Theo's AstroMet 2006 Hurricane & Tropical Storm Forecast

[Theo]

Probably should have taken the time to go sequentially through the post...there are so many gems...like this:

According to my calculations, Gulf waters will reach near 80 degrees this month, and increase dramatically in May & June. Observations of gulf water temperatures should be taken now (mid-April) to confirm these astromet findings.

Gulf waters reach "near 80 degrees" EVERY April.

No, they do not. You cannot rationalize the weather Derecho. Why would you even try?

And in a stunning newsflash, oh Master of the Obvious, Gulf temperatures increas in May and June. Every year.

Rationalization once again. Compare this year's SSTs in the Gulf to last year at this time, and tell me, what is the difference in SSTs, and what is the cause? You will see, if you are actually looking, that you cannot rationalize gulf temperatures as you have. Clearly, the waters are heating earlier, and at a faster pace in the Carribean Sea as well. By the way, you misspelled "increase."

I'm anxiously awaiting your forecasts for the sun to rise in the east tomorrow, and for temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere to start getting cooler around the end of September this year, not warming again till late February/Early March of 2007 - all though the magic of "Astrometeorology."

Hey, you seem not to know that astrologers invented meteorology, among the other sciences you seem to take for granted. You also seem to write in your posts that for some reason people before 1900 had no need for long-range weather forecasts. How do you think the weather was forecasted for 2,500 years? You need to know the history of meteorology and it seems you don't.

[Theo]

I don't buy into the moon controlling weather here on Earth. If the moon did control the weather than said weather would be as predictable as the rise and fall of the tides which the moon does influence. Astrology is pure hog wash IMO, but you can believe what you like.....MGC

You must mean "pop-culture astrology" which has nothing to do with classic astrology, which invented meteorology. And, the weather is predictable. Astrologers like Kepler, Brahe, Newton, and others were forecasting the long-range weather using astrologer. So, if it is "hogwash" as you say, those stellar names surely did great things forecasting the weather with it.

[Theo]

Someone needs to save this post here somewhere and as we go along we can do a comparison. Otherwise we may forget. I saw yesterday theres a link on spaceweather http://www.floridadisaster.org/bpr/emto ... /index.htm on the http://www.myflorida.com web site under disaster links. They are starting to research and recognize it.

One of the things the smart conventional mets are doing is admitting that their models show the "effects" and not the "causes" of weather on Earth. This is why space weather science is finally emerging and they have classical astrologers like Kepler, Newton, and astrometeorologists like Pearce, and McCormack and many others to thank for it. The wise mets are now seeing that all weather begins above the Earth's atmosphere, in space, and this is one of the reasons why space weather science is growing.

[Theo]

Hey Theo,

Glad to see you made it to this forum. As you know I always enjoy reading your forecasts. Your input puts a different spin on things, always interesting. You have made many great predictions that have come to fruition. keep up the good work.

Luvwinter

Thanks Luvwinter. How are you dealing with the cooler than normal temps in the NE?

[luvwinter]

Hey Theo,

I am in the midwest but that's OK. The weather here has been nice. Not too warm and not too cold. I see some have been giving you a bunch of heck. Ignore them. Not worth the hassle. They will be changing their tune's just like the other's did on TOFA. What is your thinking on the NE getting hit this year by a Tropical Storm/ Hurricane. You know New Orleans had been holding it's breath every season hoping they wouldn't get hit and actually alot of them thinking it would not happen, but it did. I think NE is more of the mind that it will never happen to us.

[Theo]

Hey Theo,

I am in the midwest but that's OK. The weather here has been nice. Not too warm and not too cold. I see some have been giving you a bunch of heck. Ignore them. Not worth the hassle. They will be changing their tune's just like the other's did on TOFA. What is your thinking on the NE getting hit this year by a Tropical Storm/ Hurricane. You know New Orleans had been holding it's breath every season hoping they wouldn't get hit and actually alot of them thinking it would not happen, but it did. I think NE is more of the mind that it will never happen to us.

It continues to be cooler than normal in the NE, but things will improve as transits show later in the week. As for hurricanes, the SE coastlines from Florida through the Carolinas up to Virginia are highlighted this year.

[Theo]

Theo's explanations have made me much more aware of other factors (space and lunar) that play an important part in the causation aspects of sea surface temperatures and tropical weather. These factors will be important to consider this hurricane season, and any season for that matter.

They sure will.

[Theo]

I just sometimes wonder with the hurricane forecast, how does what you are saying make it unique to astrometrologly? I mean yea it is general place that SST's rise in the summer, so how is that unique to astrometrologly?

I've forecasted the weather accurately for years using astrometeorological principles. My lunar maximums forecast shows, for instance, that this month of May could indeed see the start of the season with the warmer SSTs. Look first to Texas and then western Florida for tropical storm development from mid-to-late May - particularly around May 26 to about June 1.

[Wthrman13]

Someone needs to save this post here somewhere and as we go along we can do a comparison. Otherwise we may forget. I saw yesterday theres a link on spaceweather http://www.floridadisaster.org/bpr/emto ... /index.htm on the http://www.myflorida.com web site under disaster links. They are starting to research and recognize it.

One of the things the smart conventional mets are doing is admitting that their models show the "effects" and not the "causes" of weather on Earth. This is why space weather science is finally emerging and they have classical astrologers like Kepler, Newton, and astrometeorologists like Pearce, and McCormack and many others to thank for it. The wise mets are now seeing that all weather begins above the Earth's atmosphere, in space, and this is one of the reasons why space weather science is growing.

This is quite the misrepresentation of the current state of affairs in "conventional" meteorology, particularly in regards to atmospheric models. I myself am an atmospheric dynamicist and modeler, and I know of no one in the field who says that our models just show the "effects" of weather. The models are imperfect, certainly, but we have a pretty good idea *why* they are imperfect, and it has nothing to do with the fact that we are somehow not including the "real causes" of weather, which according to you, are various space weather effects, motions of planets, etc, etc. Our models incorporate the well-known Newtonian equations of motion as applied to stratified fluid flow, along with several other processes related to changes of phase of water, land and ocean to atmosphere heat and moisture transfer, vegations influences, and etc. The problem is, these other processes are not known very precisely, which is one source of error in our models. Other sources of error, as I've pointed out on this forum in the past, include the inability to know the current state of the atmosphere as precisely as we would like, which leads to divergence of solutions after a period of time. This latter effect is due to the chaotic nature of the equations that describe atmospheric motion. There are enough known sources of error in our models, without having to throw in other issues/hidden causes/processes like you are suggesting. And, despite all this, the models still do a pretty darn good job! If we really were missing the real causes of weather, our current models should be horrible, tipping us off to the probability that we are missing something important, but they are not.

