Research ("space weather") driven severe weather forecasts

[Stebo]

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).

What data, you have shown no data thus far and to be honest until you do this is nothing more than hooey. Anyone who says otherwise is plain wrong.

[Roger Smith]

JUL 15 21z UPDATE

__________________________

The attached map shows the J-energy system as analyzed at 21z July 15 2012.

The mauve (with yellow stripe) timing line feature is the current system centre of equilibrium and the blue curved line to the east is the 24h predicted position. That second line is close to "timing line 1" indicating that the the field is returning to a position similar to that observed in early July. As discussed (and forecast in May) this has the implication of a return to severe heat waves in the east and Midwest soon. The northward motion of outer energy loops will reinforce this tendency allowing the ridge to develop over the centre of the rotational system.

J-III energy is at transit at map time and is represented by strong surface low pressure and abundant rainfall in SK, MB and nw MN.

J-IV energy is on a wider loop through AB after leaving the Pac NW.

J-I energy ... the loop rapidly redeveloped west in past 24h, energy that retrogrades at such a high rate of speed typically skims over the lower features and does little more than enhance middle-high cloud but now the system has restabilized and J-I energy should move progressively northeast into SD, eastern ND and nw-nc MN. It should flare towards lower severe limits soon and may reach moderate severe briefly around GFK-BJI as it overtakes the J-III loop around 04z following a transit at 02z.

J-II energy is moving retrograde and enhancing slow-moving precip clusters in the east central US with trailing wave features as far north as Ontario in the recent track of this energy loop. Future development should be backbuilding in nature to the WSW across the mid-South.

The centre of the rotational system and signature of Jupiter (a calm and clear to high-ovc zone in IA) can be found in satellite imagery and the GRS convection is currently rotating across the timing line (near nw IA sw MN) while the J-V convection, rather weak, is found near ne MO.

FURTHER PROGNOSIS ...

By late Monday the inner energy loops and J-image should be closer to n IL and s WI leading to a flare-up of moderate convection there around 02z Tuesday at a mutual transit event.

During later Monday, the J-I energy will dissipate to some extent after overaking J-III, and remnant cells will move rather quickly ESE towards MI and ON. The energy loop will go retrograde Monday night, weak or "skim" type forcing will accompany, while J-II energy slowly masses over KS and NE into CO as the system moves slowly east placing that loop about where the J-I position is today. Then later on Tuesday, the J-I energy will overtake the J-II energy around 00z Wed or 7 pm CDT in the vicinity of the shifting timing line, then predicted to be around the u.p. of MI and Lake Superior east. Severe weather may develop later Tuesday in association with this energy peak in MI and ON especially around SSM to YSB and over northern Lake Huron.

The J-III energy will diminish somewhat as it loses reinforcement and timing line forcing, but moderate rainfalls and some convection will continue east on Monday and Tuesday to reach Quebec and northern New England during the predicted late Tuesday severe outbreak near Lake Huron. The two systems will again begin to mutually reinforce Tuesday night.

The J-IV energy will move at a slower pace into the northern prairie province region and towards Hudson Bay. It crosses the timing line around Tuesday mid-day.

[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?

[Ellinwood]

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?

[Ellinwood]

I'm still waiting for credible links about 'The J-Field" and its measurement and prediction. I can wait on how a field from a large but distant planet can cause severe weather in a regionally specific region.

[Ellinwood]

If the "J Field" can be used as a predictive tool, than obviously it can either measured and quantified, or accurately predicted itself.

I'll settle (for now) for links about J Field measurement or prediction.

[Ellinwood]

...More about the actual "J Field" itself please. How Jupiter and its moons can cause a regional MCS episode, I can wait, I suppose.

[Ellinwood]

Why is it that when I google "J-Field Jupiter" or any iteration of it, there is nothing (besides this thread) that comes up about this area of study?

[tornadotony]

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.

Let's try these reasons:

(.e.) You've given no actual data.

(.f.) Your graphs come from MS Paint, meaning you could be making up stuff without any applicable numbers.

(.g.) You claimed that you could see magnetic fields from Jupiter on visible satellite, when magnetic fields don't fall in the visible spectrum.

(.h.) You try to directly link minute amounts of energy from a distance planet to mesoscale and even microscale events without addressing how that energy would manipulate the synoptic scale in a favorable manner.

