lets be clear about your La Niña forecast. The Aug/Sep MEI index is -1.99 - the "clear" interpretation of your new prediction is that it will be below -1.99 for Feb-April. Do you stand by this new prediction? BTW there are two ways of spelling marvellous and when you said "the astronomical forces that control and direct the Earth's weather keeps chugging right along" you should have said "keep" not "keeps". Your attempt to be a cleverclogs has failed. If you want sympathy for having been away please show sympathy for people who may have difficulty with spelling (and I don't mean glc who writes very clearly). Okay Steve, I know you are British, and we Americans know that we share a common language so I will give you your "marvellous" since it looks better with two "l's" rather than the American one. As for sympathy, who even suggested that? You make an awful lot of assumptions and judgments that are just so off-the-mark that it is incredulous. You were the one saying my 2011 forecast was "wrong." How is that even possible? How can you make a "post-analysis" of my forecast when 2011 is not here yet? Just how old are you?Give it a rest on the yo-yo comments. It is quite immature for a grown man. And, if you are to write in good English, then perhaps you ought to try some proper English manners at that, or, is rudeness the only thing they taught you in Devon? |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Oct 16, 2010 17:19:09 GMT
By the way, if you followed my link you would see my "forecast" from March 08. Of course I don't claim to be a forecaster, yet I my forecast was more accurate than yours. Your forecast is not more accurate. Astromet only missed a part of a year. The fact you only provided a annually averaged forecast does not make your forecast more accurate than Astromet's. I read Astromet's forecast as being for a warm 2010 which was identical to your forecast. If you want to make a case for that being completely unremarkable be my guest Steve! |
|
