|
|
Post by AstroMet on Jan 7, 2011 15:02:46 GMT
So what you are perhaps saying is that collective hysteria infected a large fraction of the various independent people taking weather data in different ways (including people not involved in climate science) which nevertheless resulted in data that correlated with each other, and physical changes such as reductions in Arctic sea ice, glaciers, ecological changes and personal experiences. And despite that, there is very little evidence of such a thing happening. Deliberate (even subconscious) tainting, particularly tainting by a large number of independent people with different levels of "ideological influence" could, I am sure, be detected by careful analysis and cross-correlation. It is well-known amongst forecasters that global temperature baseline sampling is, at best, inexact, and tainted. This, despite all careful analysis and cross-correlation. The reasons for this is apparent. Those doing much of the "analysis" are those who use the effects of climate as causes, and, as I've pointed out numerous times, this in itself causes multiple errors to be made in any conclusions of a baseline world temperature. Climategate has proven this to be true as evidenced by the in-fighting, ideology, and careerism of those who tampered with sampling methods to prove their belief humanity was responsible for global warming ~ something we know was never true. Correlating data from effects does not produce accurate data Steve, no matter how one wants to spin the results. |
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on Jan 7, 2011 15:37:12 GMT
Did you want to take a moment, Astromet, to address your prediction that winter would not begin until February?
|
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Jan 7, 2011 15:46:11 GMT
Did you want to take a moment, Astromet, to address your prediction that winter would not begin until February? Listen, I did not say that. I said that true winter, this particular winter, would not really get going under La Nina (this is a ENSO forecast) until February 5, 2011. That is when we will see some of the worst conditions of winter and the deepest values of La Nina. Moreover, in many places in the U.S., winter has not really set in, such as the Rockies, which had its 2nd driest December on record with their snow season dismal. Only one other snow season was worse up to this point and that was during the 1888-89 winter If you did read my forecast, you will see I also forecasted for December 2010, including blizzards. So, if I didn't think we would have winter until February, then why would I forecast blizzards in December 2010? I don't know how old you are Woodstove, but the last time you commented, you didn't even both to look at the dates, confusing this winter with last winter, while making snarky comments. Try learning to read. |
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jan 7, 2011 15:47:43 GMT
Yes it is inexact. Yes it is tainted - because it is impossible to maintain a long-term network of good quality sites. That is why careful analysis and cross-correlation is carried out. Correlating with effects is part but not all of the validation.
While you might like to make vague references to climategate emails, the data is more public than ever was imagined it could be 30 years ago. If there was a campaign to fudge the analysis it was supremely subtle from the outset if it failed to produce an arsenal of smoking guns. Even Madoff got caught in the end and he worked alone.
It seems though you are just being wary of anything that could be used to undermine your weather guesses. I didn't find your forecast of Australian floods anywhere.
|
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jan 7, 2011 15:50:50 GMT
astromet's 01/01/10 forecast for the US in December. Comments from USians?
|
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Jan 7, 2011 16:01:57 GMT
Yes it is inexact. Yes it is tainted - because it is impossible to maintain a long-term network of good quality sites. That is why careful analysis and cross-correlation is carried out. Correlating with effects is part but not all of the validation. While you might like to make vague references to climategate emails, the data is more public than ever was imagined it could be 30 years ago. If there was a campaign to fudge the analysis it was supremely subtle from the outset if it failed to produce an arsenal of smoking guns. Even Madoff got caught in the end and he worked alone. It seems though you are just being wary of anything that could be used to undermine your weather guesses. I didn't find your forecast of Australian floods anywhere. Just more hot air from you Steve. The only one doing the "guessing" around here is you. Moreover, if you cannot see that 2010 was the Year of the Flood, then you truly are blind. Again, learn to read. This is from my ENSO forecast on Australia: "The coming ENSO in 2009 will emerge from neutral to moderate, but will still not be strong enough yet to harm Australia's wheat crops this year, however, the years 2010 and beyond to the mid-2010s will be a very different matter."Listen, I would prefer if you take your comments elsewhere, because I find you very unscientific, much too ideological, and not very keen on climate science. You make a ton of errors when it comes to understanding the Earth's climate and you need to really hit the books on basic mathematics as it relates to physics and the weather. Find one other person who forecasted ENSO for 2010-2011 - as I did. You were negative on El Nino/La Nina even showing up and gave me crap for making my ENSO forecast. Then ENSO appeared, as I forecasted, and you said nothing. So you're not exactly playing with an honest deck of cards, are you? |
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Jan 7, 2011 16:36:54 GMT
