|
|
Post by icefisher on Oct 26, 2010 17:35:21 GMT
Well I've booked a chap to fix a roof on Saturday, so the knowledge of the *possibility* of heavy rain would help to focus my priorities. (I know this particular forecast is for Tasmania, but since the solar system is so HUGE compared to the earth, if its influences are causing rain in Tasmania it's bound to have the same effect in Devon.) Right Steve! And high tide always comes at noon! Sheesh! |
|
ZL4DH
Level 3 Rank
Posts: 128
|
Post by ZL4DH on Oct 27, 2010 2:02:07 GMT
Well Steve if your science is as good as your geography you will be pretty safe, since when has Tasmania been in New Zealand, don't tell the Aussies this or there will be outright war.  |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Oct 27, 2010 2:07:38 GMT
Hey.....it is raining in North America bigggg time. Looks like Tasmania has had an effect on us.
|
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Oct 27, 2010 4:07:28 GMT
...said the astrologer who confused gravitational force with tidal force. You still haven't said whether you know the difference. I do know the difference, but what I want to ask you is: where do you come off posing your "questions," then answering them in the same breath as if the person whom you asked had already responded when they did not? Then, when the person does respond, you mock their answers? Is that how you learned to hold a mature discussion? Listen Steve, I don't who you are, or where you come from, or what your experience, knowledge and qualifications are to comment in the manner that you do - but you are the one not making much sense. Many of the British whom I've had the pleasure to meet and talk with have been intelligent and polite when it comes to discussing, or listening to experts talk about their respective fields. It appears, by your own comments, that you are not one of those Brits. No matter, the thing is this: if you want to have an intelligent discussion about astronomical forecasting and space weather, the Earth's climate, and so on, then, it would be incumbent upon you to show that you can actually hold that conversation for longer than a few seconds without sounding ignorant and rude. Can you do that? If so, then you will have taken the first step in learning of that which you do not know. You cannot listen with your mouth running, nor with your mind closed. To learn about scientific astrology, reading and observation is very important so that you can then be able to at least first understand the subject of which you are presently ignorant - in this case, the climate and advanced astrological forecasting. There are many wannabe "forecasters" out there who spend much too much time voicing their opinions and being critical of others than they are in learning to actually forecast. That is where the real work is and that is what I do. You cannot do that sitting on your arse and pretending to read computer models that treats climate effects as causes. That is a dog chasing its own tail. How many times can I say this before you will actually think about what it is I am saying? Forecasting is not a game Steve, nor is it for those who want some kind of "attention" to themselves because they think they can forecast when they cannot. And, for your information: it is an historical fact that it was astrologers who invented the climate & meteorological sciences, so you might want to back off this "thing" (whatever it may be in your thick skull) you have with astrology. I don't know what the word means to you, but the way you've been using the term - that's not astrology. People who seriously practice the forecasting science are very serious people. Perhaps the term "astrology" bothers you because you associate it with the popular culture junk you believe is astrology? You really believe that? Well, it is no wonder you have problems then. Perhaps the word "mathematicus," would be better? Or perhaps polymath. Does that help? It is all the same - these are scientific astrologers, like Claudius Ptolemy, Tycho Brahe, Johannes Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Benjamin Franklin, Einstein, etc. From the way you talk, those names above were all fools because they practiced the science of astrology, right? Your comments show that your own education is incomplete because you prefer to mock sciences and techniques you have your own personal issues with - be it "astrology," or astronomic forecasting, or gravity, tidal forces, yada, yada, etc. Whatever your problem is - I do not have it and do not want to deal with it either. That's your "issue," not mine. Is that okay with you? Now, I don't mind you asking intelligent questions, but those are not "questions" you pose Steve, as you like to snipe and mock (which acts as cover for your lack of knowledge on the subject at hand) and that's not cool anywhere, because it presumes you have learned all that there is to know, that everyone else has died, and now you're God? I don't think so. Give it rest pal. If you want to learn something honestly about scientific astrology, forecasting, astrometeorology, and the world's climate, then do so, but without the bullshit, okay? There is wide diversity in science - and plenty of room for everyone - but your own comments bemoan this fact. You come from what appears to be limited, ideological, and error-prone positions without the mind required to learn new subjects, or old ones for that matter, but with plenty of snotty attitude as if you invented the wheel or something. We're adults here Steve. Many on this board are experts, or amateurs, students and those with hobbies who are mathematically and scientifically-oriented. There is room for everyone, as I said. Science is all about exploration