Daily Astro-climatology Report

[The PIT]

Okay since theres never been a direct answer to Mr Data's question. Lets have the summer forecast since sping is nearly over and lets test that.

[Roger J Smith]

I was of course disappointed with the winter forecast, especially given how close to the circulation forecast things stayed for most of the time. The colder periods saw some of the wind direction changes expected but it basically stayed fairly mild even in the colder last third of January and mid-February. Meanwhile early February delivered some of the goods and that was okay, but other seasons I have predicted since joining this forum, have generally fared better.

There is something of a mystery afoot about spring 2007 forecasts. I recall posting one in February, and it has disappeared from the forum. It was in a parallel thread to the still-intact "spring and summer LRF" thread. It said you would have a warm spring and CET values near 7.5, 10.0 and 13.0 ... that seems fairly valid so far.

As I stated a few days ago, I am number-crunching away like crazy and it could well be that future forecasts will derive the benefits of that analysis ... everything I have done so far was based on the extension of a very general theory of global responses to what I had studied in detail only in North America.

So I would ask that people refrain from putting this to any make or break test very soon, because I think my forecasts are bound to improve gradually over 2-3 years. This is the experience I had with my research in the mid to late 90s in North America.

I will not issue a summer forecast until at least the end of May because it's going to take 3-4 weeks to get the basic CET analyses finished, so there would be no point in jumping in too early.

I did promise to post some of the Jupiter stuff soon, and that will happen middle of next week. It looks quite good after the second order analyses etc, but there is so much to study given the obvious changes in overall climate from 1659 to the present. The changes may tell me more than just the overall curves too.

Starting into Mars fields now, and will have something to post on Jupiter after a final look at the mass of data now available this weekend. I must plead also that I have a full time job so that I can retire in some degree of comfort one day, and this sadly cuts into the time I would like to be spending on this project.

[pottyprof]

Roger.. Its all appreciated and the recent insight into your thinking has been very interesting. Keep up the hard work mate.. You've obviously seen something that makes a difference to your reports.

[Roger J Smith]

I have managed to find enough time in the past week to do an extensive number-crunching analysis on the CET data. The results are quite promising and I will be putting them up in a new thread here in this section as soon as I can organize the project, probably this week.

Essentially the signatures are very similar in the CET data as compared to the Toronto data which forms the basis for the theory as it stands. However, there are some changes in my thinking now as I scan the time differences. The essential problem here is as follows. If you found identical curves for these variables at Toronto and in the CET, then the postulated effects would be simultaneous in both regions, which are 80 degrees apart and thus almost one-quarter of the hemisphere separated. If the effects for prograde effects were lagged by 22% for the CET, this would imply uniform eastward progression from what I call "timing line one" in eastern N America, which is so named because this is where I think the effects are focused by the magnetic field interactions.

If the effects are lagged by less than 22% it implies decelerating forward motion, and if by more than 22% accelerating forward motion. Then there are sets of postulated retrograde effects which have the opposite logic to all of the above.

So far what I am seeing looks like a synthesis of two things happening -- simultaneous effects, and the expected 22% lag. This is what I am still analyzing at present and the main reason why I didn't post the results last week, just wanted to do a little extra work on the dynamics so I can present things with a reasonable explanation attached.

The other point which leads to extra work is that the raw data have one level of significance, but the actual theory relies on segments of the raw data which break down some very general curves into more specific analogue-based situations. For example, you get a sharper profile for the 8% of J-field data which represents the times where Jupiter is located in a given EOD sector, such as June where it is now. (EOD = earth opposition date, a concept I explained earlier to make visualization of where the planets are located much easier for non-astronomers).

Anyway, the bottom line here is that the CET analysis shows the same general outcome as the Toronto analysis showed, but there are details from which I need to learn some lessons about timing of effects. This may lead to improved LRF performance for this evolving new method, at least I hope so. While some are saying show us now, which is understandable, I think it might take two or three years to get my understanding of this up to a reasonable level so for now it is trial and error time. However, these curves will demonstrate the possibility that there is a predictable cause and effect going on, perhaps somewhat in the background of other processes too, there is no claim being made here that these six or seven preliminary curves will represent all or even half of the known variability of British climate. Then there is the wild card of this recent upswing of temperatures, which relates to the theory mainly in the recent drift WNW of the North Magnetic Pole. None of these curves taken alone or in combination would predict any recent large-scale upswing in temperatures such as most agree we are seeing since about 1988.

