|
|
Post by AstroMet on Nov 4, 2010 19:09:16 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Nov 4, 2010 19:14:26 GMT
Any chance of a link, please. One has to be aware of the fact that water does not stretch or compress like the gases in the atmosphere. Thus tidal range is entirely done by the geographic relocation of water. That is one heckuva a lot of water movement. |
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Nov 5, 2010 4:20:07 GMT
Any chance of a link, please. One has to be aware of the fact that water does not stretch or compress like the gases in the atmosphere. Thus tidal range is entirely done by the geographic relocation of water. That is one heckuva a lot of water movement. And all this is celestially forced. The Sun rules not only the constitution of the Earth's atmosphere, but regulates its jet streams, and the oceans. Planetary modulation of the Sun's very powerful magnetic resonance depends on angles to the Earth's position. This is most clearly witnessed by the Sun-Moon connections to terrestrial climate and weather. For instance, we have a New Moon late Friday and into early Saturday, so this syzergy pull on the sea, core, and air tides should produce a newsworthy weather weekend - from increased volcanic eruptions and seismic events to temperature drops and precipitation. I also expect the NAO to turn negative heading into winter. Along with a strong La Nina and the increased volcanic ash in the higher atmospheres we should have a doozy of a winter ahead in the northern hemisphere. Reduced sunlight values, colder than normal and wet. Colder-than-average temperatures and wetter than normal conditions will predominate. This will last into spring 2011 and produce a cooler summer into say, early August 2011. That's what I've forecasted in the long-range. |
|
|
|
Post by steve on Nov 5, 2010 9:29:12 GMT
It's a respectable source coming from Brier, I suppose, but it is from 1965 rather than being "recent" (perhaps that's just me showing my age) and there doesn't seem to have been much follow-up. |
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Nov 5, 2010 16:49:29 GMT
It's a respectable source coming from Brier, I suppose, but it is from 1965 rather than being "recent" (perhaps that's just me showing my age) and there doesn't seem to have been much follow-up. There's been plenty of follow-up Steve, all you have to do is to look for it regarding astronomical forcing of sea, land and air tides. Moreover, Brier's data reflects what astrometeorologists have known for quite some time - that the Earth's climate and weather is forced from space. |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Nov 5, 2010 21:28:45 GMT
It's a respectable source coming from Brier, I suppose, but it is from 1965 rather than being "recent" (perhaps that's just me showing my age) and there doesn't seem to have been much follow-up. The curse of a lot of science that doesn't have the potential of billions flowing from the control of people and/or from fear. |
|
|
|
Post by steve on Nov 8, 2010 13:23:58 GMT
It's a respectable source coming from Brier, I suppose, but it is from 1965 rather than being "recent" (perhaps that's just me showing my age) and there doesn't seem to have been much follow-up. The curse of a lot of science that doesn't have the potential of billions flowing from the control of people and/or from fear. I think that a phenomenon that links rainfall to the lunar cycle would generate sufficient interest from the (real) weather forecasters if it were genuine. |
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on Nov 8, 2010 14:10:06 GMT
The curse of a lot of science that doesn't have the potential of billions flowing from the control of people and/or from fear. I think that a phenomenon that links rainfall to the lunar cycle would generate sufficient interest from the (real) weather forecasters if it were genuine. Piers Corbyn, whatever else you may think of him, appears to use lunar cycles to out-forecast the Met O routinely. |
|
|
|
Post by steve on Nov 8, 2010 15:46:12 GMT
Lunar links to weather sound a little unlikely, but many unlikely things are true. I would caution though that it is easier than one might think to find correlations between two uncorrelated datasets.
|
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Nov 8, 2010 23:12:40 GMT
Lunar links to weather sound a little unlikely, but many unlikely things are true. I would caution though that it is easier than one might think to find correlations between two uncorrelated datasets. There's nothing "unlikely" about lunar links to the weather Steve. I mean it's been known for many centuries, so what is so unlikely about this known fact? Correlations are the stuff science is based upon - the more the better - since this is what constitutes the scientific method. I do not know what you mean about "uncorrelated datasets" as you did not explain what your point is? |
|
|
|
Post by steve on Nov 9, 2010 10:27:32 GMT
No it doesn't constitute the scientific method. The scientific method also requires causation and the ability to test.
