|
|
Post by matt on Nov 18, 2010 19:58:22 GMT
Oh go soak your head in a bucket of cool water Matt. I never suggested any such thing and if you could just pass your 3rd grade reader level you would realize that. [/quote] If you weren't so completely clueless Matt you would realize that the effects of El Nino have not yet diminshed. There are just now signs of an approaching La Nina from a global standpoint. Even Roy Spencer said he was frustrated by how late it was and it can be seen in the delayed ocean response which is unusual as depicted in the graph I posted at 11:59am. Unfortunately for you your thinking is so confined to the box engineered by others you can't even see 2 feet beyond the artificial label applied on the basis of a very small strip of ocean. Try thinking for yourself for a change instead of just spouting stuff you pick up from others. [/quote] The truth hurts, eh Icefisher? |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Nov 18, 2010 20:07:28 GMT
Oh go soak your head in a bucket of cool water Matt. I never suggested any such thing and if you could just pass your 3rd grade reader level you would realize that. If you weren't so completely clueless Matt you would realize that the effects of El Nino have not yet diminshed. There are just now signs of an approaching La Nina from a global standpoint. Even Roy Spencer said he was frustrated by how late it was and it can be seen in the delayed ocean response which is unusual as depicted in the graph I posted at 11:59am. Unfortunately for you your thinking is so confined to the box engineered by others you can't even see 2 feet beyond the artificial label applied on the basis of a very small strip of ocean. Try thinking for yourself for a change instead of just spouting stuff you pick up from others. The truth hurts, eh Icefisher? Indeed Matt. Dealing with folks with poor reading skills can be quite painful. Recognizing a problem is the first step in remediation. Best of luck! |
|
|
|
Post by matt on Nov 18, 2010 20:19:56 GMT
Indeed Matt. Dealing with folks with poor reading skills can be quite painful. Recognizing a problem is the first step in remediation. Best of luck! We all saw what you wrote. You said that astometerology was a combination of pseudo-science and gypsy fortune telling. To then say that you said no such thing is either STUPID or dishonest. |
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Nov 18, 2010 20:32:23 GMT
That is what space weather science is about. What is clear to me is that conventional climatology, for all its dependence on models, for the past 30 years has been seriously deficient in learning about what drives major climate events like ENSO. Scientists know more about the surface of Mars than they do about the Pacific. That is the absolute truth. It was the first thing I spotted in the AGW case. The eastern science establishment wandering the halls of Congress looking for money has either completely missed what others like Easterbrook and Akusofu had to point out to them or they have willfully ignored it. The regression I did on AGW data found the projections for future warming ran right off dead center the 1980 to 1999 global temperature data being sold to the public as completely CO2 driven. The fact that most of that warming was in all liklihood natural alone takes the catastrophe out of the projections that so many supposedly bought into hook, line, and sinker where even today their egos and their pocketbooks do not want to even give 2 cents consideration too. In the hearings yesterday the exchange between Michaels and Santer was dominated by Santer's unyielding "fingerprinting" of global warming that fails to recognize that we don't even know 10% of what we need to know to understand climate. The entire exercise operates off ignoring ignorance. Santer went on about how they use error bars and Michaels did not, yet fails to even recognize that his error bars are constructed purely on statistics ignoring completely what we don't know about climate and its most powerful drivers like clouds. Indeed if you take all we do know about explicit mechanisms of climate exchange you can calculate CO2 as the dominant forcing statistically. But when 90% of what might drive climate, cloud variation, is left in the ignorance bucket your calculations are next to meaningless. A good parallel would be if I were to go out and audit a company, say a huge oil company and my job was to report to the investors whether management was properly accounting for operations.
And what I did for an audit test was thoroughly test the petty cash account and balance it to the last dime.
Then I ran some Santer statistics work on it and extrapolated the error rate to the entire financial condition of the oil company ignoring oil reserves or oil markets. My excuse for ignoring that of course is because I know nothing about oil reserves or oil markets so I have to assume they run in lock step with what I do know something about. . . .the petty cash account.