I'm all for the emerging science of space weather. I think it is really interesting stuff, and I visit sites like http://www.spaceweather.com regularly. I have no doubt that space weather does indeed have an influence on the upper atmosphere of the earth, and I strongly suspect that sunspot cycles do indeed have some sort of long-term effect on Earth's climate. The issue is, how large are these effects compared to the overall energy input we get from solar radiation, which is the overwhelming driving force behind Earth's weather? The answer is, under even the most liberal of calculations, incredibly small. Does the motions of Jupiter have an effect on Earth's atmosphere. Undoubtedly they do: the issue is just how big of an effect we are talking about? It's infinitesimal! If we wanted to, in our current weather models, we could add all these gravitational effects from the moon, Jupiter. It would require the addition of a few subroutines here and there. The reason we don't is that such effects are miniscule, not because we aren't aware of them.

Regarding the birth of meteorology from "astrometeorology", it's true that many modern sciences have their roots in such fields that today we would assign under "astrology" (from which astronomy arose), or "alchemy" (from which chemistry arose), but the point is that those disciplines *advanced* beyond such roots. In the case of chemistry, it was eventually discovered that no amount of mixing of chemicals together was going to cause lead to turn into gold, but in the course of such experiments, many things about real chemistry were discovered. Similarly, the idea that the motions of planets influenced things down here on Earth in a significant way, while probably misguided, nevertheless lead to many discoveries about the motions and behavior of celestial bodies, setting the stage for the modern science of Astronomy.

One further thing. Yes, it is true that ultimately our weather begins in space, but not in the way you are saying. Our weather is driven primarily by solar radiation, and this has been understood for centuries now. The small perturbations on the relatively steady solar radiation stream, that we call space weather, are just that, small perturbations, for which no evidence exists that they impact tropospheric weather to any significant degree.

[Theo]

Someone needs to save this post here somewhere and as we go along we can do a comparison. Otherwise we may forget. I saw yesterday theres a link on spaceweather http://www.floridadisaster.org/bpr/emto ... /index.htm on the http://www.myflorida.com web site under disaster links. They are starting to research and recognize it.

One of the things the smart conventional mets are doing is admitting that their models show the "effects" and not the "causes" of weather on Earth. This is why space weather science is finally emerging and they have classical astrologers like Kepler, Newton, and astrometeorologists like Pearce, and McCormack and many others to thank for it. The wise mets are now seeing that all weather begins above the Earth's atmosphere, in space, and this is one of the reasons why space weather science is growing.

This is quite the misrepresentation of the current state of affairs in "conventional" meteorology, particularly in regards to atmospheric models. I myself am an atmospheric dynamicist and modeler, and I know of no one in the field who says that our models just show the "effects" of weather. The models are imperfect, certainly, but we have a pretty good idea *why* they are imperfect, and it has nothing to do with the fact that we are somehow not including the "real causes" of weather, which according to you, are various space weather effects, motions of planets, etc, etc. Our models incorporate the well-known Newtonian equations of motion as applied to stratified fluid flow, along with several other processes related to changes of phase of water, land and ocean to atmosphere heat and moisture transfer, vegations influences, and etc. The problem is, these other processes are not known very precisely, which is one source of error in our models. Other sources of error, as I've pointed out on this forum in the past, include the inability to know the current state of the atmosphere as precisely as we would like, which leads to divergence of solutions after a period of time. This latter effect is due to the chaotic nature of the equations that describe atmospheric motion. There are enough known sources of error in our models, without having to throw in other issues/hidden causes/processes like you are suggesting. And, despite all this, the models still do a pretty darn good job! If we really were missing the real causes of weather, our current models should be horrible, tipping us off to the probability that we are missing something important, but they are not.

I'm all for the emerging science of space weather. I think it is really interesting stuff, and I visit sites like http://www.spaceweather.com regularly. I have no doubt that space weather does indeed have an influence on the upper atmosphere of the earth, and I strongly suspect that sunspot cycles do indeed have some sort of long-term effect on Earth's climate. The issue is, how large are these effects compared to the overall energy input we get from solar radiation, which is the overwhelming driving force behind Earth's weather? The answer is, under even the most liberal of calculations, incredibly small. Does the motions of Jupiter have an effect on Earth's atmosphere. Undoubtedly they do: the issue is just how big of an effect we are talking about? It's infinitesimal! If we wanted to, in our current weather models, we could add all these gravitational effects from the moon, Jupiter. It would require the addition of a few subroutines here and there. The reason we don't is that such effects are miniscule, not because we aren't aware of them.

Regarding the birth of meteorology from "astrometeorology", it's true that many modern sciences have their roots in such fields that today we would assign under "astrology" (from which astronomy arose), or "alchemy" (from which chemistry arose), but the point is that those disciplines *advanced* beyond such roots. In the case of chemistry, it was eventually discovered that no amount of mixing of chemicals together was going to cause lead to turn into gold, but in the course of such experiments, many things about real chemistry were discovered. Similarly, the idea that the motions of planets influenced things down here on Earth in a significant way, while probably misguided, nevertheless lead to many discoveries about the motions and behavior of celestial bodies, setting the stage for the modern science of Astronomy.

One further thing. Yes, it is true that ultimately our weather begins in space, but not in the way you are saying. Our weather is driven primarily by solar radiation, and this has been understood for centuries now. The small perturbations on the relatively steady solar radiation stream, that we call space weather, are just that, small perturbations, for which no evidence exists that they impact tropospheric weather to any significant degree.

I appreciate your view Wthrman13. However, as an astrometeorologist, I am of the view that all weather does not start in the troposphere, since there are atmospheres above the troposphere, and of course, outer space, where the Sun, Moon, planets, and, of course, where our Earth happens to be. This is the reason for astrometeorology, and space weather science. To check the significance of the Moon's direct influence on the Earth, look for yourself, in your own local climate, and see the historical records matched to celestial motions from a scientific ephemeris. Know meteorological history and see for yourself.

I didn't totally get your metaphor to chemistry, perhaps you meant related to alchemy, but I didn't get your meaning here? As for Astrology (logy = logic) and astronomy (nomy = naming) the branch of classical astrology that is Astrometeorology is directly the study of cycles and patterns in celestial mechanics related to meteorology - or, Earthly weather. Historical fact. There is no "myth" there, but astrometeorology is how medium and long-range weather has been forecasted for centuries. Sometimes people forget this. That before the mid-20th century, for thousands of years, weather forecasts were done by astrologers, who are natural stargazers, mathematicians, and scientists.

Astrology is a very refined sidereal science. The classical astrologers were very accurate - enough so to be hired by royalty, governments, etc. Kepler was one of the best astrometeorologists. Newton was quite good himself. Observe the celestial weather where you are. In your own locale, include the Sun, Moon, and planets. See for yourself. That always works best. Thanks for the comments. I enjoyed them.

[vbhoutex]

I just sometimes wonder with the hurricane forecast, how does what you are saying make it unique to astrometrologly? I mean yea it is general place that SST's rise in the summer, so how is that unique to astrometrologly?

