Daily Astro-climatology Report

[kold weather]

Your being very unfair West on Roger, you surely don't expwect 100% perfection because his forecast was up there with the best of them, he went above average for the month, surely don't expect him to nai lthe CEt perfectly?

His range was too low but it still wasn't that far away really when you think about it. We didn't get northerlies so I suppose thats fair enough. As for the xmas-new year, I think he done a pretty good job. Yes he may have slightly overdone the wet bit but overall I think you'll find he was very close, it was mild overall, though not as much as earlier weeks and I'd be willing that rainfall was above average this week just gone for at least western parts and the fog we obviously had before then.

Also i note that you have managed to miss this:

with the flow being WSW and a steady progression of Atlantic systems

Thats the best call of the lot and the stats back that up very well. As I've got a history exam soon and I've got to try and interpret sources, its very intresting personally to see the way you just happen to miss the most accurate point, I wonder why....

Overall though I'd say thats a pretty decent call actually and unless you want perfection it wasn't at all bad.

Edited January 2, 2007 by kold weather

[johnholmes]

there you are Roger two points of view.

I agree with KW that your call was as good as any other.

What date did you do that forecast on out of interest please?

John

[West is Best]

Kold - I ignored the WSW you're right. As it's this country's prevailing wind direction I didn't think it very notable. Apologies if you did. We obviously see things differently.

So where's the massive Scandi high and earth-shattering storm tomorrow then? Christmas/New Year was wrong, as was the northerly and one of the two storms. Mind you, he didn't get Christmas/New Year as wildly out as Rick Lemming - going back to his forecast makes amusing reading, and a cautionary tale about date-driven forecasts in LRFing.

Edited January 2, 2007 by West is Best

[Weather-history]

.

After that, a second strong peak occurs on the 5th-6th with the combined RC and SC events. The RC event is one of the five identified major energy peaks that occur with the Moon's close proximity to some major stellar source of gravitational energy (Regulus). The northern max is more produced by the galactic equator but there are quite a few massive nearby stars in close proximity.

By the 11th-12th, the Moon moves close to Spica, the second of these stellar sources, so this produces the moderately strong SpC event. Anything between the 6th and 11th would be generated by the second-order events in the J-fields and S-fields as I'll discuss later. These lunar-geomagnetic lows tend to be shaped by this second-order energy too, so nothing is as straight-forward as predictable exact timing here. Getting back to the monthly schedule, strong events occur on the 15th as the Moon passes Jupiter, (JC event) and from 17th to 19th a cluster of events including MaC, S Max, and new moon. This should be a stormy period unless we get blocking in which case the stormy pattern will shift northwest towards Iceland.

I have to admit Roger, I'm finding it hard to accept that two stars that are light years away could have any significant effect when the Moon approaches them at a conjunction.

Spica is 260 light years away. Light we see from Spica now left that star about the time of the Battle of Culloden in 1746

Edited January 2, 2007 by Mr_Data

[The PIT]

Predicting a wsw wind flow is waht you call a cold reading as you'll find most months are dominated by sw in this country. Indead last year ten months had were dominated by SW.

http://www.sheffieldweather.co.uk/dec06yr.pdf

2005 was rather odd

http://www.sheffieldweather.co.uk/2005vp2.pdf

2004 back to sw

http://www.sheffieldweather.co.uk/2004mon.pdf

and so on.

The only true way to Monitor Rodgers forecast is check each one and do this over a period of time. Only then you can say whether the method doesn't work or has something in it.

[Roger J Smith]

The statement that I have "admitted" that the methodology is astrology is an outright deceptive piece of fabrication; I have stated exactly the opposite.

There is no Jan 3-4 debacle, and a fairly strong low is in the position stated, about to do more or less what I stated it would do. BFTP thought it might be the pattern changer, and over a longer time frame he may be proven right. My forecast stated it would bring in cold air on the NW flank and create snow in areas such as western Scotland; time will tell how accurate that is, but to use the word debacle is somewhat similar to saying that Newcastle's 2-2 draw with Man U was a failure on their part, so perhaps a glass half full, half empty thing. I have no idea why people can't visualize other electro-magnetic processes than the ones we know about, there has been an active search going on since the mid 1960s for gravitational waves.

The postulation about the Moon interfering with some as-yet unidentified energy flow has nothing to do with when that energy flow left its source; on the contrary, I do not postulate faster-than-light travel for these effects, or they would presumably occur before their signals.

Anyway, I expect a rough ride, but let's try to be balanced in our assessments, a reasonably good forecast is not a debacle in my books.