(.i.) You display a lack of awareness for the accepted meteorology behind mesoscale and microscale convective phenomena, instead choosing your unproven (and, thus far according to your recent forecasts, unsuccessful) theories even when they fly in the face of the accepted theory.

(.j.) For all the talk of the list of cases that you've said you'll be putting together, you've made no mention of control cases. Without control cases (i.e. severe weather events that aren't linked to these Jupiter phases or Jupiter phases that weren't linked to severe weather events), this data is no more than mere coincidence.

The issues with your postulations most certainly don't stem with you being Canadian. In fact, all of the research I did at Valpo on dual-pol radar work was with a Portuguese post-doc who did her Ph.D. work in France and Africa. The idea that data or work being from a foreign country makes in invalid in America is preposterous. The problem is that these postulations don't pass scientific muster. If you could provide real data (numbers), control cases, and more causal explanation, then I would be a little more willing to think that you're onto something.

[Ellinwood]

Which organization measures the J-Field?

How do you know that there's five J-Fields (J-I, J-II, etc)?

[Ellinwood]

How do you know how to plot the J-Field onto the map? How does it affect the rest of the world?

Why was your "severe weather outbreak" forecast so far off? There was nothing from conventional forecasting that showed a severe weather outbreak, so why did your method fail so miserably?

[andyhb]

The J-III energy will diminish somewhat as it loses reinforcement and timing line forcing, but moderate rainfalls and some convection will continue east on Monday and Tuesday to reach Quebec and northern New England during the predicted late Tuesday severe outbreak near Lake Huron. The two systems will again begin to mutually reinforce Tuesday night.

We're going to get another strong/violent tornado go through Goderich, ON on Tuesday, just you wait!

I apologize if I seem to be a bit harsh, but I am not seeing a shred of credibility to the method whatsoever, due to many of the reasons highlighted (and re-highlighted over and over again) throughout this thread...

[andyhb]

The mauve (with yellow stripe) timing line feature is the current system centre of equilibrium and the blue curved line to the east is the 24h predicted position. That second line is close to "timing line 1" indicating that the the field is returning to a position similar to that observed in early July. As discussed (and forecast in May) this has the implication of a return to severe heat waves in the east and Midwest soon. The northward motion of outer energy loops will reinforce this tendency allowing the ridge to develop over the centre of the rotational system.

Or you know...there's just a 594+ dm death ridge developing as it often does during the summer...

[Roger Smith]

Assertions that I have invented the data are false. My data source is the published daily records from the Toronto (city) weather station operated by the predecessors of today's Environment Canada from 1841 to 1980 (as explained in an earlier post) and then maintained as a data set from YYZ data that you can find on the EC site under "historical records" although my source for it was published summaries before about 2000 and the internet since then. I have maintained my own data sets. My research is not funded except by my own income and the data sets are real. The graphs I posted are based on existing graphs in a data program. They would admittedly look a bit better in Excel but if the issue is that people think I made up the data, then who made up the forecast published on this forum on MAY 18th? (Andy, my apparent neighbour? any clues on that?)

Some confusion on Ellinwood's part about terminology. The J-field system as defined is a four-sector system in the solar system magnetic field. I have assigned those regular integer style numbers, that is to say, 1,2,3,4. The Roman numerals I through V are conventional names for the five major satellites of Jupiter. J-I is Io, J-II Europa, J-III Ganymede, J-IV Callisto, J-V Amalthea (it was discovered later and is the closest, otherwise, they are numbered in order of distance). These are integrated into the research model as rotational elements in the numbered J-field sectors.

Currently a tornado warning on a cell on the international border close to where SK, MB and ND all meet.

Many of the other comments recently can be attributed to a denial of the concept rather than actual criticism of logic. The logic of the long-range forecast is now in clear view and people can take it or leave it but the process you think I don't understand is the process I think you don't understand.

Typical pre-recognition scientific debate and probably more predictable than the weather.

Is anyone having a positive experience? If not, I will conclude the thread after the Tuesday event comes and goes, and post a list of dates of future events. If the thread remains accessible then later readers can see for themselves what is going on with those event dates.

[Roger Smith]

How do you know how to plot the J-Field onto the map? How does it affect the rest of the world?

Why was your "severe weather outbreak" forecast so far off? There was nothing from conventional forecasting that showed a severe weather outbreak, so why did your method fail so miserably?