I've forecasted the weather accurately for years using astrometeorological principles. My lunar maximums forecast shows, for instance, that this month of May could indeed see the start of the season with the warmer SSTs. Look first to Texas and then western Florida for tropical storm development from mid-to-late May - particularly around May 26 to about June 1.

You are not saying anything here that is not normal for any Hurricane season. Try again. This is very typical for any Hurricane season and has nothing to do with Astrology or Astrometeorology. The SST's WARM UP EVERY YEAR IN MAY AND BEYOND!!! A child with any intelligence could predict that just by looking at historical data. And yes the timing and the areas you are talking about is relatively normal for anything to start if it is going to start during this time of the "season"(in quotes since Hurricane season doesn't officially start till June 1).

[Wthrman13]

I appreciate your view Wthrman13. However, as an astrometeorologist, I am of the view that all weather does not start in the troposphere, since there are atmospheres above the troposphere, and of course, outer space, where the Sun, Moon, planets, and, of course, where our Earth happens to be. This is the reason for astrometeorology, and space weather science. To check the significance of the Moon's direct influence on the Earth, look for yourself, in your own local climate, and see the historical records matched to celestial motions from a scientific ephemeris. Know meteorological history and see for yourself.

I note that you have not attempted to offer any sort of rebuttal to the points I raised. You may be of the view that "all weather does not start in the troposphere", but the evidence is overwhelming that the troposphere and stratosphere are the regions of Earth's atmosphere where by far the most significant dynamical processes occur as far as sensible weather at the earth's surface is concerned. That is what is at issue here, not whether gravitational effects from the sun, moon, and other planets have an effect on our atmosphere (they do), but whether such effects are in any way significant as far as our sensible weather at the earth's surface is concerned (they aren't, at least not in the ways you are suggesting). Sure, we have atmospheric tides from the sun and moon, and they produce small variations in pressure. However, most of the time the other day-to-day weather effects all but drown out such influences, which are spread out over such large scales anyway. If the tidal effects on sensible weather due to the sun and moon are so small, how much smaller and immeasurable must be the effects from the other planets!

I didn't totally get your metaphor to chemistry, perhaps you meant related to alchemy, but I didn't get your meaning here? As for Astrology (logy = logic) and astronomy (nomy = naming) the branch of classical astrology that is Astrometeorology is directly the study of cycles and patterns in celestial mechanics related to meteorology - or, Earthly weather. Historical fact. There is no "myth" there, but astrometeorology is how medium and long-range weather has been forecasted for centuries. Sometimes people forget this. That before the mid-20th century, for thousands of years, weather forecasts were done by astrologers, who are natural stargazers, mathematicians, and scientists.

My point was that through the practices of alchemy, much actual legitimate chemistry was performed, and similarly, through the discipline of astrology, much actual astronomy was performed. Nevertheless, lead could not be changed into gold (at least not through the methods of the alchemists: the irony here is that we *can* actually change lead to gold nowadays, through bombardment in particle accelerators, though the yield is very small), and there is no statistical evidence that peoples fates are preordained in some arcane way by the motions of celestial bodies. Even though such efforts were misguided, they nevertheless led to the legitimate sciences of chemisty and astronomy today. If the ancients did indeed try to use astrology to forecast the weather, I can also imagine that they probably stumbled on some legitimate *real* causes of weather in the process.

Astrology is a very refined sidereal science. The classical astrologers were very accurate - enough so to be hired by royalty, governments, etc. Kepler was one of the best astrometeorologists. Newton was quite good himself. Observe the celestial weather where you are. In your own locale, include the Sun, Moon, and planets. See for yourself. That always works best. Thanks for the comments. I enjoyed them.

If you mean that astrologers make use of well-known celestial motions in their predictions, wrought from the science of Astronomy, then I of course agree. The problem is that they have absolutely no evidence to connect such motions to the types of things they are trying to predict, such as whether I'm going to find a life of wealth and happiness, or if I'm going to meet a premature end, or if now would be a good time for me to invest in cattle futures. You get the idea.

Your suggestions that I "see for myself" by observing celestial motions are so vague as written, that they are all but useless.

Please understand, I'm not trying to be rude, but also understand that I am very skeptical of your claims, especially when you have offered no real evidence to support your claims over and against the ability of conventional meteorology to predict the weather. In my opinion, trying to tie celestial motions to the prediction of the weather is even more doomed to failure than the attempts by some others on this board to link various geomagnetic and solar wind activity effects to sensible tropospheric weather phenomona.

[Theo]

I appreciate your view Wthrman13. However, as an astrometeorologist, I am of the view that all weather does not start in the troposphere, since there are atmospheres above the troposphere, and of course, outer space, where the Sun, Moon, planets, and, of course, where our Earth happens to be. This is the reason for astrometeorology, and space weather science. To check the significance of the Moon's direct influence on the Earth, look for yourself, in your own local climate, and see the historical records matched to celestial motions from a scientific ephemeris. Know meteorological history and see for yourself.

I note that you have not attempted to offer any sort of rebuttal to the points I raised. You may be of the view that "all weather does not start in the troposphere", but the evidence is overwhelming that the troposphere and stratosphere are the regions of Earth's atmosphere where by far the most significant dynamical processes occur as far as sensible weather at the earth's surface is concerned. That is what is at issue here, not whether gravitational effects from the sun, moon, and other planets have an effect on our atmosphere (they do), but whether such effects are in any way significant as far as our sensible weather at the earth's surface is concerned (they aren't, at least not in the ways you are suggesting). Sure, we have atmospheric tides from the sun and moon, and they produce small variations in pressure. However, most of the time the other day-to-day weather effects all but drown out such influences, which are spread out over such large scales anyway. If the tidal effects on sensible weather due to the sun and moon are so small, how much smaller and immeasurable must be the effects from the other planets!

I didn't totally get your metaphor to chemistry, perhaps you meant related to alchemy, but I didn't get your meaning here? As for Astrology (logy = logic) and astronomy (nomy = naming) the branch of classical astrology that is Astrometeorology is directly the study of cycles and patterns in celestial mechanics related to meteorology - or, Earthly weather. Historical fact. There is no "myth" there, but astrometeorology is how medium and long-range weather has been forecasted for centuries. Sometimes people forget this. That before the mid-20th century, for thousands of years, weather forecasts were done by astrologers, who are natural stargazers, mathematicians, and scientists.

My point was that through the practices of alchemy, much actual legitimate chemistry was performed, and similarly, through the discipline of astrology, much actual astronomy was performed. Nevertheless, lead could not be changed into gold (at least not through the methods of the alchemists: the irony here is that we *can* actually change lead to gold nowadays, through bombardment in particle accelerators, though the yield is very small), and there is no statistical evidence that peoples fates are preordained in some arcane way by the motions of celestial bodies. Even though such efforts were misguided, they nevertheless led to the legitimate sciences of chemisty and astronomy today. If the ancients did indeed try to use astrology to forecast the weather, I can also imagine that they probably stumbled on some legitimate *real* causes of weather in the process.

