BethesdaWX Posted January 27, 2012 Author Share Posted January 27, 2012 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? Yes the solar method has done well so far, but periods of change are chaotic and can be confusing, so interpreting them is hard. To be honest, part of the reason is my own superstitious nature, I want to conceal it for now. But I will explain it in time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mappy Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 Yes the solar method has done well so far, but periods of change are chaotic and can be confusing, so interpreting them is hard. To be honest, part of the reason is my own superstitious nature, I want to conceal it for now. But I will explain it in time. How are you going to verify it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scuddz Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 Yes, for proof in verification! This is a hypothesis to which I will rely on physical outcomes to determine it's legitimacy. If that's the case, I submit for review my hypothesis of positive correlation between paper sales and Indian Monsoon activity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 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. that's cool. im fairly confident you have not unlocked a secret that real scientists have not but i wish you the best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 27, 2012 Author Share Posted January 27, 2012 How are you going to verify it? wait and watch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 the real secret here is mushrooms.. lots of mushrooms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 27, 2012 Author Share Posted January 27, 2012 this is utter bull****. you disrupted a thread in order to trumpet your fabulous predictions AND said you would explain all of it when you were given your own thread. now we're getting increasingly ridiculous explanations as to why you are backtracking. superstition has ZERO place in science. I explained everything I would reveal in detail earlier and don't feel like regurgitating the same old s**t to closed ears/minds like yours. I have not backtracked, either. My thoughts really haven't changed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mappy Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 wait and watch Awesome. Well, I am glad that you were given your own thread to post your ridiculous snowfall guess. Good luck to you and maybe if you are lucky and we do see 20-40" of snow in the next 50 days, you can post your formula for all to see and rub it in our faces. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 27, 2012 Author Share Posted January 27, 2012 I took BB's two images that he used to imply the 6.5 year lag correlation and matched up the time scales... this is the result: Could we get the full graph to I'm we're not just looking at 1990-present? You did it wrong, look at the yearly axis on the bottom of both graphs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamieOber Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 the real secret here is mushrooms.. lots of mushrooms. You holding? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 27, 2012 Author Share Posted January 27, 2012 Yes Ellinwood, one sec Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellinwood Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 You did it wrong, look at the yearly axis on the bottom of both graphs. Sorry I realized my mistake and took it down... Here's the correct one: Yes Ellinwood, one sec Thanks (in reference to my deleted post asking for the full graph) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 27, 2012 Author Share Posted January 27, 2012 Here: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donsutherland1 Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 I know you are quoting Don, and I could see the sun not being the driver of ENSO (immediate), but it seems counterintuitive that the sun wouldn't be the number one primary driver of weather on the planet. I know that that isn't what you were saying, but it just caught my eye. I found a very low correlation only for the specific issue of whether changes in solar activity (flux and geomagnetic) can reliably predict ENSO. Whether lagged or not, the correlations were very low. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 27, 2012 Author Share Posted January 27, 2012 Sorry I realized my mistake and took it down... Here's the correct one: Thanks (in reference to my deleted post asking for the full graph) Yes, but now remember it isn't an In-Step correlation, but rather a yearly variation thing. The AP index # value only really matterns during the lagged solar max since forcing amplitude is greater. During the magnetic minimums, slight perturbations equate to significant variance since there is less background "noise" variation in the forcings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacChump Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 the real secret here is mushrooms.. lots of mushrooms. irelevunt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellinwood Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 Yes, but now remember it isn't an In-Step correlation, but rather a yearly variation thing. The AP index # value only really matterns during the lagged solar max since forcing amplitude is greater. During the magnetic minimums, slight perturbations equate to significant variance since there is less background "noise" variation in the forcings. Define the time periods that you think matter based on a minimum forcing amplitude (arbitrary, or is there a source for that?), and I'll cut out the AP index from the chart during the low-amplitude periods. Thank you for the full graph. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H2O Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 I explained everything I would reveal in detail earlier and don't feel like regurgitating the same old s**t to closed ears/minds like yours. I have not backtracked, either. My thoughts really haven't changed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Feb Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 I think the weekend couldn't get here fast enough. People getting their panties in a wad over a young man's forecast for the next two months. I think we need a Rodney King moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 27, 2012 Author Share Posted January 27, 2012 Define the time periods that you think matter based on a minimum forcing amplitude (arbitrary, or is there a source for that?), and I'll cut out the AP index from the chart during the low-amplitude periods. Thank you for the full graph. Thanks. I feel that since the mechanism is carried out in magnetic means, that the correlation should not work well during periods with weak and/or flipping IMF's. I lag the IMF by 3 years, since I feel the signal propogation manifests synoptically first, and takes that amount of time to transfer from the AO/AAO ---> Cloud Changes ---> Heat distribution ---> Wind budget ---> ENSO. Here is IMF data, correlation is bad 2 years on either side of the IMF flips. EXAMPLE: See IMF flip in 2000, year 1998- 2002 = poor ENSO correlation for the 2001-2005 period [3 year lag] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H2O Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 I think the weekend couldn't get here fast enough. People getting their panties in a wad over a young man's forecast for the next two months. I think we need a Rodney King moment. Terrible reference Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Feb Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 Terrible reference Can't we all just get along? Terrible reference? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H2O Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 Can't we all just get along? Terrible reference? Oh, my bad. i thought you wanted to give him a beatdown with batons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 27, 2012 Author Share Posted January 27, 2012 Also note that: 1) Every IMF flip correlates to a torchy winter, especially when the Sun is stronger 2) The lagged AP index dropoff [see Ellinwood's graph] coincides with January/February 2012, and we are now seeing a significant global temp drop. It is more of an overall gradual cooling that has/will occur from 2010 onward, but the point stands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugo Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 So glad I'm from the SE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Feb Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 Oh, my bad. i thought you wanted to give him a beatdown with batons. ah, no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H2O Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 so the workaround from being banned from the CC forum for posting nonsense is to start posting it in a regional subforum. Can't contain the genius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 27, 2012 Author Share Posted January 27, 2012 so the workaround from being banned from the CC forum for posting nonsense is to start posting it in a regional subforum. Banned from OT/PR = Use the CC forum as the last resort, and regurgitate the same nonscientific shiat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H2O Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 So glad I'm from the SE You have Brick Tamland to deal with Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H2O Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 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. why not give them to Ian or mattie g for safe keeping that way we know you didn't edit them? You honestly expect us to believe you given your past? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.