Locating the energy loops is an ongoing research process and is related to a theory (as outlined) that as the earth enters each of the four J-field sectors in space, a reflection appears in our magnetic field and the upper atmosphere in its strongest sector, central North America. However, this energy loop system and its rotational centre (most cases a strong upper high) usually appears a bit further west in an early stage and then takes 60-90 days to move slowly east with some erratic second-order motions, until earth leaves the field sector. At that point, a remnant is preserved in the upper atmosphere and usually undergoes prograde motion east. This means that in theory you could find either 3 or 4 remnant J-field atmospheric reflections around the hemisphere. I believe there would be similar effects in the southern hemisphere and have some anecdotal notes on cases spotted in South America and Australia but I have not had the time or until recently the access to real-time data to investigate this southern hemisphere hypothesis.

That would prompt you to ask why is the magnetic field strongest in North America? I believe that is due to the proximity to the North Magnetic Pole, a factor that is slowly fading, and possibly to the stronger atmospheric circulation here compared to most of Eurasia.

As to the failed severe weather forecast in one case, that was regrettable. The energy loops were in position and some convection followed the predicted paths at predicted times. But as I was aware before this month, conventional meteorology delivers the final product, this research concept is intended more to isolate the source of the potential energy. Turning it into kinetic energy requires the upper atmospheric factors that you all know lots about. My assertion is that in this current series, we are going to see several cases of significant (July scale) severe weather associated with one of these forthcoming twice-weekly energy peaks and/or the weekly JI-JIII event. We had one back before the thread started with the Mid-Atlantic derecho.

I think the Tuesday scenario is more promising in terms of conventional meteorology and would say at this early stage that it might deliver in Ontario and more specifically between Sudbury and southern Georgian Bay. But Michigan might also be in the threat zone. The upper level winds looked stronger on the most recent progs but I'll reassess how it looks after the 00z RGEM and other guidance.

[andyhb]

Assertions that I have invented the data are false. My data source is the published daily records from the Toronto (city) weather station operated by the predecessors of today's Environment Canada from 1841 to 1980 (as explained in an earlier post) and then maintained as a data set from YYZ data that you can find on the EC site under "historical records" although my source for it was published summaries before about 2000 and the internet since then. I have maintained my own data sets. My research is not funded except by my own income and the data sets are real. The graphs I posted are based on existing graphs in a data program. They would admittedly look a bit better in Excel but if the issue is that people think I made up the data, then who made up the forecast published on this forum on MAY 18th? (Andy, my apparent neighbour? any clues on that?)

Some confusion on Ellinwood's part about terminology. The J-field system as defined is a four-sector system in the solar system magnetic field. I have assigned those regular integer style numbers, that is to say, 1,2,3,4. The Roman numerals I through V are conventional names for the five major satellites of Jupiter. J-I is Io, J-II Europa, J-III Ganymede, J-IV Callisto, J-V Amalthea (it was discovered later and is the closest, otherwise, they are numbered in order of distance). These are integrated into the research model as rotational elements in the numbered J-field sectors.

Currently a tornado warning on a cell on the international border close to where SK, MB and ND all meet.

Many of the other comments recently can be attributed to a denial of the concept rather than actual criticism of logic. The logic of the long-range forecast is now in clear view and people can take it or leave it but the process you think I don't understand is the process I think you don't understand.

Typical pre-recognition scientific debate and probably more predictable than the weather.

Is anyone having a positive experience? If not, I will conclude the thread after the Tuesday event comes and goes, and post a list of dates of future events. If the thread remains accessible then later readers can see for themselves what is going on with those event dates.

I) The forecast you posted on 5/18 had nothing (or very little) to do with severe weather (at least, of non-tropical origins). It also had no mention of these J-field influences.

II) I hardly think a single tornado warning associated with an isolated supercell within a 30/20 prob tornado watch constitutes an outbreak (not sure if this was forecasted or not).

III) The criticism is not just from a lack of understanding or denial of concept, that is pretty much guaranteed.

[Roger Smith]

"I) The forecast you posted on 5/18 had nothing (or very little) to do with severe weather (at least, of non-tropical origins). It also had no mention of these J-field influences."

Can you blame me? But of course the J-field theory was part of the forecast, although I produced it on the basis of data analogue sets blended together. There are other new research concepts that I am pursuing.

I think there was a reference made to a storm track and dry zone further south, which is proving to be generally accurate.