Back to work now. Oh, the forecast was posted in early November I believe but check with BFTP, he can tell you that I was looking at this scenario earlier on. In the past year, I've stated "cold, rather snowy winter" for last winter, "mild, dry spring," "hot, sunny summer," and consistently warmer than normal autumn. These are not the worst LRFs ever seen in the U.K., are they?

Hope at least some of NW's many readers get something positive out of my posting, but rest assured, I am not "into" astrology, I am searching for physical explanations for phenomena that I have documented extensively, and I am certainly not trying to trick anyone -- what would be my motivation to do that, and how could you trick hundreds of weather fanatics into thinking you could predict the weather long-range with inaccurate forecasts? That sounds very far-fetched to me, and all I am saying is that I have entered a zone of better than random forecasting using my techniques. Don't be afraid to look through the telescope, you won't be excommunicated from the church of science.

[The PIT]

Well some could argue it wasn't a cold snowy winter. All winter months were very close to normal where I live anyway and Snow although more than the previous year wasn't much either. Spring wasn't dry well at least not for us and neither was it mild. Summer we all went for Hot and got a certain month wrong.

For us Winter December +0.5C above normal Jan +0.4C above Normal Feb -0.3C

Spring March -1.8C April -0.2C and May 0.3C

Summer was stupidly Hot bar one month which did a surprising about face.

Autumn you're right.

[Roger J Smith]

Re spring, what anomalies are those? I thought April and May were warmer than that. Also, my apologies but I tend to think of seasons as astronomical so I was thinking of part of June there too.

After a day of thinking about things in general, I have no interest in stirring up a lot of controversy or anything much beyond discussing the possibilities of this new theory (and it is mine, etc), will probably follow the path of least resistance in general since I already determined many years ago that the acceptance timetable for this research is likely to be astronomical for sure.

I may be a fairly well known figure of the 28th century at the rate things are going.

But I am an easy-going, almost likeable sort of fellow, if you can look beyond the contrarian tendencies. My cat likes me, and so does BFTP, so that's a start.

[johnholmes]

keep posting Roger, never mind the brickbats from some.

[Weather-history]

The postulation about the Moon interfering with some as-yet unidentified energy flow has nothing to do with when that energy flow left its source; on the contrary, I do not postulate faster-than-light travel for these effects, or they would presumably occur before their signals.

Thats not what I was meaning Roger, I was just using that to point out how far these stars are away.

260 lights years is approximately 1,500,000,000,000,000 miles away and I find it hard to accept that a single star that far away that there would be any effect on Earth when the Moon comes close to it.

[VillagePlank]

Thats not what I was meaning Roger, I was just using that to point out how far these stars are away.

260 lights years is approximately 1,500,000,000,000,000 miles away and I find it hard to accept that a single star that far away that there would be any effect on Earth when the Moon comes close to it.

Two words: Quantum entanglement.

Cause, Effect, and Relativity all break down so time and space cease to be subject to the same rational rules of our own experience.

[Weather-history]

Two words: Quantum entanglement.

Cause, Effect, and Relativity all break down so time and space cease to be subject to the same rational rules of our own experience.

At the cosmological level?

[West is Best]

Two words: Quantum entanglement.

Cause, Effect, and Relativity all break down so time and space cease to be subject to the same rational rules of our own experience.

I don't think Quantum physics (and it is physics not merely 'our experience') is meant to be synonymous with magic. This is just an excuse for sloppy science at best ... quasic mysticism at worst.

I'm sorry that John H thinks that to challenge what I see as a pernicious methodology is to throw a brickbat. It isn't. Astrology (sorry Roger, but I have to term it that given your comments about hitherto undiscovered energy fields) should be challenged by all right-minded free-thinking scientists. This is not the same as saying Roger isn't entitled to his view. He can think and post what he likes. But the idea that planets and stars have an influence on our weather patterns in the manner that Roger suggests is pure humbug in my opinion. I too am entitled to that viewpoint!

Still the proof is in the pudding. Where's the massively influential Scandi high for the New Year? All I see is low pressures. And the staggeringly eventful 3-4th Jan is, er, not there. But I bet if something happens in 2 weeks' time it will be claimed this was the same thing, just a little late.

Edited January 3, 2007 by West is Best

[VillagePlank]

I don't think Quantum physics (and it is physics not merely 'our experience') is meant to be synonymous with magic. This is just an excuse for sloppy science at best ... quasic mysticism at worst.