and discovery. Not opinion-making, not ideologies, not careerism, nor about egos, or pissing matches. That's not science Steve. So stop putting down people for things they do seriously. Who needs your permission to be who they are, or to practice this science? Hey, forecasting is one of the things I do well. I've earned it over 36 years and I do it to the best of my ability. I never claimed perfection and I never will. I just work here. Is that okay with you? We are all busy people, we have lives and when we do have time to share and discuss, it would be pleasant to do so without the need to sift through snobby-snotty ignorant comments by some who love to muck up the process of discovery and understanding just to sound off rudely and waste people's valuable time. Those are spoiled babies. But you know what: this is not a babysitting service, now is it? Can you feel me Steve? |
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Oct 27, 2010 5:52:46 GMT
Once we used to get observational forecast which were about 40% correct now we get model forecast and they even conflict with each other so now we end up with -well nothing really. www.metservice.com/national/warnings/severe-weather-outlookIssued: 1:59pm Tuesday 26 October 2010, Valid from Thursday 28 October 2010 to Sunday 31 October 2010 By Thursday, a ridge of high pressure, that is currently prevailing over the country, is expected to slide to the east and allow a moist northwest flow to bring a rain band onto the South Island west coast. The signal for a heavy rainfall event in Fiordland and central and southern Westland has diminished somewhat, but there is still a low risk that on Thursday, rainfall amounts may warrant a warning. After Thursday, model solutions disagree somewhat. One model has a low cutting off just to the southeast of the South Island on Friday while other guidance has this happening in the Tasman Sea. The difference is a much reduced potential for heavy rain in central parts of the country if the mid Tasman scenario is correct. However, we have posted a low risk of heavy rainfall leading to warning for northwest northerlies and Buller for Friday. The situation is expected to clarify closer to the event. IN OTHER WORDS WHEN THE HEAVY RAIN ARRIVES WE WILL TELL YOU ITS RAININGThat's about right too Zl4dh, and what you can expect from conventional forecasters much too dependent on their models. What is causing the extremes are planetary forces relative to the Sun. Recently Saturn emerged from the far side of the Sun, and Jupiter and Uranus are in conjunction. I won't bore you with the technical astrological details, however, what is happening is a shift in the climate - leaning towards cooler temperatures, though we are in the 30th year of a global warming phase. We have six years or so to go before we officially enter the first phases of global cooling. But, in the meantime, we are in the a transitional phase of climate periods which last, according to my calculations, about 36 years overall. This coming year, the winter into spring 2011 for the northern hemisphere, as I forecasted will be colder and wetter than normal, as well as stormier than normal. Most of our fieriest storms are cold, wet ones. We are going into such a period this winter. My ENSO forecast is proof of this, as La Nina builds. As for proof of this climate transition, the jet stream made a move yesterday, as expected due to astronomical forces, and we get this observation in the United States ~ See - Massive Windstorm Howls Across Nations Mid-Section - news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101027/ap_on_re_us/us_midwest_storms;_ylt=AlVJdn.DXh9tBfiUzSEeiZL9xg8F;_ylu=X3oDMTNrbWE1MzRpBGFzc2V0Ay9zL2FwLzIwMTAxMDI3L2FwX29uX3JlX3VzL3VzX21pZHdlc3Rfc3Rvcm1zBGNjb2RlA21wX2VjXzhfMTAEY3BvcwMxBHBvcwMxBHNlYwN5bl90b3Bfc3RvcmllcwRzbGsDbWFzc2l2ZXdpbmRzMy long-range forecast for Winter/Spring 2011 is colder-than-normal, wetter-than-normal, and windier than normal with bone chilling temperatures. It will be the air that is the issue as well as the precipitation and strong winds. This coming winter is pressure-friendly like you wouldn't believe. It's going to be very interesting to say the least. Climate wise, in my estimation, this is part and parcel of the overall climate situation as forced by astronomical causes. The planetary configurations relative to the Earth, along with the condition of the Sun feature some rather telling climate signals for the future, say, from the late 2010s through the 2020s and into the 2030s. The floods are particularly worrisome, as are the geological features relating to seismic and volcanic activity. We are looking at a colder and wetter climate for the future that, if not prepared for in advance, will cause untold misery across the planet. Imagine wind farms not being able to deliver power because they are frozen solid, though there are gusting winds? Imagine a conventional scientific community so enveloped in the myth and business of anthropogenic global warming for nearly 30 years that they totally miss the Wet Ice Age that is just ahead. Imagine those who say that drought and floods cannot co-exist until they see it with their own eyes? All this, and more, is just ahead if people don't wake up and heed long-range advanced forecasts. According to my long-range outlook, as I've written for years about, we are on the back-end of a 36-year global warming phase that will give way to a new 36-yr. global cooling phase that is also wetter than normal. I would rather have global warming. But, global cooling is surely on the way according to my astrological calculations. It is coming. There is not a lot of time to prepare, but much can still be done. The AGW mess, the