However, the same could be said for the Toronto data from the 1880s to the 1890s, the same processes were demonstrated on either side of a large warming around 1889, but some other process was clearly causing the general warming in that period. Possibly this was also related to the NMP because around that time it began to move NNW away from the northern Canadian mainland into the arctic islands. Once it moved away by some critical value, the warming slowed down and the only real warming since the period 1890-1920 has been any recent upturn mainly in overnight lows which one could relate to global warming and/or the expansion of urban heat islands affecting the data set. Otherwise the temperature profiles for Toronto separate out into cold 1841-1888 and warm 1889-present.

In any case, look for the results of this CET analysis here in a brand new thread.

[Roger J Smith]

If you're wondering how this CET analysis is going, I have had very little spare time to transfer the results over to this computer from a second computer. Also it was becoming so easy to change one file program to another that I went ahead and checked out about half a dozen of what I call the "J-field variable" elements. These showed up as significant in the N American analysis, and are based on the following set of observations in the research:

First, the J-field profile is (in both cases now, N America and CET) no larger than either the S-fields or the Mars field analysis, in fact in both cases the Mars profile is slightly larger. This always seemed wrong given how strong the J-fields appear during real time analysis, but they are fairly large features and have rotation within them, so that they may be guiding weather systems more than just creating temperature fields as is the case with the Mars fields that have no rotational elements (they break down under scrutiny to be height rises at upper levels and areas of higher pressure at the surface usually with a warming effect).

The second circumstance is that when you profile the ten or fifteen largest asteroids, you get fairly large signals in the Toronto data, and now also in the CET data. These signals are about the same size as the J-field profile, but since asteroids are generally between Mars and Jupiter, their periods are such that the synodic periods (opposition to opposition) run 15-17 months, compared to 13 months for Jupiter and 26 for Mars.

The synthesis here in the developing theory is as follows -- I doubt that the asteroids themselves have enough mass or diameter, even in the emerging equations being used, which I described elsewhere (the distance parameter reduces to the sixth power compared to second power for conventional gravitation or magnetism). But given the effects of Jupiter's four large moons on the rotational aspects of the J-field sectors, it seems conceivable that the larger asteroids leave their own imprint on the J-field system as they move through, and this is probably the cause for the signals.

Once again, these are not huge signals on the individual level (but that should be obvious, because if they were all 2-3 C deg signals, and you had a lot of them in phase, the anomaly potential would be "astronomical."

In general, the various signals are between 0.2 and 0.5 C degrees above and below a baseline which in this study is the long-term CET average for each month. However, I am also concentrating on the signals for a more modern climatic period of about 1901 to the present (shorter periods are interesting but the number of data points makes the comparisons rather vague)

In most cases that I have looked at so far, the "modern" signal looks like the longer-term signal raised up by about a half Celsius degree as this is the average warming in the period 1901-present compared to the overall data. But in some cases you see changes in the relative intensity of peaks, suggesting that a change in circulation has taken place and that this may in some cases bring a tighter gradient further north, changing a stormy period in the old set-up to a warm period in the new set-up.

I will conclude here and hope to have enough time later on this evening (here) to post the first set of data for Jupiter in the CET analysis. Although all of this is rather complicated, I don't really think it is very difficult to follow compared to some kinds of physics or chemistry that I brushed up against years ago, and the bottom line is pretty clear -- if there are a lot of these signals and they are fairly robust, then their integrated total value at any given time might be a fairly large chunk of the CET anomaly. Twenty signals at 0.2 C all aligned at a given peak or trough would give an anomaly of plus or minus 4 C degrees and this is pretty much the whole range of CET anomalies with the exception of a few very cold winter months when you could perhaps expect snow cover to increase the structural anomaly from this or any other model analysis.

[Roger J Smith]

J-field analysis for the CET data

Introduction --

The comments in this paragraph apply to all CET files in this study. The CET raw data was transformed into monthly anomalies based on the long-term (1659-2006) averages for each month. These averages would of course change very slightly upwards if you included the four months of 2007 available at present, but not by a tenth of a degree which is the unit of measurement used here. Also, please note, the CET data refer to the modern calendar throughout, so naturally fit this astronomical analysis without adjustment required.

