Research ("space weather") driven severe weather forecasts

[Ellinwood]

How do you "see" the J-Field in the visible satellite? 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.

How will we know if the J-Field has a 10% influence on the potential energy, or 1%, or 0.1%, or 0.000000000001%?

Still waiting on these... most important question in the bolded. If you can't figure out why your forecasts based on the J-Field are either successful or a failure, then it provides no predictive value since you might as well just be guessing.

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.

Also this.

You (Roger) need to prove that, if such J-Fields are impacting the Earth, they are strong enough to have an impact on severe weather. For that, we need measurements. So far you have not convinced anyone with your J-Field theory mostly because 1) you have failed to prove that it has a measurable impact, 2) you have not been able to successfully link the J-Field to severe weather and 3) you have yet to perform a post-analysis on your theory to discuss what went right and what went wrong.

As far as anyone can tell, so far all of your forecasts have just been guesses, and that does include your long range temperature forecasts.

[Amped]

Still waiting on these... most important question in the bolded. If you can't figure out why your forecasts based on the J-Field are either successful or a failure, then it provides no predictive value since you might as well just be guessing.

Also this.

You (Roger) need to prove that, if such J-Fields are impacting the Earth, they are strong enough to have an impact on severe weather. For that, we need measurements. So far you have not convinced anyone with your J-Field theory mostly because 1) you have failed to prove that it has a measurable impact, 2) you have not been able to successfully link the J-Field to severe weather and 3) you have yet to perform a post-analysis on your theory to discuss what went right and what went wrong.

As far as anyone can tell, so far all of your forecasts have just been guesses, and that does include your long range temperature forecasts.

If he wants to believe the theory in his own head it's fine. Without a detailed quantative method that the rest of us can use to repeat and verify his results, I doubt anyone else on this forum is going to buy into it.

[QVectorman]

If he wants to believe the theory in his own head it's fine. Without a detailed quantative method that the rest of us can use to repeat and verify his results, I doubt anyone else on this forum is going to buy into it.

Nicely summed up in one sentence...at this point this is all I want to see.

[Roger Smith]

Timing for Tuesday afternoon-evening event ... energy peak 0030z (8:30 pm EDT) which should blend well with diurnal peak about 21z to 23z ... track of most severe storms prediction is shifted slightly to south from earlier forecast after review of 00z guidance ...

POSSIBLE MAJOR SEVERE OUTBREAK for TORONTO REGION as track appears to be across southwestern ON from about Bruce County (18-21z) to Toronto and York region (21z-00z) but would expect widespread severe storms in other parts of south-central and eastern ON, extending into northern NY and parts of northern New England, southern Quebec.

I think this one will produce one or more F1-2 tornado cells, as well as widespread damaging wind gusts from straight-line winds. Possible squall line feature indicated across Georgian Bay, Lake Simcoe and Lake Ontario regions. Slight chance derecho but more likely to be classified squall line.

Less severe risk but still some chance for lower MI, n OH, nw PA and further south in NY and New England than outlined above. Will update if free to do so as J-energy loops converge (predicted track of J-I loop is approx GRB-HTL-WGD-YYZ-SYR-BOS).

[Sunny and Warm]

Timing for Tuesday afternoon-evening event ... energy peak 0030z (8:30 pm EDT) which should blend well with diurnal peak about 21z to 23z ... track of most severe storms prediction is shifted slightly to south from earlier forecast after review of 00z guidance ...

POSSIBLE MAJOR SEVERE OUTBREAK for TORONTO REGION as track appears to be across southwestern ON from about Bruce County (18-21z) to Toronto and York region (21z-00z) but would expect widespread severe storms in other parts of south-central and eastern ON, extending into northern NY and parts of northern New England, southern Quebec.

I think this one will produce one or more F1-2 tornado cells, as well as widespread damaging wind gusts from straight-line winds. Possible squall line feature indicated across Georgian Bay, Lake Simcoe and Lake Ontario regions. Slight chance derecho but more likely to be classified squall line.

Less severe risk but still some chance for lower MI, n OH, nw PA and further south in NY and New England than outlined above. Will update if free to do so as J-energy loops converge (predicted track of J-I loop is approx GRB-HTL-WGD-YYZ-SYR-BOS).

After reading several of these "forecasts" of yours, it is apparent that you are just putting your own flair to the SPC forecasts, as you issue them post-SPC release. These really are not derived from an analysis of J-energy whatsoever, if indeed such a thing actually existed. Since you are unable to answer the questions Ellinwood has asked within the Scientific Method, can we then assume that the J-energy theory of yours is without merit? Even the simple question of where you are getting your J-field data from has gone unanswered. Surely that is not a secret.

