*EL NINO/LA NINA FORECAST 2010-2011*

[glc]

Oct 18, 2010 2:16:22 GMT icefisher said:

Oct 17, 2010 23:46:18 GMT glc said:

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.

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.

Yes - you keep making this point, as does as our resident astro-something_or_other_ist, but you don't tell us what it is apart from TSI that the sun does to the climate. Astromet talks vaguely about magnetic forces but is then too busy to provide us with some actual numbers. He does, however, seem to be able to find the time to post pages of claptrap telling us what unenlightened philistines we are - but try to pin him on specifics and we''re interrupting his busy schedule.

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.

Icefisher

I'm wondering why Hoyt, Schatten, Svalgaard, Lockwood et al haven't consulted with you. I suppose a 0.1% increase could burn off a bit more cloud than normal but if this were significant then I think we'd spot it in cloud cover readings. As I keep asking - show us the numbers.

[glc]

Oct 18, 2010 19:44:42 GMT AstroMet said:

Oct 18, 2010 2:16:22 GMT icefisher said:

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.

How come you're too busy to provide us with a few figures to support your case but you're not too busy to keep posting this sort of tosh.

[icefisher]

Oct 18, 2010 23:03:00 GMT glc said:

Icefisher

I'm wondering why Hoyt, Schatten, Svalgaard, Lockwood et al haven't consulted with you. I suppose a 0.1% increase could burn off a bit more cloud than normal but if this were significant then I think we'd spot it in cloud cover readings. As I keep asking - show us the numbers.

A couple of problems GLC. Spencer posted some measurements of insolation a while back that shows








Those graphs say we have been gaining energy. SW has been increasing and LW has remained level over time. The warmth we gained over the 9 years of this graph is more incoming reaching the ground, not feedback water vapor boosting the GHE.

Something is causing that its real. It fits in your philosophy of these are the only two figures that count.

Spencer wrote:

Trenberth and Fasullo discuss in their original Science Perspectives article the observational evidence for missing energy being lost somewhere in the climate system, based upon satellite radiation budget measurements of the Earth which suggest that extra energy has been accumulating in the climate system for about the last 10 years, but with no appreciable warming of the upper ocean and atmosphere to accompany it as would be expected.I posted some comments here about my view that the missing energy does not really exist. I also pointed out that they failed to mention that the missing energy over the period since about 2000 was in the reflected sunlight component, not the emitted infrared. This now makes two “missing energy” sources…the other one being the lack of expected warming from increasing carbon dioxide concentrations, which causes a steadily increasing global radiative imbalance in the infrared.

I don't know what causes it do you? Do you even have a clue? This is now double down!

Obviously, internal variation is highly robust and to get to the idea that there is a CO2 signal in this data you have to "ass-u-me" that it should be cooling as if you know this internal process is on a schedule like a bus and you have a schedule of stops.

But even if you take that leap you still can't claim warming from CO2 is occurring at some unnaturally fast rate.

By my count thats two AGW myths busted in the chops. How many more myths to you think the AGW folks have in their kit bag?

This is the fundamental problem with lying GLC. After a while nobody believes you about anything.

[steve]

astromet,

Who ever said anyone wanted to "impress" you Steve?

Avoiding the questions.

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.

More avoiding the questions. A lot of the tutorial you had a couple of pages back is based on observations and calculations of tides and so forth, and you infer that the relative strength of factors plays a role. If your technique is dependent on these then surely they must vary as our knowledge of other effects increases.

At only ten (10) earth-circumferences away the Moon is very close, actually it is our closest celestial neighbor, and it has two-and-a-half times the gravitational pull of the Sun.

But the Sun has a *much* higher gravitational pull on the earth than the moon. Sounds like you are confusing tidal effects with net gravitational pull, as the moon's tidal effect is a bit more than twice that of the Sun - do you understand the difference?

If tides are so important, though, the effects of other planets are really really tiny in comparison.

Each Lunar phase has a changing effect on the weather, whether it be droughts, hurricanes, tornadoes or lightning. And as the atmosphere has its daily tide, the air density too is forever changing.

If it did not, barometric pressures would always remain constant.

The Weather is what happens when atmospheric tides are gravitationally pulled around by the Moon.

