|
|
Post by icefisher on Nov 10, 2010 14:03:58 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. Yet using a Siberian and a California tree (in a world with billions perhaps trillions of trees). . . . LOL! Come on Steve we are talking about the strongest force on the atmosphere! And in your mind it has no effect on the weather. Are you a physics denier or something? ROTFLMAO! |
|
|
|
Post by steve on Nov 10, 2010 14:49:01 GMT
If you are talking physics (careful now Icefisher) then saying that the moon has the strongest force on the atmosphere is wrong. The earth has the strongest gravitational force on the atmosphere followed by the sun then the moon.
And I didn't say it had no effect on the weather. I do not think that you can *predict* the weather from the lunar cycle to a level suggested by the apparent correlations identified in the papers being cited - in that sense there is no link.
|
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Nov 11, 2010 0:33:12 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. Actually Steve, there are many more papers/studies on the climate and weather highlighting the Moon. Just because you have not read them does not mean that they do not exist. But there you go again, assuming things which show that you are not doing your homework. And, I'm not going to do it for you. It is a simple matter for you to read scientific papers of the past several decades rather than continue to show your ignorance of them, or wanting someone else to do your homework for you. Regarding computer models: I've said it more than once to you that conventional mets and climatologists cannot forecast seasonal climate conditions until they learn to do so astronomically because that is the only possible way to forecast in advance of two weeks and more. Space weather and astronomical forecasting is not new. It has been done by the astrologers of yore, and continues to be done to this day. However, you will not learn anything as a "rationalist" who falsely seeks "mechanisms" without being able to observe the very mechanism of nature which surrounds you. This includes outer space and the celestial bodies that causes and forces Earth's weather. The computer models of today and the majority of the modelers continue to led astray by rationalism, but few observe the very forces surrounding them. They base computer solutions on false premises (treating effects as causes) that are entered into their models by rationalists who seek to grab the brass ring of some "mechanism" to gain an illusory advantage in forecasting. But they always fail to forecast - even a month in advance; yet have gone on to make holier-than-thou pronouncements as forecasts years and decades into the future of a world that will always be mired in global warming? That is what constituted the ugly debacle of Climategate and the lie of anthropogenic global warming in climate science and meteorology. It is not a stretch of any imagination to clearly understand the laws of physics and the motions, and effects of stellar and planetary bodies of which the Earth is a member. Astrologers have known for thousands of years what produces climate and weather conditions and forecast accurately by astronomical means. The rationalists will argue until they are blue in the face against the laws of physics, but that does not change these laws. No amount of lying, tampering with data-sets, and making up models to conform to a ideology will change anything of the true facts of celestial forcing. To argue against the laws of physics - including planetary motion - is the role of the fool because you cannot argue against mathematical truths that are self-evident to anyone with an IQ. Regarding your philosophy of science - What you "preconceive" is based on your lack of knowledge, not on any philosophy that treats subjects long known and studied, but refuses to accept the validity of them based on your own individual shortcomings on the subject - in this case, astronomical forecasting of climate and weather on Earth. How you rectify that is a personal choice Steve. But, when you come out into the world and claim to experts in this field that it cannot be so based solely on your own lack of knowledge and experience... well, that dog just does not hunt. There are plenty of scientific papers on celestial forcing of the climate. I included references in my tutorials on this board which you should read first before saying there is only a "handful," which is simply not true. A wealth of empirical data from the 17th to 20th centuries have been built up on astronomical forcing of the Earth's climate, especially on the Sun and the Moon. When you read these scientific papers realize they constitute the great majority of climate data against those of the conventional rationalists, who have barely 90 years of conventional data with which to rely on. That's your "handful," which is yet another reason why conventional science fails miserably in forecasting, and they know it. A common mistake mechanist rationalists make is that they tend to look back only a generation of science for their frame of reference. Often, they either discount scientific findings based on age, or, which is most common: based on their own ignorance and ideology. People who do this show know that they are not as well-read as they like to believe. I suggest (once again) that you take on the attitude of the learner, because any other front, including those that consist of your preconceptions, act only as barriers to what has been already proven self-evident to a number of scientists, including Ptolemy, Brahe, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Franklin and others - that the Earth's climate and weather is caused and forced by the electromagnetic and mathematically-angled motions of celestial bodies. |
|
|
|
Post by steve on Nov 11, 2010 11:14:14 GMT
You say that, but your understanding of the laws of physics is not very apparent.