corruption, lying, careerism, ego, and banter of all that crap has simply wasted much time - and time is more expensive than money because you can never get it back once wasted. In my estimation, we have until about 2017 before we have entered the official new 36-yr. global cooling phase. There have been signs I've seen for years in the world's climate that we are witnessing these very transitions take place in front of our eyes. Consider that yesterday, October 26, 2010, in the middle of the United States, NOAA stated that, "The agency said the system's pressure reading Tuesday was among the lowest ever in a non-tropical storm in the mainland, " U.S. Spokeswoman Susan Buchanan said the storm was within the top five strongest storms in terms of low pressure..."Anomalous colder temperature drops, heavier than normal rain and snowfall, and gusting winds, along with strange polar vortex flows of significant power and length mixing with unusual levels of heavy precipitation, odd pressure readings, and increasingly wild fluctuations of jet stream action. I could go into the odd things happening in the Earth's upper atmosphere as well and the seismic activity that through volcanic eruptions, combined with ENSO - show us that the climate is in transition. I say this transition is from global warming to global cooling. The crime of Climategate was those who tampered with, and/or erased global weather and climate data over say, the past 15 years, which proves global cooling is on the way. Imagine that climate scientists, some whom prefer to peddle a lie like AGW rather than to let the world's climate data speak for itself? Imagine them peddling climate models as "products" with faulty solutions based on "forecasting" from the effects of climate and weather and calling that the cause? This farce has all happened and the results will be less time to prepare for the inevitable - and that's the real climate and weather as forced by the Sun and celestial bodies. It is going to get colder and wetter. You can bet on it. I see increasing heavy deluges and floods along with stronger and larger storms of scale - cold storms - is on tap for most of the planet. So is drought. I know that confuses some people, but drought can and does co-exist on this planet with floods. We will see more of this in the far future, where it will cease to rain as much, especially heavily, but then becomes colder and drier in various regions. Near desert like. It's very odd, but that is what I have seen. The only way to deal with all of this is to prepare in advance and to refit structures, our lives, and the usages of energy so we can be ready. The thing about the global warming crowd is that they are making the right argument with the wrong focus. There is nothing we can do to stop global warming or global cooling. We cannot stop the climate from doing what it wants no more than we can stop the Sun from rising, or the Moon from setting. What we can do is to forecast and prepare. That is within our power. The fact that it took a bumbling crew of so-called "scientists" and their promoters to waste more than a decade peddling the AGW junk to nations is a testament to the stupidity which has gone on for far too long in conventional climate science. To alter true global climate/weather data sets worldwide in an attempt to prove something (AGW) that is mathematically impossible on Earth is beyond stupid. The cold is coming and so are floods and those cold, pressurized big storms. Global cooling is most surely on its way, and there is not a thing we can do to stop it either. Our power, like I said, is in forecasting and active preparation. That is the practical goal of all forecasting to begin with, and is why I forecast. To prepare as best as possible for the real climate and weather ahead. In my perspective from astronomical calculations I've made over the coming decades, we first have to survive colder & wetter climates for the most part, interspersed with brief anomalous hot and dry seasons, while at the same time also prepare for the second half of the global cooling climate ballgame - a colder and then drier climate in the far future. |
|
|
|
Post by glc on Oct 27, 2010 8:03:57 GMT
..says astrologer who confused gravitational force with tidal force. You still haven't said whether you know the difference. I do know the difference, ....Ok - so what, for example, is the tidal effect of Jupiter on the sun? |
|
|
|
Post by steve on Oct 27, 2010 9:37:59 GMT
astromet,
I've posed reasonable questions in a polite way and have not got an answer, other than a complaint that I did not understand and needed to study the techniques. I've posed questions such as:
1. How can you claim that a forecast for El Niño to dominate autumn weather is a success when it is now Autumn and we are deep in La Niña?
2. Given that you are currently touting the accuracy of this forecast (for reasons we are struggling to comprehend), how can you also complain that other people are judging your forecast too early? Double standards?
3. If you predicted drought in Indonesia, how can you claim that the recent floods in Indonesia have validated your forecast?
4. Given that your tutorial confused the tidal effects of the moon and sun with the net gravitational force of the moon and the sun, why should we believe that you are genuinely knowledgable of the *physical* impacts of the moon and sun?
5. If the answer is that the physical effects are often secondary (since obviously the physical effects of an emergence of Saturn from behind the sun are negligible), why do you tout certain physical effects in your postings?
6. Why do you pretend that climate scientists ignore the sun when a quick perusal of Google Scholar shows this to be untrue?