The tidal effect of the moon on the atmosphere is minor compared with the thermal effect of the sun.

That's the problem with Glc, Steve, and those who complain mightily about mechanisms.

Of course we complain about mechanisms when your tutorial justifies your forecasts on the basis of the mechanisms of tides and so forth including tides which as you say "by deduction" must influence the atmosphere. Were these tides calculated by the sort of physics equations that go into models then?

[glc]

A couple of problems GLC. Spencer posted some measurements of insolation a while back that shows

It's certainly a problem for the solar activity theorists. As solar activity has fallen less sunlight is being reflected.

[icefisher]

Oct 19, 2010 18:41:37 GMT glc said:

A couple of problems GLC. Spencer posted some measurements of insolation a while back that shows

It's certainly a problem for the solar activity theorists. As solar activity has fallen less sunlight is being reflected.

So are you going to selectively note that it must be a rejection of solar theory and NOT AGW theory? Seems to be a stupid conclusion but I am used to your selectivity GLC.

No Mildred! Overriding cosmic ray cloud effects isn't any more likely than overridding CO2 IR blocking effects. So do you still want to hold to that comment?

As Spencer would note this is not a complete analysis. Its half an analysis that sometimes get combined with half a wit. And when that happens there is no telling how much drivel it can produce!

[AstroMet]

Oct 19, 2010 18:41:37 GMT glc said:

A couple of problems GLC. Spencer posted some measurements of insolation a while back that shows

It's certainly a problem for the solar activity theorists. As solar activity has fallen less sunlight is being reflected.

Reflection of sunlight is not the only thing the Sun provides the earth. And what is with this "solar activity theorists" thing you've got going?

The Sun has a very wide range of influences on the Earth, from geomagnetic to cosmic rays consisting of various levels and intensities of particle fluxes to radiation and the effects on the Earth's atmosphere, such the Earth's thermosphere, which has contracted significantly during the 2008-09 solar minimum.

The Sun contains more than 99.8% of the total mass of our Solar System.

* Equatorial Radius: 695,500 km
* Equatorial Circumference: 4,379,000 km
* Volume: 1,142,200,000,000,000,000 km3
* Mass: 1,989,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 kg
* Density: 1.409 g/cm3
* Surface Area: 6,087,799,000,000 km2

You might want to check those numbers out before simply dismissing the Sun.

[AstroMet]

Oct 19, 2010 11:05:03 GMT steve said:

astromet,

Who ever said anyone wanted to "impress" you Steve?

Avoiding the questions.



More avoiding the questions. A lot of the tutorial you had a couple of pages back is based on observations and calculations of tides and so forth, and you infer that the relative strength of factors plays a role. If your technique is dependent on these then surely they must vary as our knowledge of other effects increases.



But the Sun has a *much* higher gravitational pull on the earth than the moon. Sounds like you are confusing tidal effects with net gravitational pull, as the moon's tidal effect is a bit more than twice that of the Sun - do you understand the difference?

If tides are so important, though, the effects of other planets are really really tiny in comparison.



The tidal effect of the moon on the atmosphere is minor compared with the thermal effect of the sun.

That's the problem with Glc, Steve, and those who complain mightily about mechanisms.

Of course we complain about mechanisms when your tutorial justifies your forecasts on the basis of the mechanisms of tides and so forth including tides which as you say "by deduction" must influence the atmosphere. Were these tides calculated by the sort of physics equations that go into models then?

Steve, if you are to discuss this, then you are going to have to step up your mental exercise in order to maintain a much higher standard in understanding climate and weather in general and astronomical forecasting in particular.

This is how weather has been forecasted for thousands of years, as populations did not have the Weather Channel or computer models to forecast anything for them, yet, populations still needed to eat and survive nonetheless. This did not happen by accident.

The models used today do not contain astronomical solutions. Moreover, the models take data from the "effects" of weather and climate, not its causes. This, in and of itself, makes these models useless for forecasting of any substantial length.

Space is cold, and the Earth lives in space. The cold of space which surrounds the Earth is a mix of energy - solar and kinetic, magnetic, as the Earth is flooded with the Sun's cosmic rays, radiation, etc.