[usedtobe]

One hell of a tornado outbreak there my friend.

For the time of year, that's really quiet and essentially is below normal activity. The dome of death and lack of shear makes it tough to get a legit outbreak. As for the methods discussed, well they look dubious and not worth much discussion.

[PSUBlizzicane2007]

I wonder how much of an effect Uranus is having on Jupiter's J-fields? Surely this would change the eventual effects of Jupiter's J-fields on Earth's severe weather, yes?

[Roger Smith]

Many of these comments are showing a growing sense of denial perhaps because today's predicted event (not following the SPC outlook at all, but leading ahead of it as it shifts towards my analysis) will clearly put an end to the claims that the effects are non-existent.

I didn't name the planets, if you think they have funny names, make a You-tube video, I am sure it will get a lot more attention than my research ever has.

Following today's successful demonstration of J-field energy, I will post a list of future events and assume that the thread is closed. At some point, when people say you are not answering questions after clearly answering them, and accusing you of making up data that could be easily checked by anyone else given the public availability of both data and astronomical information, I can't do any more.

Today's event was mentioned well back in the thread so claims that I am following guidance are spurious, anyway, the location was well-defined by the context of earlier statements about the peak energy moving gradually east.

For anyone more concerned with the facts and not the flaming, the current event will likely explode into a squall-line type situation over Michigan and Lake Huron, bringing risk of tornadic storms to parts of south-central Ontario and later upstate NY. Portions of e MI, n OH and nw PA may also be affected.

Anyone who has a more positive view of this research is welcome to make contact privately, you may feel inhibited by the cyber-stalkers (as is probably their real motivation) but the truth will come out eventually.

[Ed Lizard]

How do we measure the J-Field again? Is it just a guess based on published astronomical tables of Jupiter and its satellites orbits? Can it be quantified.

And how are laser like packets of energy from way out in space able to target mesoscale processes?

Another J-energy weather pattern is currently operating over Europe from my current research observations.

Can you share these observations other than by constructng a crude MS Paint picture of squggly lines? How are these things observed? Divining rod? Flux capacitor? Aluminum foiled hat shaped like a satellite dish and aimed at Jupiter while your hand rests on a Ouija board?

[Ellinwood]

Timing for Tuesday afternoon-evening event ... energy peak 0030z (8:30 pm EDT) which should blend well with diurnal peak about 21z to 23z ... track of most severe storms prediction is shifted slightly to south from earlier forecast after review of 00z guidance ...

POSSIBLE MAJOR SEVERE OUTBREAK for TORONTO REGION as track appears to be across southwestern ON from about Bruce County (18-21z) to Toronto and York region (21z-00z) but would expect widespread severe storms in other parts of south-central and eastern ON, extending into northern NY and parts of northern New England, southern Quebec.

I think this one will produce one or more F1-2 tornado cells, as well as widespread damaging wind gusts from straight-line winds. Possible squall line feature indicated across Georgian Bay, Lake Simcoe and Lake Ontario regions. Slight chance derecho but more likely to be classified squall line.

Less severe risk but still some chance for lower MI, n OH, nw PA and further south in NY and New England than outlined above. Will update if free to do so as J-energy loops converge (predicted track of J-I loop is approx GRB-HTL-WGD-YYZ-SYR-BOS).

How do you "see" the J-Field in the visible satellite? 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.

How will we know if the J-Field has a 10% influence on the potential energy, or 1%, or 0.1%, or 0.000000000001%?

Still waiting on these... most important question in the bolded. If you can't figure out why your forecasts based on the J-Field are either successful or a failure, then it provides no predictive value since you might as well just be guessing.

You (Roger) need to prove that, if such J-Fields are impacting the Earth, they are strong enough to have an impact on severe weather. For that, we need measurements. So far you have not convinced anyone with your J-Field theory mostly because 1) you have failed to prove that it has a measurable impact, 2) you have not been able to successfully link the J-Field to severe weather and 3) you have yet to perform a post-analysis on your theory to discuss what went right and what went wrong.

As far as anyone can tell, so far all of your forecasts have just been guesses, and that does include your long range temperature forecasts.

Roger, if you cannot do a post-analysis of why your forecasts were either successful or a failure, then your method provides no value. For all we know, all your forecasts are purely guesses. Please take the time to tell us why what you saw in the J-Field led you to forecast what you did and why it succeeded/failed.

[PSUBlizzicane2007]

Many of these comments are showing a growing sense of denial perhaps because today's predicted event (not following the SPC outlook at all, but leading ahead of it as it shifts towards my analysis) will clearly put an end to the claims that the effects are non-existent.