The quote above implies that the effects of the planetary bodies becomes apparent from knowledge of the laws of physics, but it does not! Even the papers you cite show no *causative* link between weather and the moon - only correlation which does not derive from any physical law.
As another example of your sloppy language that seeks to imply links where none exist, earth is not a member of anything - it's a large lump of mostly rock covered by a thin skin of gas and water travelling through space. You can't link earth with other planets and with the stars *just* by saying it is a member of some club and thereby imply it must thereby be influenced by other members of that club.
As far as I can see, you have also failed miserably at long term forecasting, so join *that* club.
|
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Nov 11, 2010 12:19:32 GMT
You say that, but your understanding of the laws of physics is not very apparent. The quote above implies that the effects of the planetary bodies becomes apparent from knowledge of the laws of physics, but it does not! Even the papers you cite show no *causative* link between weather and the moon - only correlation which does not derive from any physical law. As another example of your sloppy language that seeks to imply links where none exist, earth is not a member of anything - it's a large lump of mostly rock covered by a thin skin of gas and water travelling through space. You can't link earth with other planets and with the stars *just* by saying it is a member of some club and thereby imply it must thereby be influenced by other members of that club. As far as I can see, you have also failed miserably at long term forecasting, so join *that* club. I tend to try to stay out of this bilateral discussion... but on one point.. "As another example of your sloppy language that seeks to imply links where none exist, earth is not a member of anything - it's a large lump of mostly rock covered by a thin skin of gas and water travelling through space. You can't link earth with other planets and with the stars *just* by saying it is a member of some club and thereby imply it must thereby be influenced by other members of that club."The Earth isn't just traveling through space, its in an orbit - an ellipse around the Sun. So there must be _some_ effect perhaps we should call it gravity apples and Newton and all that or MOND if you want... but that means the Sun has some effect or causal connection with Earth apart from spraying the Earth with solar wind, all sorts of radiation and magnetic effects. The ellipse is not perfect the Earth is part of a two body system with the moon and they orbit around each other... so the moon has some effect too apart from the visible tides on the Earth and lifting the thin crust of the Earth by up to a metre with the tidal force... The crust of course is over what is a molten soup of rock with a lot of iron leading to induced currents and magnetic effects that navigators have used for some time. Large magnetic effects between the Sun and the Earth have been reported by NASA (lots of pretty diagrams).... Now while the foregoing does not step into the astrological of your rising star sign, Pluto in opposition to Mars and other flowery language, the Earth is definitely not a lonely piece of fluid covered rock on its own in space. It _is_ affected by the Sun and the Moon and probably by other effects caused by the other bodies orbiting and influencing the Sun and aspects of being within the Heliosphere. |
|
|
|
Post by steve on Nov 11, 2010 14:49:54 GMT
nautonnier,
I think it is absolutely fine to describe the real physical links between the planets and the sun with some indication of the understanding of the relative strength and weaknesses of effects as you are doing.
My comment really is the way in which astromet avoids quantification of phenomena but implies that because the phenomena exist they must be important and they will cause predictable events. My previous example was the way "astronomical transits" was used 4 times in the original forecast without saying which transits or even what he meant by a transit.