For the J-field analysis, the data is rearranged to fit the "J-year" or Jupiter synodic period of 398.9 days which is about 13.1 months. It eventuates that Jupiter, with period very close to 11 and six seventh years, returns to similar opposition dates every 83 years. In between, the pattern of opposition dates is that each successive 12th year, the earth passes Jupiter about four or five days later than the previous case.

Therefore, the matrix used to analyze the J-year or J-field profile, is as follows, starting with 1659.

Groups of 83 years

Within these, 6 groups of eleven J-years and one of ten J-years

In the groups of eleven J-years, the fourth is a "leap" J-year and has 14 months, the rest all have 13.

In the concluding group of ten years, the fourth and fifth are "leap" years of 14 months, the rest have 13.

Since the Jupiter opposition in 1659 was 28 Jan, this sets the Jupiter opposition in month one of the 13 (14) month J-year. The effect of the leap J-year in position chosen (four) is to push the Jupiter opposition back towards the beginning of month one and then allow it to drift back to the end of month one. Each twelve-year (eleven J-yr) panel has dates four or five days later, so the cumulative effect of the matrix is to place the average Jupiter opposition date near the boundary between month one and month two. In the Toronto data, a similar circumstance developed from the 1841 opposition date but when I compare the two as I will do near the end of this section, it must be remembered that the Toronto series has its Jupiter opposition in month six of the analysis. To compare directly, one must be adjusted to resemble the other, for example, the CET analysis could be moved five months "to the right" so that it ran from month 9 to 13, then 1 to 8.

One other technical note, there are so few month 14s in the analysis that my convention here is to average them into the month 13 data. In most cases, they are close to being at the midpoint between month 13 and month 1 in any case, even though there may not be many significant data points and you might expect a fairly big scatter.

The J-year profile 1659 to 2007

Without further ado, it is time to "open the envelope" and see what 348 years (and four months) of data look like when subjected to the J-year filter. In essence, this would illustrate the postulated influence of Jupiter on temperatures in the CET data, since the annual range from 4 in winter to 16 in summer is filtered entirely out of the analysis by using anomalies.

Here is what this profile looks like (actual mean anomalies with graphical presentation).

......XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

......XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

......XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

......XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

......XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

......XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

......XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Edited May 7, 2007 by Roger J Smith

[Roger J Smith]

Sorry about the above graph, after several attempts to edit so that it presented correctly, I was timed out and couldn't make a further edit.

This should be better, I hope (moderator, please merge this if possible) ...

..........................................XXX..............................

..........................................XXXXXX........................

..........................................XXXXXX........................

..........................................XXXXXX........................

..........................................XXXXXXXXX..................

..............................XXX......XXXXXXXXX..................

XXXXXX......XXX......XXX......XXXXXXXXX......XXX......

XXXXXX......XXX......XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX......

XXXXXX......XXX......XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXX......XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXX......XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

.01..01.-10.-01.-15..04.-02..18..15..05.-02..01.-06

(anomalies in .01 C deg)

Edited May 7, 2007 by Roger J Smith

[Roger J Smith]

Okay, finally some success with the graph, what you can see there is a pattern of generally colder than average temperatures in the six months from about 45 days before Jupiter opposition to 135 days after, and generally above normal temperatures in the other half of the J-year. The highest temperatures in the CET series occur in months 8 and 9 with Jupiter basically in conjunction or behind the Sun.

The annual modulation (annual meaning J-year or 13.1 month) is from -0.15 to 0.18 C degrees, or a range of 0.33 C deg.

This is about 3% of the annual range attributable to our changing orbital inclination to the Sun, a range which is about 12 degrees in the CET series. It is about 4% of the total range of anomaly seen in the CET series, or about 10 C deg relative to normal.

Now, as for the more modern period, 1901 to present, you get almost the same shape of J-year profile, but with a higher base:

J-YEAR PROFILE 1901-2007

..........................................XXX..............................

..........................................XXX..............................

..........................................XXX..............................

..........................................XXX..............................

......XXX..............................XXXXXX........................

......XXX..............................XXXXXX........................

......XXX......XXX..................XXXXXX........................

......XXX......XXX..................XXXXXX............XXX......

......XXX......XXX..................XXXXXX............XXXXXX

......XXXXXXXXXXXX............XXXXXXXXX......XXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX......XXXXXXXXXXXX......XXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX......XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

.27..44..31..39...31..20..26..57..44..29..24..35..33

(anomalies in .01 C deg)

The total range in this more recent period is .37 deg C, so only slightly expanded from the overall profile. The maximum once again comes in months 8 and 9. What has changed slightly is that month 2, around the opposition of Jupiter, is now somewhat warmer than in the longer period. This may have little significance, but could show that the J-fields at this point have lifted in the grid system relatively more than other field sectors.