I didn't name the planets, if you think they have funny names, make a You-tube video, I am sure it will get a lot more attention than my research ever has.

Following today's successful demonstration of J-field energy, I will post a list of future events and assume that the thread is closed. At some point, when people say you are not answering questions after clearly answering them, and accusing you of making up data that could be easily checked by anyone else given the public availability of both data and astronomical information, I can't do any more.

Today's event was mentioned well back in the thread so claims that I am following guidance are spurious, anyway, the location was well-defined by the context of earlier statements about the peak energy moving gradually east.

For anyone more concerned with the facts and not the flaming, the current event will likely explode into a squall-line type situation over Michigan and Lake Huron, bringing risk of tornadic storms to parts of south-central Ontario and later upstate NY. Portions of e MI, n OH and nw PA may also be affected.

Anyone who has a more positive view of this research is welcome to make contact privately, you may feel inhibited by the cyber-stalkers (as is probably their real motivation) but the truth will come out eventually.

Funny how your peak energy follows guidance.

[tornadotony]

Many of these comments are showing a growing sense of denial perhaps because today's predicted event (not following the SPC outlook at all, but leading ahead of it as it shifts towards my analysis) will clearly put an end to the claims that the effects are non-existent.

I didn't name the planets, if you think they have funny names, make a You-tube video, I am sure it will get a lot more attention than my research ever has.

Following today's successful demonstration of J-field energy, I will post a list of future events and assume that the thread is closed. At some point, when people say you are not answering questions after clearly answering them, and accusing you of making up data that could be easily checked by anyone else given the public availability of both data and astronomical information, I can't do any more.

Today's event was mentioned well back in the thread so claims that I am following guidance are spurious, anyway, the location was well-defined by the context of earlier statements about the peak energy moving gradually east.

For anyone more concerned with the facts and not the flaming, the current event will likely explode into a squall-line type situation over Michigan and Lake Huron, bringing risk of tornadic storms to parts of south-central Ontario and later upstate NY. Portions of e MI, n OH and nw PA may also be affected.

Anyone who has a more positive view of this research is welcome to make contact privately, you may feel inhibited by the cyber-stalkers (as is probably their real motivation) but the truth will come out eventually.

Asking for clear data to support a wild theory is not flaming. Also, there is absolutely no cyberstalking going on in this thread. You've been asked to produce scientific data on a scientific theory on a science board, and you've repeatedly ignored the request. Your paint drawings don't constitute as data or answers to the questions presented. What you are encountering here is the scientific process. It is not as brutal who present real scientific data in their research.

[das]

What you are encountering here is the scientific process. It is not as brutal who present real scientific data in their research.

I've participated in some absolutely brutal masters and doctoral thesis defenses. It can be ugly when one is not well prepared...

[usedtobe]

I've participated in some absolutely brutal masters and doctoral thesis defenses. It can be ugly when one is not well prepared...

and I've had articles rejected by journals and have done rewrites to get other articles published. The review process is supposed to be rigorous. It almost always strengthens an article.

[Ed Lizard]

Having read every post, from the beginning, sensing it was a crock but willing to give it the benefit of the doubt, asking simple, polite and respectful questions that could easily be answered if someone were actually doing research along these lines, and the complete lack of any real data or answers, well,

it is an insult to the scientific process to discuss the scientific method and the J field in the same sentence as being somehow related.

Not a met, an astronomer or an astrophysicist, but I have a BS in engineering, have worked after school as an assistant to graduate students in their labs, am somewhat familiar with the process of submitting articles to peer reviewed journals for publication, have read professional journals in my field, and, well, this is beyong science fiction. And the scary thing is, I suspect Roger Smith actually believes he has discovered some secret the rest of the world is unable to comprehend, and may now be developing a persecution complex.

[QVectorman]

Just playing devils advocate but if he at least provided some numbers we could run some statistical tests on them and if there appears to be a statistically significant correlation we would then be able to provide another more plausible hypothesis for the correlation rather than the j field that defies physics. Either way...at this point it seems to be a lost cause Phil, ed and Ellenwood have asked politely and still no numbers so we can replicate it and carry on his legacy as he has asked if it did turn out to work.

[Roger Smith]

Okay, persecution complex is probably too strong, I am aware of the difficulties involved in having new theories well received. The data sets are solid and I will make an effort to publish them in a readable form. I've mentioned some problems in conversion of an older file system and it may be necessary to start again with an Excel data base instead of trying to export files already done to Excel.