Unfortunately that is about where we are at in climate science. If I did that to an oil company and it turned out they had no oil reserves I would be sued for everything I had and probably thrown in jail to boot for failure to follow reasonable standards of care to the extent it appeared to be willful. Astrometeorology has always known that celestial bodies and space force Earth's climate and weather. This is from long observations and calculations from which long-range forecasts are based. The mechanisms are the Sun and its powerful variety of cosmic rays and electromagnetic fluxes, then the transits of the Moon, and planets and of course the cold of outer space - these all impact the Earth's layers of atmospheres and cause geophysical climate effects like ENSO. One can see this pattern clearly. However, what they have chosen to do is look at a very short window of observations (like Socold's model) and stay clear of anything previous to the solar grand maxima. Socold cannot make his model work backwards (and since its a Real Climate model thats where the community is at also). The chart they put up in the hearing had no CO2 bump or explanation for the 40's. Its willful neglect as they continue to focus on what they think they know versus what they don't know even though they know what they don't know has huge knock effects on climate. Its right in front of their eyes and they have chosen to ignore it. That makes it fraud and elevates it from neglect to willful. Santer is either a complete idiot as he ponders his statistical analysis or he is a crook. Take your pick. Very good points, and it details exactly just how bad things have been in conventional climate science for at least three decades now Icefisher. The recent hearings, I'm afraid, were scheduled to try to save the Cap and Trade AGW crowd, which knows that the money train they depended on for at least 15 years is all over. Climategate was the straw that broke the camel's back. Sadly, there is a movement now regarding my cooler-than-normal forecast climate for 2011 to make the volcanic eruptions and La Nina's role appear to be a "bump in the road" for the AGW crowd who will continue to push anthropogenic global warming on the world during warm climate events of 2012-2014 I've forecasted. This, however, is a result of the Sun's coming maximum and the last vestiges of the 36-yr. global warming phase we've been in since 1980-81. But we are on the downside of this phase, and continue to see the anomalous cooling events that will lead into global cooling officially by 2017-2018, into the 2020s and the 2030s. The world needs to prepare for global cooling. There still is time, but much time has been lost to the AGW scare crowd and their complicit scientists and the IPCC. If we can convert to energy systems that are built for a colder climate and refit structures for global cooling during this coming new decade then there is a chance to save billions of dollars in damages resulting from stronger cold storms to come as a result of global cooling. The political will may be there, but will be slowed by the AGW crackpots and their pseudo-science that has wasted billions of dollars and at least 30 years overall in preparation for the new round of climate change. |
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Nov 18, 2010 20:40:01 GMT
Indeed Matt. Dealing with folks with poor reading skills can be quite painful. Recognizing a problem is the first step in remediation. Best of luck! We all saw what you wrote. You said that astometerology was a combination of pseudo-science and gypsy fortune telling. To then say that you said no such thing is either STUPID or dishonest. Matt, you know Icefisher is right about your poor reading skills. First, you make stupid statements about AGW which has been proven to be mathematically impossible, and then you come off saying that there is no connection between climate and public health. Then you go on about astrometeorology being gypsy-fortune reading and pseudo-science? Are you nuts? Your comments show that you definitely do not have all your P's and Q's in order, nor all six-beers in your pack. It proves that either you are stupid, or want to be stupid, but it shows you do not read serious findings on these scientific matters but care only about your ignorant opinions - and they are ignorant Matt. Astrometeorology is way out of your league pal, and it is not for the ignorant, nor those with low IQ levels. If you want to increase your IQ then you had better read, study and understand, or Icefisher's comment on your third-grade level will most likely be proven correct in your case. The choice is yours to prove him wrong but from the content of your recent comments on me, astrometeorology and advanced forecasting, I'd say Icefisher has you pegged just right at present: Here's another try to see if you actually CAN read ~ See - Empirical Evidence For a Celestial Origin Of The Climate Oscillations and Their Implications - www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/scafetta-JSTP2.pdf |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Nov 18, 2010 22:29:21 GMT