Warming from CO2 was predicted by Arrhenius in the 1890s. When climate modelling got going in the 60s and 70s they worried about cooling from aerosols and warming from CO2. More worried about warming leading to more scientific research, and ultimately the political activity that led up to the IPCC report. All this started happening well before the more dramatic warming of the late 80s and 1990s. So as I said on page 31 of that thread, some like to think the warming is "invented/a lucky guess/a selection effect/not interesting". LOL! You claimed skillful prediction Steve! "Some sceptics are so amazed that scientists have correctly predicted warming that they prefer to pretend that the warming is invented/a lucky guess/a selection effect/not interesting." Predicting warming would be correct in 50% of the cases thus you proved it was not interesting. In fact is is completely not interesting. On 50/50 choices people are only interested in being able to predict changes skillfully like 80% of the time and it was a travesty that the scientists failed to predict the flattening of global temperatures since 1998. So one can say that the prediction capability of climate science has not advanced since 1890. There's a lot of that going around Icefisher. It's amazing to witness many of the people on weather boards and in climate circles claiming to be able to forecast when all they do is cite papers, and opine on about the climate as if they are able to forecast when they cannot. We've been living in an age of numb skulls who pretend to be intelligent enough to know the difference between bullshit and the real thing, but often do not. The weather boards are full of wannbe forecasters who love to play with their models as they chime on and on about short-term weather events while searching endlessly for their golden "product" that will catapult them into the limelight to serve already overblown egos. But they cannot forecast. What I find truly amazing as well is the fact that nearly all of these people love to take shortcuts - in effect, they are lazy. That is why they play with computer models. They do not want to think, nor to work and they do not believe in excellence, so when they see others excelling, they react like the babies they are. That is why the prediction capability of climate science has not advanced. |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 7, 2011 16:49:20 GMT
There's a lot of that going around Icefisher. It's amazing to witness many of the people on weather boards and in climate circles claiming to be able to forecast when all they do is cite papers, and opine on about the climate as if they are able to forecast when they cannot. We've been living in an age of numb skulls who pretend to be intelligent enough to know the difference between bullshit and the real thing, but often do not. The weather boards are full of wannbe forecasters who love to play with their models as they chime on and on about short-term weather events while searching endlessly for their golden "product" that will catapult them into the limelight to serve already overblown egos. But they cannot forecast. What I find truly amazing as well is the fact that nearly all of these people love to take shortcuts - in effect, they are lazy. That is why they play with computer models. They do not want to think, nor to work and they do not believe in excellence, so when they see others excelling, they react like the babies they are. That is why the prediction capability of climate science has not advanced. You got it Theodore! A lot of posturing and bluster but when you cut through it there is no substance. Just a lot of people collecting money from the government, phoning in the science. Its like the grants to CRU that McIntyre discovered to be nothing but simple processing of data that he was able to replicate in a few days of work. That leaves the millions being paid to CRU to be used not to do science but to influence science. |
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on Jan 7, 2011 17:27:06 GMT
Did you want to take a moment, Astromet, to address your prediction that winter would not begin until February? Listen, I did not say that. I said that true winter, this particular winter, would not really get going under La Nina (this is a ENSO forecast) until February 5, 2011. That is when we will see some of the worst conditions of winter and the deepest values of La Nina. Moreover, in many places in the U.S., winter has not really set in, such as the Rockies, which had its 2nd driest December on record with their snow season dismal. Only one other snow season was worse up to this point and that was during the 1888-89 winter If you did read my forecast, you will see I also forecasted for December 2010, including blizzards. So, if I didn't think we would have winter until February, then why would I forecast blizzards in December 2010? I don't know how old you are Woodstove, but the last time you commented, you didn't even both to look at the dates, confusing this winter with last winter, while making snarky comments. Try learning to read. Here is your quote: "This will extend though 2010 and into early 2011 with La Nina on the back end of next winter, which arrives later than normal (Feb. 2011) in the northern hemisphere." You certainly did say that winter would not begin until February 2011 in the Northern Hemisphere. Why were you wrong, and why do you keep denying you said it? |
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jan 7, 2011 17:44:04 GMT
astromet
You can't really insult me for guessing when I clearly admit that is what I'm doing.
That doesn't say what will harm the wheat crops. Here's your forecast for Australia:
Is it unscientific to repeat your words from your forecast and discuss what they say and how they compare with reality then?
Since none of our discussions touch on basic maths as it relates to physics and the weather, I'm not sure why you think this.
You published your forecast here in the middle of the El Niño, and I didn't comment on it till October 2010 when your forecast for El Niño continuing through to 2011 had failed in all eyes except yours.
I look forward to a retraction for that allegation of dishonesty.