Reasonable questions which were politely put. But you ignored them and instead tried to patronise me. As I'm a polite, but persistent Brit, I can put up being patronised.
I am aware that astrology and "scientific endeavour" have been linked in the past. But then people used to believe that foul air carried diseases, that the earth was created in 7 days and that the right chemical process could turn lead to gold. Ideas that seem reasonable often turn out to be wrong or incomplete, and are dropped (resist the urge, folks!)
|
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Oct 27, 2010 10:39:00 GMT
astromet, I've posed reasonable questions in a polite way and have not got an answer, other than a complaint that I did not understand and needed to study the techniques. I've posed questions such as: 1. How can you claim that a forecast for El Niño to dominate autumn weather is a success when it is now Autumn and we are deep in La Niña? 2. Given that you are currently touting the accuracy of this forecast (for reasons we are struggling to comprehend), how can you also complain that other people are judging your forecast too early? Double standards? 3. If you predicted drought in Indonesia, how can you claim that the recent floods in Indonesia have validated your forecast? 4. Given that your tutorial confused the tidal effects of the moon and sun with the net gravitational force of the moon and the sun, why should we believe that you are genuinely knowledgable of the *physical* impacts of the moon and sun? 5. If the answer is that the physical effects are often secondary (since obviously the physical effects of an emergence of Saturn from behind the sun are negligible), why do you tout certain physical effects in your postings? 6. Why do you pretend that climate scientists ignore the sun when a quick perusal of Google Scholar shows this to be untrue? Reasonable questions which were politely put. But you ignored them and instead tried to patronise me. As I'm a polite, but persistent Brit, I can put up being patronised. I am aware that astrology and "scientific endeavour" have been linked in the past. But then people used to believe that foul air carried diseases, that the earth was created in 7 days and that the right chemical process could turn lead to gold. Ideas that seem reasonable often turn out to be wrong or incomplete, and are dropped (resist the urge, folks!) Steve, you heard me once, twice, and multiple other times on your comments, snippiness and tone. We are men here and that behavior is girlish at best, and insults intelligence at worst. Quit with the amateur hour you've got going and realize that there are experts in this world of their own respective fields. I am one of them in mine. If you cannot hold a discussion without the ego and problems you seem to have then don't comment at all. To answer your questions briefly, because I work for a living, my answers are below your questions/comments, in yellow type ~ 1. How can you claim that a forecast for El Niño to dominate autumn weather is a success when it is now Autumn and we are deep in La Niña? Deep in La Nina? Based on what? Oh, the models you think you can read? No, we are not yet "deep" in La Nina Steve. We are getting there. The deepest parts of La Nina, for the northern hemisphere, is by Feb.-May 2011 overall. I've said this in my forecast, and more than once to you. 2. Given that you are currently touting the accuracy of this forecast (for reasons we are struggling to comprehend), how can you also complain that other people are judging your forecast too early? Double standards? Another "question?" Who is this we? I thought you can speak only for yourself. Now you are talking for everyone? Hey, I tout nothing. If you cannot read the English of my ENSO forecast which I published years ago for this time, then I can't help you. Judge what you want dude, I just work here.3. If you predicted drought in Indonesia, how can you claim that the recent floods in Indonesia have validated your forecast? Another thing you've taken out of context (re-read what was actually written) and then repeat over and over again. That still does not make it true Steve. Quit with that crap too will you? Geez again.4. Given that your tutorial confused the tidal effects of the moon and sun with the net gravitational force of the moon and the sun, why should we believe that you are genuinely knowledgable of the *physical* impacts of the moon and sun? There you go again. My tutorial did nothing of the sort. It does not "confuse" tidal effects of the Moon and Sun with net gravitational force. That was just shit you made up and then spout as if it were true. It's not and you know it. You did not notice your use of the word "tide" in your comments? Which tide is that Steve? The sea tides, or the air tides? I bet before you read the description of the Earth's air tides in my tutorial, that you had never known of this before. This is what I mean by your intellectual dishonesty, rudeness and stupidity. Plus, the fact you think you can just get away with such low IQ shenanigans and repeat them often as you like as if it were true proves not all 52 cards are in your deck. Shape up will you?Shorter answer: Believe whatever you want. But your "beliefs" do not change mathematics. It does not change the celestial forces of cause. It does not change the sea tide. Nor the air tide. Your beliefs do not change the astrophysical and geophysical laws of our solar system and planet. They are ordered by celestial forces and cannot be altered by humanity.5. If the answer is that the physical effects are often secondary (since obviously the physical effects of an emergence of Saturn from behind the sun are negligible), why do you tout certain physical effects in your postings? Astrophysical = causes
Geophysical = effects6. Why do you pretend that climate scientists ignore the sun when a quick perusal of Google Scholar shows this to be untrue? I did not say that all climate scientists ignore the Sun. You said that. Obviously not every climate scientist on the planet ignores the Sun. I've posted names and links of other climate scientists who do not ignore the Sun. So what is your point?You assumed I did, but I do not and never did. That's your problem Steve. You read whatever it is that you want into what is actually said, discussed or communicated, and then warp it into something it never was to begin with. The only "pretender" here is you. |
|
|
|
Post by steve on Oct 27, 2010 11:54:57 GMT
astromet, you are using all the methods you can think of to avoid answering substantive questions. You are using a semantic argument to avoid the point. If I am up to my neck in water, I would say I was deep in water regardless of whether I have reached the deepest part of the river. I found another quote of yours from Jan 26 when other model based forecasts were disagreeing with you: Even Icefisher raised his eyebrows at that! solarcycle24com.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=gotopost&board=globalwarming&thread=987&post=40836We are in La Niña. The ENSO indices are strongly La Niña-like. Flooding in Indonesia is more likely in La Niña. Your autumn forecast was based on El Niño conditions. Your forecast for drought in Indonesia appears based on El Niño climatology.
