|
|
Post by AstroMet on Apr 8, 2011 21:55:59 GMT
Astromet Why don't you address the fact that you cited Landscheidt. Your own post shows Landscheidt predicted cooling from 1998 - after somehow justifying an 8 year lag after the aa peak in ~1990. You then used Landscheidt's same logic to claim that cooling should begin in 2017 - presumably implying that there is currently an aa peak. Could you explain how your prediction of cooling in 2017 agrees with Landscheidt? PS Could you also tell me why you are citing Leif Svalgaard as I know for a fact he does not agree with you, Landscheidt or any of the other pseudo solar scientists. Astromet Re: my post above You have again avoided my questions about your 2017 predictions. In particular this one Could you explain how your prediction of cooling in 2017 agrees with Landscheidt? Also do you agree that Landscheidt was wrong, i.e. there was no steep decline in temperatures after 1998.
If you cannot invest your mind to read what you call "long-winded" posts - then do not read them.
You will not learn anything with 15-second Twitter mentality or the attention span of a fly - especially when it comes to climate science and meteorology.
For those unable to read longer than five minutes, know this -
It is exactly that reason why you cannot forecast the climate and weather.
Because to do so, you have to concentrate long enough to be able to think and see long-range - and there's much weather in all that global climate which amounts to more than that which fills the size of a matchbook.Now - Landscheidt was not "wrong" about a decline in temperatures after 1998. For one glc, the year 1998 was an ENSO year and it is known that as to temperature, only El Niño periods interrupt the downward trend in temperature. That is exactly what happened. The AGW ideologues used that ENSO year to then say that humanity was the cause of global warming and then Mann came out with his 'hockey-stick' graphic immediately - and off to the races it was on anthropogenic global warming. That's what the AGW crew did. They used the ENSO of 1998-99 to create a false belief that the world was warming because of man-made CO2, when it was already known by climate scientists that C02 lags far, far behind temperature - and is forced by the Sun. The hockey-stick graph is proof of this. It was used by the IPCC and the AGW Climategate scientists to try to reinforce their ideology that humanity was the cause of global warming. There is no other reason for their antics and to alter raw world weather data (especially those which measure temperatures) then to provide "proof" of something that never existed in the first place and that is man-made global warming. It always amazes me how some like to use academic papers in the strange belief that until all scientists come to consensus and agree 100% with one another that the Earth's climate will somehow suspend itself until that magically happens? This is the fallacy of some of the thinking out there, as if disagreement on anything will somehow make the thermodynamics of the Earth's climate simply go away in favor of ideology and bullshit? Again, you continue to be stuck with this very silly idea that man is the cause of global warming when astrometeorologists who forecast in the real world know that it is the Sun that causes all the Earth's climate changes. And, by the time many of the AGW ideologues come to this fact of astrophysics - they will have wasted decades of valuable years and many billions on a generation which bullshitted climate science right out of public favor. Astrometeorologists, like the late Dr. Landscheidt always have known that all eruption activity of the Sun by way of coronal holes, flares, prominences, cosmic rays, magnetic fluxes, etc., - all direct the modulation of cooling and warming regimes that dominate on Earth. And much more than any variation of solar irradiance and weak arguments that attempt to dismiss the Sun's forcing on earth's climate in favor of ideologically-based anthropogenic forces. I've written for years about global cooling, here on this board and elsewhere. Astrologically - all the indicators are for global cooling to begin in the year 2017. What is coming and what Landscheidt said, was that a deep Gleissberg minimum is ahead. I agree with him since we use the same astrometeorological principles. I have repeatedly stated we are in the downward phase of solar-forced global warming that began 1980-81 and will last to 2016-17. The next phase - global cooling, will last for 36 years from 2017 to 2053 and will peak in strength during the 2030s with globally cooler-than-normal temperatures. We will see increasingly more La Nina events and reductions of El Nino climate events. In effect - a switch of variable world climate conditions: Global temperatures will cool overall with warm anomalies. We have been in a global warming phase overall with cool anomalies. The storms of global cooling will be of the blasting kind, so energy needs will be in greater demand, with extended seasons of colder and wetter climes. Included in my climate forecast as well are droughts along with drier cold climes in certain regions worldwide. The lack of rainfall from time to time contrasted by heavier precipitation from blasting storms will lead to flooding because of poor soil quality. If you study the Sun's motion about the center of mass of the solar system it will give you advanced knowledge of long-term variations. There is scientific evidence that the phases of the Sun's oscillations about the center of mass also influence short-term variations of solar activity. Long-range forecasts on periods of enhanced activity of energetic flares based on planetary modulations of the Earth's climate proved successful in long-range climate forecasting - the basis of astrometeorology. The Sun is the key. According to astronomic principles, we are in a downward shift of solar-forced global warming with six-years left and at the same time, we are also six years away from the official start of global cooling. Below is a list of excellent scientific literature on the Sun's forcing of the Earth's climate you should study. These will give you deep insights into the talents of climate scientists BEFORE 1980 - because after that year the baby boomer generation began to pervert climate science with their AGW ideology which continues to this very day. References:ANDERSON, R. and KOOPMANNS, H. (1963): Harmonic analysis of varve time series. J. geophys. Res., 68: 877.
