Research ("space weather") driven severe weather forecasts

[WxUSAF]

Solar system space is three-dimensional.

Well duh.

The field sectors could theoretically wrap around the Sun or any space within 0.2 A.U. of the Sun and continue on.

I don't know what sort of "field sector" you're talking about. But if it's a magnetic field sector, then NO, they can't "theoretically wrap around the Sun or any space within 0.2 AU of the Sun and continue on.

The Sun's magnetic field and the interplanetary magnetic field (IMF) don't work that way. Actually, fundamental physics doesn't work that way. The ACE satellite measures the IMF constantly and no "J-field" has been detected. So, if the "J-field" is detectable using something other than a Ouija board, it hasn't happened yet.

How do you explain the temperature signals and the rather obvious correlations to Jupiter's orbital positions?

What temperature signals? You've claimed this amazing signal at Toronto (of all places), but haven't showed anything remotely convincing of this. Even if there was a signal, without a MECHANISM it's irrelevant. You obviously don't understand how science works. Correlation DOES NOT imply causation. Since you haven't even correlated anything, there is ZERO reason to believe there is causation.

Also, I would ask any critic this question, how would you explain a fivefold increase in daily precip in the 6-12 hour time frame after J-I transit, observed over 100 years of data?

As I said, correlation does NOT imply causation. This is a fundamental fact and a logical fallacy to suggest otherwise. You have NOT demonstrated a correlation anyway.

At some point, high correlations and strength of signal are more than coincidences. They must at least point to related processes.

WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG x 10000000000

[Ellinwood]

I'm still waiting to hear about how this all can be used to accurately forecast a mesoscale severe event, and why the only forecast for severe weather failed.

[Roger Smith]

The graphs presented look almost exactly the way they would look "professionally" so I don't really get that objection. I've used some colour to make the anomalies more apparent. Questions about "where is the data?" at this point seem obtuse to me. The data are presented in the graphs. Of course I have a ton more, but if people don't want to engage with the first set I am not going to waste band-width with further sets.

I will soldier on through this upcoming energy peak on Saturday and perhaps move the whole enterprise off the forum after that, I think people have had a chance to see the concepts and find out what events can theoretically illustrate the concepts. That's my main objective here, I have already given up trying for "mainstream recognition" because there are just too many obstacles and I am quite old. When I spoke about complexity, I meant volume of data complexity, not degree of difficulty complexity. A reasonable explanation of this theory requires a monograph-length publication with at least 100 pages if not quite a large multiple thereof, since this J-field component is only about 10 per cent of the total.

I'm well aware that nuclear physics, special relativity, organic chemistry etc are far more challenging intellectually than anything we could be discussing here whether people like the theory or not. I took courses in some of those subjects and have no illusions about degree of difficulty.

But anyway, I will present some forecast previews for tomorrow based on the research model and then discuss the events that actually unfold. After that, I think I would review whether it's useful to the forum or myself to continue the volume of work required to maintain the thread. If anyone is actually supportive then don't be shy about it, they won't come and arrest you (perhaps me, but I could use an exercise routine).

------------------------------

PREVIEW FOR SAT JUL 14 J-FIELD MAJOR ENERGY PEAK

Severe weather outbreak associated likely to hit MN-WI-MI and later ON, possibly n IL-IN-OH

Two related illustrations of research model guidance. First is the schematic diagram of converging energy loops. The perspective is from above Jupiter's southern hemisphere around 45 deg lat, from a point under the Jupiter-Sun axis and about 50-100 Jupiter radii from the planet, or well beyond the orbit of all moons shown. The larger dots indicate positions at 14z for the GRS, J-V, and J-I, J-II, also (upper left) J-III. Other dots give a schematic illustration of rotation in orbit (or on cloud surface for GRS) in hourly intervals. Green lines show the alignment of the four elements in the developing energy peak.

The orbits are basically in the orbital plane of Jupiter and shadows currently fall onto the southern equatorial region not far from the latitude (22 S) of the GRS. Although the diagram attempts to show this, you may not instantly perceive that the satellites are on the observer's side of Jupiter and the lower parts of the orbits are the eclipse portions.

The alignments have already been discussed. J-I overtakes J-II at 12z after both have transited Jupiter (shadows appear first and indicate heliocentric transit times of 06z and 09z). Shadows Shortly after this, J-V transits around 1345z and the GRS around 1410z. The GRS overtakes J-V around 1630z about the time the GRS is rotating off the visible side of the planet.

Meanwhile, J-III is moving much slower towards its own transit late Sunday and this would take place off the diagram upper centre. J-IV is moving even slower well off to the left of this view and also heading for a transit in about five days.