How can you claim that a forecast for El Niño to dominate autumn weather is a success when it is now Autumn and ENSO indices are strongly La Niña?Answering a question with a question is an avoidance tactic, particularly when your question is irrelevant to the accusation of you having double standards. But I think I am in agreement with dartman and glc when I say:
2. Given that you are currently touting the accuracy of this forecast (for reasons glc, dartman and I are struggling to comprehend), how can you also complain that other people are judging your forecast too early? Double standards?OK: you said in your forecast: You then said: But you forgot that a) your only prediction about Indonesia was a drought prediction and b) floods in Indonesia are more likely in La Niña. 3. If you predicted drought in Indonesia, how can you claim that the recent floods in Indonesia have validated your forecast?You said: The sun has a gravitational pull of (OTOH) over 150 times the moon which suggests to me that you have confused the gravitational pull with the tidal effect. Do you know how to calculate gravitational force, and do you know how to estimate the tidal effect of a body? (that was essentially glc's question - he knows what I'm on about). Your reference to tides in the atmosphere seems to be evidence of you throwing out interesting titbits of knowledge in an attempt to impress. As a physicist I am aware of the general truth that any body with mass has a finite tidal effect on any other body of non-zero size. The stars in Orion's belt have a tidal effect on you. Jupiter has a tidal effect on you. The midwife when you were born had a tidal effect on you. |
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Oct 27, 2010 12:22:39 GMT
astromet, you are using all the methods you can think of to avoid answering substantive questions. You are using a semantic argument to avoid the point. If I am up to my neck in water, I would say I was deep in water regardless of whether I have reached the deepest part of the river. I found another quote of yours from Jan 26 when other model based forecasts were disagreeing with you: Even Icefisher raised his eyebrows at that! solarcycle24com.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=gotopost&board=globalwarming&thread=987&post=40836We are in La Niña. The ENSO indices are strongly La Niña-like. Flooding in Indonesia is more likely in La Niña. Your autumn forecast was based on El Niño conditions. Your forecast for drought in Indonesia appears based on El Niño climatology.