The magnetic flows - from the Sun - which penetrate space and the Earth are modulated by planetary motions. These fluxes are essential towards understanding how the gaseous environment of the Earth shifts as well as how temperature (the cold of space) plays the role in conducting the water vapor that is the Earth's weather.

I do not know how you expect to know anything about the Earth's climate if you are ignorant of the Sun, Moon, and planets and the system of which the Earth is a part.

But, until you learn and accept the astrophysical and geophysical principles, I continue to state again that you cannot learn anything at all about advanced forecasting until you do.

[steve]

astromet,

But, until you learn and accept the astrophysical and geophysical principles, I continue to state again that you cannot learn anything at all about advanced forecasting until you do.

That just seems to be more blather to distract from the physics errors in your "tutorial". You should know by now that I have a reasonable grasp of physics, astrophysics (a bit dated) and some understanding of the solar system which is sufficient to enable me to check your claims. So you must be writing the above for your remaining audience.

In short your tutorial has referenced (with some errors) aspects of the physics of the solar system that haven't always been known because they were too hard to measure or we didn't know the science.

By inference you are saying that the aspects you mention are important. So why should we assume that the tidal impact of Jupiter is important (when it is minuscule) when you keep focusing on the massive size of the Sun? If the massiveness of the sun is important, why do you criticise us for asking whether you know the numbers for the smaller aspects of the sun which you also say are important? Why is the lunar atmosphere tide more important than the massive solar thermal tide?

The alternative explanation is that you have realised that throwing out snippets of information that other people don't know impresses them and gives you authority in their eyes. When you are challenged, you try to sideline your challenger by ignoring his points and appeal to the rest of the crowd. There doesn't seem to be much of a crowd here, though, unless there are a lot of lurkers.

[AstroMet]

Oct 20, 2010 10:20:00 GMT steve said:

astromet,

But, until you learn and accept the astrophysical and geophysical principles, I continue to state again that you cannot learn anything at all about advanced forecasting until you do.

That just seems to be more blather to distract from the physics errors in your "tutorial". You should know by now that I have a reasonable grasp of physics, astrophysics (a bit dated) and some understanding of the solar system which is sufficient to enable me to check your claims. So you must be writing the above for your remaining audience.

In short your tutorial has referenced (with some errors) aspects of the physics of the solar system that haven't always been known because they were too hard to measure or we didn't know the science.

By inference you are saying that the aspects you mention are important. So why should we assume that the tidal impact of Jupiter is important (when it is minuscule) when you keep focusing on the massive size of the Sun? If the massiveness of the sun is important, why do you criticise us for asking whether you know the numbers for the smaller aspects of the sun which you also say are important? Why is the lunar atmosphere tide more important than the massive solar thermal tide?

The alternative explanation is that you have realised that throwing out snippets of information that other people don't know impresses them and gives you authority in their eyes. When you are challenged, you try to sideline your challenger by ignoring his points and appeal to the rest of the crowd. There doesn't seem to be much of a crowd here, though, unless there are a lot of lurkers.

Steve, rather than worry about my "audience" you ought to take the time to learn that to be able to debate this topic especially, that you must first have knowledge about the subject. You have not shown this.

Forecasting is not about "impressing" anyone (where do you come up with such junk?) or about appealing to any "crowd."

If you re-read my brief tutorial, you will discover enough to be able to begin the process of actually observing your own local weather and atmosphere while noting astronomical positions.

Learning to do this is hands-on. Observation is a central basis of weather and climate science. Not ideology.

Sitting behind your computer jawing on and on is not observing the actual geophysical effects of astrophysical causes - which, if you actually take the time to look right outside your window, you will see for yourself.

You are far, far behind. Until you learn how to synthesize data and observations, you will not learn anything about climate science and meteorology, much less forecasting.

From your perch there in Devon, you appear to be under the delusion that you are able to be opinionated and assume without so much as having any reason to do so? What's with that?

[steve]

astromet

Steve, rather than worry about my "audience" you ought to take the time to learn that to be able to debate this topic especially, that you must first have knowledge about the subject. You have not shown this.

I have shown that I know enough about the solar system to point out errors you have made.