This discussion is only about the inner four elements and how the interactions may play out in the severe weather development. A favourable environment seems to exist with a trough, hot, humid air and model forecasts of 0.5-1.0 inch or more QPF in the zone identified as the track of the energy loops (see previous diagram many posts back).

The current assessment is that the field is slowly returning east to where it was around July 2-3 when there was a similar peak (at a later time of day). Thus, the severe weather forecast MODEL (24h) from this research can be summarized on the following map and attached discussion.

DISCUSSION

Energy development follows the same timing and shape as illustrated in the Jupiter energy system diagram.

J-II energy will track across central MN n WI and up MI towards central ON, while J-I energy overtakes near Lake Michigan on a more southward track.

J-V and GRS energy expected to loop over IL, IN and s WI, sw MI as shown.

Interaction and diurnal issues should give the following outcomes:

Early morning TRW likely MN-IA with near-dawn eruption of cells sw of ORD.

Later morning (14z is 10h EDT) organized frontal band possibly trowal oriented N-S near Lake Michigan will introduce severe development around GRB towards TVC to APN and some distance south into MI. This will peak around 18z in the Lake Huron region when a bow echo situation may develop as J-I overtakes J-II more significantly, and this may maintain severe levels into sw ON. Remnants will begin to rotate more southeastward into NY and PA by evening as J-I loop detaches from couplet with J-II. Moderate activity likely to continue with J-II loop into Ottawa and Montreal regions.

Mid-morning to early afternoon powerful severe storm development and possible tornadic cells likely in J-I track, also when J-V and GRS overtake each other and J-I about 17z (1300h EDT) forming a possible MCS in an arc approximately LAN-FWA-IND-SPI-UIN ... this feature may make more progress south than the energy loops as it feeds off its own meteorological energy, but there may be a tendency for detachment from J-I energy around FNT so hit or miss prospects for southern Lake Huron between energy bands. Ohio could see powerful late stage of MCS by 21z. I don't foresee this one racing east derecho style but some of the northern cells in s/c ON may form a partial squall line.

With reference to map, orange "blobs" show hourly progress of developing severe storm complex inner loops, possible MCS near end of that time frame (the 14z positions are identified by largest dots on tracks). The red hatched areas are likely paths for severe storms moving east, and the grey hatched area represents a possible isolated storm development zone so that coverage in that zone might be more "hit or miss" than north or south.

Possible range of errors ... entire scenario could play out somewhat slower and further west depending on J-field actual location as of 15z-21z. If slower then more of WI at risk of severe storms. Not likely to be significantly faster than model shows. MCS zone less reliable than J-I/J-II paths, but greater confidence than past occasion. Tornado risk probably in the 5% range by SPC standards and across most of eastern WI, southern MI, northern and central IL-IN-nw OH, into southern central ON and extreme w NY, nw PA.

Will be back tomorrow during event to discuss with possible further diagrams to illustrate more exact timing.

[Ed Lizard]

Data only Roger knows, apparently, and can only sometimes be bothered to do a quick Paint diagram for, it appears.

This, apparently, constitutes "data"...

[tornadotony]

The graphs presented look almost exactly the way they would look "professionally" so I don't really get that objection. I've used some colour to make the anomalies more apparent. Questions about "where is the data?" at this point seem obtuse to me. The data are presented in the graphs. Of course I have a ton more, but if people don't want to engage with the first set I am not going to waste band-width with further sets.

No, they don't. Please use R or Excel.

I will soldier on through this upcoming energy peak on Saturday and perhaps move the whole enterprise off the forum after that, I think people have had a chance to see the concepts and find out what events can theoretically illustrate the concepts. That's my main objective here, I have already given up trying for "mainstream recognition" because there are just too many obstacles and I am quite old. When I spoke about complexity, I meant volume of data complexity, not degree of difficulty complexity. A reasonable explanation of this theory requires a monograph-length publication with at least 100 pages if not quite a large multiple thereof, since this J-field component is only about 10 per cent of the total.

How about some simple correlations, statistical models, T-tests, something?

I'm well aware that nuclear physics, special relativity, organic chemistry etc are far more challenging intellectually than anything we could be discussing here whether people like the theory or not. I took courses in some of those subjects and have no illusions about degree of difficulty.

Have you ever reviewed a mesoscale dynamic equation? We talk in broad-brushes about mesoscale dynamic theory all the time (it's implicit to discussion about deep moist convection), but I assure you, you do not want to see most of those equations.

But anyway, I will present some forecast previews for tomorrow based on the research model and then discuss the events that actually unfold. After that, I think I would review whether it's useful to the forum or myself to continue the volume of work required to maintain the thread. If anyone is actually supportive then don't be shy about it, they won't come and arrest you (perhaps me, but I could use an exercise routine).