|
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jan 7, 2011 17:45:53 GMT
There's a lot of that going around Icefisher. It's amazing to witness many of the people on weather boards and in climate circles claiming to be able to forecast when all they do is cite papers, and opine on about the climate as if they are able to forecast when they cannot. We've been living in an age of numb skulls who pretend to be intelligent enough to know the difference between bullshit and the real thing, but often do not. The weather boards are full of wannbe forecasters who love to play with their models as they chime on and on about short-term weather events while searching endlessly for their golden "product" that will catapult them into the limelight to serve already overblown egos. But they cannot forecast. What I find truly amazing as well is the fact that nearly all of these people love to take shortcuts - in effect, they are lazy. That is why they play with computer models. They do not want to think, nor to work and they do not believe in excellence, so when they see others excelling, they react like the babies they are. That is why the prediction capability of climate science has not advanced. You got it Theodore! A lot of posturing and bluster but when you cut through it there is no substance. Just a lot of people collecting money from the government, phoning in the science. Its like the grants to CRU that McIntyre discovered to be nothing but simple processing of data that he was able to replicate in a few days of work. That leaves the millions being paid to CRU to be used not to do science but to influence science. I bet you were popular with your bosses, icefisher. Slurp slurp! ;D |
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Jan 7, 2011 18:12:08 GMT
astromet You can't really insult me for guessing when I clearly admit that is what I'm doing. That doesn't say what will harm the wheat crops. Here's your forecast for Australia: Is it unscientific to repeat your words from your forecast and discuss what they say and how they compare with reality then? Since none of our discussions touch on basic maths as it relates to physics and the weather, I'm not sure why you think this. You published your forecast here in the middle of the El Niño, and I didn't comment on it till October 2010 when your forecast for El Niño continuing through to 2011 had failed in all eyes except yours. I look forward to a retraction for that allegation of dishonesty. Steve, you were commenting long before October. Listen man: give up your BS and all the other stupid games you play. If you cannot deal with the fact that I forecasted El Nino/La Nina - yes, long before 2009 (I forecasted it back in 2006 and republished it again in 2008) then that is your problem. I could care less. |
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Jan 7, 2011 18:20:20 GMT
Listen, I did not say that. I said that true winter, this particular winter, would not really get going under La Nina (this is a ENSO forecast) until February 5, 2011. That is when we will see some of the worst conditions of winter and the deepest values of La Nina. Moreover, in many places in the U.S., winter has not really set in, such as the Rockies, which had its 2nd driest December on record with their snow season dismal. Only one other snow season was worse up to this point and that was during the 1888-89 winter If you did read my forecast, you will see I also forecasted for December 2010, including blizzards. So, if I didn't think we would have winter until February, then why would I forecast blizzards in December 2010? I don't know how old you are Woodstove, but the last time you commented, you didn't even both to look at the dates, confusing this winter with last winter, while making snarky comments. Try learning to read. Here is your quote: "This will extend though 2010 and into early 2011 with La Nina on the back end of next winter, which arrives later than normal (Feb. 2011) in the northern hemisphere." You certainly did say that winter would not begin until February 2011 in the Northern Hemisphere. Why were you wrong, and why do you keep denying you said it? Listen kid, by this time, in early January, winter is relative to where you happen to live in the U.S., and certainly not everywhere in the U.S. is experiencing true winter conditions in this La Nina phase. True winter for the U.S. - to me - as a astronomic forecaster, in this La Nina climate, has not arrived as yet, but it will. The problem you have is that you are not yet in the months of February, March and April 2011, so you think you've seen this winter, and I tell you that you haven't. But, wait and see for yourself. |
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Jan 7, 2011 18:26:48 GMT
There's a lot of that going around Icefisher. It's amazing to witness many of the people on weather boards and in climate circles claiming to be able to forecast when all they do is cite papers, and opine on about the climate as if they are able to forecast when they cannot. We've been living in an age of numb skulls who pretend to be intelligent enough to know the difference between bullshit and the real thing, but often do not. The weather boards are full of wannbe forecasters who love to play with their models as they chime on and on about short-term weather events while searching endlessly for their golden "product" that will catapult them into the limelight to serve already overblown egos. But they cannot forecast. What I find truly amazing as well is the fact that nearly all of these people love to take shortcuts - in effect, they are lazy. That is why they play with computer models. They do not want to think, nor to work and they do not believe in excellence, so when they see others excelling, they react like the babies they are. That is why the prediction capability of climate science has not advanced. You got it Theodore! A lot of posturing and bluster but when you cut through it there is no substance. Just a lot of people collecting money from the government, phoning in the science. Its like the grants to CRU that McIntyre discovered to be nothing but simple processing of data that he was able to replicate in a few days of work. That leaves the millions being paid to CRU to be used not to do science but to influence science. The same for NOAA and all the other international groups that have been siphoning millions of dollars in grants while "phoning" in the science under the ideological mantle of AGW. Some of the best science has been done by people like McIntyre and others who, for pennies on the dollars, have been able to show that the data claiming anthropogenic global warming was more than just a little suspect. Again, the problem with most of those who bought into the AGW, hook, line and sinker was that people were not thinking for themselves since it was easier to just go on and on about warming forever and that humanity was the cause. The fact was that those pushing that lie didn't know what the causes of global warming was when in fact all they had to do was to look up at the Sun. The answer is right there - in space. |
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jan 7, 2011 20:09:14 GMT
astromet accused steve
steve pointed out that:
It is laughable that you should now excuse yourself by saying:
Surely you remember that you first post your forecast here on January 1st 2010 when El Nino was already in full swing! Your allegation of dishonesty has no evidence and makes no sense. You can find my first response to you in October. Which was one word "Ahem!". My only prior posts on that thread were to criticise Joe Bastardi for wrongly predicting the early end of El Nino in October 2009.
Be a man and own up that you perhaps confused me with someone else and we'll leave it there.
|
|