In other words it is the flowery language I am commenting on.
|
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Nov 12, 2010 6:56:21 GMT
You say that, but your understanding of the laws of physics is not very apparent. The quote above implies that the effects of the planetary bodies becomes apparent from knowledge of the laws of physics, but it does not! Even the papers you cite show no *causative* link between weather and the moon - only correlation which does not derive from any physical law. As another example of your sloppy language that seeks to imply links where none exist, earth is not a member of anything - it's a large lump of mostly rock covered by a thin skin of gas and water travelling through space. You can't link earth with other planets and with the stars *just* by saying it is a member of some club and thereby imply it must thereby be influenced by other members of that club. As far as I can see, you have also failed miserably at long term forecasting, so join *that* club. No thank you, I will not join *that* club Steve, that's your league, not mine. One of the problems you seem to have is that you do not respect expert forecasters in their field because you cannot do what they can do. That, my friend, is your problem. Just deal with it and stop crying like a baby. You've made numerous posts on this forecast thread, and for someone who "fails miserably" as you say, you sure seem to visit this failed forecaster enough times, do you not? Why would you do that if astronomical forecasting and my own forecasts are "failures." I would appreciate it if you would go elsewhere and rant Steve because you do not know what you are talking about, you are rude, and ignorant for a person who says they understand science, and you like to make things up that simply not true. This proves that you are not honest whatsoever about climate science and need to go back to the basics of science, the scientific method and actually observing your own climate and weather in the real world. The only "sloppiness" I see is your own ignorance and failure to respect science, those who practice it and your closed-mind which is not scientific in the least. Rather than ridicule others Steve, you should hit the books, keep your mouth shut and your opinions to yourself, and learn to do the hard work others have done in advanced forecasting - something you have not shown the skill how to do. |
|
|
|
Post by steve on Nov 12, 2010 13:16:54 GMT
astromet
What have I made up that is simply not true? Quotes please. I'm happy to clarify or withdraw statements that are wrong or have been misunderstood. Unlike you I accept that I am fallible.
Please stop trying to provoke me into being rude, because I'm not going to be rude. I'm more interested in pointing out the errors in your forecast, the validation of your forecast that was unbalanced and actually undermined your forecast, and you use "flowery language" like "according to astronomical transits", "resonance" and so forth to try and impress.
|
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Nov 12, 2010 20:36:51 GMT
astromet What have I made up that is simply not true? Quotes please. I'm happy to clarify or withdraw statements that are wrong or have been misunderstood. Unlike you I accept that I am fallible. Please stop trying to provoke me into being rude, because I'm not going to be rude. I'm more interested in pointing out the errors in your forecast, the validation of your forecast that was unbalanced and actually undermined your forecast, and you use "flowery language" like "according to astronomical transits", "resonance" and so forth to try and impress. Steve, no one is provoking you into being rude. You've been doing that all by yourself. Again, I forecasted ENSO and my forecast was correct. ENSO has been here, and now we are entering into the second phase of ENSO, which is La Nina. I forecasted that as well. Every forecast will have what you call "errors," as no forecast is perfect. Long-range forecasts will always miss some climate conditions as will any forecast. The point is to be as accurately consistent as possible above 80% seasonally, which I am. Also, you are no qualified to point out "errors" in anyone's forecast since you are 1) not a peer and 2) not knowledgeable about advanced forecasting, and 3) too keen on pointing out what you say are "errors" when all you are really doing is spouting off. Moreover, it is very hard to believe that you continue to buy into anthropogenic global warming when you have been told several times that it is mathematically impossible to occur on Earth. If you were a forecaster, and I understand that you are not, then you would know that any forecaster learns as much from their hits as their misses. This is part of the work of forecasting that any professional forecaster always faces. Most times, it is the lack of quality time to forecast than anything else that leads to things being missed, or not forecasted at all, or weather events that did not take place. The problem you have is that you do not forecast and prefer to take the easy way out by claiming others are wrong, when you are not qualified as a peer to state why. Again, this is because you know nothing about long-range forecasting, so it is your ignorance and ideology that causes the confusion in your mind more than anything else. That so-called "flowery language" is astrological language that you are not proficient to speak since you have not learned it. That does not make it "flowery," it is because you simply do not speak this language because you lack knowledge of the terminology. You also appear to have a warped sense of what scientific astrology really constitutes - and it isn't that pop-culture junk you falsely think is astrology - because it is not. Study history Steve, and leave the AGW ideology behind in the trash bin. Learn to read an astronomical ephemeris and observe your own local climate and weather. Then you will be on the road to learning the basics of long-range forecasting. |
|
|
|
Post by steve on Nov 13, 2010 14:10:51 GMT
Pointing out that the above is a lie is not being rude, it is stating a fact.