------------------------------

PREVIEW FOR SAT JUL 14 J-FIELD MAJOR ENERGY PEAK

Severe weather outbreak associated likely to hit MN-WI-MI and later ON, possibly n IL-IN-OH

Two related illustrations of research model guidance. First is the schematic diagram of converging energy loops. The perspective is from above Jupiter's southern hemisphere around 45 deg lat, from a point under the Jupiter-Sun axis and about 50-100 Jupiter radii from the planet, or well beyond the orbit of all moons shown. The larger dots indicate positions at 14z for the GRS, J-V, and J-I, J-II, also (upper left) J-III. Other dots give a schematic illustration of rotation in orbit (or on cloud surface for GRS) in hourly intervals. Green lines show the alignment of the four elements in the developing energy peak.

The orbits are basically in the orbital plane of Jupiter and shadows currently fall onto the southern equatorial region not far from the latitude (22 S) of the GRS. Although the diagram attempts to show this, you may not instantly perceive that the satellites are on the observer's side of Jupiter and the lower parts of the orbits are the eclipse portions.

The alignments have already been discussed. J-I overtakes J-II at 12z after both have transited Jupiter (shadows appear first and indicate heliocentric transit times of 06z and 09z). Shadows Shortly after this, J-V transits around 1345z and the GRS around 1410z. The GRS overtakes J-V around 1630z about the time the GRS is rotating off the visible side of the planet.

Meanwhile, J-III is moving much slower towards its own transit late Sunday and this would take place off the diagram upper centre. J-IV is moving even slower well off to the left of this view and also heading for a transit in about five days.

This discussion is only about the inner four elements and how the interactions may play out in the severe weather development. A favourable environment seems to exist with a trough, hot, humid air and model forecasts of 0.5-1.0 inch or more QPF in the zone identified as the track of the energy loops (see previous diagram many posts back).

It takes more than just a trough, hot/humid air, and high QPF values on the models to indicate an environment ripe for an "outbreak," as you put it. An outbreak needs substantial wind shear (30kt or greater typically). The 10-20kt projected for the GL region tomorrow simply won't cut it, especially w/o extreme instability, which we won't quite have.

The current assessment is that the field is slowly returning east to where it was around July 2-3 when there was a similar peak (at a later time of day). Thus, the severe weather forecast MODEL (24h) from this research can be summarized on the following map and attached discussion.

DISCUSSION

Energy development follows the same timing and shape as illustrated in the Jupiter energy system diagram.

J-II energy will track across central MN n WI and up MI towards central ON, while J-I energy overtakes near Lake Michigan on a more southward track.

J-V and GRS energy expected to loop over IL, IN and s WI, sw MI as shown.

Interaction and diurnal issues should give the following outcomes:

Early morning TRW likely MN-IA with near-dawn eruption of cells sw of ORD.

Later morning (14z is 10h EDT) organized frontal band possibly trowal oriented N-S near Lake Michigan will introduce severe development around GRB towards TVC to APN and some distance south into MI. This will peak around 18z in the Lake Huron region when a bow echo situation may develop as J-I overtakes J-II more significantly, and this may maintain severe levels into sw ON. Remnants will begin to rotate more southeastward into NY and PA by evening as J-I loop detaches from couplet with J-II. Moderate activity likely to continue with J-II loop into Ottawa and Montreal regions.

Please read the definition of a TROWAL: http://www.expertglo...finition/trowal

Mid-morning to early afternoon powerful severe storm development and possible tornadic cells likely in J-I track, also when J-V and GRS overtake each other and J-I about 17z (1300h EDT) forming a possible MCS in an arc approximately LAN-FWA-IND-SPI-UIN ... this feature may make more progress south than the energy loops as it feeds off its own meteorological energy, but there may be a tendency for detachment from J-I energy around FNT so hit or miss prospects for southern Lake Huron between energy bands. Ohio could see powerful late stage of MCS by 21z. I don't foresee this one racing east derecho style but some of the northern cells in s/c ON may form a partial squall line.

Nope, not gonna happen. Not without shear or a robustly favorable environment for nonsupercell tornado production, which would be charaterized by extreme low-level lapse rates and sfc vorticity, the latter of which will likely be lacking tomorrow.

With reference to map, orange "blobs" show hourly progress of developing severe storm complex inner loops, possible MCS near end of that time frame (the 14z positions are identified by largest dots on tracks). The red hatched areas are likely paths for severe storms moving east, and the grey hatched area represents a possible isolated storm development zone so that coverage in that zone might be more "hit or miss" than north or south.

