|
|
Post by steve on Oct 17, 2010 14:04:44 GMT
Of course, ultimately the earth's climate is driven by various aspects of the Sun and the earth's rotation, with influences from the moon and other planets acting on a range of timescales. Saying that we, and climate scientists do not realise this is an admission that really you do not know what you are arguing against or anything else about the people you are happy to call bumblers and jerks.
The leap from accepting, say, the critical effects of a large planet like Jupiter on the long term evolution of the solar system, to believing that Jupiter has day to day and year to year effects on specific elements of the earth's weather (such as the mode of ENSO) is quite a large one.
Suggesting, as you did in 2007, that the opposition of Jupiter and Saturn would cause problems with electronic equipment in the years around 2011 sounds to me as though you were trying to predict the likely evolution of solar cycle 24, but to attribute its effects to some other element in the solar system.
Now that solar cycle 24 has decided to delay itself, I thought it would be interesting to get you to confirm, or not, this element of an old forecast you made. It is hard for me to remember that the effects of this opposition are fixed in stone and could have been foretold hundreds of years ago (assuming the relevant astrologer had also foretold the coming of the mobile phone).
Also, were you going to confirm that you predict MEI would be below -2 for February, March and April, or did you have some other metric in mind when you said that the current La Niña would peak in those months?
|
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Oct 17, 2010 20:41:21 GMT
Astromet - something I am genuinely curious is why WUWT never seems to host articles on ideas that the moon or planets influence the Earth's climate? Do you have any insight in regards to that? Are you allowed to post these ideas at WUWT? I can't even recall comments discussing these ideas. Hi Socold, Much of it is due to ignorance. Conventional climate and met schools put out forecasters who cannot forecast, what they do is weather reporting -> 2-5 day reporting on weather already seen by radar. The majority of meteorologists cannot forecast two weeks to a month in advance. This frustrates them to no end, and this frustration often leads to even more heavy dependence on computer models, faulty with solutions that never account for astronomical motions, which is the key to forecasting climate conditions accurately. NOAA and NWS have never been able to forecast seasonally because they do not know how to forecast astronomically. They do account for the Moon's effect on oceans tides, but even that took years for them to accept before reporting on this simple astronomical event which proves celestial bodies do influence Earth's weather. |
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Oct 17, 2010 20:49:19 GMT
They live in air-conditioned windowless cubicles Astromet. You will need to explain what a sun isOh dear. Ok, then, icefisher: Explain the sun to us. In particular, could you tell us the relative magnitude of TSI compared to, say, the solar wind which astromet seems to think is such a key energy source. By all means discuss all forces associated with the sun/earth relationship - but please provide some numbers. Astromet's rambling post refers to tidal effects due to the moon. Thank you , astromet, but I have heard this before somewhere (at primary school, I think) but then completely fails to show a link between this effect and the effects from the other planets. We can calculate the tidal effects. It's relatively simple. Why does Astromet avoid doing this. The bottom line is that nothing solar-related can explain the ~0.5 deg increase in global temperature we have seen in the past 3 decades. It's possible CO2 isn't the explanation either but it's considerably more likely than Astromet's drivel. Even if it turns out that certain solar variables could provide a general indication of weather patterns (that's certainly possible), it would still be irrelevant to the long term underlying warming trend. You and he need to understand this. The oceans and atmosphere have warmed because the incoming energy has exceeded the outgoing energy over a period of time, i.e. either the earth's surface has received more energy from the sun or the amount of energy emitted fom the earth's surface has reduced. Again, another silly post from you Glc. I suggest that rather than call what I explained at length "drivel" that you then prove that it is so since your opinion is very unlikely to mean much of anything in this matter considering how you continue to pursue AGW as a valid reason for global warming. Yet, you easily dismiss the SUN, which only goes to show just how dense you really are since without the Sun there would be no climate or weather to speak of, and certainly no life on Earth. Not that you would notice Glc. Unbelievable level of ignorance from you, which is why you're not going to get anywhere even near to forecasting accurately or understanding how climate and weather is created. Perhaps that 0.5 deg increase in global temperature you are searching for has something to do with the lack of IQ because you ignore the Sun to your own peril. Please, post on another thread, I'm really tired of having to read these tone-death comments and this ending AGW BS along with your 0.5 deg increase in temperature where you look everywhere ~ except at that bright disk in the skies you seem to love to ignore. |