This could take me several weeks, the data base itself is not the problem, but crunching the numbers again will take at least some time to set up. Or I may succeed in ongoing efforts to get the existing files successfully converted to Excel.

I'm not sure what protocol to follow for those who want to question whether the data are real historical temperatures or precip from the stated location. You could easily check them out on-line. It would be a lot of rather pointless work for me to make up 170 years of temperature data and almost as much rainfall data.

Comments that my forecasts are "following guidance" are not necessarily accurate. Today's SPC outlook changed overnight towards a zone that I had earlier outlined with slight risks appearing in WI and MI that were not there yesterday. However the forecast philosophies were never that far apart so I am not making a big deal out of that. I am not the least bit surprised to see today's event where it is, and could have said this region would be in play weeks ago from the model, just as I am implying that Michigan and Ontario will be in play with the peaks around July 31, August 7 and 11 among others, as already discussed.

For now, we seem to be at an impasse on the thread so I will just post outlooks as situations arise and work on the data issues. The goal is to seek a more formal publication than this internet forum some time within 2-3 years so all of this is helpful. If there ever were successful publication then this research paradigm would probably filter more into operational severe weather forecasting than into the academic or general meteorology workplace.

[HM]

The only thing you can do now Roger is post a nude picture and hope that everyone forgets about this thread. Hey, maybe you'll even win some of them back.

[andyhb]

Many of these comments are showing a growing sense of denial perhaps because today's predicted event (not following the SPC outlook at all, but leading ahead of it as it shifts towards my analysis) will clearly put an end to the claims that the effects are non-existent.

I didn't name the planets, if you think they have funny names, make a You-tube video, I am sure it will get a lot more attention than my research ever has.

Following today's successful demonstration of J-field energy, I will post a list of future events and assume that the thread is closed. At some point, when people say you are not answering questions after clearly answering them, and accusing you of making up data that could be easily checked by anyone else given the public availability of both data and astronomical information, I can't do any more.

Today's event was mentioned well back in the thread so claims that I am following guidance are spurious, anyway, the location was well-defined by the context of earlier statements about the peak energy moving gradually east.

For anyone more concerned with the facts and not the flaming, the current event will likely explode into a squall-line type situation over Michigan and Lake Huron, bringing risk of tornadic storms to parts of south-central Ontario and later upstate NY. Portions of e MI, n OH and nw PA may also be affected.

Anyone who has a more positive view of this research is welcome to make contact privately, you may feel inhibited by the cyber-stalkers (as is probably their real motivation) but the truth will come out eventually.

PLEASE SHOW US MAPS AND/OR DATA OF WHERE THIS "J-FIELD" ENERGY IS COMING INTO PLAY AND HOW IT IS INFLUENCING THE SEVERE WEATHER PATTERN IN ANY WAY....I don't know how many times people have to say it.

[PSUBlizzicane2007]

The only thing you can do now Roger is post a nude picture and hope that everyone forgets about this thread. Hey, maybe you'll even win some of them back.

Pretty sure he's just trolling now. There is no way someone can be that dense.

[QVectorman]

So you don't have some kind of quantifying data on the J field itself? Climate data isn't the issue here. We would like to see something to replicate your j field from...numbers etc so a statistical correlation can be made.

[QVectorman]

The only thing you can do now Roger is post a nude picture and hope that everyone forgets about this thread. Hey, maybe you'll even win some of them back.

LMAO

[Ellinwood]

Okay, persecution complex is probably too strong, I am aware of the difficulties involved in having new theories well received. The data sets are solid and I will make an effort to publish them in a readable form. I've mentioned some problems in conversion of an older file system and it may be necessary to start again with an Excel data base instead of trying to export files already done to Excel.

This could take me several weeks, the data base itself is not the problem, but crunching the numbers again will take at least some time to set up. Or I may succeed in ongoing efforts to get the existing files successfully converted to Excel.

I'm not sure what protocol to follow for those who want to question whether the data are real historical temperatures or precip from the stated location. You could easily check them out on-line. It would be a lot of rather pointless work for me to make up 170 years of temperature data and almost as much rainfall data.

Comments that my forecasts are "following guidance" are not necessarily accurate. Today's SPC outlook changed overnight towards a zone that I had earlier outlined with slight risks appearing in WI and MI that were not there yesterday. However the forecast philosophies were never that far apart so I am not making a big deal out of that. I am not the least bit surprised to see today's event where it is, and could have said this region would be in play weeks ago from the model, just as I am implying that Michigan and Ontario will be in play with the peaks around July 31, August 7 and 11 among others, as already discussed.