If you look at some weather data for a period and try to find a link between the weather metrics and the sun or moon or Jupiter or Crab pulsar quakes or the population of lemmings then you would be very unlucky if you did not find any correlations.
If you filter the data with any frequency you will find some peaks and troughs in line with the variability of the data. If you filter enough data you will find some data that has peaks and troughs that are "statistically significant".
|
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Nov 9, 2010 14:26:00 GMT
Correlations are the stuff science is based upon - the more the better - since this is what constitutes the scientific method.No it doesn't constitute the scientific method. The scientific method also requires causation and the ability to test.
I'm bookmarking this! |
|
|
|
Post by steve on Nov 9, 2010 15:34:45 GMT
Good for you Icefisher - it's never too late to learn. But maybe you need to read about the scientific method from a slightly more authoritative source.
|
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Nov 10, 2010 6:24:59 GMT
No it doesn't constitute the scientific method. The scientific method also requires causation and the ability to test. If you look at some weather data for a period and try to find a link between the weather metrics and the sun or moon or Jupiter or Crab pulsar quakes or the population of lemmings then you would be very unlucky if you did not find any correlations. If you filter the data with any frequency you will find some peaks and troughs in line with the variability of the data. If you filter enough data you will find some data that has peaks and troughs that are "statistically significant". And? What is your point Steve? Sure, if you filter ANY data with ANY chosen frequency you can say you have peaks and troughs that are statistically significant. But what is your point? That sounds an awful like the Climategate gang - forcing the lie of anthropogenic global warming down the throats of the world with their "lemmings" of imagined correlations and tainted computer models. As for the ability to test as your version of what constitutes the scientific method ~ That is not a singular requirement of what constitutes the scientific method. You should also know that one cannot place the Earth's climate in a test tube, nor isolate the climate in a laboratory in order to "test it." From the content of your perspective, from what I can gather, you've allowed your concept of "science" to become rather narrow and non-inclusive, confusing searching for a "mechanism" which follows along the path of your philosophy of science, whatever that may be. That is not scientific. Observations of forces already in process simply requires your attention, study, and repeated recording of observations. You've taken the usage of "test" to strictly apply to something that is untestable - the Earth's climate. How do you propose to bottle up the Earth's climate inside a laboratory so you can test it? I sure would like to know. |
|
|
|
Post by steve on Nov 10, 2010 10:34:58 GMT
Come on astromet, it's not *that* complicated! There are a handful of papers finding connections between tides and weather. But there are thousands of meteorological datasets, so some of them are *bound* to correlate with the tides. Therefore evidence from a handful of papers is not sufficient to demonstrate causation.
Except that the "climategate gang" aren't concerned with correlations and most aren't concerned with computer models. If the computer models were "tainted" how come they don't show a better fit with the tainted satellite obs that were created by Roy Spencer and John Christy?
That's a little bit confused. The "philosophy of science" is the way one does science.
I think that what you meant to say was that I have a preconception of the way the world should be and look for evidence that fits my preconception. In part that is true, but in part that is the philosophy of science. The philosophy of science though expects one to reject preconceptions when they are not supported by the evidence.
You keep going on about not being able to do long term forecasting with models. I agree that it is impossible to do deterministic forecasts and currently difficult to do useful probabilistic forecasts. But it hasn't yet been shown to be impossible to do long term probabilistic forecasts, we just need much better initial observations and probably another 5 to 10 years of model development for it to start being really useful.
You however have been shown to validate your own forecasts in a very unbalanced manner. eg forgetting that in January you were convinced that the El Niño state would be with us for the whole of 2010. So really you are guilty of what you are accusing me.
|
|