We all saw what you wrote. You said that astometerology was a combination of pseudo-science and gypsy fortune telling. To then say that you said no such thing is either STUPID or dishonest. Matt! I said quasi-science, not pseudo-science. The two words have significantly different meanings. The experienced reader will understand why one is chosen over the other. While the meanings can overlap the context in which I used the term would have alerted the discerning reader. Your interpretation was that I said in effect astrometeorology is a combination of gypsy fortune telling and gypsy fortune telling. Its probably a good final exam question for a third grader to capably pick the right meaning in such context. |
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Nov 19, 2010 0:19:52 GMT
We all saw what you wrote. You said that astometerology was a combination of pseudo-science and gypsy fortune telling. To then say that you said no such thing is either STUPID or dishonest. Matt! I said quasi-science, not pseudo-science. The two words have significantly different meanings. The experienced reader will understand why one is chosen over the other. While the meanings can overlap the context in which I used the term would have alerted the discerning reader. Your interpretation was that I said in effect astrometeorology is a combination of gypsy fortune telling and gypsy fortune telling. Its probably a good final exam question for a third grader to capably pick the right meaning in such context. One of the problems people like Matt, Steve and others have is that they simply are not versed in space weather, nor, it appears, in the basics of climate science and meteorology. Another problem with not understanding a quasi-science such as astrology is that those who have pop-culture mentalities do not have a clue as to what they are talking about when it comes to this science of forecasting. Astrology basically got its start because of the climate. Ancient peoples immediately saw the connection between astronomical motions and the weather because they had to eat and without forecasts there was no way of knowing what crop yields would be. Nearly every culture on the planet produced their own astronomical calendars in order to forecast the best they could to gain advantage for their crops. This extended to travel and trade of course. The problems with those who have not studied astronomical forecasting is that they base their opinions from their ignorance, which is never a good thing to do since it exposes one as ignorant on the subject the opinions are based. There is no substitute for knowledge except to learn. Moreover, there are many linear thinkers out there who, for the life of me, I cannot understand why they will not incorporate and synthesize the knowledge built over the centuries on nature, which includes the Sun, Moon, planets and space. This is where the Earth lives, and is part of a system that clearly forces our planet's climate. Some of the comments, even on this forecast thread are fraught with such ignorance of astrometeorology and astronomical forecasting that is boggles the mind to have to read since it clearly shows why climate science has stooped so low over the years to the peanut gallery section mouthing off as if they know it all when they know very little. The bravest ones are those who take a step back and consider that they may not know enough to make such silly comments and who then spend the time studying, observing and recording astronomical motions relative to the Earth and its climate and resulting weather. Those who do not do this are the lazy, for it is far too easy to sit on one's behind making all sorts of stupid comments based on one's ignorance than it is to actually exercise one's brain in learning what one does not know. Thankfully, we are just about to return to common sense, where quasi-science and synthesis become foremost in climate science so the 'climate change for dummies' goes back to where it belonged in the first place - the trash bin. Shouting down diverse views from forecast