How can you claim that a forecast for El Niño to dominate autumn weather is a success when it is now Autumn and ENSO indices are strongly La Niña?Answering a question with a question is an avoidance tactic, particularly when your question is irrelevant to the accusation of you having double standards. But I think I am in agreement with dartman and glc when I say:
2. Given that you are currently touting the accuracy of this forecast (for reasons glc, dartman and I are struggling to comprehend), how can you also complain that other people are judging your forecast too early? Double standards?OK: you said in your forecast: You then said: But you forgot that a) your only prediction about Indonesia was a drought prediction and b) floods in Indonesia are more likely in La Niña. 3. If you predicted drought in Indonesia, how can you claim that the recent floods in Indonesia have validated your forecast?You said: The sun has a gravitational pull of (OTOH) over 150 times the moon which suggests to me that you have confused the gravitational pull with the tidal effect. Do you know how to calculate gravitational force, and do you know how to estimate the tidal effect of a body? (that was essentially glc's question - he knows what I'm on about). Your reference to tides in the atmosphere seems to be evidence of you throwing out interesting titbits of knowledge in an attempt to impress. As a physicist I am aware of the general truth that any body with mass has a finite tidal effect on any other body of non-zero size. The stars in Orion's belt have a tidal effect on you. Jupiter has a tidal effect on you. The midwife when you were born had a tidal effect on you. There you go again. You make false assertions and comments that are not of my own, but yours, and then you go on to make suppositions that are also of your own despite a clear lack of knowledge about this subject you choose to debate with me. The only "semantics" we see here are your own Steve. Also, you will note that my comment on drought included my thoughts on this to the year 2015, which, if you look at a calendar, is not here. You did the same my forecast on Winter 2011, also a season that has not yet arrived. You also continue to see El Nino and La Nina as separate entities when you were clearly informed that they are part of the same process - ENSO - which can be warm and wet and cold and wet. And, for some strange reason you will not accept that I forecasted this ENSO although it is a fact I did several years ago. That bothers you? Who else forecasted ENSO for this time period other than me? I have not seen you forecast this event even back in 2008 when I re-published my 2006 long-range ENSO forecast for 2010-2011. So, what is your point? That I am retroactively "wrong," based on what - your opinion, your AGW ideology that says it isn't so? Glad to disappoint you then. You also fail to understand electromagnetism and the kinetic influences of space and stellar and planetary bodies which are basically giant magnets - the largest to us on Earth is our local star called the Sun. You confuse "distance" of celestial bodies with influence and discount mathematical angles, which, according to Kepler have influence and causal power on Earth. Newton agreed. Again, you cannot make your point from a position of ignorance of the topic you try to debate. It is just bad science Steve, and you should know better. If you know anything about astrophysics as applied to climate science, then you would know about magneto tidal resonance. Yet, you talk in very simplistic terms about "tides" and then make accusations that I do not know the difference between gravity and tides because I am an astrologer? On top of this, modern science to this very day cannot explain the force behind gravity. Though many have tried. You were the one that brought up "distance," of the planets. I did not. This is a common misconception of those who ignorantly contend (without proof) that the celestial bodies have no influence on the Earth based on distance. Then, you confuse this with air and sea tides, as if I am the one confused. I am not. You are the one in error. I would remind you Steve that the Earth is not flat, and that the Earth is a planet always in motion. This should tell you a lot. So should the Sun and the Moon. So, rather than sound as if you know what you are talking about in relation to the Earth's climate, you have your homework to do about astrometeorology and astronomical forecasting. Playing around with computer models based on faulty solutions will not get you an inch closer to forecasting anything outside two weeks, if that. By the way, algorithms were also invented by astrologers. You cannot study the solar system and the Earth's climate with your little microscope Steve. You are bound to miss a whole lot of action ~ which it seems you have. First, take the time to learn. I keep saying the same thing to you because it is true. If you are to have any understanding of what it is that I do as an astronomical forecaster, then you some books to hit and serious study and observation to do. We call it Science. Here's the perspective of astronomer and physicist Percy Seymour in an interview. "Seymour brings to the astrology-science debate a rich body of experience and credentials. His grandfather taught him to identify Orion's belt and other southern constellations.
Growing up as the son of an interracial couple in apartheid South Africa, Seymour also learned what it meant to be labeled "Cape colored," a racist colloquialism applied in that country to non-whites.
It was an experience that has left him intolerant of bigotry of any kind, including the prejudicial arguments against astrology employed by some scientists.
Holding doctorates in astronomy and astrophysics, Seymour's expertise in the study of the magnetic fields that thread our galaxy, and his book, 'Cosmic Magnetism,' have won him academic acclaim.
Director of the William Day Planetarium and principal lecturer in astronomy at the University of Plymouth, Seymour teaches gifted undergraduate students and conducts research in astronomy.
In addition to Cosmic Magnetism, he is the author of five books: 'Halley's Comet,' 'The Scientific Basis of Astrology,' 'Astrology: The Evidence of Science,' 'The Paranormal: Beyond Sensory Science,' and 'Adventures in Astronomy,' a hands-on approach to building simple astrolabes, star clocks, and sundials."You can learn a lot by following this man's realization that Astrology is and has always been a science. Question: "How did you first become interested in astrology?"
Percy Seymour - "In the summer of 1984 a BBC film training crew came to Plymouth to do a film about astrology. The film crew interviewed people on the streets and byways, asking their views on the subject.
They sought out my opinion due to my reputation here in Plymouth as the reigning authority on astronomy. Of course, as a trained astronomer and physicist, I trotted out all the normal objections.
I told them that I knew there was some evidence in support of astrology but that I couldn't think of a mechanism that might explain how the planets affect human life.
It was actually the first time I'd been put on the line, so to speak, with no other astronomers there to back me up. (laughs) Suddenly these arguments didn't sound right to me. They ruled out the idea that any progress could be made in this area. They were totally dogmatic.
And that got me thinking.