Possible range of errors ... entire scenario could play out somewhat slower and further west depending on J-field actual location as of 15z-21z. If slower then more of WI at risk of severe storms. Not likely to be significantly faster than model shows. MCS zone less reliable than J-I/J-II paths, but greater confidence than past occasion. Tornado risk probably in the 5% range by SPC standards and across most of eastern WI, southern MI, northern and central IL-IN-nw OH, into southern central ON and extreme w NY, nw PA.

Will be back tomorrow during event to discuss with possible further diagrams to illustrate more exact timing.

You won't see a 5% tornado risk from SPC unless it is a QLCS or supercell tornado threat. Tomorrow will have neither because of the poor deep-layer shear values.

[PSUBlizzicane2007]

The graphs presented look almost exactly the way they would look "professionally" so I don't really get that objection.

I can't make it past here without bursting into a bag of giggles. The only "professionals" who use Microsoft Paint are fringe forecasters like DT. Otherwise most forecasters use professional graphics systems or, at minimum, scientific graphical packages like R, MATLAB, GRADS, etc.

[phil882]

The graphs presented look almost exactly the way they would look "professionally" so I don't really get that objection. I've used some colour to make the anomalies more apparent. Questions about "where is the data?" at this point seem obtuse to me. The data are presented in the graphs. Of course I have a ton more, but if people don't want to engage with the first set I am not going to waste band-width with further sets.

I'll try to go over each bolded point.

1. Here is a paper I think that I would recommend you read. The paper is actually on a fairly complex and complicated process that takes photographs and maps it to the proper dimensions of dopper radar data that was taken during the LaGrange Tornado (The tornado that became famous during the VORTEX2 field campaign.) Note how the figures are annotated and professionally created. Not only that, but there is a detailed yet accessible explanation on how the data is obtained and mapped onto the photograph. Wakimoto is famous (like his former advisor Dr. Fujita) for his detailed and carefully crafted figures that are complex yet also easy to understand. It isn't all that hard to use PowerPoint to create similar professionally done figures (and in fact thats often the software of choice when presenting at conferences). Just look how much information is effectively conveyed in this figure. Note how well its annotated and easy to understand.

2. Typically its important to source your data. You didn't go out into Jupiter and obtain your data all by yourself, so you probably obtained it from some source. Whether thats NASA or NOAA or some other organization that obtained this information via satellite or some surface observing station, its important to point out where you obtained your data and link a source if you want people to believe the information you are presenting.

3. People are likely reluctant to engage because they don't understand what you are presenting. If you can simplify what you are explaining and apply it in a meteorological sense, I think you will find people much more willing to listen to your argument. Right now all I've understood thus far is that Jupiter has a electromagnetic field and its "energy" somehow influences both temperature and storm development over a oddly specific area in the United States. Its great that you see some correlation, but you need to back up that correlation with an explanation for why it happens. X happens, therefore Y occurs is not enough information to effectively prove your point.

[Roger Smith]

I was never proposing to publish a scientific paper in this thread, folks ... relax, it's just an idea that surely isn't that tough to understand. The source of the Jupiter data over many years has been the standard, the Astronomical Almanac. I have a raft of astronomy data here from many sources. But I linked to some current sources of data available through Sky and Telescope Magazine.

As to what's going to happen later, the system is already looking quite active and I think it may over-perform vs forecasts but I understand the point you're making about upper level winds and shear. We're lucky these aren't too strong given these magnetic variables coming into phase.

Both the 1925 and 1974 major tornado outbreaks had J-II / J-I phased transits (an event that happens every 1.3 years as I explained a while back). It's not a guarantee of tornadic activity but I believe that it is a major variable in the creation of severe storms.

If this is doing wrong, I am not sure what your (collective) idea of doing right is, I (obviously) spent my adult life outside the scientific mainstream and only mixed with normal folks.

[tornadotony]

I was never proposing to publish a scientific paper in this thread, folks ... relax, it's just an idea that surely isn't that tough to understand. The source of the Jupiter data over many years has been the standard, the Astronomical Almanac. I have a raft of astronomy data here from many sources. But I linked to some current sources of data available through Sky and Telescope Magazine.

As to what's going to happen later, the system is already looking quite active and I think it may over-perform vs forecasts but I understand the point you're making about upper level winds and shear. We're lucky these aren't too strong given these magnetic variables coming into phase.

Both the 1925 and 1974 major tornado outbreaks had J-II / J-I phased transits (an event that happens every 1.3 years as I explained a while back). It's not a guarantee of tornadic activity but I believe that it is a major variable in the creation of severe storms.

If this is doing wrong, I am not sure what your (collective) idea of doing right is, I (obviously) spent my adult life outside the scientific mainstream and only mixed with normal folks.