experts, altering global data-sets, lying, cheating, creating false computer models, tampering with satellite data, banning viewpoints that do not tow ideological lines, demeaning others, name-calling, etc., etc. - all of this is not science. It is immature, negative childish behavior from ignoramuses who have nothing better to do than to muck up the advancement of science. Climategate has shown us all what happens when groups of idiots, careerists and pseudo-scientists ban together to produce junk science that does nothing but politicize science and causes confusion in the public mind. Those days are about to be behind us so we can focus on real 21st century science which includes space weather and astronomical forecasting as proper models for forecasting the climate and weather of the coming future years and decades ahead. |
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Nov 19, 2010 22:35:22 GMT
Steve and others are intent on discrediting your work. I am not in such a hurry as what was good for Benjamin Franklin works well enough for me until such time it is disproven, not by a deviation from a manufactured "normal" baseline but by something more fundamental. LOL, I think the mechanisms claimed are nonsense and that he was blatantly wrong in his prediction. I have no problem with the raw correlation between various phenomenon and the earth's weather. And I would have no problem with him being wrong...if he'd just admit to it instead of prevaricating and trying to reframe what he said when he was quite clear on his meaning in the first place. I haven't seen any reframing. You are holding his predictions to an artificial measure. If you expect Astromet to look at the stars and see the NWS anomaly lines then you have unreasonable expectations. I say wait until this plays out. Observations are noting very unusual conditions. The raw models are reporting their experience for "entry" conditions as a record shattering La Nina. This could be an indicator that astronomical phenomena are having effects. Processing those indicators through the 60 year filter of experience changes it to an anomaly driven by conventional wisdom in the corrected graph. It is notable that for the past few months the raw models have been outperforming the experience corrections. The connection to what a La Nina actually is is tenuous. That would fit his prediction if the nadir for the La Nina is in winter 2011. If ENSO was deepened by an internal ocean process taking us into La Nina earlier and combining with the celestial drivers hey dude could anybody in the world have gotten that right? I am just saying that because ENSO crossed an artificially-derived line, focused on a very small area of the Pacific Ocean, a bit early is not a good reason to reject his forecast. I think the jury is still out. Lets see what happens this winter. If you look at UAH, we are still experiencing an "atmospheric" El Nino with LT not yet below the trendline. Its only an area in the ocean that is unusually cold. These may not get together until winter. That is basically my long-range forecast for the second half of ENSO, which is La Nina. The current buildup is already being seen as the strongest rise of cooler Pacific conditions since the 1955-56 super La Nina event. According to Klaus Wolter at NOAA's Earth Systems Research Laboratory ~ "Consistent with the continued strengthening of La Niña conditions, all of the key anomalies in the MEI component fields that exceed or equal one standard deviation, or one sigma (compare to loadings figure), flag typical La Niña features, while no comparable El Niño-like features reach the opposite one sigma threshold.
Significant negative anomalies (coinciding with high positive loadings) denote strong easterly anomalies (U) along the Equator and west of the dateline (up to -2.5 standard deviations), anomalous northerly anomalies (V) north of Indonesia, while both sea surface (S) and air temperature (A) anomalies continue to show -1 to -1.5 standard deviations in the central and eastern tropical Pacific basin.
Significant positive anomalies (coinciding with high negative loadings) denote strong positive sea level pressure (P) anomalies (up to +2.5 standard deviations) over the southeastern (sub-)tropical Pacific, very strong westerly (U; up to 3.2 standard deviations.)
And strong southerly wind anomalies (V; up to 2.2 sigma) over the northeastern tropical Pacific, warm sea surface (S) and air temperature (A) anomalies, the latter up to +2.9 sigma, and increased cloudiness (C) north of Java.
Again, all of these cardinal anomalies flag La Niña conditions."