"...have not seen mention in literature ..." (or similar)

That's because this is my original unpublished research. People in the 27th century will learn this in school. Some other person will be the source of that knowledge and nobody alive in that distant future time will have even the faintest idea that "astro-climatology" or whatever the other person calls it, was discovered in the late 20th century. So well done, met establishment, you have saved seven centuries of students a lot of difficult study and no doubt tedious lectures.

[OSUmetstud]

illusions of grandeur

[andyhb]

Not gonna lie, I wouldn't be that disappointed it if you were right, I get bored to death with these stagnant summer patterns.

[Ellinwood]

Assertions that I have invented the data are false. My data source is the published daily records from the Toronto (city) weather station operated by the predecessors of today's Environment Canada from 1841 to 1980 (as explained in an earlier post) and then maintained as a data set from YYZ data that you can find on the EC site under "historical records" although my source for it was published summaries before about 2000 and the internet since then. I have maintained my own data sets. My research is not funded except by my own income and the data sets are real. The graphs I posted are based on existing graphs in a data program. They would admittedly look a bit better in Excel but if the issue is that people think I made up the data, then who made up the forecast published on this forum on MAY 18th? (Andy, my apparent neighbour? any clues on that?)

Some confusion on Ellinwood's part about terminology. The J-field system as defined is a four-sector system in the solar system magnetic field. I have assigned those regular integer style numbers, that is to say, 1,2,3,4. The Roman numerals I through V are conventional names for the five major satellites of Jupiter. J-I is Io, J-II Europa, J-III Ganymede, J-IV Callisto, J-V Amalthea (it was discovered later and is the closest, otherwise, they are numbered in order of distance). These are integrated into the research model as rotational elements in the numbered J-field sectors.

Currently a tornado warning on a cell on the international border close to where SK, MB and ND all meet.

Many of the other comments recently can be attributed to a denial of the concept rather than actual criticism of logic. The logic of the long-range forecast is now in clear view and people can take it or leave it but the process you think I don't understand is the process I think you don't understand.

Typical pre-recognition scientific debate and probably more predictable than the weather.

Is anyone having a positive experience? If not, I will conclude the thread after the Tuesday event comes and goes, and post a list of dates of future events. If the thread remains accessible then later readers can see for themselves what is going on with those event dates.

Locating the energy loops is an ongoing research process and is related to a theory (as outlined) that as the earth enters each of the four J-field sectors in space, a reflection appears in our magnetic field and the upper atmosphere in its strongest sector, central North America. However, this energy loop system and its rotational centre (most cases a strong upper high) usually appears a bit further west in an early stage and then takes 60-90 days to move slowly east with some erratic second-order motions, until earth leaves the field sector. At that point, a remnant is preserved in the upper atmosphere and usually undergoes prograde motion east. This means that in theory you could find either 3 or 4 remnant J-field atmospheric reflections around the hemisphere. I believe there would be similar effects in the southern hemisphere and have some anecdotal notes on cases spotted in South America and Australia but I have not had the time or until recently the access to real-time data to investigate this southern hemisphere hypothesis.

That would prompt you to ask why is the magnetic field strongest in North America? I believe that is due to the proximity to the North Magnetic Pole, a factor that is slowly fading, and possibly to the stronger atmospheric circulation here compared to most of Eurasia.

As to the failed severe weather forecast in one case, that was regrettable. The energy loops were in position and some convection followed the predicted paths at predicted times. But as I was aware before this month, conventional meteorology delivers the final product, this research concept is intended more to isolate the source of the potential energy. Turning it into kinetic energy requires the upper atmospheric factors that you all know lots about. My assertion is that in this current series, we are going to see several cases of significant (July scale) severe weather associated with one of these forthcoming twice-weekly energy peaks and/or the weekly JI-JIII event. We had one back before the thread started with the Mid-Atlantic derecho.

I think the Tuesday scenario is more promising in terms of conventional meteorology and would say at this early stage that it might deliver in Ontario and more specifically between Sudbury and southern Georgian Bay. But Michigan might also be in the threat zone. The upper level winds looked stronger on the most recent progs but I'll reassess how it looks after the 00z RGEM and other guidance.

Thank you for clarifying the labels you put to your different J-Fields.