The 1925 and 1974 outbreaks, aside from being massive fatality events, are two very different events. The general synoptic pattern (and thus the sfc low track and intensity) for each system was quite different than the other, with the 1925 event a much subdued disturbance than the massive, broad-based long-wave trough and associated 980 hPa low associated with the Super Outbreak. And even though both outbreaks contained multiple violent tornadoes, the 1974 outbreak had much more widespread violent tornadic activity. Both events may have had J-II/J-1 phased transits, but the two outbreaks synoptically are so different that you cannot establish a relationship on the Earth end of the postulation, let alone the Jupiter end.

[phil882]

I was never proposing to publish a scientific paper in this thread, folks ... relax, it's just an idea that surely isn't that tough to understand. The source of the Jupiter data over many years has been the standard, the Astronomical Almanac. I have a raft of astronomy data here from many sources. But I linked to some current sources of data available through Sky and Telescope Magazine.

As to what's going to happen later, the system is already looking quite active and I think it may over-perform vs forecasts but I understand the point you're making about upper level winds and shear. We're lucky these aren't too strong given these magnetic variables coming into phase.

Both the 1925 and 1974 major tornado outbreaks had J-II / J-I phased transits (an event that happens every 1.3 years as I explained a while back). It's not a guarantee of tornadic activity but I believe that it is a major variable in the creation of severe storms.

If this is doing wrong, I am not sure what your (collective) idea of doing right is, I (obviously) spent my adult life outside the scientific mainstream and only mixed with normal folks.

I don't mind you posting your thoughts, and I'm not trying to discourage your research, but I still don't understand why J-I and J-II transits result in increased severe weather activity. Is it due to the added energy in earth's electromagnetic spectrum and if so, how can we pinpoint the location and why does that increase the threat for severe weather? That's all I'm looking for, a explanation on why this method is viable.

[LocoAko]

Additionally it is amazingly easy to create graphs in Excel. Assuming there is actual data involved, why would you opt for doing it in MS Paint instead of Excel??

[Roger Smith]

Good morning or afternoon, just checking recent data and animation. Will comment on today's developing event in a few mins, just wanted to comment on a few points raised above. Thanks for the questions, I have considered most of these points before.

On the 1925/74 comparison, the different dynamics were known here, in fact I have extensively reserched all the major tornadic outbreaks including map inspections, historical tracks, and the only point I am making about JI / JII phased transits being the common theme is that the phenomenon seems to be a trigger for major severe weather when conventional factors are favourable. I would expect any large-scale study of all cases to show a very large spike in frequency of these phased transits against random frequency for all events. The two major 2011 outbreaks both appear to be cases where a phased transit occurred 24h earlier, and thinking back to the dynamics, this may have set up a high-energy "theatre" for some subsequent inner-loop peak to exploit. I won't have time between now and mid-week to compile a list of 20-30 major tornado events and give the full overview of JI/JII locations, but I will get to that before we hit the best phased peaks coming up.

Just a review before answering one other question, the cycle of phased transits operates this way ... J-I overtakes J-II slightly earlier in every orbit. This long cycle takes 437.8 days to complete so we have series of "phased transits" at that interval, every 3.55 days. As seen from earth (or the Sun) the phased transit series moves back across the face of Jupiter with each successive event about a half-J-diameter "sooner" with some distortions introduced by parallax. We are currently approaching the largest earth-Sun angle relative to Jupiter and as we approach the peak of this long cycle, the heliocentric transits are seen about 2h before geocentric. In the current series the phased transits peak on August 11th but due to parallax the closest geocentric events are later in August. When we are aligned with Sun and Jupiter and hit a peak, the shadows fall on the face during geocentric transits. As 437.8 days is about 39 days longer than the J-year, such perfect alignments occur about every 11 years. In my research data, the parallax effect does not seem to produce any significant variation in the intensity of the series. Conventional meteorological factors account for variations from case to case, the important point about the research model is that it isolates an energy-inducing jolt which might be important to understanding and eventually better predicting in the longer range severe weather events. I doubt that it would improve what is already a well-developed science of short-range forecasting of the events, and my intention with the thread was originally to illustrate cases rather than to make a full explanation of a theory.

One other point I can answer before going on to today's event. Data files here are stored on a pre-Microsoft program known as "Aseasy" which I have used since about 1990. I can convert these to Excel and could post said files on this thread. I may do that with some of the more relevant files later this summer. It requires a lot of fiddling at this end because the Aseasy labels tend to wander 1-2 data points to the right for some reason when they land in an Excel file. So if I day-number peaks, what looks good in Aseasy looks wrong in Excel. These problems can be resolved when I get more memory on this internet computer and can manipulate larger data files here (in Excel). The older computer with the Aseasy files is also nearing saturation with over 400 data files.