Then one of the BBC interviewers asked me whether I'd read a book, Astrology: Science or Superstition?, in which authors Eysenck and Nias suggest that solar disturbances and their particle emissions are the most probable link between biological and extraterrestrial events.
Also mentioned by the BBC people was the work of a radio engineer named Nelson, who had apparently noted heliocentric planetary alignments corresponding with bad radio conditions.
At the time, I hadn't heard of either of these works. After the film crew left I found myself delving deeper into the scientific objections to astrology, and it became quite clear to me that the arguments being put forth were based on single-link theories, simple models that are easy to disprove.
A well-known example of this is using gravity to explain how a planet might directly influence the fetus, and then showing how this can't possibly work because of the weak tidal tug of the planets. This type of approach completely ignores the possibility of multi-link theories.
Question: "A multi-link theory being one that draws upon several different scientific disciplines?"
Seymour: "That's right. It's my view that those who use simplistic models to disprove astrology are violating the principles of the philosophy of science, which is a particular interest of mine.
From the viewpoint of the philosophy of science, any number of theories may be shown not to work, but to say it follows that no theory of astrology can work is just bad science.
It totally rules out scientific method. So, having examined the arguments that supposedly disproved astrology, I came to the conclusion that they were totally unscientific - a form of rationalized bigotry cloaked in academic language.
Findings - "Earth's magnetic field shows myriad bands of frequencies, ranging from a few minutes to several years.
We know one such frequency is associated with the Moon-the lunar daily magnetic variation.
Not all of these frequencies will have a coherence about them. When they start and end will be random.
But, say you have a spectral line or frequency in Earth's magnetic field that is very close to the synodic period of Mars.
If placed on a graph, you would see a peak that closely coincides with the synodic period of Mars.
Just as resonance occurs when the sub-planetary point of Mars moving across the surface of the Sun matches the speed of the free wave, resonance can also happen when the frequency of Mars closely matches a frequency already present within Earth's magnetic field.
It then becomes phase-locked.
In other words, those frequencies in Earth's magnetosphere that are close to the tidal frequencies of the planets Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn will remain in step with those planets.
You wíll have one magnetic frequency associated with Mars, another with Jupiter, and so on. "For more, see - cura.free.fr/decem/09seym.html#Ref5 |
|
|
|
Post by steve on Oct 27, 2010 13:54:28 GMT
Of course I note that. The point is that you claimed that floods in Indonesia validated a forecast whose only mention of Indonesia referenced a concern about droughts. In other words, *any weather at all* would have validated your forecast.
It bothers me that you do not realise that your forecast is not validated by one of its elements being arguably partially correct, particularly when you were saying in January of this year that:
So you admit that you don't know how to estimate the tidal effect of a planet. You just assume that it will be magically amplified by some impact on the sun which will beam unspecified "energies" toward the earth.
You don't know how it works but you think it works. So you would be better off to drop the implication that you know anything about the physics.
|
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Oct 27, 2010 16:14:35 GMT
Of course I note that. The point is that you claimed that floods in Indonesia validated a forecast whose only mention of Indonesia referenced a concern about droughts. In other words, *any weather at all* would have validated your forecast. It bothers me that you do not realise that your forecast is not validated by one of its elements being arguably partially correct, particularly when you were saying in January of this year that: So you admit that you don't know how to estimate the tidal effect of a planet. You just assume that it will be magically amplified by some impact on the sun which will beam unspecified "energies" toward the earth. You don't know how it works but you think it works. So you would be better off to drop the implication that you know anything about the physics. Again... there you go again. Now you are telling me what I think? And then you use the word "magically amplified?" And what is with this "any weather at all?" Are you saying that floods or drought constitute the only kind of weather a region can experience? How about a sunny nice day, or snow? There are various "kinds" of weather Steve. What exactly are you on dude? I do not throw darts at a board blindfolded Steve. That is the difference between a forecaster and a non-forecaster. I suggest you actually take the time and effort to re-read (if you read it at all) my last posts to you and Dr. Seymour's findings. And give up telling me what I think. Ask, sure, but do not tell me what I think, and then pose your assertions as matter of fact. Are you hard up for attention or ego or something? It sure looks that way to me. If you cannot do that, then make time for others on this thread rather than clogging it up with silly remarks Steve. We all just went through Climategate and all the AGW crap, so you ought to be at least open to learning some real climate science. |
|
|
|
Post by steve on Oct 27, 2010 17:16:19 GMT
Alright, I'll spell it out. You have mentioned Percy Seymour who thinks that the planets' tidal effects on the sun cause changes to the sun that influence the earth. But the tides are minuscule,
You also infer that the tiny tidal effects of planets belie their *real* level of influence.
A paraphrase of it being "magical" does not seem to me to be unfair.