COHEN, T. J. and LINTZ, P. R. (1974): Long term periodicities in the sunspot cycle. Nature, 250: 398-400.
COLE, T. W. (1973): Periodicities in solar activity. Solar Physics, 30: 103-110.
DAMON, P. E. (1970): Radiocarbon variations and absolute chronology. Ed. Olsson, I. V. Almqvist 8c Wiksell, Stockholm, 571.
DAMON, P. E. (1977): Solar induced variations of energetic particles at one AU. Ed. White, O. R.: The solar output and its variation. Colorado Associated University Press, Boulder, 429-448.
DENTON, G. and KARLEN, W. (1973): Quarternary Res., 3, 2: 155.
EDDY, J. A. (1976): The Maunder Minimum. Science, 192: 1189-1202.
EDDY, J. A. (1977): The case of the missing sunspots. Scient. Amer. 236: 80-92.
EDDY, J. A. (1977a): Historical evidence for the existence of the solar cycle. Ed. White, O. R. (1977): The solar output and its variation. Colorado Associated University Press, Boulder, 51-71.
GATES, W. L. and MINTZ, Y. (1975): Understanding climatic change. Appendix A, National Academy of Sciences, Washington.
GLEISSBERG, W. (1952): Die Haufigkeit der Sonnenflecken. Akademie-Verlag, Berlin.
GLEISSBERG, W. (1957): Die Zyklen der Sonnentatigkeit. Wiss. Ann., 6: 735-745.
GLEISSBERG, W. (1958): The 80-year sunspot cycle. J. Brit. Astron. Ass., 68: 150.
GLEISSBERG, W. (1975): Gibt es in der Sonnenfleckenhaufigkeit eine 179-jahrige Wieder-holungstendez? Verdff. Astron. Inst. Univ. Frankfurt, 57: 2, 11.
GLEISSBERG, W. (1976): Das jringste Maximum des 80-jahrigen Sonnenfleckenzyklus. Kleinheubacher Ber., 19: 661.
GLEISSBERG, W. (1977): Betrachtungen zum Maunder Minimum der Sonnentatigkeit. Sterne u. Weltr., 16:229-233.
GLEISSBERG, W. (1979): Reflections on the Maunder Minimum of sunspots. J. Brit. Astron. Ass., 89: 440-449.
HARTMANN, R. (1971): A new representation of the 80-year cycle in sunspot frequency.' Solar Physics, 21:246-248.
HARTMANN, R. (1972): Vorlдufige Epochen der Maxiraa und Minima des 80-jдhrigen Sonnenfleckenzyklus. Verцff. Astron. Inst. Univ. Frankfurt, 50: 118. JOSE, P.D. (1965): Sun's motion and sunspots. Astron. J., 70: 193-200.
LEIGHTON, R. B. (1969): Astrophys. J„ 156: 1. LIN, Y. C, FAN, C. Y., DДMON, P. E. and WALLICK, E. J. (1975): 14th Int. Cosm. Ray Conf., Muenchen 3, 995.
MAXIMOV, J. W. (1953): On secular variations in solar activity. Dokl. Akad. Nauk, 92: 1149-1152.
PARKER, E. N. (1955): Astroph. J., 122: 293.
PARLENKO, G. E. (1933): Oberflдchenwellen auf einer in einem bewegten Tank enthaltenen Flьssigkeit. Phil. Mag., 360.
RUDLOFF, H. v. (1967): Die Schwankungen und Pendelungen des Klimas in Europa seit dem Beginn der regelmдssigen Instrumenten-Beobachtungen, Friedr. Vieweg & Sohn, Braunschweig, 254.
