Solar wind increased and Harvey & TD became disorganize

[gigabite]

Steve,WSO...

Thanks Jim, I see that they have an open archive of magnetograms. I’ll have to compare that to the 1997 SOI.

http://quake.stanford.edu/~wso/wso.html

[Jim Hughes]

Yes, thank you for debunking him windy.

Oh yes he has definitely debunked me and I am very saddened by this. I have decided that I am going to tell the newspaper publisher, down in Maryland , who e-mailed several days back about something, that I am now washed up as a long term weather forecaster. The Great Windy from Oz has spoken and he has brought me down with his mighty sword.

I am going to tell this gentleman that he should just disregard my prior correct forecasts even if they did have a huge effect upon our region like the great January 96' snow melt or the warnings in early 1997 about the upcoming regional droughts for the next few years.

The latter was printed before hand in his very own newspaper but I will tell him that I actually somehow have gone back and changed everything to make it seem like I am correct but I actually never was. I am a scam artist who knows nothing about climate patterns and space weather and I was always just in this to be a celebrity. That is why I name drop so that I can say I have rubbed elbows with the mighty stars of the world.

All I had really ever wanted was to make it to the top of the mountain in Storm2K but it seems like my quest has failed. So I will now bow my head in shame and I am saddened that I have dishonored the Hughes family name.

I am sure he will understand why I must retire now after two of the most trained experts in the vast fields of meteorology and space weather have debunked my theories and methods. Life is so tough .... I hope I can muster the strength to continue on .

[Jim Hughes]

Steve,WSO...

Thanks Jim, I see that they have an open archive of magnetograms. I’ll have to compare that to the 1997 SOI.

http://quake.stanford.edu/~wso/wso.html

Well the three things I like from Wilcox are..

The mean magnetic field readings of course.. The polar strength readings.... which are very important directing climate patterns. I spoke about this relationship with the ENSO phases back in TWC last March......and the photospheric field maps.

[luvwinter]

disregard this.

[luvwinter]

I tried to fix something but didn't work the first time. see below.

[luvwinter]

Ya know Windy,

Just a thought here. I have followed some of these threads also and although I don't understand alot of what Jim writes it is somewhat interesting to conteplate a correlation between space weather and tropical weather. I don't know why you have to continually pick at Jim. No one is tying you to a chair and sitting you in front of the computer pointing a gun to your head and making you look at the screen. Can't you just read it and take it in for what it might be worth and if you don't like it don't read it. As a member I don't enjoy reading posts where others have to continually pick at other members and belittle what they say. If you know for a fact he is incorrect then fine you have that knowledge. Sometimes there are things in this world that we can't for sure explain but believe in. Live a little.

Originally, I got into it because I was genuinely curious what the heck Jim was talking about and why (assuming he wasn't just another net mystic) he refused to go about the one way of dispersing his ideas that might have some effect... a research paper in a peer reviewed journal. When Jim more or less refused to explain what he was talking about and how he arrived at the conclusions and methodology that he uses, and then admitted that he doesn't know the first thing about science or how to go about it, I got frustrated. Because he pretends to be an expert in the made up "field" that he talks about. It would appear, given his former reputation on other weather boards, that this was a fairly typical reaction to fairly common behaviour from Jim. His ideas are very much out in left field, and he goes on a great deal about them. This isn't the George Nory show; start spouting volumes of pretend-science here and sooner or later someone is probably going to ask you to explain yourself!

Now that he's made it clear that he doesn't believe in the scientific method and isn't going to explain why he believes what he believes about space weather's effects below the stratosphere, I've really got no more reason to keep picking at his ideas. His 'theories' are intellectually backrupt, apparently, since he can't muster up anything at all to defend or explain them. Anything further is kicking a dead horse, and I suspect that this horse enjoys the attention that comes with getting kicked.

