Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Astrometeorology: A real science?

  1. Aug 26, 2008 #1
    I heard this term tonight when reading a long term forecast, so I decided to look up what it meant, and astrometeorology means "The study of the theoretical effects of astronomical bodies and forces on the earth’s atmosphere." I was wondering if this is a legit field of science? Since I haven't heard of the field anywhere else.
  2. jcsd
  3. Aug 26, 2008 #2


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    The moon has an effect on the tides and the sun has affects the atmosphere but I'm not sure I would call that astrometeorology.
    There is a legitmate field of 'space weather' which forcasts the effect of the solar wind on the ionosphere which has important consequences for satelites and radio communications,.
  4. Aug 26, 2008 #3
    Well I'm guessing it's pseudoscience then because the sources I read up on this mentioned nothing of solar winds. There was one site that used star constellations. I'm not sure what that has to do with our weather?
  5. Aug 26, 2008 #4


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2015 Award

    It's a safe bet nothing beyond our solar system has any measurable effect on our weather patterns. The sun is the engine that powers weather patterns on earth. Conveyor effects in the atmosphere, oceans - and biological contaminants - are the other big players. Everything else is little more than a mosquito on an elephant.
  6. Sep 10, 2008 #5
    The term means the study of how extraterrestrial things has an impact on Earth's atmosphere.

    To answer LightbulbSun's question: it's a specific branch of meteorology and is a legitimate field. It's just like "hydrometeorology" which is the study of how the water affects the atmosphere and behaves in it and how that affects the world.

    Meteorology isn't the only field to have a subfield like that. Astrobiology studies how extraterrestrial forces impact life on Earth just like their impact on the atmosphere is studied in the field of astrometeorology.

    I just wonder what you might then call the study of the atmosphere of different planets. Extraterrestrialmeteorolgy maybe?
  7. Apr 5, 2010 #6
    More than what's been said above about the moon's ability - more basic, to impact the earth's main ocean-tides", ....

    Personally, I've seen (i.e. noted - with much observation over time.), and am currently studying - in fact, .. the potential that the main "tractive forces", at work on the planet as a whole, and of course stemming from the main gravity emanating from both the moon, and sun, together, ...

    (Or, perhaps better said, tractive-force, looked at more singularly.)

    —{i.e. the main "pulling", or "tide-producing" - force component, of the fuller extent of gravity emanating from, both, the moon, and sun: directed mainly as a result of the moon's various and different movement shift - with respect to the earth, and, where and with also considering the earth's constant rotation ..}—

    ..... may have, to impact the broader both movement, together with distribution, of different main and specific areas of "cold" air mass (primarily.) - within the earth's main and lower weather-producing atmosphere, .. i.e. [both] where focused more narrowly, [and] where and with considering its changing strength - due to its changing main angle of focus - where projected - (together along with also whatever other larger elements of the moon's broader and varied movement and shift relative to the earth, might be in place at the time, influencing this force.), .. at whatever main and changing "sub-point" on the planet.

    Beyond this, .. there's not much tractive force reaching - nor certainly impacting, the earth - either whether as whole or otherwise, as result of any of the other planets' main, movement together with gravitational emanation.

    And apart from this, .... What would it be, .... vast pockets of dark matter. ?

    Apparently, although fairly ill-defined, "Astro-meteorologists", adhere to the idea that somehow, the / a, broader and more general field, of "electro-magnetic" forces, at work within the greater solar-system, .. works to impact a wide variety of - even more specific, different weather phenomena, .. in line with its constantly changing, over-all "configuration"; .... "ruled" - as it were, by the more main and constant movement of each and all of the various planets within the solar-system. / — i.e. apart from the earth - of course, where considering this varied impact on Earth's weather, more specifically.

    Last edited: Apr 5, 2010
  8. Apr 6, 2010 #7
    Johannes Kepler forecasted weather in the 17th century Europe. Take a look at a modern day Astrometeorologist. Google: Astrometeorologist, Theodore White

    Also, take a look at a testimonial from a professional Meteorologist I came across on a Google search. I have followed Mr. White's work for more than a decade and he is an expert in this field.

  9. Apr 6, 2010 #8
    I'm arriving late to this old question by LightbulbSun so here goes. The following information from NASA's CAREER CORNER should be helpful.

    Last edited: Apr 6, 2010
  10. Apr 6, 2010 #9
    Isn't Earth a planetary body as well? Why would an Astromet exclude 'planet earth' ?
  11. Apr 6, 2010 #10
    Because we have enough meteorologists predicting the wrong forecast on earth already.
  12. Apr 6, 2010 #11
    Astrometeorologists are paid to 'study and research planetary weather on planetary bodies other than earth, most evident in the recent exploration of Mars'. A meteorologist studies the weather on earth. Here's a wonderful article that you might like to read 50th Anniversary of the Satellite that “Forever Changed Weather Forecasting” NOAA-NASA Partnership Fostering Better Understanding Of Our Changing Planet dated April 1, 2010. Here is a couple of snips from the article.

  13. Apr 6, 2010 #12
  14. Apr 6, 2010 #13
    TerryC2828, after examining and reviewing the links (url's) that you took the time to find, none provide ‘the history of science’. Furthermore, you had better not be disputing NASA’s Career Corner where it plainly stated, “Astrometeorologists study and research planetary weather on planetary bodies other than earth, most evident in the recent exploration of Mars.”