SCHOVE, D. J. (1955): The sunspot cycle 649 BC to AD 2000. J. geophys. Res., 60: 127.
SCHWARZSCHILD, M. (1949): Ann. Astroph. 12: 148.
STIX, M. (1974):Commentson the solar dynamo. Astron. Astrophysics, 37: 121-133.
STUIVER, M. (1961): J. geophys. Res., 66: 273.
STUIVER, M. (1965): Science 149, 533.
SUESS, H. E. (1968): Meteor. Monog. 8: 146.
WALDMEIER, M. (1955): Ergebnisse und Probleme der Sonnenforschung. Akademische Ver-lagsges., Leipzig, 200. WALDMEiER, M. (1961): The sunspot activity in the years 1610-1960. Schulthessfe Co., Zь'rich,
WITTMANN, A. (1978): The sunspot cycle betцre the Maunder Minimum. Astron. Astrophysics, 66: 93-97. WOOD, R. M. (1975): Comparison of sunspot periods with planetary synodic period resonances. Nature, 255: 312-313.
|
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Apr 8, 2011 22:24:38 GMT
Astromet, You write confidently regarding your forcasts I read most of your comments with interest. You make many claims for your previous forcasts Are your current weather forcasts for the next few years summarised anywhere? Hi Neil, On this thread, and others over the years. I will have a long-range climate forecast for 2012-2017 coming out this year which does summarize my astrometeorological findings on that time span. |
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Apr 8, 2011 22:25:47 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on Apr 9, 2011 2:29:10 GMT
All of Earth's weather is variable, so I don't understand your point. As for La Nina, when it returns to neutral remains to be seen. wow, astromet, a lot of verbiage has transpired since I last posted. Verbose much? La Nina is ending. ENSO, the El Nino Southern Oscillation, is a cyclic function. Expansion of one phase induces a reversion to the other. It's due to physics and the climate system. |
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on Apr 9, 2011 2:47:47 GMT
Astromet. Blog posts? That's where you get your info? Whatever. Fair enough. We got it. |
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Apr 9, 2011 3:38:11 GMT
All of Earth's weather is variable, so I don't understand your point. As for La Nina, when it returns to neutral remains to be seen. wow, astromet, a lot of verbiage has transpired since I last posted. Verbose much? La Nina is ending. ENSO, the El Nino Southern Oscillation, is a cyclic function. Expansion of one phase induces a reversion to the other. It's due to physics and the climate system. Wow, you've solved the climate system in just three short sentences Thermostat. Can we go now? |
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on Apr 9, 2011 3:42:08 GMT
wow, astromet, a lot of verbiage has transpired since I last posted. Verbose much? La Nina is ending. ENSO, the El Nino Southern Oscillation, is a cyclic function. Expansion of one phase induces a reversion to the other. It's due to physics and the climate system. Wow, you've solved the climate system in just three short sentences Thermostat. Can we go now? Huh? |
|
|
|
Post by glc on Apr 9, 2011 6:37:19 GMT
Landscheidt was not "wrong" about a decline in temperatures after 1998.
Yes he was.
For one glc, the year 1998 was an ENSO year and it is known that as to temperature,
Temperature-wise 1998 was a 2-sigma event. It was completely off the scale compared to what had happened previously - yet the trend since 1998 (the cherry picked year) is still upward.
only El Niño periods interrupt the downward trend in temperature. That is exactly what happened.
Global temperatures during the current La Nina have been as warm as those during the 1986/87 El Nino - and warmer than most of the 1990s.
By the way have, you finally found out about the ENSO cycle. I only ask as a few months or so back you seemed to be confusing El Nino and La Nina and claiming that this La Nina was part of the El Nino you 'predicted'.