Windy,

I understand you and Kevin have to have the science behind everything, but sometimes maybe there are things about Science people understand or believe in that don't mesh with what others know. I am not a scientist myself but a social worker who loves the weather. When I work with people there are things I know about them the minute I meet them without saying a word. Once I do talk to them I end up knowing more about them that they haven't told me. Knowing these things comes from my experience working with people and intution. I can't always explain why I know these things either. Once I do find out more about them I am usually dead on with these things I felt and thought about them in the beginnning. Sometimes it is not always about the science of things. I have worked with alot of psychiatrists who stink because they can only look at the human being from the scientific aspect of psychology and they don't look enough at the human aspect of things and they always have to be right. Any time they don't agree with someone whose ideas are innovative or seem impossible to be true, they treat that person the same way you treat Jim. Sometimes you need to stretch the parameters of what you know. maybe there are some things Jim doesn't want to explain or can't explain to your satisfaction. It doesn't mean he is wrong. Sometimes you need to think outside the box to see the possibility of something. There is always more than one way to look at something no matter what it is.

[luvwinter]

Yes, thank you for debunking him windy.

Kevin,

The one thing I have to say to you is that you never seem to have more than a few words to say which are usually a jab at Jim. As I said to Windy, neither one of you have to read or comment on the subject if you don't like what he writes or if you don't believe him for that matter. Why can't ya'll just let the man be. There are some here who obviously do believe in what he says and enjoying trading info and sharing with him. Give it a rest.

[Windy]

Yes, thank you for debunking him windy.

Oh yes he has definitely debunked me and I am very saddened by this. I have decided that I am going to tell the newspaper publisher, down in Maryland , who e-mailed several days back about something, that I am now washed up as a long term weather forecaster. The Great Windy from Oz has spoken and he has brought me down withb his mighty sword.

Oh, look! Jim's found another Ambiguous Authority Figure Who Shall Remain Unnamed to make himself look important! Well, now, all my calls for explanation of your method and science are withdrawn! I had no idea that Ambiguous Authority Figures corresponded with you! What was I thinking when I asked you to clarify what you were talking about? You must be right!

[Windy]

Windy,

I understand you and Kevin have to have the science behind everything, but sometimes maybe there are things about Science people understand or believe in that don't mesh with what others know.

And then maybe people write science papers about them so all the other scientists understand. If I said tomorrow that I'd figured out how to create a perpetual motion machine, surely nobody would take me seriously until I explained the physics and method behind the thing. That's all I was asking for. I've got ZERO problem whatsoever with Jim saying that he's a mystic psychic who can predict the weather using his psychic powers. I do have a problem when he pretends that he's using a special scientific method (that he can't explain) available only to him to predict the weather... except all of his incredible predictions are made days after the fact. Using my scientific methods of advanced magneto-plasmoid triangulaton, I can say that there will be an 80% chance of Peter Jennings dieing two days ago. Impressed, aren't you!

I am not a scientist myself but a social worker who loves the weather. When I work with people there are things I know about them the minute I meet them without saying a word. Once I do talk to them I end up knowing more about them that they haven't told me. Knowing these things comes from my experience working with people and intution. I can't always explain why I know these things either. Once I do find out more about them I am usually dead on with these things I felt and thought about them in the beginnning. Sometimes it is not always about the science of things. I have worked with alot of psychiatrists who stink because they can only look at the human being from the scientific aspect of psychology and they don't look enough at the human aspect of things and they always have to be right. Any time they don't agree with someone whose ideas are innovative or seem impossible to be true, they treat that person the same way you treat Jim. Sometimes you need to stretch the parameters of what you know. maybe there are some things Jim doesn't want to explain or can't explain to your satisfaction. It doesn't mean he is wrong. Sometimes you need to think outside the box to see the possibility of something. There is always more than one way to look at something no matter what it is.

There are really three questions here: can Jim predict the weather, are his predictions really stemming from his space weather process, and does he understand the mechanics behind spaceweather driving the lower atmosphere? He doesn't need to know the answer to #3 for #2 to be true, and he doesn't need to answer "yes" to #2 for #1 to be "yes". This is also why I've made a call on him to post very specific predictions publicly here BEFORE they happen. That's to answer (anecdotally -- real answers wolud require statistical forecast verification) question #1. I've asked him to explain how his forecasting method works -- that's to explain #2. And I've asked him to explain why his forecast method works -- that's to explain #3. Since he doesn't really post much in the way of FORecasts, (though he's posted several AFTERTHEFACTcasts), won't explain how he's doing what he claims to be doing, and can't explain why he thinks his forecasting methods work, where does that leave us?