The Pacific is starting a new cooler phase here that we know as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO.) It is my estimation this will be a very strong La Nina from the astronomical frequencies I've seen over the past years while preparing my long-range ENSO forecast back in 2005-06. The Sun is active, but still relatively few sunspots. However, the planetary transits collecting in the southern hemisphere of the zodiac relative to the Earth's positions along with the volcanic activity we've had in 2010 combine for a very colder winter and spring seasons ahead. This will extend into the first half of summer 2011, which should be much cooler than average in the northern hemisphere. With a climate set-up like this we can expect the months of December and January to show colder than normal temperatures along the northern regions of North America - say, from Alaska into western Canada. The winter season will see western Europe and central Europe colder than normal as well as Asia, including China, and Russia with wild temperature fluctuations. A severe winter. In the U.S., say from the Inter-mountain regional states of extending from the Pacific northwest through Idado, Montana and into the Great Lakes, then to the Ohio Valley and into New England, we will also see colder than normal conditions setting in fast. Look for even colder temperatures in the months of February, March and April from La Nina's strength. This has always been part of my long-range ENSO forecast as the astronomical signals are quite strong between February 5, 2011 to mid-May 2011, more or less. This is what I consider to be La Nina's peak strength during the coming winter. From what I estimate, traditional winter does arrive, but really doesn't get going with the extremes until February through to March 2011. We will see some strong temperature extremes - a severe winter season across regions in North America, Europe and parts of Asia. The effects of El Nino in 2010 has caused crops to produce lower yields in several important countries, so I expect food prices to rise this winter. That does not bode well since this winter in my forecast is a hard one for sure. When all is said and done with this ENSO we should see some temperature records equaled and broken throughout the northern hemisphere according to my astronomical forecast for this coming winter season. |
|
|
|
Post by matt on Nov 20, 2010 2:11:52 GMT
We all saw what you wrote. You said that astometerology was a combination of pseudo-science and gypsy fortune telling. To then say that you said no such thing is either STUPID or dishonest. Matt! I said quasi-science, not pseudo-science. The two words have significantly different meanings. The experienced reader will understand why one is chosen over the other. While the meanings can overlap the context in which I used the term would have alerted the discerning reader. Your interpretation was that I said in effect astrometeorology is a combination of gypsy fortune telling and gypsy fortune telling. Its probably a good final exam question for a third grader to capably pick the right meaning in such context. quasi, pseudo, both mean not real. You said gypsy fortune telling and that is the context. You're wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Nov 20, 2010 3:41:57 GMT
quasi, pseudo, both mean not real. You said gypsy fortune telling and that is the context. You're wrong. I am not wrong about what I said Matt. You are too ignorant to understand it is the only problem. |
|
|
|
Post by matt on Nov 20, 2010 16:16:06 GMT
quasi, pseudo, both mean not real. You said gypsy fortune telling and that is the context. You're wrong. I am not wrong about what I said Matt. You are too ignorant to understand it is the only problem. Sure you're wrong. You defended gypsy fortune-telling as a legitimate technique in science. You've weaselled around that fact by going off on an irrelevant discussion about quasi VS pseudo. |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Nov 20, 2010 19:07:16 GMT
I am not wrong about what I said Matt. You are too ignorant to understand it is the only problem. Sure you're wrong. You defended gypsy fortune-telling as a legitimate technique in science. You've weaselled around that fact by going off on an irrelevant discussion about quasi VS pseudo. Since you cannot point to where I allegedly did that it makes you a liar to go along with being an idiot. |
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Nov 23, 2010 22:54:23 GMT
That is what space weather science is about. What is clear to me is that conventional climatology, for all its dependence on models, for the past 30 years has been seriously deficient in learning about what drives major climate events like ENSO. Scientists know more about the surface of Mars than they do about the Pacific. That is the absolute truth. It was the first thing I spotted in the AGW case. The eastern science establishment wandering the halls of Congress looking for money has either completely missed what others like Easterbrook and Akusofu had to point out to them or they have willfully ignored it. The regression I did on AGW data found the projections for future warming ran right off dead center the 1980 to 1999 global temperature data being sold to the public as completely CO2 driven. The fact that most of that warming was in all liklihood natural alone takes the catastrophe out of the projections that so many supposedly bought into hook, line, and sinker where even today their egos and their pocketbooks do not want to even give 2 cents consideration too. In the hearings yesterday the exchange between Michaels and Santer was dominated by Santer's unyielding "fingerprinting" of global warming that fails to recognize that we don't even know 10% of what we need to know to understand climate. The entire exercise operates off ignoring ignorance. Santer went on about how they use error bars and Michaels did not, yet fails to even recognize that his error bars are constructed purely on statistics ignoring completely what we don't know about climate and its most powerful drivers like clouds. Indeed if you take all we do know about explicit mechanisms of climate exchange you can calculate CO2 as the dominant forcing statistically. But when 90% of what might drive climate, cloud variation, is left in the ignorance bucket your calculations are next to meaningless. A good parallel would be if I were to go out and audit a company, say a huge oil company and my job was to report to the investors whether management was properly accounting for operations.
