Fozz Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 I'm too tired right now, but tomorrow I plan to go into more direct detail on how I carry out the calculation. You have 7 hours left to tell us your calculation. I'm still waiting Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 27, 2012 Author Share Posted January 27, 2012 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? Well thats the thing, I might edit them, it won't change my forecast at all, I don't think...it's just a gap thing, I'm working on a few things because there are 2 holes in my hypothesis, as I mentioned before. But I won't be keeping it all to myself much longer, at least I think so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SmokeEater Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 Well thats the thing, I might edit them, it won't change my forecast at all, I don't think...it's just a gap thing, I'm working on a few things because there are 2 holes in my hypothesis, as I mentioned before. But I won't be keeping it all to myself much longer, at least I think so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 27, 2012 Author Share Posted January 27, 2012 You have 7 hours left to tell us your calculation. I'm still waiting I actually did yesterday, I explained what I did. But not quantitatively. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 27, 2012 Author Share Posted January 27, 2012 Go away please, totally unproductive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugo Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 Go away please, totally unproductive. Seriously? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H2O Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 Well thats the thing, I might edit them, it won't change my forecast at all, I don't think...it's just a gap thing, I'm working on a few things because there are 2 holes in my hypothesis, as I mentioned before. But I won't be keeping it all to myself much longer, at least I think so. Ok. For everyone here who has a shred of scientific integrity, read this post carefully. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mappy Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 Okay, here is my guess for the rest of the season - we are not going to get snow ever again (this season). Don't ask me how I came up with that, I don't want to jinx it. thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 27, 2012 Author Share Posted January 27, 2012 Seriously? Seriously. I might alter the way I do things a bit depending on how I bridge the gaps...yes. Don't get your panties in a wad over it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H2O Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 Okay, here is my guess for the rest of the season - we are not going to get snow ever again (this season). Don't ask me how I came up with that, I don't want to jinx it. thanks. I think there is a paper Hansen did that supports it. It has something to do with THE ocean's thermal's inertia's Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 27, 2012 Author Share Posted January 27, 2012 Ok. For everyone here who has a shred of scientific integrity, read this post carefully. I might alter my hypothesized "formula" a bit, but the way I feel energy is processed does not change, it shouldn't have much if any effect on the end result. What is wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mappy Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 I think there is a paper Hansen did that supports it. It has something to do with THE ocean's thermal's inertia's Does Hansen have a degree in anything? It needs to be an oceanography degree with a specific focus on meteorology for me to take it seriously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellinwood Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 Alright, let's see here... I took the IMF graph: Cut out the years that don't show the correlation via your guidelines: ...the correlation should not work well during periods with weak and/or flipping IMF's. I lag the IMF by 3 years... ...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] And superimposed it on the SST map and pushed it forward by three years to account for the lag: ...I grabbed a more complete ENSO graph from http://www.cpc.ncep....s-fcsts-web.pdf I took the AP Index chart, matched up the time scale, and pushed it forward by exactly 6.5 years as per your earlier post: Then I subtracted the irrelavent time periods from the ENSO graph and the AP index graph and came up with this as a final result: Let me know if any of that's wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H2O Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 looks great. everything matches and it is clear as day. go snow!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 27, 2012 Author Share Posted January 27, 2012 how are you editing them if you have made predictions? you are just 100% wishcasting. this thread totally proves that. Wrong, as usual. I'm not wishcasting at all, frankly I'm loking forward to SevereWX season...I've been saying the exact same thing since December when I made the prediction. At your request I will dig up quotes. Like a 50yr old woman doesn't have anything better to do than harass a 19 year old met student and his experiments...get a life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
relic Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 i've heard of giving someone enough rope but dayum, you must have an awful fat neck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deck Pic Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 I think BB will verify. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mappy Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 I think BB will verify. I'll need to see your formula for that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WVclimo Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 Alright, let's see here... [attachments=bunch of graphs] Let me know if any of that's wrong. Thanks for doing this work. I have no idea if what you've produced means we can look forward to historic snow totals after an otherwise snowless winter, but I'm impressed you took the time to do that, lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellinwood Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 Thanks for doing this work. I have no idea if what you've produced means we can look forward to historic snow totals after an otherwise snowless winter, but I'm impressed you took the time to do that, lol. No prob... I was interested in seeing just how well these things line up via BB's constraints and thought it would benefit everyone to see a few steps worth of BB's methodology in one clear graph. Waiting on BB to confirm if it's correct or not... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 27, 2012 Author Share Posted January 27, 2012 Alright, let's see here... I took the IMF graph: Cut out the years that don't show the correlation via your guidelines: EXAMPLE: See IMF flip in 2000, year 1998- 2002 = poor ENSO correlation for the 2001-2005 period [3 year lag] And super-imposed it on the SST map and pushed it forward by three years to account for the lag: ...I grabbed a more complete ENSO graph from http://www.cpc.ncep....s-fcsts-web.pdf I took the AP Index chart, matched up the time scale, and pushed it forward by exactly 6.5 years as per your earlier post: Then I subtracted the irrelavent time periods from the ENSO graph and the AP index graph from the previous post and came up with this as a final result: Let me know if any of that's wrong. Well you did it right, but honestly I completely forgot to mention the important 3rd step which is the Hale Cycle/PDO connection. I was under the impression you would correlate the 1950-1976 period and 1998-2012+ period, not the 1976-1997 period which is why I posted the whole AP history. In my hypothesis, you cannot correlate AP index to ENSO during the solar induced +PDO in response to the 22yr Magnetic Hale Cycle, since a +PDO represents "thermal rebound". PDO/ENSO are almost 1 entity. You'll find a better correlation in the 1950-1976 period, and the 1998-present period. When the IMF goes south, the PDO flips. So just do the same thing but eliminating the +PDO period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellinwood Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 Well you did it right, but honestly I completely forgot to mention the important 3rd step which is the Hale Cycle/PDO connection. I was under the impression you would correlate the 1950-1976 period and 1998-2012+ period, not the 1976-1997 period which is why I posted the whole AP history. In my hypothesis, you cannot correlate AP index to ENSO during the solar induced +PDO in response to the 22yr Magnetic Hale Cycle, since a +PDO represents "thermal rebound". PDO/ENSO are almost 1 entity. You'll find a better correlation in the 1950-1976 period, and the 1998-present period. When the IMF goes south, the PDO flips. So just do the same thing but eliminating the +PDO period. I did do the 1998-present period using your constraints (obviously some of that got cut out), and the IMF graph you gave me only goes back to 1967, so I don't see how you would have expected me to go earlier than that (or how you would have used the IMF in your "formula" unless you have another graph with the earlier history). That's also a really small dataset. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mappy Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H2O Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 awesome Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bjohnson102184 Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 Why is this thread still going seriously.......Its like bullying LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 27, 2012 Author Share Posted January 27, 2012 I did do the 1998-present period using your constraints (obviously some of that got cut out), and the IMF graph you gave me only goes back to 1967, so I don't see how you would have expected me to go earlier than that (or how you would have used the IMF in your "formula" unless you have another graph with the earlier history). That's also a really small dataset. I know, I'm not sure how I left that step out, but the polar fields can be simulated in reconstruction: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fozz Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 This is literally the best thread ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H2O Posted January 28, 2012 Share Posted January 28, 2012 This is literally the best thread ever. The bet one and robbing, looting and rappin' errbody up in here one is pretty good too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Srain Posted January 28, 2012 Share Posted January 28, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 28, 2012 Author Share Posted January 28, 2012 This is a better image Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.