I'm all for thinking outside of the box, if you get results. Once you notice that you're getting surprising results, the next step (in science, anyway), is to try to determine why you're beating the statistical baseline. Is it a fluke or is there something to it? You don't see researchers jumping up and shouting "THIS IS IT!" the first time a cancer patient goes into remission while taking new drug.

I'm completely cool with anyone putting an upper air map to their head, chanting "nanu nanu!", and coming up with a forecast, so long as they tell everyone that's what they did and don't claim to have invented and become the world's leading expert in an entire new field of science. I'll even respect them for being right all the time about their forecasts (if they are), even if they can't explain how they're doing what they're doing. I've met a few Captain Ahabs in my time who can hop out of their car and "sense" just about everything that's happening and is about to happen on the mesoscale. They couldn't tell you how they do it, they just do. Being able to predict the weather reliably is a significant achievement, no matter what method you use.

[kevin]

I have a lot of things I would love to say to Jim, but I would be subsequently banned, and unlike Jim I actually care about this place and the people here.

[luvwinter]

Kevin I don't know any of you. What I do know is that if you care so much why not just leave it alone. As I said before I am not a scientist but I do enjoy this board so long as it is not a bunch of arguments. Everyone is entitiled to their opinions and beliefs and I think it is okay to debate as long as it doesn't turn into a written argument which sometimes it seems as if that is what it is. Life is too short to get embroiled in a yes it is, no it isn't conflict and I don't enjoy reading about it. Just agree to disagree and let's be adults.

[kevin]

Agreeing to disagree leaves the world in a sorry state. Its called giving in, especially on important topics. Like the nature of science. I notice you came along with the bunch, and welcome you to the board. We're a hospitable place, and I think you'll find us mostly welcoming.

I cannot agree with the idea that if I care so much for something, I should leave it alone. That doesn't make any sense.

[luvwinter]

I don't agree with some of what you said because agreeing to disagree means you respect that someone else's opinion is different from yours. No one ever agrees on everything. If people couldn't agree to disagree there would always be conflict. Agreeing to disagree doesn't mean giving up but to agree that you don't see things the same way and to leave it at that. In my field there are things I believe in with 100% conviction. Others may not agree with me but I can respect that. I will argue a point of view to a degree, but then once I understand that the other person is not going to budge no matter how I present the info I respect that and at the same time will not continue to try to convince he/she as my time can be better spent talking to others who have an open mind and are willing to look at more than one view. I also am willing to consider more than one view. What I meant when I made the comment about caring, is that if you cared about the board you would not argue with others as to their input on something. You don't have to agree with them and can state that respectfully. When reading a topic I don't enjoy reading several posts of a back and forth disagreement.

[kevin]

I agree that respect is due to all posters, and I try to hold my tongue. But this is a forum, and banter and disagreements are natural. So are cliches and the occassional scruffle. We have people all over the world coming here, from many different backgrounds.


Forum - A place of public discussion involving affairs of daily, business and political nature.

This is what it looked like, only the people have been shrunk to add dramatics :
http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~rauhn/roman_forum2.jpg

[luvwinter]

Kevin,

You got me with the definition. Couldn't pull up the link. I like this forum a a great deal and enjoy reading the many different subjects. I have a great interest in global climate and things that affect it.

[artinla]

Jim Hughes started this thread, and I came here to read it because I believe that he genuinely believes that there is a correlation. Honestly, the statistical probability that the correlations between solar weather events and surface weather is mere chance is incredibly small.

If you disagree, argument is a healthy thing to a point. Beating a dead horse in a forum dedicated to ideas and speculation is not productive.

Art

[Dick Pache]

The Maunder Minimum
Early records of sunspots indicate that the Sun went through a period of inactivity in the late 17th century. Very few sunspots were seen on the Sun from about 1645 to 1715 (38 kb JPEG image). Although the observations were not as extensive as in later years, the Sun was in fact well observed during this time and this lack of sunspots is well documented. This period of solar inactivity also corresponds to a climatic period called the "Little Ice Age" when rivers that are normally ice-free froze and snow fields remained year-round at lower altitudes. There is evidence that the Sun has had similar periods of inactivity in the more distant past. The connection between solar activity and terrestrial climate is an area of on-going research.

http://science.msfc.nasa.gov/ssl/pad/solar/Sunspots.htm