*EL NINO/LA NINA FORECAST 2010-2011*

[steve]

astromet,

Glc, every person on the this pro board - Magellan, Sigurdur, myself, and others who've discussed, and debated the physics of the Earth's climate with you and Steve have provided you fellows with MORE than enough proof that your AGW claims are false - and, in fact, mathematically impossible to occur on Earth.

The evidence you have provided is faulty as glc and I have clearly pointed out. So your evidence proves nothing.

What seems to happen is that you make a statement. Someone questions whether your statement is entirely correct. You have an irrelevant rant that ignores even the most civilised question.

Nobody here thinks that human civilisation would survive the disappearance of the sun.

BTW, though, the sun's energy has very little contribution to make to the temperature of the earth's core so the core would not freeze if the sun went away. In fact I suspect the earth's core might have remained hotter if the sun had gone away because the techtonic activity lubricated by liquid water helps the earth release heat - I'll leave that as a hypothesis

[AstroMet]

Jan 12, 2011 14:35:09 GMT steve said:

astromet,

Glc, every person on the this pro board - Magellan, Sigurdur, myself, and others who've discussed, and debated the physics of the Earth's climate with you and Steve have provided you fellows with MORE than enough proof that your AGW claims are false - and, in fact, mathematically impossible to occur on Earth.

The evidence you have provided is faulty as glc and I have clearly pointed out. So your evidence proves nothing.

What seems to happen is that you make a statement. Someone questions whether your statement is entirely correct. You have an irrelevant rant that ignores even the most civilised question.

Nobody here thinks that human civilisation would survive the disappearance of the sun.

BTW, though, the sun's energy has very little contribution to make to the temperature of the earth's core so the core would not freeze if the sun went away. In fact I suspect the earth's core might have remained hotter if the sun had gone away because the techtonic activity lubricated by liquid water helps the earth release heat - I'll leave that as a hypothesis

Evidence? I'm talking physical laws Steve.

You are really something else in treating the Sun like it's some sort of ping-pong ball with no energy that, in your words, mind you, "has little contribution to make to the temperature of the earth's core" and "would not freeze if the Sun went away."

Now I know you are insane.

Listen, Steve, back way up... away from your keyboard, go ahead... slowly now, and close your eyes and click your heels together, three times, and repeat after me:

"There's no place like home...

"There's no place like home...

"There's no place like home..."

Then take Toto out for a walk and smile at that Sun Steve, because, believe you me, if the Sun "went away," the only "tech-tonic activity lubricated by liquid water" (as you say) would be a giant freezing ice cube shoved right up your behind which would be nearly as cold as if you forced liquid nitrogen straight up your you know what.

Again, that would be the extreme cold of outer space telling you who is your daddy now, since you dissed the Sun out of existence.

Better show some mighty love to the Sun, if you know what's good for you.

That's all now Steve...

[magellan]

Jan 12, 2011 14:35:09 GMT steve said:

astromet,

Glc, every person on the this pro board - Magellan, Sigurdur, myself, and others who've discussed, and debated the physics of the Earth's climate with you and Steve have provided you fellows with MORE than enough proof that your AGW claims are false - and, in fact, mathematically impossible to occur on Earth.

The evidence you have provided is faulty as glc and I have clearly pointed out. So your evidence proves nothing.

What seems to happen is that you make a statement. Someone questions whether your statement is entirely correct. You have an irrelevant rant that ignores even the most civilised question.

Nobody here thinks that human civilisation would survive the disappearance of the sun.

BTW, though, the sun's energy has very little contribution to make to the temperature of the earth's core so the core would not freeze if the sun went away. In fact I suspect the earth's core might have remained hotter if the sun had gone away because the techtonic activity lubricated by liquid water helps the earth release heat - I'll leave that as a hypothesis

When are you guys going to stop giving Astromet the anal exams and start holding climate scientists accountable for their failures?

I've done my share of skewering Astromet as he clearly was wrong about some things, but to be honest, NOAA doesn't seem to have the slightest idea of what causes ENSO events and certainly cannot predict them. The proof is the evolution of El Nino to La Nina just this past year.

Piers Corbyn gets the same treatment from you folks, yet his forecasts are miles ahead of anything the Met O has presented using their multi-million $$$ computers. He says it's because the sun has been ignored in favor of AGW.

Joe Bastardi has run rings around NOAA for U.S. forecasts.