Astrology is a very refined sidereal science. The classical astrologers were very accurate - enough so to be hired by royalty, governments, etc. Kepler was one of the best astrometeorologists. Newton was quite good himself. Observe the celestial weather where you are. In your own locale, include the Sun, Moon, and planets. See for yourself. That always works best. Thanks for the comments. I enjoyed them.

If you mean that astrologers make use of well-known celestial motions in their predictions, wrought from the science of Astronomy, then I of course agree. The problem is that they have absolutely no evidence to connect such motions to the types of things they are trying to predict, such as whether I'm going to find a life of wealth and happiness, or if I'm going to meet a premature end, or if now would be a good time for me to invest in cattle futures. You get the idea.

Your suggestions that I "see for myself" by observing celestial motions are so vague as written, that they are all but useless.

Please understand, I'm not trying to be rude, but also understand that I am very skeptical of your claims, especially when you have offered no real evidence to support your claims over and against the ability of conventional meteorology to predict the weather. In my opinion, trying to tie celestial motions to the prediction of the weather is even more doomed to failure than the attempts by some others on this board to link various geomagnetic and solar wind activity effects to sensible tropospheric weather phenomona.

Well, that's ok to be skeptical. That's how I started - but - with the scientific method... I observed, and recorded... observed, and recorded... over and over again. My "opinions" are not a factor. Only the observable facts. That's all. That is how I learned astrometeorology - and I learned from among the best of the 1970s.

Let's get something straight from the get-go -

ASTRO-LOGY (logy = science, logic, word, discourse)
ASTRO-NOMY (nomy = to name, describe, identify)

Astronomy was born from ASTROLOGY. You know this. This is an historical FACT.

As for the troposphere. Again. Weather develops there, yes, but it is an "effect" - not a cause. The "causes" are solar, lunar, and planetary. I don't stop at the troposphere, ok. I keep going past it. Up is up and there are layers of atmospheres above the troposphere, and above them, the magnetic field of the earth, and then, outer space. Every single square foot of the earth is covered by gemomagnetic lines. I "read" these as an astrologer. I "read" the modulation of the planets through the Sun's magnetic field arms that spread throughout the solar systems. Like a graphic equalizer... we read the modulations of the planets through the Interplanetary Magnetic Field (IMF) and forecast using thousands of years of data from observations of cycles repeating themselves continually... always in the same, and also different ways. Math. This is what astrologers do - true astrologers. Not that "sun'sign" crap. That's not astrology. That's pop-culture astrology. Not the same thing.

Hey, I just work here. I didn't "invent" Astrology, or its branch of weather forecasting called astrometeorology, ok? It's been around a very, very long time. Read Claudius Ptolemy. Go and check out Johannes Kepler, an astrologer, and a very good astrometeorologist at that. His work is seminal. See my other posts on astrometeorology and check out my links. Check the historical facts. See for yourself. I make no "claims" - my work speaks for itself - and the weather always has the last word on long-range forecasts. I am a professional, an expert, so I do not pretend to have "opinions" to cloud my observations. The weather does not care for politics.

As for it being "useless" - I disagree. Do this -

Buy yourself two scientific American Ephemeris for the 20th & the 21st Century. Each one costs about $21-25 dollars. Get a notebook. Record your own local weather for your area... your position, longitude, etc. Mark the dates. Read the ephemeris and mark dates of historical weather events and mark the dates on the ephemeris and note the positions of the Sun, Moon, planets relative to the Earth. Do it every single day. See the cycles/patterns for yourself. I did. Thing is, I started young, at 10 years old, and was trained. I am in my early 40s now. I did it for years before forecasting anything. You can do it too, using the scientific method. Want to prove it ain't so? Go right ahead. But, use the scientific method. Observe. Record. Over and over. Keep your "opinions" out of it. Just observe. See for yourself. If you want to prove it "wrong" - then go right ahead. Be my guest. Don't allow "instrumentation" to overwhelm you as they do conventional materialist scientists. How would you presume to say it is not so because you haven't yet invented an instrument to prove it to you? That's a little limited, don't you think?

I do not "tie" weather to celestial motions. I say that they are directly responsible. Period. I've proved it many many times with my forecasts. And, am not the only one. Just one in a very long line of astrologers who also forecasted the weather. Remember, there was no "Weather Channel" back in the day -for centuries. Just how do you think the weather was forecast" People have always required them - prior to the telegram, radio, or TV. For centuries astrologers have served.

I practice astrophysics and celestial mechanics. I am a professional classical astrologer, mathematician, and scientist. The Earth is not a "closed system" - it is part and parcel of the solar system - inter-connected - not seperated as your words would presume it to be. It is not. The evidence is all around you. Everywhere. Your "opinion" does not matter to the Sun, the Moon, the planets, the stars. They are there, and so is the Earth. All part of the same solar system. Each affects the others.

This is a definition of Astrology. Not the "pop-culture astrology" so many falsely belief is "astrology" - but true, scientific, classical astrology -

ASTROLOGY - (Greek ’αστρον [astron]—heavenly body, start; λογος [logos]—word, logic, discourse] - the oldest applied science known to humanity that states that the celestial bodies (lunar, solar, planetary, and astral cycles) influence the fates of individual people (natal astrology), relations between individual people (synastral/comparative astrology), health and healing process (iatroastrology), the history of nations and social/religious systems (mundane astrology), the fates of human undertakings (elective astrology) relations between the time and place in which a problem is posed and its resolution (horary astrology), changes in weather (astrometeorology). Astrology is practiced today under the names of astrophysics, celestial mechanics, cosmobiology, cosmopsychology, solar biology, astrobiometrics, and astropsychometrics. Classical astrologers invented mathematics - algebra, geometry, and trigonometry, the medical sciences, and many of the applied sciences we take for granted today.

Tycho de Brahe, John Kepler, Galileo,and Newton were classical judicial astrologers and practiced the science daily. Kepler even tried to reform astrology by introducing a new model of how the planets influence men and by criticizing the traditional interpretations of astrology as a science concerning science. Kepler placed greater emphasis on the significance of aspects. An expert astrologer, Kepler emphasized the importance of astrometeorology in weather forecasting.

I don't mind debating at all, but let's get straight on the facts and the history first. See a list of classical astrologers - quite impressive. I stand on the shoulders of some very hard-working people, and just do mathematics buddy. I just work here. Like I said. I did not invent it. Just a "regular American Joe", from a place where astrologers were trained (Philadelphia) and grew up practicing the applied science. The first thing I learned was to forecast the weather using a scientific ephemeris. Seeing is believing they say. I saw.