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Oct 17, 2010 20:51:07 GMT
Of course, ultimately the earth's climate is driven by various aspects of the Sun and the earth's rotation, with influences from the moon and other planets acting on a range of timescales. Saying that we, and climate scientists do not realise this is an admission that really you do not know what you are arguing against or anything else about the people you are happy to call bumblers and jerks. The leap from accepting, say, the critical effects of a large planet like Jupiter on the long term evolution of the solar system, to believing that Jupiter has day to day and year to year effects on specific elements of the earth's weather (such as the mode of ENSO) is quite a large one. Suggesting, as you did in 2007, that the opposition of Jupiter and Saturn would cause problems with electronic equipment in the years around 2011 sounds to me as though you were trying to predict the likely evolution of solar cycle 24, but to attribute its effects to some other element in the solar system. Now that solar cycle 24 has decided to delay itself, I thought it would be interesting to get you to confirm, or not, this element of an old forecast you made. It is hard for me to remember that the effects of this opposition are fixed in stone and could have been foretold hundreds of years ago (assuming the relevant astrologer had also foretold the coming of the mobile phone). Also, were you going to confirm that you predict MEI would be below -2 for February, March and April, or did you have some other metric in mind when you said that the current La Niña would peak in those months? Speaking of a low IQ level... just re-read what you wrote above Steve. You will learn nothing with those views. Not a thing at all. And, just where did I call these people "bumblers and jerks?" Do not put words into my mouth. I strongly suggest you learn much more about the solar system you inhabit because from the content of your comments, you know very little. And there is much for you to learn, but you are not going to do it with the poor and dismissive mental function you are showing in your own comments. Why don't you predict your own MEI level? You seem to have all the answers with your snarky comments? So, be my guest. I already made my long-range ENSO forecast (years ago for this time) so why is that you prefer to Monday-morning quarterback rather than getting on the field of play and do some forecasting yourself? |
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Oct 17, 2010 20:57:40 GMT
The cooling which sometimes follows can range from weak, to moderate, to strong, just as with warming. However, the Earth's climate is forced by celestial bodies in space -
Ok - so how is it forced. Explain how the celestial bodies "force climate". Just do that. I hope my question is direct enough. I don't want to read any more gobbledygook or gobbledegook. For example, the following
ENSO is a function of the Earth's breathing, so to speak, when forced astronomically
is 100% 24 carat gobbledegook.
The Sun is a celestial body, is it not? Are you saying that it does not force the Earth's climate? I would say that you are clearly in error. The Sun has a very wide spectrum of influences on the Earth. They live in air-conditioned windowless cubicles Astromet. You will need to explain what a sun is. I know Icefisher. It is amazing to see how some of these people dismiss the Sun with such impunity. You'd think they'd learn to respect the fact that without the Sun there would be no life on Earth. Talk about taking things for granted... |
|
|
|
Post by glc on Oct 17, 2010 23:46:18 GMT
I know Icefisher. It is amazing to see how some of these people dismiss the Sun with such impunity.
Astromet
You appear to completely misunderstand the points that are being made. I believe I understand the role of the sun. I'm not an expert by any means but my understanding chimes pretty much with the opinions of scientists who have been studying the sun for decades.
I understand perfectly well why you'd like me to post elsewhere. You have a problem, astromet, and your problem is that many of those who post on this blog know more about the sun than you do.
I've challenged you (or icefisher) to provide numbers which show the relative magnitude of the solar energy sources which you consider are significant. I think TSI is, by far, the most dominant. I also think that TSI has varied very little over the past 50 to 60 years.