And what I did for an audit test was thoroughly test the petty cash account and balance it to the last dime.
Then I ran some Santer statistics work on it and extrapolated the error rate to the entire financial condition of the oil company ignoring oil reserves or oil markets. My excuse for ignoring that of course is because I know nothing about oil reserves or oil markets so I have to assume they run in lock step with what I do know something about. . . .the petty cash account.
Unfortunately that is about where we are at in climate science. If I did that to an oil company and it turned out they had no oil reserves I would be sued for everything I had and probably thrown in jail to boot for failure to follow reasonable standards of care to the extent it appeared to be willful. Astrometeorology has always known that celestial bodies and space force Earth's climate and weather. This is from long observations and calculations from which long-range forecasts are based. The mechanisms are the Sun and its powerful variety of cosmic rays and electromagnetic fluxes, then the transits of the Moon, and planets and of course the cold of outer space - these all impact the Earth's layers of atmospheres and cause geophysical climate effects like ENSO. One can see this pattern clearly. However, what they have chosen to do is look at a very short window of observations (like Socold's model) and stay clear of anything previous to the solar grand maxima. Socold cannot make his model work backwards (and since its a Real Climate model thats where the community is at also). The chart they put up in the hearing had no CO2 bump or explanation for the 40's. Its willful neglect as they continue to focus on what they think they know versus what they don't know even though they know what they don't know has huge knock effects on climate. Its right in front of their eyes and they have chosen to ignore it. That makes it fraud and elevates it from neglect to willful. Santer is either a complete idiot as he ponders his statistical analysis or he is a crook. Take your pick. It's not to hard to understand. Most mets and climatologists do not forecast seasonally, so they have a difficult time knowing actually what the weather will be for any season in advance. This extends to weather watchers as well who show more interest in short-range events but have a hard time thinking longer-range - which makes things clearer. The confusion comes from a lack of education and knowledge about what causes Earth's climate and weather as well as poor attitudes among those in climate science or meteorology who do not and cannot forecast seasonally. The reason is that they are ignorant of their own planet's place in the solar system, and the fact that this is where the Earth's weather originates. It will take some time to separate the wheat from the chaff when it comes to who can forecast and who cannot because of all the ego and pissing contests among those who want to be somebody in forecasting rather than putting in the work it takes to be successful. Re: This Winter - It's going to be a good one, colder than normal, windy, wet for some regions and drier but colder for others. The astronomical configurations show air temperature is basically the prime effect across the board. Meaning ice storms for some, snow for others of course, and wind damage. But the arctic temperatures and gusty winds will bring a climate that causes widespread sicknesses of the upper respiratory tract (pneumonia, etc.) along with flu in wetter regions. La Nina, along with reduced solar light and radiation blocked by small volcanic ash particles flowing in the upper atmosphere will give us insight into the long-range global cooling to come. |
|
|
|
Post by yohoho on Nov 24, 2010 1:13:04 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Dec 2, 2010 4:25:25 GMT
Thanks, there continues to be strong ENSO signals going into the winter in the northern hemisphere, and we're certain to see La Nina's strength growing into the winter season, which I've forecasted to be colder than average.
From my astronomical work, the climate will be a wet cold with temperatures feeling even colder at times because of the wind and winter storms.
The northern regions of the hemisphere along the U.S.-Canadian border and into Europe already show signals that a colder than normal winter may be on the way.
Heavy snow and subzero temperatures are being felt right now in western Europe where at least four airports were closed today including Geneva's airports and Gatwick airport in England.
December 1 is the start of meteorological winter so along with all the cold signals from ENSO we've got a doosy of a winter season ahead going into 2011.
|
|
