Daily Astro-climatology Report

[johnholmes]

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

would you care to publish the letter and give a full explanation rather than a one liner such that we can all make a considered judgement.

John

[The PIT]

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

BFTP

Ah so all our Wind vanes are pointing the wrong direction. Right. Consider that they maybe talking about upper flows perhaps??? Again I suggest you look at my data and when I certainly go out most of the time the wind is blowing from that direction.

[West is Best]

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

You don't live in this country Roger so you can probably be forgiven for this rather wayward analogy although it does bring to my mind images of magicians' conjuring tricks so it's perhaps not entirely inappropriate.

The prevailing wind direction certainly hasn't changed in this country. Yes, we had a relatively blocked spell of 18 months during which time there may have been more southerlies and easterlies than average (particularly southerlies as it happens), but there is no indication whatsover of any change in the prevailing wind direction. Even during that 18 months, there were notable south-westerly spells (e.g. April 2006), for which I suggest you look at Philip Eden's flow indices. Then we emphatically returned back to normal, with the 8th most south-westerly November of the past 133 years (according to Philip's detailed analysis). Notwithstanding the inversion high at the end of December that too was an extremely Atlantic-dominated month, and we're in the same flow again now.

If you really really don't believe that I'll get one of my friends up the road to write confirming this, but I think we all have better things to do. There are, as I suggested, lots of points to debate from my counter to your post. Prevailing wind direction isn't one of them. It's south-westerly and remains south-westerly.

Edited January 4, 2007 by West is Best

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

The prevailing wind direction certainly hasn't changed in this country. Yes, we had a relatively blocked spell of 18 months during which time there may have been more southerlies and easterlies than average (particularly southerlies as it happens), but there is no indication whatsover of any change in the prevailing wind direction.

Obviously my response wasn't clear....the flight path had noticeably changed this year because of what you say above West. Yes we are a SW'ly country as we are Cool Temperate Western Margin. My point to clarify was regarding last 18 months or so or since Feb 05. I complained because aircraft were piling over my house...this has stopped since Nov. Hope that settles that one. I will happily print the content in time.

BFTP

[West is Best]

BFTP - that's fair enough. But it does bring me back to my point which is that forecasting the prevailing wind direction for December when we're in the middle of one of the most prevailing months in the past 10 years isn't something I thought notable. And I aim that at myself, because I made the same wind direction forecast in the midst of the same conditions: for neither he nor I is it something particularly notable. Where he and I diverge on that is that he thought that by now we'd be under an easterly influence, and I didn't and don't.

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

BFTP - that's fair enough. But it does bring me back to my point which is that forecasting the prevailing wind direction for December when we're in the middle of one of the most prevailing months in the past 10 years isn't something I thought notable. And I aim that at myself, because I made the same wind direction forecast in the midst of the same conditions: for neither he nor I is it something particularly notable. Where he and I diverge on that is that he thought that by now we'd be under an easterly influence, and I didn't and don't.

Richard

I say it was a good call because although his forecast was pinned on 12/11 it was prepared and made well before that and we were not in a set SW'ly flow at the time. Also he states that sometime after 3/4 Jan about 10 days later we will be in an easterly influence...it is only the fourth so we have sometime to go yet and that is FI so models can change as we know systems shown in FI do not exist yet....so time aplenty yet. I missed your call for SW'ly regime but good call and your CET wasn't bad either....6.8C was it?

Fred

[Weather-history]

I hope you don't mind me asking this Roger but what do you use as an excuse when your forecast goes wrong? You can hardly say Mercury didn't retrograde enough or the Moon didn't come close enough to Regulus.

Edited January 23, 2007 by Mr_Data

[stormchaser1]

Morning Roger

In July 1994 COMET SHOEMAKER- LEVY9 Collided with Jupiter!,"What impact has this had" ??? since the collision

nigel

[The PIT]

I hope you don't mind me asking this Roger but what do you use as an excuse when your forecast goes wrong? You can hardly say Mercury didn't retrograde enough or the Moon didn't come close enough to Regulus.

Interesting lack of response.

Basically it's rubbish.

Edited March 4, 2007 by The PIT

[pottyprof]

Interesting lack of response.

Basically it's rubbish.

Unfair PIT.. Prove that Rogers system is rubbish.. To many people he's had a better result than most with his LRF up to a point.

You fancy a shot at doing anything as detailed?? Do you fancy doing anything that is either more than one paragraph or more than a couple of sentences anywhere??

Should be a good read when you do....

[Roger J Smith]

Actually, the lack of response was due to the fact that I never saw the question.

I have never claimed 100% accuracy with my forecasts and I have always worked very hard on my research. If that's not good enough for somebody, nothing much I can do about it, I am not likely to live that much longer so your planet will soon be uncontaminated by my further presence, which should bring some measure of satisfaction all round. :lol:

[androcles]

Actually, the lack of response was due to the fact that I never saw the question.