I'm sorry that John H thinks that to challenge what I see as a pernicious methodology is to throw a brickbat. It isn't. Astrology (sorry Roger, but I have to term it that given your comments about hitherto undiscovered energy fields) should be challenged by all right-minded free-thinking scientists. This is not the same as saying Roger isn't entitled to his view. He can think and post what he likes. But the idea that planets and stars have an influence on our weather patterns in the manner that Roger suggests is pure humbug in my opinion. I too am entitled to that viewpoint!

Still the proof is in the pudding. Where's the massively influential Scandi high for the New Year? All I see is low pressures. And the staggeringly eventful 3-4th Jan is, er, not there. But I bet if something happens in 2 weeks' time it will be claimed this was the same thing, just a little late.

I think that you've been somewhat disengenious in your reply. Taken in context, semantically, it was a mere suggestion that there are mechanisms at play throughout the universe that we do not fully grasp nor understand. Indeed, in the absence in any shape of form of the GUT, I think it is wise to presume that there are many things left to discover. Furthermore QP is not part of our experience, and as it stands, observation is impossible due to Heisenburgs uncertainty principle. (where does the scientifc method stand without it's full complement triumverate of hypothesis, observation, and prediction? Is this sloppy science?)

As for 'hitherto undiscovered energy fields' the notion that this must be astrology is an extradionary claim. A claim that requires extraordinary evidence. I presume you are privvy to the evidence that these do not exist? or that it is mystical? or that indeed the notion of as yet unknown energy fields (even though the classical model of physics is yet to be fully realised) is pure fantasy? I would gladly settle for the evidence that shows the working of even just the solar system to the smallest detail (which, shouldn't be that hard?)

I do not profess to have the answers, but I think the old days of deterministic reasoning have long gone. And those who dogmatically stick by them will continue to be subject to the law of diminishing returns.

Edited January 3, 2007 by Geludiligo

[VillagePlank]

At the cosmological level?

Yes, entanglement happens regardless of spatial seperation. Here provides a good essay on the matter. Quantum coherence is related, too.

Also:

Q: How do physicists know entanglement works over billions of miles?

To date, researchers have only observed the effects of quantum entanglement over a distance of several miles ... since we don't have the technology to observe the effect first-hand at distances spanning much more than that of the Earth and Moon.

However, a cosmological experiment was done using quasar 0957+561A,B (Entanglement, The Greatest Mystery in Physics, by Amir D. Aczel pp.92-93) that showed how a photon can simultaneously travel two paths across great distances. A galaxy splits the space between Earth and the quasar, acting as a gravitational lens, thus creating two light rays separated by 50,000 light years. When we observe the arrival of a photon we can, by using half-silvered mirrors, determine which ray the photon travelled or whether it travelled both rays. What makes this experiment interesting is that when we put in the silvered mirror (or not), the photon has already passed the galaxy! In effect, we wind up changing history. I urge you to read Dr Aczel's book for details.

here

I don't know the credentials of the author.

Edited January 3, 2007 by Geludiligo

[West is Best]

I think that's a fair reply Geludiligo, and you're quite right to pull me up. If I may just say that you might have helped your cause by posting a little more fully on a big theory than a one liner? But you are still right to correct me. Let me be more honest then, and hopefully a little more careful in how I pose my concerns here.

My antennae always twitch when the unknown is used as the basis for a theory. It's partly because having studied religions most of my life I know how easy it is epistemologically to fill the gaps in our knowledge with quasi-mystical theories. It seems to be terribly tempting for certain personality types to do this, and equally easy for other personality types to become disciples. Infamously, of course, this became the God of the Gaps theory with William Paley's Divine Watchmaker, so savagely shredded by the likes of Hume, Locke and of course Immanuel Kant. But I've seen similar techniques used across the world in many religious/spiritual contexts; hence my references to Nostradamus when responding to BFTP, Roger Smith and Ken Ring. It is too easy to see the similarities here. If I've been a little unfair at times then I apologise, but using what I do see as quasi-mystical forecasting techniques in metereology is bound to be red-rag to the bull. I'd rather metereology remained properly scientific. Just because we cannot prove that the ring nebula in Lyra doesn't have an effect on snowfall in Peterborough on January 7th 2008 doesn't mean that it does.

You are, though, completely right to say that there are huge gaps in our knowledge. My problem stems from filling those, or using them, with something that is difficult to refute through our present knowledge base. Fortunately I'm quietly confident that the proof of the pudding ...

[VillagePlank]

My problem stems from filling those, or using them, with something that is difficult to refute through our present knowledge base. Fortunately I'm quietly confident that the proof of the pudding ...