How do you "see" the J-Field in the visible satellite? How does it affect other parts of the world? Why has your methodology already failed miserably twice? You said early this morning that "there could be a slight risk situation for the triple point zone late Sunday" after the SPC had already issued a slight risk the afternoon prior, so if your forecast for today does indeed verify than you still did not better or no worse than the conventional method. Why should we use your theory and methodology to forecast severe weather when it provides no advantage over conventional forecasting? Could you explain why your theory failed when forecasting the severe weather outbreak yesterday and the MCS in the original forecast? You made fairly clear, specific statements in making both of these forecasts and defied the existing conventional forecasts, so I want to know what you saw that was different and why it led you to make those forecasts. You discuss using the J-Fields to isolate the areas of potential energy, but we already have that in the form of CAPE, so what advantage do we get by including your theory? Who, if anyone, is measuring the J-Field? How can you be so sure of its placement over the US on a daily and even hourly basis when said measurements and plots don't seem to exist anywhere but what you've plotted yourself?

I'm not asking you why the affect is strongest in North America. Even if your theory about the magnetic north pole is true, there still must be some level of it also impacting other parts of the world, so I asked you about how it affects other parts of the world.

I for one am not questioning your temperature data, even though for some reason you can't plot any sort of professional, research-level type of graph and instead resort to MS Paint. I'm not worried about your long-range temperature forecast, either... just your severe weather predictions. Please work on answering the above questions.

"...have not seen mention in literature ..." (or similar)

That's because this is my original unpublished research. People in the 27th century will learn this in school. Some other person will be the source of that knowledge and nobody alive in that distant future time will have even the faintest idea that "astro-climatology" or whatever the other person calls it, was discovered in the late 20th century. So well done, met establishment, you have saved seven centuries of students a lot of difficult study and no doubt tedious lectures.

You aren't measuring the J-Field all by yourself, so if such a measurement exists there must be a source out there that you can link us to. If you somehow ARE measuring it across North America, then by all means feel free to show us an example, what you did to measure it and what tools you used. If you believe the J-Field has a noticeable impact on severe weather, you have to show that the energy from the J-Field is on an order of a magnitude large enough to do so. Say you're just flying by the seat of your pants and are not using actual measurements... you discuss the "potential energy" of a region based on the J-Field, but what good is discussing the potential energy if you can't measure it? How will we know if the J-Field has a 10% influence on the potential energy, or 1%, or 0.1%, or 0.000000000001%?

[Amped]

Where you the boy genius who got struck by lightning before thinking of this?

[Roger Smith]

I perceive that when you're asking me how I "measure" the J-field you are referring to some electro-magnetic definition of field. I am using the term "field" in a more spatial sense, so there is no need to measure it, but just to define it.

The theory hypothesis is basically J-field sectors in space (since I am only using this myself, I have perhaps carelessly drifted into saying "J-field" for J-field sector) interacts with magnetosphere and atmosphere to produce J-energy loops which can be conceived as a (roughly) 1:1000 scale model of the J-energy system as it exists at Jupiter. Again somewhat carelessly in my thought solitary confinement situation, I tend to slip into saying "J-field" referring to the weather complex. These problems would be resolved after any sort of recognition of the theory and standardization of terms used by more than one person.

I think I already (tried to) answer(ed) the question about why the weather pattern in question only appears over North America. The answer was that it appears here due to greater strength of the geomagnetic field, but two hypotheses are being examined -- either there are other timing lines and standard locations for other real-time weather patterns or the North American entities have a tendency to drift downstream in the upper westerlies so that at any given time possibly 3-4 remnants can be found around the hemisphere. I think it is (.b.) of those two alternate concepts. Another J-energy weather pattern is currently operating over Europe from my current research observations. I believe that is the downstream remnant of the one that was here in March-April.

UPDATE concerning Tuesday potential for severe weather ... My reading of the conventional guidance is that the region from central MI to central ON has favourable dynamics this time in the projected location of the energy peak. I expect this will be a more vigorous complex of severe storms. Some parts of central Ontario are more likely to see a tornado in July or August than in the earlier months that are peak months in the Midwest, and also, to see their stronger storms. Woodstock ON had an F-4 in Aug 1979, and there was an F-2 embedded in the derecho event early morning July 15 1995 very close to where I was living at that time (in Bridgenorth, ON). I expect there will be an SPC slight risk on Tuesday covering parts of Michigan and while maybe not on their maps also into central ON. It could extend to northern NY also. I doubt they would go moderate risk with the dynamics I see at present, but we might see an outcome that is borderline low end moderate risk.

Honest question here, wouldn't the accusation "delusions of grandeur" perhaps better fit some of the more strident global warming types?

[Roger Smith]

Where you the boy genius who got struck by lightning before thinking of this?