Sitting behind your computer jawing on and on is not observing the actual geophysical effects of astrophysical causes

You are ignoring the "actual geophysical effects" by being unable to answer glc's questions.

You are locked into a cycle where you keep repeating that I don't know anything, without actually answering any of the criticisms, and are just adding new rhetorical flourishes like "jawing on" and sitting on a "perch".

Lessons for wannabe charlatan:
- learn a few basic but interesting facts that 80% of the population don't know.
- embellish facts with specious linkages to a jumbled combination of modern scientific ideas and ancient theology.
- repeat ad nauseum, and claim to be able to make predictions based on a deeper understanding.
- make general predictions of things that always happen plus a few specific things that may happen.
- claim success based on the general things happening. Claim super-success when occasionally one of the specific things come up.
- when challenged, clam up - don't get into a discussion about the basic facts you started with because you are at your limit of your knowledge there. Claim greater hidden knowledge. Claim that the challenger is thick. Repeat last step ad nauseum.

Perhaps we'll keep this up till your failed post-justification for your failed ENSO forecast fails again with (for your purposes) a premature peaking of La Niña.

[hunterson]

Oct 21, 2010 10:53:53 GMT steve said:

astromet

Steve, rather than worry about my "audience" you ought to take the time to learn that to be able to debate this topic especially, that you must first have knowledge about the subject. You have not shown this.

I have shown that I know enough about the solar system to point out errors you have made.

Sitting behind your computer jawing on and on is not observing the actual geophysical effects of astrophysical causes

You are ignoring the "actual geophysical effects" by being unable to answer glc's questions.

You are locked into a cycle where you keep repeating that I don't know anything, without actually answering any of the criticisms, and are just adding new rhetorical flourishes like "jawing on" and sitting on a "perch".

Lessons for wannabe charlatan:
- learn a few basic but interesting facts that 80% of the population don't know.
- embellish facts with specious linkages to a jumbled combination of modern scientific ideas and ancient theology.
- repeat ad nauseum, and claim to be able to make predictions based on a deeper understanding.
- make general predictions of things that always happen plus a few specific things that may happen.
- claim success based on the general things happening. Claim super-success when occasionally one of the specific things come up.
- when challenged, clam up - don't get into a discussion about the basic facts you started with because you are at your limit of your knowledge there. Claim greater hidden knowledge. Claim that the challenger is thick. Repeat last step ad nauseum.

Perhaps we'll keep this up till your failed post-justification for your failed ENSO forecast fails again with (for your purposes) a premature peaking of La Niña.

steve,
Why bother?

[AstroMet]

Oct 21, 2010 10:53:53 GMT steve said:

astromet

Steve, rather than worry about my "audience" you ought to take the time to learn that to be able to debate this topic especially, that you must first have knowledge about the subject. You have not shown this.

I have shown that I know enough about the solar system to point out errors you have made.

Sitting behind your computer jawing on and on is not observing the actual geophysical effects of astrophysical causes

You are ignoring the "actual geophysical effects" by being unable to answer glc's questions.

You are locked into a cycle where you keep repeating that I don't know anything, without actually answering any of the criticisms, and are just adding new rhetorical flourishes like "jawing on" and sitting on a "perch".

Lessons for wannabe charlatan:
- learn a few basic but interesting facts that 80% of the population don't know.
- embellish facts with specious linkages to a jumbled combination of modern scientific ideas and ancient theology.
- repeat ad nauseum, and claim to be able to make predictions based on a deeper understanding.
- make general predictions of things that always happen plus a few specific things that may happen.
- claim success based on the general things happening. Claim super-success when occasionally one of the specific things come up.
- when challenged, clam up - don't get into a discussion about the basic facts you started with because you are at your limit of your knowledge there. Claim greater hidden knowledge. Claim that the challenger is thick. Repeat last step ad nauseum.

Perhaps we'll keep this up till your failed post-justification for your failed ENSO forecast fails again with (for your purposes) a premature peaking of La Niña.

A "premature peaking of La Niña?" What a minute. Is February, March, and April 2011 here yet? You are doing a post-judgment on a time cycle which has not arrived?

Lol! How much more do you want to make up there Steve?