NOW, could you, once and for all, show me I'm wrong. Show me the "science" which says either TSI has varied much more than we thought or there is some other source of energy which is more significant to earth's climate.
You'd think they'd learn to respect the fact that without the Sun there would be no life on Earth.
Talk about taking things for granted...
The sun is the external energy source, astromet. I think you'll find it 's included in all energy balance models and diagrams. Do you have any evidence at all which suggests that the sun hasn't been considered.
|
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Oct 17, 2010 23:58:05 GMT
I know Icefisher. It is amazing to see how some of these people dismiss the Sun with such impunity. Astromet You appear to completely misunderstand the points that are being made. I believe I understand the role of the sun. I'm not an expert by any means but my understanding chimes pretty much with the opinions of scientists who have studied the sun for decades. I understand perfectly well why you'd like me to post elsewhere. You have a problem , Astromet, and your problem is that many of those who post on this blog know considerably more about the sun than you do. I've challenged you (or icefisher) to provide numbers which show the relative magnitude of the solar energy sources which you consider are significant. I think TSI is, by far, the most dominant. I also think that TSI has varied very little over the past 50 to 60 years. Now could you, once and for all, show me I'm wrong. Show me the "science" which says either TSI has varied much more than we thought or there is some other source of energy which is more significant to earth's climate. You'd think they'd learn to respect the fact that without the Sun there would be no life on Earth.
Talk about taking things for granted... The sun is the external energy source, astromet. I think you'll find it 's included in all energy balance models and diagrams. Do you have any evidence at all which suggests that the sun hasn't been considered. External? What about internal? Are you saying that the Sun's energies, which include powerful and wide-ranging spectrum of magnetic energies is only external? How can this be so? The Sun is the primary energy source for this planet, and for all the other planets in our solar system Glc, and yet, your own comments are quite dismissive of the Sun, as if a mere afterthought? Moreover, conventional science continues to find that the Sun has many more influences on the Earth - in ever widening scales and ranges - than were previously known as early as last month. This continues, month in, and month out, year in and year out. Science is only as good as the last discovery, and this is what science is about. Seems it takes much longer for some to catch up to 21st century science it appears.... Yet, you comment as if all that there is to know about the Sun has already been discovered? And, you continue to attempt to put the Earth's entire climate into a test tube so you can replicate and measure it. You do realize that that is impossible? So, I don't get it. What is most amazing is that while you search for "mechanisms" in the search of answers to your "numbers," you appear to be unable to get out from under the weight of your own limited notions about what are the true causes (as opposed to effects) of climate and weather. Do you not know that this failure by you is the very reason for you not getting it? I strongly suggest you also get out from under the weight of those conventional graphics and computer models and observe your own local weather while learning to read and interpret an astronomical ephemeris, that is a mathematical calendar. Until you unlearn what you have learned Glc, you are going to have a very difficult time forecasting anything of substance by climate and weather means. The reason why you are unable to understand climate functions is that you do not see systems as wholes, but as parts, and it is here where you are in serious error. When you see a huge map on the wall, back up first, and take in the shapes and contours of what the giant map represents. What you do not do is rush up to see this map with your microscope. This is how one fails to see the bigger picture first. That is the straight truth. It cannot be wiggled out from under, nor ignored, for all you are doing is wasting even more time that is limited by your own ideology and mere opinion. That is not science. Science, as I continue to state, is about exploration and discovery, no matter where it may lead. This is Star Trek, not Gilligan's Island, Glc, so please step up your climate game, shall we? |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Oct 18, 2010 2:16:22 GMT
I've challenged you (or icefisher) to provide numbers which show the relative magnitude of the solar energy sources which you consider are significant. I think TSI is, by far, the most dominant. I also think that TSI has varied very little over the past 50 to 60 years. Its a fun challenge but the fact is nobody really knows. You can measure TSI and say its too insignificant to cause the warming we have seen but TSI is likely not the only thing the sun does to the climate. For instance at the shore almost daily the day starts out overcast. In the summer when insolation is greater the overcast tends to burn off faster than during other seasons. Higher TSI may not only mean a brighter sun but a sun that reaches the ground to a greater degree by forging its own path. There is a lot to learn about even basic stuff when dealing with highly complex and very big systems the rules tend to change and these are very complex and very big systems. |
|
|
|
Post by steve on Oct 18, 2010 9:59:04 GMT
astromet,
Try posts 475, 485 and (particularly bile-filled) 499.