No, are you?

[Ellinwood]

I perceive that when you're asking me how I "measure" the J-field you are referring to some electro-magnetic definition of field. I am using the term "field" in a more spatial sense, so there is no need to measure it, but just to define it.

The theory hypothesis is basically J-field sectors in space (since I am only using this myself, I have perhaps carelessly drifted into saying "J-field" for J-field sector) interacts with magnetosphere and atmosphere to produce J-energy loops which can be conceived as a (roughly) 1:1000 scale model of the J-energy system as it exists at Jupiter. Again somewhat carelessly in my thought solitary confinement situation, I tend to slip into saying "J-field" referring to the weather complex. These problems would be resolved after any sort of recognition of the theory and standardization of terms used by more than one person.

I think I already (tried to) answer(ed) the question about why the weather pattern in question only appears over North America. The answer was that it appears here due to greater strength of the geomagnetic field, but two hypotheses are being examined -- either there are other timing lines and standard locations for other real-time weather patterns or the North American entities have a tendency to drift downstream in the upper westerlies so that at any given time possibly 3-4 remnants can be found around the hemisphere. I think it is (.b.) of those two alternate concepts. Another J-energy weather pattern is currently operating over Europe from my current research observations. I believe that is the downstream remnant of the one that was here in March-April.

UPDATE concerning Tuesday potential for severe weather ... My reading of the conventional guidance is that the region from central MI to central ON has favourable dynamics this time in the projected location of the energy peak. I expect this will be a more vigorous complex of severe storms. Some parts of central Ontario are more likely to see a tornado in July or August than in the earlier months that are peak months in the Midwest, and also, to see their stronger storms. Woodstock ON had an F-4 in Aug 1979, and there was an F-2 embedded in the derecho event early morning July 15 1995 very close to where I was living at that time (in Bridgenorth, ON). I expect there will be an SPC slight risk on Tuesday covering parts of Michigan and while maybe not on their maps also into central ON. It could extend to northern NY also. I doubt they would go moderate risk with the dynamics I see at present, but we might see an outcome that is borderline low end moderate risk.

Honest question here, wouldn't the accusation "delusions of grandeur" perhaps better fit some of the more strident global warming types?

Why is there no need to measure it? When it comes to weather, we try to measure everything. If the J-Field exists and it has a noticeable influence on our weather, it can be measured and NEEDS to be measured so we know how much of an impact it has. You specifically mentioned that the "concept is intended more to isolate the source of the potential energy," well if you're talking potential energy, that means that there's something to be measured, and it needs to be measured. It can't be just on or off, there has to be different magnitudes. You yourself described a "major energy peak" in your original post, so using that there must be weaker energy peaks and therefore different magnitudes. We need to know the magnitude in order to discern its overall significance. Defining it strictly in a spatial sense without providing the degree of influence it has is useless in forecasting.

To the bolded above, you have not mentioned anything about Europe up to this point, which is why I asked. Surely though it can't be just North America and Europe... given the large nature of Jupiter's magnetic field and all of the space it must get through to reach Earth, if it has any impact anywhere on the Earth then there should be some influence in some way across the rest of the Earth. It cannot just consistently occur on two specific regions of the Earth... at some point other parts of the Earth are seeing some part of this J-Field (if indeed any part of the Earth does).

How do you "see" the J-Field in the visible satellite? How does it affect other parts of the world? Why has your methodology already failed miserably twice? You said early this morning that "there could be a slight risk situation for the triple point zone late Sunday" after the SPC had already issued a slight risk the afternoon prior, so if your forecast for today does indeed verify than you still did not better or no worse than the conventional method. Why should we use your theory and methodology to forecast severe weather when it provides no advantage over conventional forecasting? Could you explain why your theory failed when forecasting the severe weather outbreak yesterday and the MCS in the original forecast? You made fairly clear, specific statements in making both of these forecasts and defied the existing conventional forecasts, so I want to know what you saw that was different and why it led you to make those forecasts. You discuss using the J-Fields to isolate the areas of potential energy, but we already have that in the form of CAPE, so what advantage do we get by including your theory? Who, if anyone, is measuring the J-Field? How can you be so sure of its placement over the US on a daily and even hourly basis when said measurements and plots don't seem to exist anywhere but what you've plotted yourself?

you discuss the "potential energy" of a region based on the J-Field, but what good is discussing the potential energy if you can't measure it? How will we know if the J-Field has a 10% influence on the potential energy, or 1%, or 0.1%, or 0.000000000001%?