Since you are unable to put some numbers out there, let me do it. Feel free to correct my back of the envelope calculation. The lunar tides lift the oceans by a mere 1 metre or so. The relative change of the Jovian gravitational field over the Sun's radius is, by my estimate, 0.06% that of the moon over the earth's radius. Strikes me you'd need quite a lot of resonance for that to have an important effect on a large violent body like the Sun.
If it rained heavily somewhere, that would validate your forecast. If there was a drought somewhere that would validate your forecast. No rain or drought would simply be periods of normal weather in between the rain and droughts, so they would also validate your forecast. What would falsify your forecast is a few years with no drought or heavy rain anywhere, which seems unlikely.
.
|
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Oct 28, 2010 17:10:52 GMT
Alright, I'll spell it out. You have mentioned Percy Seymour who thinks that the planets' tidal effects on the sun cause changes to the sun that influence the earth. But the tides are minuscule, You also infer that the tiny tidal effects of planets belie their *real* level of influence. A paraphrase of it being "magical" does not seem to me to be unfair. Since you are unable to put some numbers out there, let me do it. Feel free to correct my back of the envelope calculation. The lunar tides lift the oceans by a mere 1 metre or so. The relative change of the Jovian gravitational field over the Sun's radius is, by my estimate, 0.06% that of the moon over the earth's radius. Strikes me you'd need quite a lot of resonance for that to have an important effect on a large violent body like the Sun. If it rained heavily somewhere, that would validate your forecast. If there was a drought somewhere that would validate your forecast. No rain or drought would simply be periods of normal weather in between the rain and droughts, so they would also validate your forecast. What would falsify your forecast is a few years with no drought or heavy rain anywhere, which seems unlikely. Obviously Steve, you are unaware of the climate implications of the ENSO I forecasted for this time several years back. I called for a very wet year in 2010 featuring heavy rains and floods from ENSO and this is what has been witnessed to this point in time in 2010. The climate and weather validates my forecast - not me and not you. There is no such thing as a "false" forecast. Seasonal and long-range climate forecasts are validated by the climate and weather itself over the time periods indicated in the forecast. I am accurate 8 out of 10 times in my forecasts. This is something other astrometeorologists have accomplished via astronomical means. It is not new since astrologers invented meteorology and weather forecasting was the first application of scientific astrology many centuries ago. Those who are unable to forecast in the medium to long-range cannot do so in any other way except by astronomical means. I did not make this rule up - it has always been in effect since the dawn of time on Earth. Those are the laws of astrophysical (causes) to geophysical (effects.) You will not change this law by ignorance, argument, or failure to believe. It is also impossible for anyone to forecast long-range without seeing the big picture. You must be able to read, and interpret an astronomical ephemeris, and to then observe the climate over periods of time. This is the only way that you will learn. There is no other way. Period. You can argue until you are blue in the face and you can pretend that computer models will give you some mechanism but you will fail in all these ways because you continue not to accept the law of physics. From your comments on "tiny tidal" effects, it is also clear that you are unaware of the power of mathematics and angles, or of magnetism - which is at the heart of climate and weather forecasting. Even the smallest differential in any number can have a major effect on climate and weather. You would already know this if you had a clear understanding of the Earth's highly fluid climate, which it appears you do not. What your problem appears to be is 1) you've bought into the AGW scam and this has completely ruined your understanding of what really produces climate change on Earth and 2) you've got little knowledge about space weather as it applies to climate and 3) that you know nothing about astronomical forecasting. No one can help you Steve. Only you can do that. Until you have unlearned the false things you have learned, and then start over to gain knowledge about the realities of space weather and the Earth's climate there is nothing that can be done. The ball is in your court Steve, and you've got to do something better with it than you have been doing for however long you've held such false assertions based on a flawed philosophy that has nothing to do with this topic in reality. |
|
|
|
Post by steve on Oct 28, 2010 17:43:13 GMT
What does that statement even mean!
The "power" of mathematics is its ability to solve problems. Angles are angles. They haven't got "power". Try and write statements that say something meaningful please.
If the "power of angles" is so huge, how come the tides on earth are only one-ten millionth of an earth radius? Given that both the earth-moon system and the Jupiter-sun system are under the influence of the same set of solar system planets how come the "power of maths and angles" doesn't produce anomalous tides on the earth (say greater than 30 metres) every now and then, or cause the Mississippi to flow backwards or whatever?
Of course small differences propagate to big differences. There is not much predictability from small things, though, because there are a lot of them to deal with.
Oh and you seem to be recasting your forecast again. What was it you said in January? Oh yes:
PS. which transits were you referring to? Were they more important than the oppositions?
|
|