Yes, the final third of the triumvirate is proof of the pudding, of which, in and of itself, as you say, is entirely necessary to convince any other that a theory is not only cogent, but it predicts.

In Roger's defence, though, I'm sure he would say that he is still in the business of collecting information and refining his theory (ie Observation) It seems clear that his hypothesis has already been made (although as with all theories, I'm sure it will recurse through the steps until (i) the theory ceases to have merit, (ii) you're ready to publish)

Perhaps, Roger, you published your predictions a little too soon?

Edited January 3, 2007 by Geludiligo

[Roger J Smith]

Well, thanks to those who posted some thought-provoking responses above. I recall Persian Paladin was asking for some rationale for the postulated interaction in a recent thread, possibly a model discussion about ten days ago. In any case, I responded there that the equations being developed seemed to be quite different from the already known relations that involve mass over distance squared, more like this:

(square root of) (ratio of log mass) / (sixth root of distance)

which basically suggests an unknown force which does not diminish nearly as rapidly over distance as conventional gravitation or electro-magnetism.

The mass portion suggests a less linear dependence on mass, and actually correlates fairly well with diameter.

In an unrelated investigation I have been doing to further my interest in gravitation, I have noted that conventional gravitational potential of various astronomical objects is roughly similar to diameter times albedo, which suggests that gravitation may have as much to do with reflectivity as mass.

In fact, here's something that would no doubt really get the hornets buzzing -- if you assume that locally the gravitational constant may be scaled by mass of the generating source and that our notion of a universal constant is flawed due to our attempts to shield out magnetism which is actually an intermediate case, then you can develop a graphical solution for what I call "local G" that connects the earth's postulated value with the electromagnetic range as known for the elements, and find that this reads off through the planets, satellites and stars as follows (I am generalizing here):

(a) galaxies, very considerable extra mass, lower value of G, explains the missing mass mystery

( stars, considerable extra mass, somewhat lower value of G, suggests that stars are not nuclear furnaces made of hydrogen and helium, but dense metal objects, and that in our own case, the Sun is a metallic object, highly charged (what we see being the electons stuck on the outside) and that sunspots are as Wilson once postulated, the darker metallic layers temporarily visible due to disturbances in that electron-plasma atmosphere

© larger planets than our own, somewhat extra mass, slightly lower value of G, suggesting a larger metallic core especially for Jupiter and Saturn, possibly helping to explain the long-lived permanent locations of such features as the GRS

(d) Earth no difference since the whole concept of G relies on a postulate of its mass and density, and also Venus not much difference, slightly less mass and slightly higher local value of G.

(e) Smaller planets, less mass, higher values of G. For Mars, this gives a density near that of water rather than the currently accepted 3 -- makes the water-carved canyons more likely to be caused by asteroid impacts that released internal ice or water, than what I have always found to be the bizarre notion of previous epochs of heavy rainfall on Mars. ... For Mercury, a much lower mass which may suggest a thick-skinned hollow object, perhaps a former Mars that lost its internal water though out-gassing during asteroid impacts in earlier stages of the solar system. ... For Pluto and various large asteroids and satellites, alternate explanations of internal composition based on much lower masses, large ice and snow type objects with rocky or dusty crusts. and for the Moon, a rather thin-skinned hollow object, much lower mass than we now believe, and possibly close to 1/1836 that of the earth (hmm) which may suggest why on some larger scale the earth-moon system acts in some way similar to the more powerful electro-magnetic force than the weaker gravitational force. This concept of a hollow Moon resonates with the observation that weak moonquakes are observed to act as though the internal structure of the Moon were very porous.

As you can see then, an alternate scaled version of gravitation links the gravitational and electro-magnetic forces through a sliding scale of revised local G values which in every case conforms better with observation than the current assumptions. It explains major mysteries and paradoxes such as why arid Mars would exhibit water-carved features, why large planets supposedly gaseous have strong magnetic fields and regular atmospheric features, why the Sun has regular rotation and the appearance of a solid interior, and why there is so much missing mass to be found (there isn't any -- it's all explained in the lower G values of the largest objects, the galaxies). It also shows why there can be magnetism, since different objects generate different forms of local G depending on their atomic structure.

If I were to develop this into a paper and present it to physicists, no doubt I would ignite their discontent, but from my point of view, anything is better than clinging to the notion that Mars once had oceans and a rainfall cycle -- I find that notion as hard to believe as WIB finds my weather theories, and in fact it was that doubt about Mars which prompted my thought experiment.