I think I've made it clear that nobody has shown much skill forecasting ENSO. Currently most of the models are showing that it is approaching its peak and will start to fade after December. But I don't believe them either. Your original prediction was interpreted by most to say El Niño would continue through 2010 autumn and that there would be La Niña in Feb-Apr. You now appear to have said that the current La Niña will peak in Feb-Apr but you seem reluctant to clarify it with a metric we can check. I have taken the liberty of interpreted you as saying that the MEI will be below -2 for Feb-Apr as it is most recently -1.99, and invited you to make your own clarification so that there isn't a second misunderstanding come March.
Which bit? So you don't think that climate scientists and astrophysicists are aware of the critical role that the moon plays in the stability of the earth's axis, that Jupiter has played in establishing the current orbits of the minor planets and in dealing with debris in the solar system? Or is the solar system an eternal clockwork system set up by a god?
|
|
|
|
Post by steve on Oct 18, 2010 10:13:01 GMT
astromet,
Most astrologers and mystics that I have come across and challenged have wanted me to reject what I have learned in favour of what they have to teach me.
I (and glc it seems) would like these astrologers and mystics to explain their knowledge *in the context* of what science has discovered for, to all intents and purposes, a fact. With various levels of failure, some have attempted to do so.
Those with a scientific mind are unimpressed by vague statements such as:
We are unimpressed because while we don't disagree, we sense that behind the statement is a lack of detailed knowledge of the specific influences being referred to.
So try to answer glc's questions in terms that he likes, rather than telling him that what he knows needs to be forgotton first.
|
|
|
|
Post by glc on Oct 18, 2010 16:56:37 GMT
External? What about internal? Are you saying that the Sun's energies, which include powerful and wide-ranging spectrum of magnetic energies is only external?
Ok - give me some measurements of the "powerful and wide-ranging spectrum of magnetic energies". Give me the numbers. How many more times have I got to ask this question. You claim to be a scientist - then show us the science.
|
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Oct 18, 2010 17:55:30 GMT
astromet, Most astrologers and mystics that I have come across and challenged have wanted me to reject what I have learned in favour of what they have to teach me. I (and glc it seems) would like these astrologers and mystics to explain their knowledge *in the context* of what science has discovered for, to all intents and purposes, a fact. With various levels of failure, some have attempted to do so. Those with a scientific mind are unimpressed by vague statements such as: We are unimpressed because while we don't disagree, we sense that behind the statement is a lack of detailed knowledge of the specific influences being referred to. So try to answer glc's questions in terms that he likes, rather than telling him that what he knows needs to be forgotton first. Who ever said anyone wanted to "impress" you Steve? |
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Oct 18, 2010 17:57:48 GMT
External? What about internal? Are you saying that the Sun's energies, which include powerful and wide-ranging spectrum of magnetic energies is only external?Ok - give me some measurements of the "powerful and wide-ranging spectrum of magnetic energies". Give me the numbers. How many more times have I got to ask this question. You claim to be a scientist - then show us the science. No, you get the "numbers." I am busy enough as it is, and it is quite easy for you to get educated about the Sun's wide-ranging spectrum of energies that directly influence the Earth from sitting on your behind in front of your computer. In effect - do your homework. That is how you learn. |
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Oct 18, 2010 17:59:32 GMT