A wrong forecast is one thing. Claiming that a wrong forecast is right is quite another.
It is clear when you say that "ENSO has been here, and we are now entering the second phase of ENSO" that you are attempting to dissemble. ENSO is an "oscillation" which will be here until something radical happens to the Pacific ocean. It doesn't have first, second and third phases as it has probably been oscillating since at least the closure of the Panama straits.
You actually said on January 25th (top of page 4 of this thread), with your usual flowery reference to unspecified "astronomical transits":
|
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Nov 13, 2010 21:35:27 GMT
Pointing out that the above is a lie is not being rude, it is stating a fact. A wrong forecast is one thing. Claiming that a wrong forecast is right is quite another. It is clear when you say that "ENSO has been here, and we are now entering the second phase of ENSO" that you are attempting to dissemble. ENSO is an "oscillation" which will be here until something radical happens to the Pacific ocean. It doesn't have first, second and third phases as it has probably been oscillating since at least the closure of the Panama straits. You actually said on January 25th (top of page 4 of this thread), with your usual flowery reference to unspecified "astronomical transits": If you call me a liar again I will ignore you and report it Steve. You can "disagree" all you want with your opinions but how is my forecast of this current ENSO I made from 2006 a lie? How is that even possible? Again, you do not understand ENSO. The phase is both warm and cold, El Nino and La Nina. These oscillations in the Pacific Ocean are important to understand in order to forecast long-range, which can only be accomplished by astronomical means. I did that from several years ago in forecasting this ENSO. What is so difficult to get about that? Also, I am never in the habit of having to breast-feed people Steve, and am not about to start with you. If you have problems understanding what a "transit" is then learn the astronomical language. But you cannot do that with the attitude of a jerk. All climate effects from celestial forces have 'phases,' but you would not know this because you're not knowledgeable about forecasting. If you simply observe and record the phases of the Moon, for instance, over your local region in Devon and note the changes in pressure, and precipitation by the Moon's transits, then you will be the path of understanding. Until that time you are simply grasping at straws in the dark. Listen, I do not enjoy having to discuss something so clear to a person who thinks that AGW is a reality and who continues - despite all the scientific evidence to the contrary - that it is true when anyone with any climate knowledge knows that it is not? Now, you can go on and on with your bullshit Steve, but you're not making any valid points. Moreover, you seem to be more concerned with the ability of others to forecast (calling it lies) than with your own lack of ability to forecast in advance. That is your problem. Again, you use less than 10% of the power of your own brain, so it is clear that 9 times out of 10 you are wrong with your opinions. It is much better for you to exercise your brain so that you learn more (especially about celestial bodies and forces) so that when the time comes for you to discuss this topic you do not sound and act like a buffoon. Stop giving the British a bad name. |
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Nov 13, 2010 22:04:07 GMT
Astromet...I disagree with steve on most things we discuss here. But in this case he's right. He's not the kind of "right" where there's uncertainty about little side things. What he's talking about is an observable fact. Its about one instance and anyone here can go back and verify it...although MOST OF US REMEMBER IT.
There is no question about what you meant...because many of us challenged you on it. We correctly pointed out that the El Nino simply CAN'T last that long. All it can do is fizzle out into a neutral state that is sometimes jokingly referred to as "La Nada".