[steve]

Magellan,

I have said for a long time that I don't believe in anyone's ENSO forecasts, and that I don't believe that predictive forecasts are possible beyond a few days. There may be a few areas of the world where "skillful" probabilistic forecasts can be done (eg. atlantic hurricane numbers) but the UK is definitely not one of them as we are sandwiched between ocean and continent and strongly dependent on fickle pressure patterns. And Met Office source was openly poo-pooing the model output for UK winter back in October, so I don't think their forecasters are that naive.

On the other hand I have no problem with people doing their forecasts to the best of their ability, making the results known to anyone for comment and honestly assessing them themselves. Because that is the only way in which the forecasts will get better with time. It's astromet's unwillingness to engage in this way that bugs me.

If someone from NOAA wants to come on here and unjustifiably claim that her ENSO forecasts have a very high level of skill then I'll sharpen my skewer for you.

(Piers Corbyn produces valueless outlooks as we showed when we analysed his December 2010 forecast. He has come up with a number of high profile forecasts that have not occurred (UK flood forecasts just after the floods had finished (in July 3 or 4 years ago), predictions of a storm whose effect would echo across the world etc. etc. Like astromet there was no prediction of the Russian heat wave, the Pakistan floods, or the south american cold spell in any of his forecasts last year.

I think Piers comment that somehow the Met Office forecast models is contaminated by AGW indicates that he doesn't know that a model is developed with reference to climatology and real weather observations.

I don't follow Bastardi much.)

[sigurdur]

Steve:
Bastardi actually has a pretty long track record of being correct in his longer term forcasts. For sure he is not correct 100% of the time, but his average of being correct is quit high.
He looks at long term climate and investigates the similarities to the present.
He has done well with his abilities and is someone to take seriously because of his forcast record.

[AstroMet]

Jan 12, 2011 15:06:29 GMT magellan said:

Jan 12, 2011 14:35:09 GMT steve said:

astromet,



The evidence you have provided is faulty as glc and I have clearly pointed out. So your evidence proves nothing.

What seems to happen is that you make a statement. Someone questions whether your statement is entirely correct. You have an irrelevant rant that ignores even the most civilised question.

Nobody here thinks that human civilisation would survive the disappearance of the sun.

BTW, though, the sun's energy has very little contribution to make to the temperature of the earth's core so the core would not freeze if the sun went away. In fact I suspect the earth's core might have remained hotter if the sun had gone away because the techtonic activity lubricated by liquid water helps the earth release heat - I'll leave that as a hypothesis

When are you guys going to stop giving Astromet the anal exams and start holding climate scientists accountable for their failures?

I've done my share of skewering Astromet as he clearly was wrong about some things, but to be honest, NOAA doesn't seem to have the slightest idea of what causes ENSO events and certainly cannot predict them. The proof is the evolution of El Nino to La Nina just this past year.

Piers Corbyn gets the same treatment from you folks, yet his forecasts are miles ahead of anything the Met O has presented using their multi-million $$$ computers. He says it's because the sun has been ignored in favor of AGW.

Joe Bastardi has run rings around NOAA for U.S. forecasts.

I think the problem is just what you say Magellan, it is because the Sun has been ignored in favor of ideology ~ that would be AGW.

Long-range forecasting is superior to anything the MET or NOAA has, and I average 85% accuracy in my seasonal forecasts as does Corbyn, which is something to be said considering we are basically one-man operations without the hundreds of staff and millions in government monies flowing to computer modelers who are not forecasters.

Moreover, most of what people call "wrong" is that 15% - and much of that has more to do with real life and being busy than it does with being "wrong," as any forecaster will tell you that they are not perfect. I surely am not.

But, I forecasted ENSO, for 2010 and La Nina to follow and have yet to see one major national or international body of forecasters do that.

And I did this from 2006, when I made my ENSO forecast for this time period. I republished it in 2007, 2008 and again in 2009 because people like Steve & Co. have such short memories.

This has been a record ENSO, and I called it from several years back. I also accurately predicted La Nina to follow El Nino.

We are seeing record levels of floods in China, India, Pakistan and Australia, as well as flooding throughout parts of Europe and the United States. There has been record precipitation that is exceeding 1998 levels.

I forecasted this applying the principles of astrometeorology and I did several years before the event. It is on the record.

This is the power of astronomic forecasting and it cannot be denied - especially by people who like to talk about "probabilities" and actually believe in man-made global warming.