|
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on Apr 11, 2011 2:24:55 GMT
Landscheidt was not "wrong" about a decline in temperatures after 1998.Yes he was. For one glc, the year 1998 was an ENSO year and it is known that as to temperature,Temperature-wise 1998 was a 2-sigma event. It was completely off the scale compared to what had happened previously - yet the trend since 1998 (the cherry picked year) is still upward. only El Niño periods interrupt the downward trend in temperature. That is exactly what happened.Global temperatures during the current La Nina have been as warm as those during the 1986/87 El Nino - and warmer than most of the 1990s. By the way have, you finally found out about the ENSO cycle. I only ask as a few months or so back you seemed to be confusing El Nino and La Nina and claiming that this La Nina was part of the El Nino you 'predicted'. It has been measured to be an historically very warm year during the present La Nina. In fact, the single warmest 12 month period ever recorded overlaps the present La Nina. The fundamental problem with the "El Nino did it" hypothesis to explain the present global warming, is that it does not physically work. There is no realistic physical mechanism by which sequential El Nino events could drive the present observed results. |
|
|
|
Post by handyman on Apr 11, 2011 15:07:20 GMT
It has been measured to be an historically very warm year during the present La Nina. In fact, the single warmest 12 month period ever recorded overlaps the present La Nina. The only thing I can tell you is that it has been, on average, a colder than normal winter here in Ohio. Last summer was warmer than average. Previous winter, colder than average. But the summer before that (2009) was the coolest summer on record. Yesterday, it was 85 degrees. A few days earlier it was in the 40's. And next weekend, we're looking at frost again. Simply put, I'll trust the weather report from my Accu-Window before I trust the manipulated "temps" being distorted for political purposes. |
|
|
|
Post by steve on Apr 11, 2011 16:11:56 GMT
It has been measured to be an historically very warm year during the present La Nina. In fact, the single warmest 12 month period ever recorded overlaps the present La Nina. The only thing I can tell you is that it has been, on average, a colder than normal winter here in Ohio. Last summer was warmer than average. Previous winter, colder than average. But the summer before that (2009) was the coolest summer on record. Yesterday, it was 85 degrees. A few days earlier it was in the 40's. And next weekend, we're looking at frost again. Simply put, I'll trust the weather report from my Accu-Window before I trust the manipulated "temps" being distorted for political purposes. Even though the NOAA data appears to agree with your perception of Ohio?: Cold last winter: [a href="http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/cgi-bin/data/usclimdivs/climdiv.pl?variab=Temperature&type=1&base=1&mon1=12&mon2=2&iy[1]=&iy[2]=&iy[3]=&iy[4]=&iy[5]=&iy[6]=&iy[7]=&iy[8]=&iy[9]=&iy[10]=&iy[11]=&iy[12]=&iy[13]=&iy[14]=&iy[15]=&iy[16]=&iy[17]=&iy[18]=&iy[19]=&iy[20]=&irange1=2010&irange2=2010&xlow=-3&xhi=3&xint=1&scale=&iwhite=1&Submit=Create+Plot"]http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/cgi-bin/data/usclimdivs/climdiv.pl?variab=Temperature&type=1&base=1&mon1=12&mon2=2&iy[1]=&iy[2]=&iy[3]=&iy[4]=&iy[5]=&iy[6]=&iy[7]=&iy[8]=&iy[9]=&iy[10]=&iy[11]=&iy[12]=&iy[13]=&iy[14]=&iy[15]=&iy[16]=&iy[17]=&iy[18]=&iy[19]=&iy[20]=&irange1=2010&irange2=2010&xlow=-3&xhi=3&xint=1&scale=&iwhite=1&Submit=Create+Plot[/a] Warm last summer: [a