By the way. The face on the $100 bill was also an astrologer and astrometeorologist himself. Quite expert. America was built on serious, classical astrology. A fact. Even DC was designed to orient to the fixed stars in the constellation Virgo. Hey, if it was good enough for guys like Kepler, Brahe, Newton, and Benjamin Franklin, it's good enough for me. Like I said. I just work here.

[Theo]

I just sometimes wonder with the hurricane forecast, how does what you are saying make it unique to astrometrologly? I mean yea it is general place that SST's rise in the summer, so how is that unique to astrometrologly?

I've forecasted the weather accurately for years using astrometeorological principles. My lunar maximums forecast shows, for instance, that this month of May could indeed see the start of the season with the warmer SSTs. Look first to Texas and then western Florida for tropical storm development from mid-to-late May - particularly around May 26 to about June 1.

You are not saying anything here that is not normal for any Hurricane season. Try again. This is very typical for any Hurricane season and has nothing to do with Astrology or Astrometeorology. The SST's WARM UP EVERY YEAR IN MAY AND BEYOND!!! A child with any intelligence could predict that just by looking at historical data. And yes the timing and the areas you are talking about is relatively normal for anything to start if it is going to start during this time of the "season"(in quotes since Hurricane season doesn't officially start till June 1).

I appreciate your opinion Vbhoutex, but I have to say that you are incorrect. My forecasts include specific dates. And yes, the Sun relative to the Earth at this time of year (called the seasons) are times of hurricanes, and tropical weather, as it is also around the Tropic of Capricorn. What is your point?

Your response is cometimes common. Some people act like hurricanes can only happen in warm weather. But you can have them in winter too. What is your point? Look at a space photo of the blizzard I forecasted for the East Coast last February. You will see an eye in that storm offshore the east coast. A cold water hurricane. They can happen in different seasons. The warm water ones get a lot of PR only because they can be intense and exciting and very destructive. But, the winter ones can blast you too. Remember March 1993? Remember last February 10-11? Convection is convection, right?

As for SSTs. Again. I disagree with you. They are not always the same at particular times of the year - even in traditional seasons they can and have greatly varied. According to my data and expert experience, to the transits. You are confusing "the season" with my forecasts. It is a LUNAR MAXIMUM FORECAST FOR HURRICANE AND TROPICAL STORM SEASON. See the forecast for dates of maximum lunar declinations that cross the Earth's equator and directly influence unstable weather.

[Jim Hughes]

In my opinion, trying to tie celestial motions to the prediction of the weather is even more doomed to failure than the attempts by some others on this board to link various geomagnetic and solar wind activity effects to sensible tropospheric weather phenomona.

I do not read all the forum threads so I wish you would make comments about my own theories in one of my own posts. This would at least give me the option of whether I would like to debate some things with you.

Last years storms, like prior years, followed my forecasting methodology quite well. If you followed space weather you would have noticed that this has also occurred this year, in other parts of the world.

I just got back from a short vacation but I had noticed some talks before I left about how the GFS was forecasting a possible storm for the EPAC.

I found this time frame interesting because I knew we were going to be under the influence of recurrent coronal hole. (Last month Monica formed under these variables.)

The arrival of the coronal windstream started about 72 hours ago. It peaked above the 600 km/sec range. It is currently weakening and approaching the 500 km/sec level.

An important difference this time around? The MJO. I have written about this factor before in some e-mail discussions that I have sent out. (To meteorologists /scientific researchers on both the national and local level.)




Jim

[vbhoutex]

Theo, what is your point in you first paragraph? That has nothing to do with anything except you are stating something that all of us know. It is a time of hurricanes and tropical systems and the sun is higher in the sky when we are moving into the hurricane season. Your point?

Hurricanes only happen in warm weather/waters. Other types of storms that may resemble hurricanes, ie baroclinic lows, noreasters, etc. are NOT HURRICANES since they are not warm core lows which is what is required for a system to be classified as a tropical system or a hurricane. Try that one again!!

I NEVER said the SST's were the same at the same time every year, not did you give specific dates for them to arrive or begin to rise to the levels needed to sustain tropical activity. I am not confusing anything about the season with your "forecasts" as you call them. I know when the official season begins and ends and I know that tropical systems have occurred in every month of the year. You are just spinning words to make it look like something you are saying is unique to your "forecasts". From what I have seen so far none of it is. That is my personal opinion. And believe me I have been watching the tropics and understanding them for many years, possibley longer than you have.

[Theo]

Theo, what is your point in you first paragraph? That has nothing to do with anything except you are stating something that all of us know. It is a time of hurricanes and tropical systems and the sun is higher in the sky when we are moving into the hurricane season. Your point?

Hurricanes only happen in warm weather/waters. Other types of storms that may resemble hurricanes, ie baroclinic lows, noreasters, etc. are NOT HURRICANES since they are not warm core lows which is what is required for a system to be classified as a tropical system or a hurricane. Try that one again!!

I NEVER said the SST's were the same at the same time every year, not did you give specific dates for them to arrive or begin to rise to the levels needed to sustain tropical activity. I am not confusing anything about the season with your "forecasts" as you call them. I know when the official season begins and ends and I know that tropical systems have occurred in every month of the year. You are just spinning words to make it look like something you are saying is unique to your "forecasts". From what I have seen so far none of it is. That is my personal opinion. And believe me I have been watching the tropics and understanding them for many years, possibley longer than you have.

I appreciate your opinion Vbhoutex. However, if you look closely at images from space - you will, indeed, see hurricanes in winter. They are known to, and have occured, in winter - bringing with them lots and lots of precipitation and blizzard conditions dumping massive amounts of precip in the form of snow.

I don't quite understand your reasoning between posts, and do not understand your use of the word "spinning" words. I have no bad intent. I am a classically trained astrologer. I am expert in spiral symmetry, and geomagnetics, and celestial mechanics. I work extensively with fractal spirals. I track space weather, including the motions of the planets, like our Earth, which is in continual motion with the other celestial bodies orbiting the Sun.

The Earth is now inside a decent solar wind stream and there is coronal hole action. I suggest not only monitoring lunar motions, but solar as well. The Sun regulates the general atmosphere, and astromets and space weather scientists constantly monitor the condition of the Sun and the Interplanetary Magnetic Field (IMF) - and for good reason.

I mean what I say, and I write what I mean. There is no spin. You can disagree with me if you choose, sure, however, let's do please stick to the facts and the applied science. Your personal opinion is always welcomed, yes, but please do not confuse being informed on astromet principals of the matter, or, astrological methodologies. If you don't understand them, or know them, it will be difficult to make our point since you don't speak the astromet language. But, as anything, you can always learn something new to you. That's how I did it. I just started younger. Always be open to learning new things. All things are naked and open in the cosmos. For all to see. As above, so below.