I doubt anyone here has any respect for your opinions.
|
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Nov 13, 2010 23:04:27 GMT
Astromet...I disagree with steve on most things we discuss here. But in this case he's right. He's not the kind of "right" where there's uncertainty about little side things. What he's talking about is an observable fact. Its about one instance and anyone here can go back and verify it...although MOST OF US REMEMBER IT. There is no question about what you meant...because many of us challenged you on it. We correctly pointed out that the El Nino simply CAN'T last that long. All it can do is fizzle out into a neutral state that is sometimes jokingly referred to as "La Nada". I doubt anyone here has any respect for your opinions. And, so where is this seen if "all it can do is fizzle out?" I do not know what you mean by that. Are you saying that ENSO is a singular El Nino, and that is all? That goes against what even conventional climate science now knows about ENSO. What is amazing about your comment is that you treat warm and cold as totally separate entities, and believe (from what you've written) that this is no interaction whatsoever of the gases and water vapor which constitutes the mass of the Earth's atmosphere? If this is your view, then respect has nothing to do with it - because it plain impossible for no interaction not to take place. It happens all the time. ENSO is a warm (El Nino) and cold climate (La Nina) event. There is heat buildup of sea surface temperatures and then releases of warm temperatures into the Earth's gaseous atmosphere. Once heat is released, often forced by colder pressure oscillations, it is followed by a cooling of sea-surface temperatures. This is called La Nina. That is what I forecasted years ago for this time. A fact. How you want to deal with it is your problem but it does not make it not so. What you and Steve do not contemplate is your own limited sight of what constitutes ENSO. Again, you look at effects as causes (a warped view) and treat synthesis events as singular ones that you "think" are unrelated when they clearly are not. I do not know what your educational level is, or how much you understand your own planet's climate and weather, but if you continue to think in this manner (in pieces) but not look and observe the whole - then you will learn nothing about the climate. This is the truth and until you accept it, nothing I say will make any difference to you, but that isn't the point now is it? You cannot change the laws of mathematics on Earth - astrophysical (causes) to geophysical (effects) - no matter how hard you try. Your opinions mean nothing to the laws of physics. What is amazing is that people who contend that anthropogenic global warming is real are the same people who trash the laws of physics as if they mean nothing. It is incredible to witness. You couldn't make that silliness up and believe that it has actually happened, but there it is. I was one of perhaps three people on this planet who forecasted ENSO for 2010-2011. I published my forecast in 2006 based on my astronomical calculations and republished it in 2008. We have seen El Nino, as forecasted, and now we see La Nina on the rise, again - as forecasted. It is not the first time I have forecasted accurately. And it will not be the last either. It will not be the first time I have forecasted inaccurately, and it will not be the last. That's what amateurs or wannabes who play with computer climate models like toys do not understand about advanced forecasting. If you want to get to a much higher level then you will have to become a serious person and leave the silliness of reading models badly behind you. You use the word "fizzle out" for El Nino. This is incorrect. It has not "fizzled out," but has released its heat into the atmosphere in 2010. The forcing comes from space and is modulated by the mathematical alignments and motions of the planets relative to the Earth. Cause to effect. Not ass-backwards. What follows is the very cold and wet winter I forecasted for 2011. It is on its way, and will be stronger than normal, according to my calculations. This is because the celestial forcing of the earth's core tides have also activated volcanic activity in 2010. This means a colder winter, and spring, and summer ahead in the northern hemisphere in 2011. Reduced sunlight, along with La Nina, along with the positions of the planets relative to the Earth this winter mean a colder-than-average and wet winter for many regions in this hemisphere. That has been my forecast for years for this time period just ahead. Long-range forecasting is not a joke. It is real and has been around since the dawn of humanity. I am an expert astronomical forecaster and I do not play with models. If you want to learn how to forecast, then stop playing with models and using words like "fizzle out" on ENSO and observe space weather, celestial motions, and the Earth climate. See for yourself. |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Nov 14, 2010 1:13:22 GMT
What have we learned from Astromet:
1. That ENSO seems to be continuous.
2. When Jupiter is giving us a blue moon it is also affecting the sun. That large planet has a huge influence on the sun and causes sun spots.
3. All of a sudden we are having outbreaks of volcanoes because Uranus is near Jupiter.
4. That single ant broke the elephants back when it landed.
|
|
|
|
Post by matt on Nov 14, 2010 1:49:49 GMT
Come on Steve we are talking about the strongest force on the atmosphere! And in your mind it has no effect on the weather. Are you a physics denier or something? ROTFLMAO! When someone delves into absolutes, it is obvious that he has lost the debate. It is the strawman of losers. |
|