I have never claimed 100% accuracy with my forecasts and I have always worked very hard on my research. If that's not good enough for somebody, nothing much I can do about it, I am not likely to live that much longer so your planet will soon be uncontaminated by my further presence, which should bring some measure of satisfaction all round. :lol:

Roger.

Keep it up, mate. I enjoy your postings and long may you keep doing so.

Cheers to you.

Andy

[stormchaser1]

Keep up the good work Roger,

I for one enjoy reading your posts ,[ its taken some time ] but worth it

nigel

[Greyowl]

Roger your post are always interesting and informative. Please keep posting them.

[Roger J Smith]

Okay, must work harder on this though, some good indications about general patterns etc, but can't seem to buy any luck on the CET side of things, for such a mild winter there were two pretty good snowfalls though, so I feel like a glass half empty situation, not a total bust ... and severe storms keep occurring on timing line three at indicated dates such as full moon, new moon, northern and southern max, so given that the model is already working much better than this in North America, I just have to keep plugging away ... appreciate your PMs and such, would say more but I have to rip the entrails out of a frog now.

-- RJS

[summer blizzard]

Any updates????????

[Roger J Smith]

Yes, SB your timing was quite good, I just finished the rather laborious task (in my spare time, which is not much) of creating the CET data set and converting it to anomaly form.

So far I have completed one data analysis that shows a regular temperature fluctuation of about 0.4 C deg for the 398.9 day period of Jupiter's oppositions, in other words about a 13.1-month period in which the earth encounters whatever effects may exist in the SSMF between the Sun and Jupiter.

I will post this analysis in a few days time as I am still comparing it to the larger signature in North American data of about 1.5 C degrees.

The CET signature is based on twice as long a series and includes that very cold period before 1710, so a more direct comparison of the same time periods (since 1840) might be more comparable.

I was expecting a lag of 3-4 months based on one part of the theory having to do with rotation of field effects and this does seem evident but at the same time the analysis may show more of a coincident signal in both locations.

I should point out that the theory already suggests that overall temperature anomalies are the result of cumulative signals that number well above fifty and this is just one of the larger ones, but none of them taken alone would be very helpful in long-range forecasting. It seems to be a case of many different small signals that have different periods and amplitudes, but I do think this is a promising technique, although obviously better suited to a larger group of workers than one or two, and also to the resources of larger computers although I have driven my Bill Gates special to its limit (now, two of them lurking side by side, only this one on-line and most of the data in the other one, just in case).

So, look for a post in a few days about this "J-year" signal in the CET ... I welcome any sort of feedback because sometimes a fresh set of eyes might spot something worth investigating.

Will say more about this when I post the discussion.

[Roger J Smith]

I've finished the preliminary analysis of the Jupiter effect on CET values, and it is quite significant in appearance. There is also a very gradual change in the profile over the 350 years, basically in line with the concept that the lower-latitude warmings indicated in the N American research around the time of Jupiter's opposition have been showing up in the CET data more and more into the modern period, so that what started out as a fairly large 13.1-month sine wave in general terms with a peak near Jupiter's conjunction, has turned into a double sine wave with still the larger peak at conjunction but another one near opposition.

This is rather pointing towards a fundamental change in my theory for how the field sector effects move around the hemisphere, it may be more that the residual heating moves downstream but the actual effects generated at timing line one in eastern N America may actually be similar to those over timing line three, and perhaps instead of nine timing lines I need to study the possibility of just eight, so that 80 W and 10 E would be the similar focal points for J-field activity as it occurs.

Wish I could instantly transfer what I am seeing on my other computer screen here, a very strong peak of warming about half a degree C for the past hundred years sitting about half a degree above the full long-term curve which is in and of itself fairly significant looking with amplitude of 0.36 degrees.

However, I found out from a lot of intensive study of the Toronto data that the real meat on the bone of this J-field analysis comes with the segments of Jupiter's orbital position, because the fields tend to flex differently when Jupiter is closer to the Sun (its perihelion comes in EOD September, currently Jupiter is moving into EOD June).

Those positional segments can be as much as 50% or more different from the overall curves, with the different sector angles becoming fairly obvious as you look at them in sequence (the flex is wider as Jupiter draws in closer to the Sun).

In any case, I will post some graphical illustrations of the J-year effect in the CET data, once I finish looking at various time segments to see how the changes present themselves in various time intervals. It certainly looks as though the theory can be applied to European weather and perhaps it may shed some light on why Europe is warming faster than North America by all accounts in the past few decades (my belief is that this is tied in with the way the magnetic field is shifting north and west, affecting your climate in a different way from ours over here).

As for the very recent data that people generally call the modern climate, that is a rather short period to rely much on the curves, but what I see on the screen here as I add the most recent 20 years, looks like a vast upward transfer of the same curve as one sees for the 20th century in general, but with the opposition fields starting to look even more prominent than earlier on, while the rest of the 13-month cycle looks about the same (only generally warmer).