Steve may not take me seriously, but I take him even less so, and I can actually forecast.

The atmosphere in meteorology and climate science has become so poisonous over the years that people like Steve and Glc and others cannot tell the forest from the trees because they do not want to - it's that simple.

So, they can't put down Piers Corbyn or me because we can forecast rings around them with our eyes shut and they don't like it.

So what?

Corbyn works his tail off and does a lot of good publishing his forecasts for the little rewards he gets - and he should get a lot of reward. Long-range forecasting is not easy, requires commitment, and demands levels of concentration and time most people cannot imagine.

So what if this Steve (whoever he thinks he is) doesn't believe that I, as an astrometeorologist forecasted ENSO years in advance? That does not change the fact that it is true, does it?

Because "he" does not "believe" then that means that it isn't so?

I call that one giant ego in total denial, not only is it stupid but its rude.

The guy used my own birthday against me today in put-down on my forecast thread and didn't man up and apologize.

How low is that?

I don't have much to say to this guy any longer.

He's been rude, been filling my forecast thread with insults and demeaning language and doesn't show respect for my science, though he has never studied it and knows not a thing about astrometeorology, which is thousands of years old.

If a person wants to learn astrometeorology then they will have to work for it because it is not for the lazy, nor for whiners, but for people who respect the laws of physics and who show talent and some skill.

Climategate has shown that people who play with numbers does not mean that they know what they are talking about. Look at what Hansen, Jones, Mann and others have done over the years with their "numbers" - they nearly destroyed the credibility of meteorology and climate science with their shenanigans.

People like Steve should know better, but he followed their poor example and look where it has gotten him - he is nowhere even close to knowing that man-made global warming is a sham and always has been.

I don't mind people challenging my science, as long as they do so with some knowledge of what they are talking about and can show respect for my expertise of the science. Perhaps they may learn something in the process.

I've written several tutorials on astronomic forecasting here on Solar Cycle #24 and shared openly, for free, so no one has an excuse not to learn a few things to see if they have some skill to begin to forecast a bit themselves.

However, rudeness is a sure sign of ignorance and that appears to be what this guy is really all about.

Trolling, calling names, demeaning, put downs, and filling threads with comments just to argue for the sake of arguing - that's not science.

That's being an ass.

I doubt Steve even believes his own bull, but may be a person who is unhappy with himself and projects that onto others. Yet, he has no right to do that.

So, I would appreciate it if he would spend his time elsewhere; perhaps learning to do some forecasting himself since he is so keen to talk the talk - but never walks the walk.

I'm done with him.

[jtom]

I have taken issue with Steve a while back (I'm not a troll, but I just don't have the opportunity to join in the discussions very often), but this time I must contribute support.

The interior of the earth is warmed primarily by radioactive decay with a little residual gravitational collapse energy. Both of those heat sources, of course, are independent of any solar contribution. Earth's core would still be as warm if the sun did not exist.

[AstroMet]

Jan 13, 2011 5:13:06 GMT jtom said:

I have taken issue with Steve a while back (I'm not a troll, but I just don't have the opportunity to join in the discussions very often), but this time I must contribute support.

The interior of the earth is warmed primarily by radioactive decay with a little residual gravitational collapse energy. Both of those heat sources, of course, are independent of any solar contribution. Earth's core would still be as warm if the sun did not exist.

Yet the Sun is also the primary magnetic source for the Earth. Without it, the Earth's core would be of no use to anything on this water planet which would freeze solid with no life at all on the surface.

Even the core of the Earth would suffer losses without solar contribution and there would be no use for anything at all since gravity would also be seriously affected without the Sun.

In short - with no Sun - this is no life.

[steve]

Obviously the sun and the moon the planets and cosmic rays influence the weather and climate on earth to a greater or lesser degree, as do volcanoes and other techtonic activity.

However, if you want to know what the weather is going to be like over the next year or two you would be dumb to ignore the current state of the weather, and particularly the oceans. The fact that this current state of the weather is due to previous inputs from all the above external forcings is neither here nor there. A child learning to ride his bike may start by being pushed off by his dad. If he falls off in 2 metres he blames his dad. If he falls off 200 metres later he cannot blame his dad for pushing him.

The question is at what point over the next days, weeks, months or years the predictability is dependent on the initial state of the atmosphere and ocean, dependent on external or techtonic changes or is simply unpredictable.