As for hurricanes: Again, they can and have happened in the winter. Let's not play semantics please. They are large systems of intense pressure. They can be measured in millibars, and indeed, winter hurricanes do have eyes at their centers. They drop huge amounts of precip - that can come in the form of warm water or snow and do so via terrific winds that eject massive amounts of water and yes - snow, which is just frozen water.

Summer hurricanes eject warm water, and feed off warm SSTs for fuel. Winter storms can feed off the atmosphere - air, be it cold, or warm. We also see autumn cyclones like those near the Tropic of Capricorn. The Moon is now, at this time of writing, nearing maximum southern declination. Look at the weather news. There is a typhoon heading to the South China Sea. It fired up from the Earth's equator. And, with the lunar maximum just ahead - this typhoon should be a big one.

Also, it is now the fall season below the Tropic of Capricorn near Australia, and Indonesia, as it is the spring season here, along the Tropic of Cancer.

Here, in the states, we have a strong, stubborn upper level low pressure system rotating counter-clockwise and stationary - dumping loads of cold rain over the the upper Eastern half of the country with flooding ahead in New England, from additional SE offshore feed. These types of systems vary, we call the weak ones "storms" and the exciting ones "hurricanes" - but they all have things in common - vortex spiral symetry consisting of very high winds, and they can deliever tons of precipitation - water and snow. These hurricanes can occur in all seasons, and in fact have done so many, many times in history. Again, did you see the March "Storm of the Century" 1993 and February Blizzard 2006 winter hurricanes?

As for my forecasts. They may be unique to you, and that's ok. It takes some time to get used to astromet forecasts. Give it a try before being negative about them, ok? I have 33 years of knowledge and experience, so, try to give me the benefit of the doubt before putting me and my forecasts into the nutbin, ok? I am a scientist, and an expert in my chosen methodology. Astrometeorology has millenia of recorded, observational data from many cultures throughout the world. Anyone would be nuts to simply discard all that meteorological data.

[Wthrman13]

In my opinion, trying to tie celestial motions to the prediction of the weather is even more doomed to failure than the attempts by some others on this board to link various geomagnetic and solar wind activity effects to sensible tropospheric weather phenomona.

I do not read all the forum threads so I wish you would make comments about my own theories in one of my own posts. This would at least give me the option of whether I would like to debate some things with you.

Last years storms, like prior years, followed my forecasting methodology quite well. If you followed space weather you would have noticed that this has also occurred this year, in other parts of the world.

I just got back from a short vacation but I had noticed some talks before I left about how the GFS was forecasting a possible storm for the EPAC.

I found this time frame interesting because I knew we were going to be under the influence of recurrent coronal hole. (Last month Monica formed under these variables.)

The arrival of the coronal windstream started about 72 hours ago. It peaked above the 600 km/sec range. It is currently weakening and approaching the 500 km/sec level.

An important difference this time around? The MJO. I have written about this factor before in some e-mail discussions that I have sent out. (To meteorologists /scientific researchers on both the national and local level.)




Jim

Jim,

I did not use your name specifically for just this reason (and I'm not just talking about you anyway). I reserve the right to disagree with your views and point out the relative merits of your views versus those of others if it is appropriate and illustrates a point I'm trying to make, without necessarily notifying you or anyone else about it. I'm sorry if that irked you, but nothing personal was intended. If I would have personally attacked your character, then you would have something to be upset about. As it stands, I don't feel as if I've done anything wrong here.

[Wthrman13]

As for the troposphere. Again. Weather develops there, yes, but it is an "effect" - not a cause. The "causes" are solar, lunar, and planetary. I don't stop at the troposphere, ok. I keep going past it. Up is up and there are layers of atmospheres above the troposphere, and above them, the magnetic field of the earth, and then, outer space. Every single square foot of the earth is covered by gemomagnetic lines. I "read" these as an astrologer. I "read" the modulation of the planets through the Sun's magnetic field arms that spread throughout the solar systems. Like a graphic equalizer... we read the modulations of the planets through the Interplanetary Magnetic Field (IMF) and forecast using thousands of years of data from observations of cycles repeating themselves continually... always in the same, and also different ways. Math. This is what astrologers do - true astrologers. Not that "sun'sign" crap. That's not astrology. That's pop-culture astrology. Not the same thing.

If you re-read my post very carefully, you will see that I am most certainly NOT ignoring anything above the troposphere. The point I'm trying to make is that the sensible weather we experience here at the Earth's surface is almost entirely due to dynamic and physical processes that occur in the troposphere, and to a lesser degree, in the stratosphere. It's not that there isn't weather above the troposphere, or that things that happen up there aren't interesting and have potential effects down here. It's just that, as far as *sensible* weather goes, forcing mechanisms operating in the troposphere and stratosphere are quite adequate to explain most of what goes on in our day-to-day weather. These forcing mechanisms all have their main cause as being differential heating of the Earth's surface (and to a lesser degree, direct heating of the atmosphere itself) from solar radiation. That is the only known *significant* link to processes beyond Earth to our tropospheric and stratospheric weather. Other factors obviously do influence the weather, but they do so to a much lesser degree. At least as far as differential solar heating is concerned, we have a well understood physical mechanism to explain the motions in our atmosphere. As a brief example, differential heating of the land surface and an adjacent ocean or lake surface is sufficient to explain the formation of land and see breezes. As yet another example, the baroclinic zone that often sets up on the eastern shores of continents, due to the temperature contrasts between the cooler land surface, and the warm water currents, particularly in winter, are very conducive to the development of coastal storms, such as Nor-easters. All of these effects can be explained in a physical manner and described by Newton's equations of motion as applied to fluids. You, on the other hand, have yet to offer any sort of physical mechanism whereby celestial motions might influence our weather to any significant degree, let alone control it entirely! Can you explain to me the set of equations describing such influences? I'm ready to hear it. Vague descriptions of correlations and such just won't cut it.

Hey, I just work here. I didn't "invent" Astrology, or its branch of weather forecasting called astrometeorology, ok? It's been around a very, very long time. Read Claudius Ptolemy. Go and check out Johannes Kepler, an astrologer, and a very good astrometeorologist at that. His work is seminal. See my other posts on astrometeorology and check out my links. Check the historical facts. See for yourself. I make no "claims" - my work speaks for itself - and the weather always has the last word on long-range forecasts. I am a professional, an expert, so I do not pretend to have "opinions" to cloud my observations. The weather does not care for politics.

How can you say you make no "claims" when that is all you have done throughout this thread? Your very first post underscores this. You made a claim, either implicitly or explicitly, that motions of the moon will control all sorts of aspects of our weather in the coming months. And, you, as a professional and expert by your own assertion, should know that opinion is very prevalent even among professionals. The issue is not whether we have opinions, but whether they are *informed* opinions. I guess I don't know what you are saying here; I certainly didn't pander to any political influences in my exchange with you up to this point.