So, very interesting stuff, illustrating that the processes at work in this warming climate may be very closely related to the magnetic field and its interaction with the SSMF. I should add the qualification that these J-year curves run at about 20% or less of the total variation in the CET anomalies, meaning that if the effect is valid, there is still another 80% of the variation in temperature from other sources, whether in this model or not. I suspect that the Mars analysis might contribute a fairly large second helping because for the Toronto series the Mars 27-month curve looks similar to Jupiter over that longer interval, but is actually about twice as large. Apparently we are close enough to Mars that its field sectors at our orbital distance are as strong as Jupiter's and since we tend to stay in them longer, I suspect from case observation that they have a greater cumulative effect. But that's for a later study regarding the CET, for now I will keep looking at this Jupiter analysis, and I can promise you these curves will look very significant, but I would like to derive a few segments first to see what they show.

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

Hi Roger

Very interesting stuff. Got your theory a while back and have been gradually working through it....some work! This latest finding however seems potentially major relative to your theory. Sorry haven't been in touch but a few family abstractions to deal with.

BFTP

[Roger J Smith]

Well that's good to hear you got the thing, I thought you had, my in-box was not taking messages for about a month and I didn't realize it ... but hope your other concerns are working out for the better too.

This Jupiter analysis is certainly looking quite promising, and I will get the profiles on line here as soon as I'm finished with the second-order stuff, but have been feeling like crap the past two or three days as some nasty stomach virus is making the rounds over here aided by our dismal weather, why can't we have just a bit of this modern climate, this seems like the 19th century all over again, rain and 8 C not exactly a cause for the United Nations to fix up somehow.

[summer blizzard]

What does this mean for summer and winter in terms of temperature and retrogression patterns???????

[Roger J Smith]

According to the theory as it existed before I started this two-year project with the UK and European weather, J-fields (meaning the Jupiter sectors in the SSMF) were postulated to be progressive and were expected to move along latitudes between 40 and 50 N (and S) in the meteorological grid, which is distorted by the magnetic field so in Europe that would mean 45-55 N (in North America it would mean 35-45 N).

I am in the middle of the second-order analysis and it looks fairly similar to what I derived from eastern North America. This is suggesting that instead of progressive effects, perhaps I need to model them as simultaneous warming effects over timing lines 1, 3, 6 and 8. And perhaps timing line 5 needs to be dropped and the rest adjusted slightly. That's where things are at but this project is fairly long-term and once I get the data fully analyzed I may change that concept again.

But retrogression comes from other field sectors, at least in the more studied North American data. Mercury and Venus field sectors are definitely retrograde. Some effects in the S-fields are temporarily retrograde due to rotation around the sectors. And the Mars sectors move so slowly (but progressively) that they could become q.s. and this could induce retrogression at certain times and latitudes.

It's going to be about a week before I really have time to post some of the very interesting curves that I have from the CET, but the general idea of different flex values seems to be showing up again in this analysis.

For the current segment with Jupiter in EOD June, the modern data show strong peaks around April-May and July-August in the past century. Those were much weaker in the older data. The thing that has stayed constant in this sector is the warmth of December and January. Too bad for my LRF that I wasn't this far along, but clearly the Mercury retrogression factor failed to gain much traction and all it ever accomplished was that GFS scare in late February.

[The PIT]

Unfair PIT.. Prove that Rogers system is rubbish.. To many people he's had a better result than most with his LRF up to a point.

You fancy a shot at doing anything as detailed?? Do you fancy doing anything that is either more than one paragraph or more than a couple of sentences anywhere??

Should be a good read when you do....

I agree too strongly worded but his forecast for Winter became severly unstuck. The same seems to happen most alternative methods be it sun spots or moon forecasts. They get a few hits and get few misses.

As for doing a long range forecast I won't go more than a month ahead anyway and I stick those on my website and the last few have been fairly accurate. I will say more than pure chance than anything else ande no doubt sooner than later they'll go horribly wrong for several months on the bounce.

[PersianPaladin]

I agree too strongly worded but his forecast for Winter became severly unstuck. The same seems to happen most alternative methods be it sun spots or moon forecasts. They get a few hits and get few misses.

As for doing a long range forecast I won't go more than a month ahead anyway and I stick those on my website and the last few have been fairly accurate. I will say more than pure chance than anything else ande no doubt sooner than later they'll go horribly wrong for several months on the bounce.

So did Ian's...he had to change his most noticably if you remember!! Not his fault; just sometimes the weather teaches us a lesson.

Edited April 20, 2007 by PersianPaladin

[The PIT]

So did Ian's...he had to change his most noticably if you remember!! Not his fault; just sometimes the weather teaches us a lesson.

True but when you're preaching this is the way forward what can you say.

We've had Ken Ring on this. At the end of the day it's well behind the Met Office.