However, I have created a clearer graph that, while still in the dreaded Paint, shows very clearly the profile of the "J-field" passage. This is the "hundred day" temperature series, actually 99.72d which is one-quarter of the J-year of 398.88 days. The graph shows the temperature profile from Toronto daily data over 172 years (1841-present) reduced to that J-field period. As stated earlier, these mean profiles are considerably higher amplitude in segments of data and can be further enhanced by second-order variables isolated from rotational elements.

NOTES ... GREEN VERTICAL LINES INDICATE TIME RANGE FOR OPPS and CONS in ALTERNATE COMPONENTS ... MOST RECENT TIME SEGMENT BEGAN 06-19-2012 ... OVERALL DATA AVERAGE is the HORIZONTAL LINE above the ZERO LINE.

The data are averaged in 5-day periods. This graph is clear enough that you can see quite easily the 20 data points. I'm sure it would look almost exactly the same in Excel.

will post and then comment on today's developments in a few minutes.

[Roger Smith]

NOTES ON 07-14 EVENT

________________________

Before getting into this analysis, would note that current visible satellite imagery shows the image of Jupiter and the inner loops over the region just west of Chicago.

Analysis from 03z to 15z shows that inner energy loops have phased in northeast IA with some retrograde drift apparent from their pre-aligned locations at 04z and 09z over n IL. The J-I energy flared briefly around 09z in s WI and is now located over w lower MI. The J-II energy has been a band of moderate convection across northern WI, up MI and currently aligned from east of SSM (into ON) and northern Lake Huron.

Recent retrograde drift is attributed to second-order westward motion of larger outer components. This should reverse by later today allowing for a slow prograde drift of the centre of the system lasting about a week. This may take the centre of energy loops across s WI into MI by end of the week.

Diurnal factors have weakened the system from its appearance at 03z and we now have the approaching diurnal peak around 22z to 01z across the zone to work on the intensity of any resultant storms in this complex. The inner energy loop alignment peak is now occurring and the elements are rotating past J-I. I am expecting some sporadic flaring up of the current cells and there is still some chance of an energetic event developing from n IL across s/c MI.

Meanwhile, the J-III energy is moving northeast across MT towards SK-MB. This should flare dramatically Sunday night as J-III transits with J-I in alignment shortly afterwards around 04z Monday. It will be interesting to see how far back the J-I energy appears by late Sunday, but I'm expecting the energy loops to be pulled back slightly by the second-order variations in the system, so speculating that the J-I energy may fire in IA to se MN while the J-III energy fires across MB and nw MN. Could be some very heavy rainfalls in s MB from about 18z Sunday to 18z Monday.

In terms of the predicted positions of future events, the general scheme would be a slow eastward drift over next 30-60 days before exiting this field sector and passing the peak of phased transits. The original idea of the thread was actually to catalogue this series partly for research purposes. I would say that our future discussions of the phased transits and inner-loop peaks will tend to focus on the Midwest for July and the Great Lakes-northeast US for August in general terms but the details may be more variable.

This Saturday series of phased transits will improve both in alignment and in diurnal forcing as we move forward. Each successive Saturday event is about three hours later in the day (this one peaked at 12z). The early Monday JI/JIII event series will move through overnight hours to its peak at 11z Aug 13. The Tuesday into Wednesday JI/JII series will hit its next peak Tuesday evening at 00z Wed, and will move to 03z by best-aligned event in the series on evening of Tuesday August 7 (at 8:03z). This Tuesday series will come into very good alignment with the inner-loop peaks around July 31 and Aug 7.

So in terms of long-term predictions and locations, I would say on a statistical basis that we could take one example for future verification, the August 7th event should be a major severe weather outbreak somewhere around Michigan and southern Ontario peaking around 23z to 03z Wed 8th. Could make some others but in general, intensity forecasts would be dependent on phasing of two energy peak systems, associated lunar events, and any other peaks apparent from other model parameters.

[Ed Lizard]

As a first approximation, and details will be added once we get through the summer and the forecasts, the "ring of fire" phenomenon is a predictable consequence of the earth being in position to interact with the "J-field" system which occupies about 20% of the inner solar system at any time. The energy packets in the ring of fire correspond to disturbances generated at Jupiter's intense magnetic field and transmitted inwards by what appears to be alaser-like phenomenon that operates much, much more focused in energy than conventional gravitation or even electro-magnetism might suggest.

How do we know this, just out of curiosity?

[WxUSAF]

Can this thread be moved to off-topic or something?

[phil882]

NOTES ON 07-14 EVENT

________________________

Before getting into this analysis, would note that current visible satellite imagery shows the image of Jupiter and the inner loops over the region just west of Chicago.

???