You cannot even forecast you own local weather, yet, you call me a "charlatan?" Right, and pretty pink daises grow on your head in the winter.

Here's a guy who spends all this time on this thread, calling out names, insults, and trashing astronomical forecasting. Now, wouldn't you suppose that saying it once is enough, and then move on?

Since it is all "garbage," as you've stated, then why continue coming back time and again spending so much time and effort on such garbage, huh?

What bothers you is that you cannot forecast, and you wonder how I was able to forecast ENSO years ago. That is what bothers you.

As for your "embellish facts with specious linkages to a jumbled combination of modern scientific ideas and ancient theology," - you ought to check out mundane astrologer Issac Newton (I'm sure you've heard of him since he was British) and tell me what consists of "modern scientific ideas and ancient theology" - See -> www.thestarofthemagi.com/newtontheageofaries.htm

Yet, you've been told numerous times how it is done, but then again, it's all "garbage," and I'm a "charlatan," right? Oh, I forgot.

Stick with your local weather Steve, and give up even trying to comment on the world's climate, or ENSO. It is quite obvious that you've not a clue as to what it is that you are talking about.

You're a guy who pushes this AGW scam, and tries to defend that fallacy, and you call me a "charlatan?" Well, that "charlatan" forecasted ENSO years ago for this time by astronomical means.

Steve, are you on, or are you off your medication?

Listen pal, when you earn the right to call yourself a forecaster (which you're not) and when you actually do your own homework and learn the principles of climate and weather - then maybe we'll have a serious discussion.

Lessons for a wannabe AGW forecaster:

- Open your eyes. Drop the silliness
- Quit crying like a baby
- Observe your own local weather against astronomical motions
- And give up the immaturity & childish jinks

Unlearn what you have learned, which is how not to think.

"Ninety-nine students out of a hundred are automata - careful to walk in prescribed paths - careful to follow the prescribed custom.

This is not an accident but the result of substantial education, which, scientifically defined, is the subsumption of the individual."

~ William Torrey Harris, US Commissioner of Education, 1889-1906

In a word - think for yourself Steve - and unlearn all those years of indoctrination which drips from your comments on science, climate, weather and advanced forecasting.

If you cannot, then please stop wasting my valuable time with the plethora of your insulting and stupid posts on my ENSO forecast thread.

[steve]

A "premature peaking of La Niña?" What a minute. Is February, March, and April 2011 here yet? You are doing a post-judgment on a time cycle which has not arrived?

So, after three or four times of me asking, are you finally going to confirm that Feb-Apr 2011 MEI will be below -2 (which is the current level)? You are avoiding the question because you know I will remember the answer in April 2011.

It is funny that you incorrectly criticise me for post-judging your forecast when you have already decided that you correctly predicted ENSO four years ago.

What bothers you is that you cannot forecast, and you wonder how I was able to forecast ENSO years ago. That is what bothers you.

The consensus of the forum is that your view, that El Niño would persist into 2011 and have a strong influence on autumn weather 2010, is wrong, as is your prediction for Indonesian drought (ironic as you used Indonesian flood to validate your forecast), and Mississippi flood. You also failed to predict three huge weather stories of 2010 (Pakistan monsoon, Russian heatwave, Andean freeze).

I have not said you are a charlatan. I am drawing comparisons between your posts and the methods of charlatans. Your examples of solar system physics, and your aversion to discussing solar system physics suggests that your knowledge of the solar system is very much at the layman's level - so slightly below mine.

[ZL4DH]

Lessons for wannabe charlatan:
- learn a few basic but interesting facts that 80% of the population don't know.
- embellish facts with specious linkages to a jumbled combination of modern scientific ideas and ancient theology.
- repeat ad nauseum, and claim to be able to make predictions based on a deeper understanding.
- make general predictions of things that always happen plus a few specific things that may happen.
- claim success based on the general things happening. Claim super-success when occasionally one of the specific things come up.
- when challenged, clam up - don't get into a discussion about the basic facts you started with because you are at your limit of your knowledge there. Claim greater hidden knowledge. Claim that the challenger is thick. Repeat last step ad nauseum.
Well done Steve describing the perfect bio for M Mann or Phil Jones they will offer you a job anytime soon. ;D