astromet, Try posts 475, 485 and (particularly bile-filled) 499. I think I've made it clear that nobody has shown much skill forecasting ENSO. Currently most of the models are showing that it is approaching its peak and will start to fade after December. But I don't believe them either. Your original prediction was interpreted by most to say El Niño would continue through 2010 autumn and that there would be La Niña in Feb-Apr. You now appear to have said that the current La Niña will peak in Feb-Apr but you seem reluctant to clarify it with a metric we can check. I have taken the liberty of interpreted you as saying that the MEI will be below -2 for Feb-Apr as it is most recently -1.99, and invited you to make your own clarification so that there isn't a second misunderstanding come March. Which bit? So you don't think that climate scientists and astrophysicists are aware of the critical role that the moon plays in the stability of the earth's axis, that Jupiter has played in establishing the current orbits of the minor planets and in dealing with debris in the solar system? Or is the solar system an eternal clockwork system set up by a god? You've got much to learn Steve. I could care less if you "believe" whether I forecasted ENSO or not - it is a fact I did so years in advance. Who cares what you want to believe? You are under the false impression that the Sun, Moon, Earth, and planets require your "belief" in order to perform their mathematical functions, and to follow the laws of physics.They do not require your belief whatsoever. Moreover, where do you come from with this "metric" you can check as if you are my peer? You are not even qualified since you are not a astrometeorologist or scientist to assume such a position. Forecasts are proved by the resulting climate and weather - that is where accuracy levels can be checked in any forecast. You appear to be under the illusion that any forecast, with any "misses" are faulty, and any forecast with all "hits" must be luck. That, again, is the perspective of a child. Forecasts are not written in the form of scientific or college papers, you should know this. Moreover, I challenge you to find a climate scientist that forecasts seasonally and is accurate above the 75% range using computer models which you seem to depend solely on. Again, those models show the "effects as causes." That is ass-backwards, and cannot lead to any true climate forecast which is useful. You are much better off learning first about the climate, how astronomical conditions direct climate and weather before you go on demanding anything. The onus is on you to step up. How is it possible for you to question that which you do not know without first putting in the time, work and effort to even speak the basic climate language? You cannot learn from debate, since that would preclude you first learning the basics of the subject about which you want to debate. Doing so with a cynical attitude, snarky remarks, and ideology is a road to nowhere Steve. From the contents of your own comments, you are weighed down by your "beliefs" which again, is not scientific in the least, and will get you nowhere whatsoever in learning, until you put away your "beliefs" and observe what is happening in the real astrophysical and geophysical worlds. That is what you should be doing rather than coming off as some equal, which you certainly are not. You haven't earned it. |
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Oct 18, 2010 19:44:42 GMT
I've challenged you (or icefisher) to provide numbers which show the relative magnitude of the solar energy sources which you consider are significant. I think TSI is, by far, the most dominant. I also think that TSI has varied very little over the past 50 to 60 years. Its a fun challenge but the fact is nobody really knows. You can measure TSI and say its too insignificant to cause the warming we have seen but TSI is likely not the only thing the sun does to the climate. For instance at the shore almost daily the day starts out overcast. In the summer when insolation is greater the overcast tends to burn off faster than during other seasons. Higher TSI may not only mean a brighter sun but a sun that reaches the ground to a greater degree by forging its own path. There is a lot to learn about even basic stuff when dealing with highly complex and very big systems the rules tend to change and these are very complex and very big systems. This is very true. The climate cannot be sequestered into a lab, or a test tube, and modeled to death in search of a "mechanism" which, by the way, happens to be right in front of the eyes of those playing with computer models in their search for the Holy Grail of Climate Forecasting. That's the problem with Glc, Steve, and those who complain mightily about mechanisms. It is proof that their eyes are not open, and so it is not a stretch to wonder why they do not believe - for it is those very "beliefs" and "ideologies" which are barriers to the opening of their eyes to the truths of climate and weather science. |
|