As for it being "useless" - I disagree. Do this -

Buy yourself two scientific American Ephemeris for the 20th & the 21st Century. Each one costs about $21-25 dollars. Get a notebook. Record your own local weather for your area... your position, longitude, etc. Mark the dates. Read the ephemeris and mark dates of historical weather events and mark the dates on the ephemeris and note the positions of the Sun, Moon, planets relative to the Earth. Do it every single day. See the cycles/patterns for yourself. I did. Thing is, I started young, at 10 years old, and was trained. I am in my early 40s now. I did it for years before forecasting anything. You can do it too, using the scientific method. Want to prove it ain't so? Go right ahead. But, use the scientific method. Observe. Record. Over and over. Keep your "opinions" out of it. Just observe. See for yourself. If you want to prove it "wrong" - then go right ahead. Be my guest. Don't allow "instrumentation" to overwhelm you as they do conventional materialist scientists. How would you presume to say it is not so because you haven't yet invented an instrument to prove it to you? That's a little limited, don't you think?

What sort of cycles and patterns are you talking about, that I should supposedly see? I know of many cycles and patterns that can be gleaned from local weather observations, and all of them, or nearly all of them, can be explained quite well by a combination of diurnal, synoptic, seasonal, and annual cycles, all of which have well established physical mechanisms tied to them based ultimately, as I said before, on differential heating of the Earth's surface, and (sorry, I failed to mention this before), the influence of Earth's rotation on the motions resulting from differential heating. If you could provide a statistically significant correlation to the position of, say, Jupiter in the sky to any given weather variable, and subsequently rule out ANY other influence that we already have a good understanding of the physical mechanism for, then I might take notice. Until then, as you know, correlation does not imply causation. You have to demonstrate a plausible physical mechanism and/or show that no other correlation that already has a well-established physical mechanism associated with it does not already explain the data. This has nothing to do with opinion (I don't know why you keep bringing this up).

I also take issue with your suggestion to "not be overwhelmed by instrumentation". How else are we to observe the weather, as you encourage, without instrumentation? Even our 5 senses are instrumentation of a sort. I don't say "things aren't so" just because an instrument hasn't proven it to me. I say things are *probably* not so because other mechanisms have already been shown adequate to explain the phenomena. Occam's razor, my friend.

I do not "tie" weather to celestial motions. I say that they are directly responsible. Period. I've proved it many many times with my forecasts. And, am not the only one. Just one in a very long line of astrologers who also forecasted the weather. Remember, there was no "Weather Channel" back in the day -for centuries. Just how do you think the weather was forecast" People have always required them - prior to the telegram, radio, or TV. For centuries astrologers have served.

Directly responsible? Again, an unproven assertion. You say you have proven it with your forecasts. I'd love to see such proof. I have no doubt that in the past astrologers were indeed tasked with forecasting the weather. What I DO doubt is their accuracy. It's only in the last century that our weather forecasts have even begun to approach the level of useful accuracy beyond more than a day. If astrometeorology is so good, where is the evidence of it's efficacy?

I practice astrophysics and celestial mechanics. I am a professional classical astrologer, mathematician, and scientist. The Earth is not a "closed system" - it is part and parcel of the solar system - inter-connected - not seperated as your words would presume it to be. It is not. The evidence is all around you. Everywhere. Your "opinion" does not matter to the Sun, the Moon, the planets, the stars. They are there, and so is the Earth. All part of the same solar system. Each affects the others.

Of course the Earth is not a closed system, and I never claimed it was. Please re-read my posts carefully. Do not attribute things to me that I did not say, and in fact was careful to avoid saying.

Tycho de Brahe, John Kepler, Galileo,and Newton were classical judicial astrologers and practiced the science daily. Kepler even tried to reform astrology by introducing a new model of how the planets influence men and by criticizing the traditional interpretations of astrology as a science concerning science. Kepler placed greater emphasis on the significance of aspects. An expert astrologer, Kepler emphasized the importance of astrometeorology in weather forecasting.

I don't mind debating at all, but let's get straight on the facts and the history first. See a list of classical astrologers - quite impressive. I stand on the shoulders of some very hard-working people, and just do mathematics buddy. I just work here. Like I said. I did not invent it. Just a "regular American Joe", from a place where astrologers were trained (Philadelphia) and grew up practicing the applied science. The first thing I learned was to forecast the weather using a scientific ephemeris. Seeing is believing they say. I saw.

By the way. The face on the $100 bill was also an astrologer and astrometeorologist himself. Quite expert. America was built on serious, classical astrology. A fact. Even DC was designed to orient to the fixed stars in the constellation Virgo. Hey, if it was good enough for guys like Kepler, Brahe, Newton, and Benjamin Franklin, it's good enough for me. Like I said. I just work here.

I have no doubt many of these people you are talking about dabbled, or even devoted a significant portion of their lives, to astrology. That is immaterial. Even if true, it is totally irrelevant to whether such endeavors were accurate ways of forecasting the weather. History, of which you are so quick to refer to, shows us unequivocably, that they were not.

[Theo]

As for the troposphere. Again. Weather develops there, yes, but it is an "effect" - not a cause. The "causes" are solar, lunar, and planetary. I don't stop at the troposphere, ok. I keep going past it. Up is up and there are layers of atmospheres above the troposphere, and above them, the magnetic field of the earth, and then, outer space. Every single square foot of the earth is covered by gemomagnetic lines. I "read" these as an astrologer. I "read" the modulation of the planets through the Sun's magnetic field arms that spread throughout the solar systems. Like a graphic equalizer... we read the modulations of the planets through the Interplanetary Magnetic Field (IMF) and forecast using thousands of years of data from observations of cycles repeating themselves continually... always in the same, and also different ways. Math. This is what astrologers do - true astrologers. Not that "sun'sign" crap. That's not astrology. That's pop-culture astrology. Not the same thing.

If you re-read my post very carefully, you will see that I am most certainly NOT ignoring anything above the troposphere. The point I'm trying to make is that the sensible weather we experience here at the Earth's surface is almost entirely due to dynamic and physical processes that occur in the troposphere, and to a lesser degree, in the stratosphere. It's not that there isn't weather above the troposphere, or that things that happen up there aren't interesting and have potential effects down here. It's just that, as far as *sensible* weather goes, forcing mechanisms operating in the troposphere and stratosphere are quite adequate to explain most of what goes on in our day-to-day weather. These forcing mechanisms all have their main cause as being differential heating of the Earth's surface (and to a lesser degree, direct heating of the atmosphere itself) from solar radiation. That is the only known *significant* link to processes beyond Earth to our tropospheric and stratospheric weather. Other factors obviously do influence the weather, but they do so to a much lesser degree. At least as far as differential solar heating is concerned, we have a well understood physical mechanism to explain the motions in our atmosphere. As a brief example, differential heating of the land surface and an adjacent ocean or lake surface is sufficient to explain the formation of land and see breezes. As yet another example, the baroclinic zone that often sets up on the eastern shores of continents, due to the temperature contrasts between the cooler land surface, and the warm water currents, particularly in winter, are very conducive to the development of coastal storms, such as Nor-easters. All of these effects can be explained in a physical manner and described by Newton's equations of motion as applied to fluids. You, on the other hand, have yet to offer any sort of physical mechanism whereby celestial motions might influence our weather to any significant degree, let alone control it entirely! Can you explain to me the set of equations describing such influences? I'm ready to hear it. Vague descriptions of correlations and such just won't cut it.