It may become unpredictable because of "chaos" (due in part to our limited knowledge of initial conditions). It may also become unpredictable because of future unpredictable events such as volcanoes or solar changes. Any forecast in, say, early 2010, which depended on a ramping up of solar activity, should have gone wrong when the sun didn't do as expected. Ditto what effect would that Icelandic volcano have had.

If you accept, and you may not, that the current state of the ocean must be key to forecasting over the next months and years, the question is how do you incorporate that state into your forecasts without very detailed observations.

Surely one cannot ignore the ocean. After all, without the ocean the climate would be unlikely to support complex life

[jtom]

Astromet,

We obviously believe in different physics. Personally, I'll stick with the theory of thermodynamics that dictates that a cooler body, such as earth's crust and mantle cannot warm a warmer body, like the earth's core. That would preclude the possibility of solar warming of the core. I also subscribe to the dynamo theory as the cause of earth's magnetic field, not the sun.

Please don't try to educate me; I'll just stay on my side of the fence.

[AstroMet]

Jan 13, 2011 13:29:29 GMT jtom said:

Astromet,

We obviously believe in different physics. Personally, I'll stick with the theory of thermodynamics that dictates that a cooler body, such as earth's crust and mantle cannot warm a warmer body, like the earth's core. That would preclude the possibility of solar warming of the core. I also subscribe to the dynamo theory as the cause of earth's magnetic field, not the sun.

Please don't try to educate me; I'll just stay on my side of the fence.

There is no "fence." That's your ideological term. The Sun shines on you as well as everyone else and you are subject to the laws of physics as everyone else - like it or not.

There is no "different physics." There are only the laws of physics that rule our world. These laws do not require your "believe" to continue to function as they always have.

You can "believe" whatever it is you want - but it does not alter, nor change mathematical truths. That is, physics.

And this is something that neither requires your opinion, nor your approval to function. At all. You, along with everyone else are fully subject to physics. You cannot change, nor alter them.

At all.

Educate yourself on those things which you are subject to - which are the astrophysical and geophysical laws which govern the world you inhabit - like it or not.

[steve]

Forecast from Piers Corbyn at the turn of the new year was:

Our forecast for an exceptionally cold and also snowy January in Britain & West Europe stands and despite its unlikely occurrence according to standard views we expect with 80% confidence that much of Britain (eg Central England) to be in the three coldest Januaries in the last 100 years. It also follows that the winter of 2010-11 will probably be one of the two or three coldest in 100 years as suggested in our Essence of winter sponsored forecast made public on 30th November - www.weatheraction.com/docs/WANews10No37.pdf . The CAUSE OF THIS IS PHYSICS which enables us to predict how solar-lunar effects change the jet stream for example and is nothing whatsoever to do with CO2 from man or nature.

Up to now January is probably balancing out as average temperatures. At the moment it is quite warm, with the minimum temperatures within a degree of the record warm minimum for January (though the max temperatures are not exceptional).

He disagrees with the "standard view" of Met Office whose 6-15 day outlook currently says:

It will be a rather unsettled week ahead with windy conditions, especially at first. Rain or showers and occasional gales are likely to affect the north and west of the UK at times, with drier and clearer spells rather more prevalent in the south and east. Temperatures start the week near-normal, although all areas exhibit a slight downward trend towards the weekend. Hill snow becomes rather more likely from Wales northwards. During the second week, indications are for the unsettled theme to continue across northern Britain, milder with wind and rain here, gales again occuring across Scotland and with near average temperatures. The south will be quieter with lighter winds and overnight frosts quite likely.

which I interpret to say is near normal then cool then mild - but a pretty average rest of January.

[glc]

Steve

Have you got a link to the Corbyn forecast? I thought I'd seen somewhere where he'd predicted a cold and snowy January but couldn't remember where.

Gone midnight here and temperatures are still around 10 deg C.

[jtom]

Astromet,
Your people skills are every bit as admirable as your scientific acumen.

[steve]

Jan 14, 2011 0:46:03 GMT glc said:

Steve

Have you got a link to the Corbyn forecast? I thought I'd seen somewhere where he'd predicted a cold and snowy January but couldn't remember where.

Gone midnight here and temperatures are still around 10 deg C.

Two versions - in case one disappears:

www.weatheraction.com/displayarticle.asp?a=290&c=5

www.natscience.com/Uwe/Forum.aspx/meteorology/10738/Forecast-For-January-UK-Europe-To-Be-Exceptionally-Cold-And