Please answer the bolded parts as best as you can. There's no reason to keep providing new forecasts if you cannot explain why the old ones did or did not fail, because then you're just guessing.

[Amped]

No, are you?

Yes

[Roger Smith]

Ellinwood, point taken about the need to measure potential intensity.

Here's what I would say, the current state of the art in conventional severe weather forecasting seems fairly high to me, so that in the first 24 and possibly 48 hours the only likely use of this research method would be to provide a little extra guidance on timing, track and evolution issues.

Beyond 48 hours the way outlooks seem to be designed, they remain conservative due to known tendencies of models to change details in that time scale, so if you follow my drift, they tend to downplay potential that you or I might see from a given model outcome because there is doubt about the model outcome, not about the potential results if that outcome verified. In those cases, I would tend to see my research model potentials as being somewhat more helpful, perhaps leading to an increase in the overall skill level of intensity forecasting for days 3 to 6. Beyond that, the research model could give general guidance on where risks might materialize, with the conditional approach that intensity would depend on actual conventional parameters.

Clearly the research model results can only be integrated with conventional on some basis such as X * Y where X is a function that describes the potential for severe weather from conventional factors and Y is a percentage multiplier (which could take on values from say 75 to 150 in short-term and 50 to 250 mid-range). Perhaps then we can go forward on that basis and scrap the first cases where I was focused more on the absolute "Y" potential being applied to a non-existent value of X. There can clearly be cases where J-energy potential does no more than shape cloud patterns and sub-severe convection.

So I should thank you for focusing my attention on this need to integrate the model potential with the ongoing conventional potential.

So that leaves the question, how do we scale the Y factor that I would propose to apply to the conventional risk, and how do we scale the X factor that is the conventional risk. The latter seems easy enough, we would devise a scale that is somewhat more detailed than the "see text, slight, moderate, high risk" spectrum of the SPC bulletins, perhaps a scale from one to ten with typical outcomes as the measure, like the Saffir-Simpson or Fujita concepts. From that we would have a range of X (J-energy) multipliers that as stated could range from .5 to 2.5 -- those would be read off a chart of event timing parameters. The maximum multipliers would come into effect when J-I overtakes J-II at heliocentric transit. We are closing in on those events now so that the current multipliers at event times would be about 90% of their peak values to come in early August.

That scheme would also allow for smaller ranges of multipliers to be provided from less energetic peaks such as JI - JIV or JV - JII alignments. These different cases would get into the negligible category on most actual severe weather outbreaks.

It would be understood that the multipliers could also have a spatial function applied to risk maps, the Y factors proposed would not be universal but would follow defined tracks as per the energy loop maps and analysis. This would work in practice as a parallel analysis and update situation with the conventional, but as I'm hinting, the further out into the future you want to consider, the more these Y factors would be the only factors in play, so the risk maps for example for Day 10 or Day 30 would be conditional risk, given some standard low-intensity conventional background. If that event converges on less energetic actual set-up, then the map values would decrease as that X factor came into better focus closer to event time. There would be cases where the X factor would exceed standard background and then the changes would be more about developing real-time analysis of where Y factors would actually occur. At the longer-term outlook map stage, the positions of these risk zones would be based on the theory of slow prograde drift of the system modified by any developing understanding of second-order variations in that drift. For example, if the JI - JII risk zone has been tracking east on the average of 2 deg per 3.5 days separation, then one could estimate a position 20 deg east of most recent event for day 35. However, one might then have research results that would cause an adjustment to that estimate.

The approach I have just described could incorporate other research results for factors not associated with J-fields or J-energy. For example, I have noticed that severe weather tends to intensify at least statistically when the moon is close to its northern declination maximum. This is now approaching, by the way. So there could be a Z factor multiplier for lunar events. I also mentioned earlier in the thread some research results for a much different cyclonic model of rotation in postulated S-fields. We currently have those effects mainly off to the east of the Great Lakes region and over the Pacific, so they are not currently in play in the Midwest-Great Lakes area that is expected to be the focus of upcoming J-field events. But there have been cases in my past observations where J-field and S-field rotations interacted, or where S-field processes appeared to produce severe weather. As a general rule, these are more likely to be borderline severe events or cases of moderate to heavy non-severe convection. So a further multiplier might be available from that part of the research model.