Hey, I just work here. I didn't "invent" Astrology, or its branch of weather forecasting called astrometeorology, ok? It's been around a very, very long time. Read Claudius Ptolemy. Go and check out Johannes Kepler, an astrologer, and a very good astrometeorologist at that. His work is seminal. See my other posts on astrometeorology and check out my links. Check the historical facts. See for yourself. I make no "claims" - my work speaks for itself - and the weather always has the last word on long-range forecasts. I am a professional, an expert, so I do not pretend to have "opinions" to cloud my observations. The weather does not care for politics.

How can you say you make no "claims" when that is all you have done throughout this thread? Your very first post underscores this. You made a claim, either implicitly or explicitly, that motions of the moon will control all sorts of aspects of our weather in the coming months. And, you, as a professional and expert by your own assertion, should know that opinion is very prevalent even among professionals. The issue is not whether we have opinions, but whether they are *informed* opinions. I guess I don't know what you are saying here; I certainly didn't pander to any political influences in my exchange with you up to this point.

As for it being "useless" - I disagree. Do this -

Buy yourself two scientific American Ephemeris for the 20th & the 21st Century. Each one costs about $21-25 dollars. Get a notebook. Record your own local weather for your area... your position, longitude, etc. Mark the dates. Read the ephemeris and mark dates of historical weather events and mark the dates on the ephemeris and note the positions of the Sun, Moon, planets relative to the Earth. Do it every single day. See the cycles/patterns for yourself. I did. Thing is, I started young, at 10 years old, and was trained. I am in my early 40s now. I did it for years before forecasting anything. You can do it too, using the scientific method. Want to prove it ain't so? Go right ahead. But, use the scientific method. Observe. Record. Over and over. Keep your "opinions" out of it. Just observe. See for yourself. If you want to prove it "wrong" - then go right ahead. Be my guest. Don't allow "instrumentation" to overwhelm you as they do conventional materialist scientists. How would you presume to say it is not so because you haven't yet invented an instrument to prove it to you? That's a little limited, don't you think?

What sort of cycles and patterns are you talking about, that I should supposedly see? I know of many cycles and patterns that can be gleaned from local weather observations, and all of them, or nearly all of them, can be explained quite well by a combination of diurnal, synoptic, seasonal, and annual cycles, all of which have well established physical mechanisms tied to them based ultimately, as I said before, on differential heating of the Earth's surface, and (sorry, I failed to mention this before), the influence of Earth's rotation on the motions resulting from differential heating. If you could provide a statistically significant correlation to the position of, say, Jupiter in the sky to any given weather variable, and subsequently rule out ANY other influence that we already have a good understanding of the physical mechanism for, then I might take notice. Until then, as you know, correlation does not imply causation. You have to demonstrate a plausible physical mechanism and/or show that no other correlation that already has a well-established physical mechanism associated with it does not already explain the data. This has nothing to do with opinion (I don't know why you keep bringing this up).

I also take issue with your suggestion to "not be overwhelmed by instrumentation". How else are we to observe the weather, as you encourage, without instrumentation? Even our 5 senses are instrumentation of a sort. I don't say "things aren't so" just because an instrument hasn't proven it to me. I say things are *probably* not so because other mechanisms have already been shown adequate to explain the phenomena. Occam's razor, my friend.

I do not "tie" weather to celestial motions. I say that they are directly responsible. Period. I've proved it many many times with my forecasts. And, am not the only one. Just one in a very long line of astrologers who also forecasted the weather. Remember, there was no "Weather Channel" back in the day -for centuries. Just how do you think the weather was forecast" People have always required them - prior to the telegram, radio, or TV. For centuries astrologers have served.

Directly responsible? Again, an unproven assertion. You say you have proven it with your forecasts. I'd love to see such proof. I have no doubt that in the past astrologers were indeed tasked with forecasting the weather. What I DO doubt is their accuracy. It's only in the last century that our weather forecasts have even begun to approach the level of useful accuracy beyond more than a day. If astrometeorology is so good, where is the evidence of it's efficacy?

I practice astrophysics and celestial mechanics. I am a professional classical astrologer, mathematician, and scientist. The Earth is not a "closed system" - it is part and parcel of the solar system - inter-connected - not seperated as your words would presume it to be. It is not. The evidence is all around you. Everywhere. Your "opinion" does not matter to the Sun, the Moon, the planets, the stars. They are there, and so is the Earth. All part of the same solar system. Each affects the others.

Of course the Earth is not a closed system, and I never claimed it was. Please re-read my posts carefully. Do not attribute things to me that I did not say, and in fact was careful to avoid saying.

Tycho de Brahe, John Kepler, Galileo,and Newton were classical judicial astrologers and practiced the science daily. Kepler even tried to reform astrology by introducing a new model of how the planets influence men and by criticizing the traditional interpretations of astrology as a science concerning science. Kepler placed greater emphasis on the significance of aspects. An expert astrologer, Kepler emphasized the importance of astrometeorology in weather forecasting.

I don't mind debating at all, but let's get straight on the facts and the history first. See a list of classical astrologers - quite impressive. I stand on the shoulders of some very hard-working people, and just do mathematics buddy. I just work here. Like I said. I did not invent it. Just a "regular American Joe", from a place where astrologers were trained (Philadelphia) and grew up practicing the applied science. The first thing I learned was to forecast the weather using a scientific ephemeris. Seeing is believing they say. I saw.

By the way. The face on the $100 bill was also an astrologer and astrometeorologist himself. Quite expert. America was built on serious, classical astrology. A fact. Even DC was designed to orient to the fixed stars in the constellation Virgo. Hey, if it was good enough for guys like Kepler, Brahe, Newton, and Benjamin Franklin, it's good enough for me. Like I said. I just work here.

I have no doubt many of these people you are talking about dabbled, or even devoted a significant portion of their lives, to astrology. That is immaterial. Even if true, it is totally irrelevant to whether such endeavors were accurate ways of forecasting the weather. History, of which you are so quick to refer to, shows us unequivocably, that they were not.

Again, I respectfully disagree with your assertion. There was no "dabbling" as you put it. Nor is it "totally irrelevant" as you say. It is true, a fact, and history. If you are so sure it is not - then - prove that it is not - unequivocably. You will come to see that you cannot. But, be my guest. See for yourself.