For now, we seem to be at an impasse on the thread so I will just post outlooks as situations arise and work on the data issues. The goal is to seek a more formal publication than this internet forum some time within 2-3 years so all of this is helpful. If there ever were successful publication then this research paradigm would probably filter more into operational severe weather forecasting than into the academic or general meteorology workplace.

The only reason why there might be an impasse is because you have failed to answer some our questions in a scientific manner, and other questions you have completely ignored (for example, me asking you conduct a thorough verification of your forecasts based on the J-Field). The fact that you refuse to answer these questions shows that you are just blowing smoke.

Microsoft Excel has been widely available since the 90s and it is apparently much easier to use and is a much better tool than what you currently have. You have no reason to not be using better software when databasing and manipulating data. If you have no money to purchase Excel, there are free versions available, such as Google Docs and Office Suite X. You cannot tell us that you have been doing research on different things for 30 years and can't manage anything better than hand-drawn MS Paint images.

SPC forecasts are not guidance... the models are. Your severe weather forecasts should not boil down to "hey look I can beat the SPC," because other forecasters can and do beat the SPC's forecasts all the time. It really isn't that hard to beat the SPC's forecasts using the conventional methods. EDIT: While beating the SPC is not your main point, I just wanted to use this paragraph to clarify any stance you or others might have when comparing forecasts to the SPC.

By all means, come back when you've spent the time to make an actual research paper that can be submitted for peer review and possible publishing. Just a heads-up, you're going to have to do a lot better than what you've done in this thread to make something that might remotely represent something to submit for peer review. That's not just for your severe weather forecasts, either. You also had the Toronto temperature data which apparently shows some sort of correlation... that would be great if your J-Field only had an effect on Toronto, but you're going to need statistically-significant correlations with more than just one location to prove your theory is correct.

[Stebo]

The simple fact that data can not be produced should be grounds for immediate ignoring. Of course not quantifying why it failed or succeeded also hurts the cause. If both of these things had happened we might be telling a different story.

[Roger Smith]

On the above points, I have Microsoft Excel available and some of my data files are converted to it. Many of these older research files have been maintained and updated since about 1990. However, it's not an insurmountable issue to get all relevant files onto Excel. I am working on this at present between other more time-sensitive tasks (still semi-employed, the other side of the semi-retired coin) and think I may have something to post on this thread before the weekend.

Not nearly as pessimistic as some here are saying I should be, the current weather pattern continues to show many of the expected features of the J-field rotation. Where I find an impasse is in comments about not posting maps, where the J-field energy can be seen -- I have posted several maps that are easy to follow and give predicted positions as well as current positions of J-field energy. I can accept that some find this a leap of faith, but that doesn't mean I haven't posted maps.

CURRENT ANALYSIS:

J-I, J-II and J-III energy retrograde today as these three elements are moving through eclipse and occultation positions. Map at bottom of this post shows their locations as of 00z July 19th. The inner energy loops have been firing off across OH and IN and will be approaching an alignment peak later 19th around 15z. By this time, J-I will also be moving around its energy loop to transit position (crossing the timing line eastward) and so I expect the combined J-I and inner loops to intensify the developing wave approaching MI. This has some energy over WI at present that is probably independent of the J-field energy system and imparted to the atmospheric system from the new moon event (new moon is July 19th 0425z).

Meanwhile, the next major energy peak for J-I overtaking J-II comes on Saturday July 21 at 13z after a J-II transit at 09z and J-I at 11z. The next inner loop max is timed for 02z July 22. The Saturday event is in the late overnight and previous examples in this series have been rather weak convection maintainers after some late Friday activity, but note that the Saturday series is slowly moving closer to the diurnal peak (each successive 7-day peak is about an hour later in the day).

The overall position of the "J-field" system appears to have drifted back to the west slightly compared to where it was on Tuesday, and I expect further westward drift for about 1.5 to 2 days due to the changing orbital positions of J-II and J-III. The further westward drift is likely to be 100-200 miles so the tentative location for the Saturday phased transit event is once again in Wisconsin, later energy into Michigan.

[Ed Lizard]

I actually could believe a nearby satellite than can make the oceans slosh around can influence weather, as compared to magic J Fields of laser like energy packets from a distant plant.

But with reproducible Moon data, and weather databases, I'm sure you could actually try to develop a correlation, a "new moon" enhancer to severe weather events. If there is such an enhancement. You could actually plot data points, Lunar phase versus SPC severe reports or something.

The M-Field in action.

[Ellinwood]

This is pathetic.

[am19psu]

I'm going to shut this one down. Roger has been given ample time to try to show his results. If you have a compelling reason to reopen it, let me know via PM.