This approach would also be flexible for unrelated research concepts from third parties. Suppose that you or anyone else had a theory based on solar activity or whatever, then that theory could supply multipliers for further study, used either with or without my research factors as test cases.

It can be assumed that diurnal factors will be incorporated into the "X" part of this concept (conventional risk). I think this basically answers your question and also your objection about non-events. If X = 0 then all values of Y, Z or other factors will multiply out to zero risk.

Here's how I would apply this to Tuesday's slight risk as defined by the SPC.

First of all, their maps don't extend into Canada but it would appear they have a slight risk potential from about YXU north to perhaps as far as YSB extending east to include portions of n NY, VT, NH and ME. I would take slight risk as 4 on the 10 point scale and moderate risk as 7, but this case seems to be lower end slight risk so a maximum value of 5 (conventional risk) might apply in a zone across central ON into parts of northern NY). Now, they don't break down the see text zone but it seems reasonable to estimate a higher risk in MI than WI from their map, so I would say the X factor in play is about 2 around MSN increasing to 3 FNT, 4 YXU and 5 near YQA towards YOW. If I have time I will produce some maps of all this later, perhaps after assessing later SPC statements and updated guidance. But to these values, I could apply a multiplier in narrow bands within the slight risk zone (and over MI) corresponding to JI energy track which is normally where I would expect to find the strongest storms in this set-up (the J-II track tends to be more of a heavy rainfall track). The range of multipliers in this instance would be 0.8 to 1.3, so it does little more than fine-tune the slight risk zone giving potential for values as high as 6.5 which is high end slight risk or almost into moderate risk. At this early stage I would suggest the region north of Toronto around Lake Simcoe (Simcoe County, Victoria and Peterborough counties) or in other terms, 50-100n YYZ to 100ne YYZ as an enhanced risk zone.

More later, I have to go out for several hours.

[Ed Lizard]

Ellinwood addressed by name, yet none of his questions answered.

[Ed Lizard]

BTW, I am quite willing to accept that as a large planet, Jupiter has a magnetic field, even that moons orbiting Jupiter might effect the strength of that if they have their own smaller fields. Now, it seems very far away to be able to affect mesoscale weather processes on Earth, but maybe if data were presented, rather than discussions about what the J Fields supposedly do, it'd be easier to accept. My understanding is that radio telescopes pick up waves from all over the Universe. Fine. But I'd like to see a non-handwaving discussion about how the J Field is predicted or measured, and then next we can figure out how this mysterious J field can favor severe thunderstorms over Lake Erie as compared to near Lake Superior.

[WxUSAF]

Jupiter has a magnetic field, even that moons orbiting Jupiter might effect the strength of that if they have their own smaller fields.

Jupiter's magnetic field strength is not modulated by the satellites, but the satellites do have a significant role in the physics of the Jovian magnetosphere. Most of the plasma in the magnetosphere primarily comes from Io's very active volcanoes. Discrete plasma toruses connect Io to Jupiter's pole and aurora. Ganymede is the only known satellite with it's own internally generated magnetic field, and this creates a bubble within the larger Jovian magnetic field.

Everything else is complete rubbish. Jupiter's magnetic field lines do not cross the Sun...that's physically impossible. The position of the Galilean satellites within the magnetosphere does not have any net effect of the strength of the magnetic field. I'm frankly shocked this thread has been indulged for this long.

[Sunny and Warm]

Jupiter's magnetic field strength is not modulated by the satellites, but the satellites do have a significant role in the physics of the Jovian magnetosphere. Most of the plasma in the magnetosphere primarily comes from Io's very active volcanoes. Discrete plasma toruses connect Io to Jupiter's pole and aurora. Ganymede is the only known satellite with it's own internally generated magnetic field, and this creates a bubble within the larger Jovian magnetic field.

Everything else is complete rubbish. Jupiter's magnetic field lines do not cross the Sun...that's physically impossible. The position of the Galilean satellites within the magnetosphere does not have any net effect of the strength of the magnetic field. I'm frankly shocked this thread has been indulged for this long.

considering that Jupiters magnetic field only extends 10 million miles before being pushed back by the solar wind, yet the closest approach it makes to Earth is 365 million miles, tells one everything you need to know about Jovian influence on Earth. There is none. Jupiter looks big and is big except compared to the Sun. Then, it becomes quite small.

I'm okay with this thread if only to prove that you must provide valid mechanisms for how things work or be relegated to the astrology side of the equation.