href="http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/cgi-bin/data/usclimdivs/climdiv.pl?variab=Temperature&type=1&base=1&mon1=6&mon2=8&iy[1]=&iy[2]=&iy[3]=&iy[4]=&iy[5]=&iy[6]=&iy[7]=&iy[8]=&iy[9]=&iy[10]=&iy[11]=&iy[12]=&iy[13]=&iy[14]=&iy[15]=&iy[16]=&iy[17]=&iy[18]=&iy[19]=&iy[20]=&irange1=2010&irange2=2010&xlow=-3&xhi=3&xint=1&scale=&iwhite=1&Submit=Create+Plot"]http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/cgi-bin/data/usclimdivs/climdiv.pl?variab=Temperature&type=1&base=1&mon1=6&mon2=8&iy[1]=&iy[2]=&iy[3]=&iy[4]=&iy[5]=&iy[6]=&iy[7]=&iy[8]=&iy[9]=&iy[10]=&iy[11]=&iy[12]=&iy[13]=&iy[14]=&iy[15]=&iy[16]=&iy[17]=&iy[18]=&iy[19]=&iy[20]=&irange1=2010&irange2=2010&xlow=-3&xhi=3&xint=1&scale=&iwhite=1&Submit=Create+Plot[/a] Cold in summer 2009: [a href="http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/cgi-bin/data/usclimdivs/climdiv.pl?variab=Temperature&type=1&base=1&mon1=6&mon2=8&iy[1]=&iy[2]=&iy[3]=&iy[4]=&iy[5]=&iy[6]=&iy[7]=&iy[8]=&iy[9]=&iy[10]=&iy[11]=&iy[12]=&iy[13]=&iy[14]=&iy[15]=&iy[16]=&iy[17]=&iy[18]=&iy[19]=&iy[20]=&irange1=2009&irange2=2009&xlow=-3&xhi=3&xint=1&scale=&iwhite=1&Submit=Create+Plot"]http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/cgi-bin/data/usclimdivs/climdiv.pl?variab=Temperature&type=1&base=1&mon1=6&mon2=8&iy[1]=&iy[2]=&iy[3]=&iy[4]=&iy[5]=&iy[6]=&iy[7]=&iy[8]=&iy[9]=&iy[10]=&iy[11]=&iy[12]=&iy[13]=&iy[14]=&iy[15]=&iy[16]=&iy[17]=&iy[18]=&iy[19]=&iy[20]=&irange1=2009&irange2=2009&xlow=-3&xhi=3&xint=1&scale=&iwhite=1&Submit=Create+Plot[/a] Even though Professor Richard Muller, leader of the BEST surface temperature project, and someone who has publicly been *deeply* disdainful of Phil Jones's conduct with regard to "hide the decline" has produced preliminary results that are in line with the current datasets, and has said that the influence of poorly sited temperature stations is apparently almost nil (they show lower trends). |
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Apr 11, 2011 22:09:06 GMT
Landscheidt was not "wrong" about a decline in temperatures after 1998.Yes he was. For one glc, the year 1998 was an ENSO year and it is known that as to temperature,Temperature-wise 1998 was a 2-sigma event. It was completely off the scale compared to what had happened previously - yet the trend since 1998 (the cherry picked year) is still upward. only El Niño periods interrupt the downward trend in temperature. That is exactly what happened.Global temperatures during the current La Nina have been as warm as those during the 1986/87 El Nino - and warmer than most of the 1990s. By the way have, you finally found out about the ENSO cycle. I only ask as a few months or so back you seemed to be confusing El Nino and La Nina and claiming that this La Nina was part of the El Nino you 'predicted'. Oh, your attempt at humor, I see. There is no confusion between El Nino and La Nina. I forecasted both for the years 2009-2011, so I fail to see how I can be confused about them since I forecasted both well in advance. I've been over this several times on this thread on El Nino and La Nina. I know you have a short memory, but rather than stay stagnant why don't you learn more about El Nino and La Nina? The confusion is on the part of those who do not understand the warm and cold oscillations in the Pacific - how they work together and what causes them to appear and then disperse over time. |
|
|
|
Post by handyman on Apr 11, 2011 22:33:36 GMT
The only thing I can tell you is that it has been, on average, a colder than normal winter here in Ohio. Last summer was warmer than average. Previous winter, colder than average. But the summer before that (2009) was the coolest summer on record. Yesterday, it was 85 degrees. A few days earlier it was in the 40's. And next weekend, we're looking at frost again. Simply put, I'll trust the weather report from my Accu-Window before I trust the manipulated "temps" being distorted for political purposes. Even though the NOAA data appears to agree with your perception of Ohio?: Cold last winter: [a