In this alternative theory, gravitation is seen as an accidental consequence of the real process at work -- objects repel one another in space by bombarding each other with particles, so that the real process is dependent on the apparent size of the object vs its reflectivity. A low-albedo object like Mars will absorb more radiation than a high-albedo object like Venus, hence Mars, which is over half as large in diameter as Venus, has a much lower gravitational potential because of the relationship of diameter x albedo being that much smaller. In the case of a radiating object like the Sun, albedo is taken as some value much in excess of one.

Once all the objects are placed in space and begin to emit the mutually repulsive pattern of radiation including reflection of radiation, then they enter into balanced positions that conform to Newtonian gravitation, and since mass is generally dependent on size, the general similarity of mass and diameter led to the notion that gravitation is dependent on mass, not diameter.

Hence all of the assumptions we have made using constant G and a mass-based gravitation are flawed and need to be revised, a situation not attendant to the atomic and subatomic scales because here it was understood from the beginning that size mattered. By the way, there is a variant of this which suggests that you can explain scaled atomic forces without having to distinguish between protons and neutrons, but that's something I was planning to leave for the atomic physicists to look at if they liked the idea that their version of gravitation was really working on all scales (yet another mystery handled in this new version, there is no such thing as two different forces, but instead, the one force scales gradually from its strongest version related to mass, the atomic, to its weakest, the universal). Where this leaves the "big bang" I have not really tried to fathom, presumably everything cancels out and you're left with the expanding universe.

How to prove this alternative version of gravitation? Dig a well on Mars. Or drop a deep probe into the crust of the Moon. These would be the easiest ways, although radar soundings of the Sun's undeclared solid surface might also work.

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

Still the proof is in the pudding. Where's the massively influential Scandi high for the New Year? All I see is low pressures. And the staggeringly eventful 3-4th Jan is, er, not there. But I bet if something happens in 2 weeks' time it will be claimed this was the same thing, just a little late.

West may I suggest you read his forecast again. Where does he say 'staggeringly eventful 3-4th January'???? And what a surprise you ignored the WSW flow because that is our prevailing wind direction, well considering it hasn't generally been the flow for some time it was a good call. This I am afraid is very typical of your anti-posts...you see and read what you want to read and you very very selectively post on occasions. This current LP crossing Scotland is precisely what it says in the LRF.

This forecast was made some considerable time ago by Roger and it is a 'true' LRF. Indeed these thoughts/forecast of Roger were there in late summer and they are holding up pretty well and certainly way above the 20% given by yourself.

Opinions are available to be held by any person....true....and that's what they are but some should be 'presented' in another way shall I say . Your nostradamus and flat earth referrals are basically unwarranted...after all this only a 'friendly' learning forum . One may suggest that you produce and compare your LRF against Roger's....that should be interesting.

Roger, yes I expected 'tilt' of the Atlantic flow with LPs coming in lower latitude to the UK as pressure rises to our NE. I believe this will come out to be the 'theme' and 2.5C is my CET. My shotgun is pump action

PS Roger your inbox is showing as full so cannot send a PM in reply

BFTP

Edited January 3, 2007 by BLAST FROM THE PAST

[VillagePlank]

I'm not ignoring your last monster post, Roger, just taking some time to muse, and cogitate . . .back soon (ish)

Edited January 3, 2007 by Geludiligo

[Roger J Smith]

Take all the time you need, we have until 2701 AD.

[The PIT]

And what a surprise you ignored the WSW flow because that is our prevailing wind direction, well considering it hasn't generally been the flow for some time it was a good call.

BFTP

Sorry you're wrong check my data posts further up.

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

Sorry you're wrong check my data posts further up.

I have official letter from avaiation authority on why they had changed flightpaths...it was because of an 'easterly' regime.

BFTP

[West is Best]

I have official letter from avaiation authority on why they had changed flightpaths...it was because of an 'easterly' regime.

BFTP

No Fred. Flights have alternative take off and approaches for all kinds of wind directions, because the CAA knows as well as anyone that they change all the time.

The prevailing wind direction in this country is South-Westerly and has not changed. There may be several things in my response to RJS that you could challenge. This isn't one of them. Whether or not forecasting the prevailing wind direction was notable is another issue. When Roger posted the forecast we were in the middle of the 8th most south-westerly November of the last 133 years. But you are entitled to think it notable.

[Roger J Smith]

Fred, some people would complain if you went house to house handing out tenners that they weren't twenties.

I'll say this -- keep doing this :lol: until it feels good, then you'll be a qualified long-range forecaster.