Analysis from 03z to 15z shows that inner energy loops have phased in northeast IA with some retrograde drift apparent from their pre-aligned locations at 04z and 09z over n IL. The J-I energy flared briefly around 09z in s WI and is now located over w lower MI. The J-II energy has been a band of moderate convection across northern WI, up MI and currently aligned from east of SSM (into ON) and northern Lake Huron.

What analysis? Where is this data available right now in real time?

Can you explain how you can see J-I and J-II on visible satellite imagery?

[andyhb]

The 1925 and 1974 outbreaks, aside from being massive fatality events, are two very different events. The general synoptic pattern (and thus the sfc low track and intensity) for each system was quite different than the other, with the 1925 event a much subdued disturbance than the massive, broad-based long-wave trough and associated 980 hPa low associated with the Super Outbreak. And even though both outbreaks contained multiple violent tornadoes, the 1974 outbreak had much more widespread violent tornadic activity. Both events may have had J-II/J-1 phased transits, but the two outbreaks synoptically are so different that you cannot establish a relationship on the Earth end of the postulation, let alone the Jupiter end.

Exactly what I was thinking.

In addition, the actual Tri-State supercell (which the outbreak is most known for) was in close proximity to the surface low and warm front where the surface winds were strongly backed for longer, which further supported long tracked tornadoes (which the Tri-State is essentially the king of). This case has repeated itself several times where you have a single long tracked tornado that outdoes everything else in the event. The Super Outbreak had this along the length of the entire cold front...due to the extremely intense nature of the mid/upper level trough and associated surface cyclone.

The NWS in Paducah in association with the SPC created a hypothetical convective outlook map to give an idea of what may be predicted should March 18th, 1925 occur now. I'd have to think the 4/3/74 outlook would be of incredible size...

[QVectorman]

then I'll miss all the fun.

I actually agree with her. Lol and I am going to stay out of the whole discussion but I have to ask why are you personally so adamant that this thread be deleted or moved? Who cares? If you don't like it don't look at it. That simple. Storm chaser Chuck took this route too in the spring after some success in his long range forecast...although I still don't know if he was just having some fun or being serious. Either way roger will answer questions and ppl will get the answers they want or the thread will fizzle out as Chuck's did and roger said he would let that happen if ppl weren't satisfied. I sincerely hope you have better stuff to worry about than if ppl keep responding to roger.

[Ed Lizard]

I actually agree with her. Lol and I am going to stay out of the whole discussion but I have to ask why are you personally so adamant that this thread be deleted or moved? Who cares? If you don't like it don't look at it. That simple. Storm chaser Chuck took this route too in the spring after some success in his long range forecast...although I still don't know if he was just having some fun or being serious. Either way roger will answer questions and ppl will get the answers they want or the thread will fizzle out as Chuck's did and roger said he would let that happen if ppl weren't satisfied. I sincerely hope you have better stuff to worry about than if ppl keep responding to roger.

Its is 100% pure and unadulterated BS, best I can tell, not a single question has been answered in a straightforward manner, anything resembling evidence involves Toronto or amateurish Paint scrawls, but if Roger's need for attention talking about "J-Fields" and laser like packets of energy nobody can measure but based on astronomical orbits of Jupiter's moons being used to predict regionalized Great Lake severe outlets provide amusement, who am I to argue.

[andyhb]

Its is 100% pure and unadulterated BS, best I can tell, not a single question has been answered in a straightforward manner, anything resembling evidence involves Toronto or amateurish Paint scrawls, but if Roger's need for attention talking about "J-Fields" and laser like packets of energy nobody can measure but based on astronomical orbits of Jupiter's moons being used to predict regionalized Great Lake severe outlets provide amusement, who am I to argue.

I'll be impressed when he predicts the next Super Outbreak.

[Roger Smith]

So Toronto data are invalid because

(.a.) outside of U.S.A.

(.b.) inconvenient truths contained

(.c.) went to Canada once didn't like it

(.d.) don't trust third world countries to keep valid data

Let me know which purely scientific reason it is.

[QVectorman]

Its is 100% pure and unadulterated BS, best I can tell, not a single question has been answered in a straightforward manner, anything resembling evidence involves Toronto or amateurish Paint scrawls, but if Roger's need for attention talking about "J-Fields" and laser like packets of energy nobody can measure but based on astronomical orbits of Jupiter's moons being used to predict regionalized Great Lake severe outlets provide amusement, who am I to argue.

You have given him the benefit of the doubt though...in the beginning asking questions and have been cordial about it. WxUSAF has not really asked anything rather just started attacking from the beginning make statements and demanding it be deleted. Just watching from the sideline he actually comes off rather rude along with Wxtrix but at least she has lightened up and it's not really out of her character. I am surprised at WxUSAF's responses. I'm just saying its getting kinda nasty and we should be a little politer to fellow board members. Roger hasn't attacked anyone on here so why is WxUSAF so against him.