    I have numbered the seven links (url’s) that you presented. The majority of them are out of date from a long begone era. And, #6 is about astrophysics and #3 seems be somewhat ok. The one about astrology was bunk. But, none of the links you have provided supersedes the one from NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration) - 'the United States space agency that provides current information'.
    Last edited: Apr 6, 2010
  15. Apr 8, 2010 #14
    I am in awe of the robotic research carried out by NASA from the sixties through till to today. I always feel slightly cheated that the same standards are not attained in many of their public offerings, which often seem to have been dumbed down to suit a bored eight year old. Consequently I see no problem at all in disputing NASA's Career Corner.

    The term is ambiguous: it has multiple definitions.

    A common use of the term relates to weather prediction using astrological data. This is of interest mainly to nutters or to historians. Use of the word in this way is widespread and current. They call themselves astrometeorologists.

    Then we have this group at the University of Valpariso whose aim is to consider how Earth weather effects the collection of images at observatories within Chile. They call themselves astrometeorologists.

    Then there are those who investigate the weather on other planets. You told u about them. NASA calls them astrometeorologists.

    By far the greatest number of references are to the bogus hucksters peddling their astrological deceptions, but there is a limited use of the term in a proper scientific context.
  16. Apr 9, 2010 #15

    Ophiolite, I disagree with you.

    Ophiolite, I disagree with you. I have already provided evidence of that in a previous post.


    Ophiolite, they may call themselves "astrometeorologists" but obviously are not.


    Ophiolite, I've reviewed the link and am not convinced that you are correct by calling them "astrometeorologists." Ever heard of the word "ASteroseismology?"


    Ophiolite, NASA stated as I posted in a previous message days ago, "Astrometeorologists study and research planetary weather on planetary bodies other than earth, most evident in the recent exploration of Mars."


    Ophiolite, I think the term astrology in the sense of horescopes and such should not be confused with the study of astronomy. :smile:
    Last edited: Apr 9, 2010
  17. Apr 12, 2010 #16
    Disagree as much as you wish it will not alter the simple facts that the word 'astrometeorologists' has multiple usages. The preferred usage within science may well be that offered by NASA, however it is not the only meaning, nor is it the commonest meaning in the world at large.

    You may find the use of the word in relation to astrology distasteful - that does not alter the reality that such usage is the commonplace.

    Finally, if the Chilean group call themselves astrometeorologists why are you unconvinced. They are bona fide scientists caryying out genuine scientific work. Do you think they might have a slightly better idea than you what it is they are?

    Damn shame Newton didn't understand that.
  18. Jun 26, 2010 #17

    Is this a good point, and place. ?

    Questioned, extensively, .. no "Astro-meteorologist", nor either, proponent of "Astrometeorology" - such as yourself apparently, has supplied a clear view into just why, whatever "coincidence", that they might be observing, occurrence or event more meteorological, to likewise more Astronomical, either whether .. has taken, or either perhaps, might be "caused", to take place.

    Sorry but certain configuration, of "electromagnetic forces", ..... doesn't really "get it".






    Last edited: Jun 26, 2010
  19. Jun 28, 2010 #18
    Others need to judge the quality of the point, but since it directly addresses the OP and discussion arising from it, then it is certainly the place.

    Please excuse me but I find the rest of your post incomprehensible. Could you revisit it please.
  20. Jun 28, 2010 #19

    .. incomprehensible from what point forward exactly. ?

    — Ohp. (!) .. My apologies. I hadn't read the post to which I'd responded very well. .. I hadn't appreciated that the main tack of your post had been regarding/ addressing, the different and various meanings of the term where in fact used. But had thought, instead, in fact, with having been exposed to much, essentially "drivel", regarding the main, the planets apart from the earth, along with the moon and sun, impact the earth's both weather and climate, idea, ..... in fact quite often beginning with statements lead into with something similar to .. "Disagree as much as you wish it will not alter the simple facts that ... ", that this, main idea had still been being touted and being appreciated, as being of subtance. And, with this, my mind had just blocked out the rest of what you had been pointing to, completely.

    Essentially what I've suggested, is the idea that, irrespective of "assertions" made more general - regarding "Astro-meteorology" — again the "movement" of the planets, along with other main celestial bodies apart from Earth relative to it, and this movement's supposed impact on the earth's both main weather and climate — ... no evidence, of any specific cause and effect has been shown, ....

    i.e. to connect whatever occurrence or event more celestial - or "astronomical", with whatever occurrence or event more terrestrial, i.e. taking place within the earth's main "weather-producing" atmosphere — or troposphere.

    — All that I've, either whether heard, or seen, near to this idea, has been a, largely in passing (and certainly vague.), mention reference to a constantly changing — and nowhere near to well-defined - i.e. plottable, configuration ("network" ? I think was used.) of "eletromagnetic forces", shifting constantly, within and throughout the greater solar system.

    (Paints a pretty picture. But otherwise, largely useless.)

    Again, my apologies.
    Last edited: Jun 28, 2010
  21. Jul 1, 2010 #20
    Thank you for your response Richard. It was slightly more understandable. May I be presumptuous and suggest that your writing will be more digestible if you avoid so many parenthetic statements. I had to read your post five or six times and still was not certain I had properly understood you. I intend no offense, but wish to ensure what you say will be listened to.
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?

Similar Discussions: Astrometeorology: A real science?
  1. The test of science (Replies: 5)

  2. Are we(universe) real (Replies: 5)