href="http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/cgi-bin/data/usclimdivs/climdiv.pl?variab=Temperature&type=1&base=1&mon1=12&mon2=2&iy[1]=&iy[2]=&iy[3]=&iy[4]=&iy[5]=&iy[6]=&iy[7]=&iy[8]=&iy[9]=&iy[10]=&iy[11]=&iy[12]=&iy[13]=&iy[14]=&iy[15]=&iy[16]=&iy[17]=&iy[18]=&iy[19]=&iy[20]=&irange1=2010&irange2=2010&xlow=-3&xhi=3&xint=1&scale=&iwhite=1&Submit=Create+Plot"]http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/cgi-bin/data/usclimdivs/climdiv.pl?variab=Temperature&type=1&base=1&mon1=12&mon2=2&iy[1]=&iy[2]=&iy[3]=&iy[4]=&iy[5]=&iy[6]=&iy[7]=&iy[8]=&iy[9]=&iy[10]=&iy[11]=&iy[12]=&iy[13]=&iy[14]=&iy[15]=&iy[16]=&iy[17]=&iy[18]=&iy[19]=&iy[20]=&irange1=2010&irange2=2010&xlow=-3&xhi=3&xint=1&scale=&iwhite=1&Submit=Create+Plot [/a] Warm last summer: [a href="http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/cgi-bin/data/usclimdivs/climdiv.pl?variab=Temperature&type=1&base=1&mon1=6&mon2=8&iy[1]=&iy[2]=&iy[3]=&iy[4]=&iy[5]=&iy[6]=&iy[7]=&iy[8]=&iy[9]=&iy[10]=&iy[11]=&iy[12]=&iy[13]=&iy[14]=&iy[15]=&iy[16]=&iy[17]=&iy[18]=&iy[19]=&iy[20]=&irange1=2010&irange2=2010&xlow=-3&xhi=3&xint=1&scale=&iwhite=1&Submit=Create+Plot"]http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/cgi-bin/data/usclimdivs/climdiv.pl?variab=Temperature&type=1&base=1&mon1=6&mon2=8&iy[1]=&iy[2]=&iy[3]=&iy[4]=&iy[5]=&iy[6]=&iy[7]=&iy[8]=&iy[9]=&iy[10]=&iy[11]=&iy[12]=&iy[13]=&iy[14]=&iy[15]=&iy[16]=&iy[17]=&iy[18]=&iy[19]=&iy[20]=&irange1=2010&irange2=2010&xlow=-3&xhi=3&xint=1&scale=&iwhite=1&Submit=Create+Plot[/a] Cold in summer 2009: [a href="http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/cgi-bin/data/usclimdivs/climdiv.pl?variab=Temperature&type=1&base=1&mon1=6&mon2=8&iy[1]=&iy[2]=&iy[3]=&iy[4]=&iy[5]=&iy[6]=&iy[7]=&iy[8]=&iy[9]=&iy[10]=&iy[11]=&iy[12]=&iy[13]=&iy[14]=&iy[15]=&iy[16]=&iy[17]=&iy[18]=&iy[19]=&iy[20]=&irange1=2009&irange2=2009&xlow=-3&xhi=3&xint=1&scale=&iwhite=1&Submit=Create+Plot"]http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/cgi-bin/data/usclimdivs/climdiv.pl?variab=Temperature&type=1&base=1&mon1=6&mon2=8&iy[1]=&iy[2]=&iy[3]=&iy[4]=&iy[5]=&iy[6]=&iy[7]=&iy[8]=&iy[9]=&iy[10]=&iy[11]=&iy[12]=&iy[13]=&iy[14]=&iy[15]=&iy[16]=&iy[17]=&iy[18]=&iy[19]=&iy[20]=&irange1=2009&irange2=2009&xlow=-3&xhi=3&xint=1&scale=&iwhite=1&Submit=Create+Plot[/a] [/quote] Summer 2009 was the coldest on record in Ohio. Most days it didn't make 80 degrees. I think the high temp for the entire summer was 84. There were a quite a few days where records were set for the lowest high temperature of the day and at a few where the high was lower than the average low temp for the day. Since 2000, there have been summer evenings (even in July) where the temps would dip into the 40's (2009 was not an exception). Yet, the map for summer 2009 claims we were only between -1 and -2 degrees off the average. Now that I find hard to believe, but in general, I don't disagree with NOAA anywhere near as much as I do the bigger picture that is the UN and groups such as the IPCC. That all said, we should be on the cusp of falling temperatures, going by the patterns in the historical record and in the negative PDO. And I have seen evidence of the falling since 2000 in local Ohio weather. Really, though, we need to admit that only the future holds the answer as to what will actually happen; there are bound to be a few surprises. |
|
|
|
Post by glc on Apr 11, 2011 22:38:25 GMT
There is no confusion between El Nino and La Nina. I forecasted both for the years 2009-2011, so I fail to see how I can be confused about them since I forecasted both well in advance.
Many of us who read this blog know what you forecasted, astromet. Even as the last El Nino was fading and La Nina was developing you predicted that the El Nino go on for several months longer.
Don't bother saying otherwise. Too many posters have pointed out your failed forecast.
|
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Apr 11, 2011 22:54:21 GMT
Handyman:
I think there is a problem with NOAA's computations. North Dakota has had months of -7F below average statewide, yet NOAA will show -1 or -2. I think it has more to do with its 1200km radius, trying to average it, than outright fraudulent data. Or at least I hope that is the case.
|
|