[QVectorman]

why should wild assertions made with zero supporting data which contradict scientific facts (e.g., magnetic energy being visible) be given the benefit of the doubt?

First...I said Ed HAD given him the benefit of the doubt by asking questions. Not myself. Secondly I said I wasn't getting into the middle of this. I'm not taking any sides. Just pointing out that between you and WxUSAF its like a bunch of kinder-gardeners fighting. Grow up and be cordial about it...not whiny brats.

[WxUSAF]

why should wild assertions made with zero supporting data which contradict scientific facts (e.g., magnetic energy being visible) be given the benefit of the doubt?

Pretty much exactly this. Non-scientific mumbo-jumbo doesn't belong in a FORECASTING thread. Do we have threads about the farmer's almanac and astrological weather forecasts?

[Roger Smith]

In context, I believe that my long-range forecasts for the past few seasons give this a bit more credibility than the more severe critics are saying. My long-range forecast is now on page 2 of the main forum table of contents. The title was "Severe Heat Waves Ahead" and it was posted May 18th.

There is no effort on my part to dabble in "astrology" which (from what little I know about it) would have no connection to positions of moons of Jupiter anyway. But I understand what people mean by these criticisms. It is apparent that some can't get past conventional "mass over distance (squared)" approaches but transfers of magnetic energy operate on different and partly unknown scales.

By "image of Jupiter" earlier I was referring to a cloud and clear sky pattern in the visible image -- I wonder if anyone had a look and saw that large clear circle with the convection located all around it? This also appeared on Friday afternoon for a time. In the model I am discussing, the basic idea is that we get the projection of a 1 in 1000 scale model of the Jupiter system in various locations of our atmosphere. That would imply an image of Jupiter about 200 miles in diameter (Jupiter is eleven times the size of the earth).

Anyway, I am not really that concerned about a few hostile critics, you could probably expect a lot of that in a more academic environment than this public-interest forum. It would be nice, of course, if everybody was very motivated to examine new ideas in a very generous spirit, but realistically that cannot be expected so, I have learned to live with it. As for things that "can't be measured or detected" the point of the data analysis and case studies is to measure and detect. I am open to all suggestions of alternate methodology for proof of the theory.

[Ellinwood]

Show us the source of where you're getting your J-Field data.

Also, what is the value of using your severe weather forecasting method (which is not doing well so far) over the forecast tools we already have in the the short term?

[tornadotony]

[Stebo]

One hell of a tornado outbreak there my friend.

[Roger Smith]

True, the event was weak but I was relatively pleased with the timing and location of the cells that developed. If we get just a bit stronger upper dynamics with some of the next few peaks, we'll see tornadic cells. The Sunday-Monday event discussed seems to be shaping up for heavy rainfall across ND and western Canada, and I think there could be a slight risk situation for the triple point zone late Sunday. I have not had time to look at the Tuesday event in conventional guidance yet.

This is a very haphazard way to discuss an entire theory but it's worth the effort, I think, because in this volume of data that I have available, I see very significant peaks of temperature and precip that must give some potential for forecasting if not just enhanced understanding of processes. But I don't want to imply something that I don't believe, that this changes conventional meteorology. The only problem with conventional meteorology is that we have no theories to drive maps past about 10-15 days (various rather feeble efforts exist but I would say they have not reached the reliable level yet -- my long-range forecast is the only such guidance that I know of, giving any real advance warning of the severity of this summer's heat).

[andyhb]

True, the event was weak but I was relatively pleased with the timing and location of the cells that developed. If we get just a bit stronger upper dynamics with some of the next few peaks, we'll see tornadic cells. The Sunday-Monday event discussed seems to be shaping up for heavy rainfall across ND and western Canada, and I think there could be a slight risk situation for the triple point zone late Sunday. I have not had time to look at the Tuesday event in conventional guidance yet.

This is a very haphazard way to discuss an entire theory but it's worth the effort, I think, because in this volume of data that I have available, I see very significant peaks of temperature and precip that must give some potential for forecasting if not just enhanced understanding of processes. But I don't want to imply something that I don't believe, that this changes conventional meteorology. The only problem with conventional meteorology is that we have no theories to drive maps past about 10-15 days (various rather feeble efforts exist but I would say they have not reached the reliable level yet -- my long-range forecast is the only such guidance that I know of, giving any real advance warning of the severity of this summer's heat).

Except this is the point, all of this Jupiter stuff does squat if the elemental conditions on Earth aren't agreeing for tornadic supercells...and right now, they just aren't...this is July after all.