BethesdaWX Posted January 27, 2012 Author Share Posted January 27, 2012 the scientific method requires that you present a hypothesis, show us your methodology in detail, reveal the specific values you used in your data set, discuss your findings based on that specific data, and come up with a conclusion related to the hypothesis and discussion. you have not presented the math behind this formula. without the math, and the specific data sets you input into the equation you are using, there is no way for anyone to understand what you are trying to do. and there is also no way for anyone to duplicate--thus verify--your findings. and please don't ask me what math and equations has to do with atmospheric science. Yes, for proof in verification! This is a hypothesis to which I will rely on physical outcomes to determine it's legitimacy. The reason I'm not sharing the specific "translation" is because I make 2 assumptions without a mechanism in mind...but it is necessary to do that. I do not want to go into the detail there publicly, yet. But once I figure things out there I'll describe them. Watts has no degree. I wouldn't be surprised, but again can you link me up? and I'd like for you to tell the oceanographers I talked to at AMS this week that their work is irrelevant to the meteorological community. Come on, that is not what I said Hansen et al. 1984. TSI varies by ~ 0.1W/m^2 per solar cycle, very little variability to match equilibrium in timelength. BTW, referencing Hansen is a pretty bad idea as far as track records go. AND you are the one who said my paper written in 2002 was "outdated" 1984?? Really??? Hansen's estimations from that time period had us warming about 1.2C... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mappy Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 It is what it is. But this entire thing is pretty much a joke at this point, and maybe better served not poisoning the board. Some really good red taggers have engaged you and pointed out issues, and perhaps you could take their suggestions to heart and re-visit rather than calling people stupid or needlessly escalating whatever this is to feed whatever your need is for attention. Or, you know, take the whole thing to off-topic or some such. I like how he ignored your perfectly reasonable post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mappy Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 What does physical oceanography have to due with atmospheric science!?" [thats a line you constantly pull on me, regarding Anthony Watts and his atmospheric science degree which is much more relavent here]. Come on, that is not what I said... It is exactly what you said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FXW176 Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 And now you've lost all credibility, GTFO of my thread. What the bloody heck is "ocean thermal inertia"? Do you know what a recieving body's "thermal inertia" contrast actually is? And what determines it? Apparently you don't, and then you make claims such as "I know ocean thermal inertia is not 6-7 years" when you obviously don't know what thermal inertia even is. You're very stupid Me too, easy judgement there...she doesn't know what the fook she's talking about. How about you stop posting since you cannot respectfully engage me in discussion? I have never initiated an attack on a member in the MA forum, however I've been attacked numerously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 27, 2012 Author Share Posted January 27, 2012 you have it completely backwards. I am saying that your lag of 6-7 years is refuted by the work done on ocean thermal inertia, which has put it at as long as 40 years. Umm... 1) Hansen's 1980s and 1990s publications refer to the timelength the entire system-body takes to meet equilibrium between incoming and outgoing energies...AKA, changes the GHE.....Not relavent here in forcing perturbations in the Sun-Atmospheric connection, & the effects on cloud anomaly location. Changes in ISR, SW incoming radiation is NOT the same thing as CO2 slowing the LW release rate, causing the Earth system to emit from higher up in the atmosphere. 2) Those timelengths can be refuted simply based on the temperature trends we've had, ~ 0.35C total from 1980-present...not 1.2C that was progged in the longer response time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mappy Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 What is his degree in? Look, I'm not a fan of Watts, but I was under the impression he had a relavent degree of some sort. If not, I really don't give crap as I only brought him up as you cited your Hubby's irrelavent degree [when it comes to solar influence on the atmosphere & it's processes. The oceans operate on the basis of external forcing through changes in atmospheric dynamics. Another example where BB said a degree in oceanography is irrelevent when it comes to meteorology Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 27, 2012 Author Share Posted January 27, 2012 Another example where BB said a degree in oceanography is irrelevent when it comes to meteorology When it comes to the Sun-Atmoshere connction, it is! Get that? I never said it is irrelavent to meteorology in it's entirety. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mappy Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 When it comes to the Sun-Atmoshere connction, it is! Get that? I never said it is irrelavent to meteorology in it's entirety. How do you know that? Do you have a degree in oceanography? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 27, 2012 Author Share Posted January 27, 2012 if it were based in real science you'd post the equation and the values so it could be examined and repeated. anytime someone has to keep their math secret you know it's all a big sham. You can believe what you want to believe, but you don't 'know' it's a sham because it is rooted in real science. You'll find out soon regardless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mappy Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 You can believe what you want to believe, but you don't 'know' it's a sham because it is rooted in real science. You'll find out soon regardless. Are you going to answer my Philly question and work it out for us? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 27, 2012 Author Share Posted January 27, 2012 once again you've missed my point entirely. No I didn't, I know the paper you referenced. The timelength of equilibrium achievement depends on the magnitude of the initial forcing, or the amount of relative difference between OHC and the change in forcing. 0.1W/m^2 vs 3.3W/m^2,for example,won't pose the same timelength in response from all energy bodies. and none of this is about what you need to produce: the math and values that led you to forecast that list of snow totals. thanks. I estimate the snowfall potential base on how I feel the pattern will progress, specifically, based on what I mentioned a few pages back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 27, 2012 Author Share Posted January 27, 2012 Are you going to answer my Philly question and work it out for us? DC to Boston sees 20-45". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JERSEYSNOWROB Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mappy Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 I estimate the snowfall potential base on how I feel the pattern will progress, specifically, based on what I mentioned a few pages back. Well I feel based on previous patterns in your posting habits that your estimated snowfall potential will be wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mappy Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 DC to Boston sees 20-45". Sure sure - but can you work that out for me please? I would like to see your scientific process. From start of finish. Anyone can make a guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 Sure sure - but can you work that out for me please? I would like to see your scientific process. From start of finish. Anyone can make a guess. And most people do don't they? I don't recall seeing any seasonal forecasters include an equation with their thoughts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mappy Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 And most people do don't they? I don't recall seeing any seasonal forecasters include an equation with their thoughts I don't recall anyone being given their own thread to talk about a formula they pulled out of their ass to support their snowfall forecasts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SNO Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 I have spent considerable time reviewing, studying, and verifying the points in this thread. My conclusion: BethesdaWX makes some excellent points and I look forward to verification. Let the time period unfold and then discuss the findings. Overall, excellent work Bethesda. I think your chances of verification are high. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 27, 2012 Author Share Posted January 27, 2012 you don't know the paper, but you are telling me it's wrong? seriously? I know that paper very well, it is an establishement of failure. using what mathematical expressions and which data set value as inputs? I explained what I do, I run the initial results 5 times withinin 3 "subgroups", to determine statistical probability, I am keeping the specific numbers and derived values to myslef, 2 reasons, but this is only temporary. Just be patient. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mappy Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 ^^^^^^^^^^^^ Awesome. Just awesome. Ian you are a moron for giving BB a chance to spout his BS on this board. A total moron. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 27, 2012 Author Share Posted January 27, 2012 ^^^^^^^^^^^^ Awesome. Just awesome. Ian you are a moron for giving BB a chance to spout his BS on this board. A total moron. No, you are just acting like a clueless dumbass. You shouldn't post in a thread if you refuse to think with legitimate integrity and interest...instead all you want to do is attack and troll. To the MA forum, your trolling isn't intimidating or humbing, it's just stupid and non-scientific. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mappy Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 No, you are just acting like a clueless dumbass. You shouldn't post in a thread if you refuse to think with legitimate integrity and interest...instead all you want to do is attack and troll. To the MA forum, your trolling isn't intimidating or humbing, it's just stupid and non-scientific. I do have interest, hence me asking questions. Anyone can make a guess on what snowfall totals will be from here on out - you mentioned a forumla, and I would like to see it in action. If you cannot provide that, because A. You dont actually have one or B. its some "super secret" then you are dumbass for mentioning it to begin with. Ian shouldn't have given you this thread to talk about your nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 27, 2012 Author Share Posted January 27, 2012 you don't know the paper, but you are telling me it's wrong? seriously? Ugh, lulz No I didn't, I know the paper you referenced. The timelength of equilibrium achievement depends on the magnitude of the initial forcing, or the amount of relative difference between OHC and the change in forcing. 0.1W/m^2 vs 3.3W/m^2,for example,won't pose the same timelength in response from all energy bodies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 im just saying a majority of seasonal forecasts are "mind blends" that have no actual mathematical formula. that has nothing to do with whether or not bb is making **** up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 27, 2012 Author Share Posted January 27, 2012 I do have interest, hence me asking questions. Anyone can make a guess on what snowfall totals will be from here on out - you mentioned a forumla, and I would like to see it in action. Haha, well you will eventually If you cannot provide that, because A. You dont actually have one or B. its some "super secret" then you are dumbass for mentioning it to begin with.Ian shouldn't have given you this thread to talk about your nonsense. I have a formula, and I'm not mentioning it because I will just be trolled for it. After verification I will post it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mappy Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 im just saying a majority of seasonal forecasts are "mind blends" that have no actual mathematical formula. that has nothing to do with whether or not bb is making **** up. That I understand. I didn't demand a formula from Adam when he talked about his failed torch, because he never mentioned a formula he used. BB has, and I think he needs to either put up or shut up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 i "gave" bb a thread because i was sick of seeing his crap posted everywhere else Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mappy Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 Haha, well you will eventually I have a formula, and I'm not mentioning it because I will just be trolled for it. After verification I will post it. You are being trolled over it now, so what is the difference? Also, I thought you have been using this formula since September? How are you going to verify it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mappy Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 i "gave" bb a thread because i was sick of seeing his crap posted everywhere else ERRRO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 27, 2012 Author Share Posted January 27, 2012 im just saying a majority of seasonal forecasts are "mind blends" that have no actual mathematical formula. that has nothing to do with whether or not bb is making **** up. If you think I'm making s**t up, fine, I'm not out to change opinions, but I have my own opinions/hypothesis that I wish to defend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.