In the next post, I will discuss the "segment" J-year profiles. A "segment" is the 1/11 of all data that represents a range of opposition dates that is a little more than a month long. These more specific J-year profiles are what I would actually use for forecasting or analysis at any given time, because it has been shown from the N American study that the J-fields flex in space somewhat wider when Jupiter is at its perihelion in "EOD September" (meaning when Jupiter is in opposition in September, but a concept that does not require the earth to be in that alignment, in other words, an extension outward of the earth month sectors to apply to other planetary positions, although not implying that this is the planetary "September" in orbital tilt terms because that would depend on the orientation of the planet to its orbit).

Edited May 7, 2007 by Roger J Smith

[Roger J Smith]

This will be the last post "today" and probably the last for several days to give those reading this some time to digest the basic data presented here.

As I was saying above, the overall J-year profile is quite interesting and apparently significant since it maintains its shape from century to century in the CET data (the recent period is the last 30% of the data but the first and second 35% have similar appearances too, the first one is of course below the long-term average, and the second part is close to the long-term average).

However, this profile could be expected to change slowly over time because of shifts in the earth's magnetic field, especially if the process is one of reception of signal over a strong area of the magnetic field in eastern N America followed by redistribution of the effects downstream. The comparison with the Toronto analysis, which I will show in a few days time, will show that this effect is somewhat more simultaneous than lagged, which implies a process working equally in all parts of the earth's magnetic field but perhaps (this yet to be illustrated) focused in four (possibly) zones of which eastern N America and western Europe are two, and the others postulated to be the eastern Pacific and eastern Asia.

Anyway, this overall profile is one thing, but Jupiter is not always the same distance from the Sun, nor is it always in the earth's orbital plane. From about January 1 to the end of June, the earth's orbit is below Jupiter's orbit in space (given the convention of north being above and south below). In the second half of the earth year, our orbit is higher. Also, pretty much the same halves of the year, Jupiter is further from the Sun than its mean distance on the January to June side of the solar system, and closer on the July to December side. It reaches perihelion "opposite" meaning really outside our position in early to mid September.

Bearing in mind how the data are arranged, in groups of 11 J-years that are 13.1 months long, it is relatively simple to re-analyze the data in eleven segments. Now, I doubt that too many here are up for scrutinizing eleven segments of the J-year, so I will show the eighth segment which contains most of the closest Jupiter oppositions in late August and September; I will also show this for just the recent period of 1901 to 2007 although it looked fairly similar in the longer term data. Compare this directly to the second graph shown above.

I just want to stress one thing here that may not be immediately obvious. The data matrix place the oppositions in month one of this profile, so what you are looking at here is not an earth year with anomalies but the period August to the following August in this particular set of Jupiter positions. In other words, this is what the CET year looks like on average in this part of Jupiter's orbit, the part where it is 5% closer to the Sun than its mean distance of 5.2 AU.

Note also the scale of this graph is smaller by a factor of 3.3 to 1 than that of the previous two, the range in the data is almost 1.3 C degrees in this segment which is not surprising since it deals with about 3% of all data (9% of 30%)

SEGMENT 8 (late Aug and Sept Jupiter oppositions, 1901-present, 9 cases)

........................XXX..................XXX........................

........................XXX..................XXX........................

........................XXX..................XXX........................

........................XXX............XXXXXX........................

............XXX......XXXXXX......XXXXXX........................

............XXX......XXXXXX......XXXXXX........................

............XXXXXXXXXXXX......XXXXXX........................

............XXXXXXXXXXXX......XXXXXX......XXX............

XXX......XXXXXXXXXXXX......XXXXXX......XXXXXX......

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX......XXXXXX......

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX......

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX......

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX......

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

.24..08..63..37..97..59..14..69...98..01..26..21..-31

Edited May 7, 2007 by Roger J Smith

[Roger J Smith]

Please note, trying to edit the above, there is one minor error to correct, the period shown in the above graph is September to September, not August to August as stated (the 8th segment starts with a September and the range of opposition dates is from the mid-August previous to the end of September in month one of the segment).

In this edit, my comments on the graph were lost (timed out again) ... nothing very significant here, just the observation that the "recent" perihelion profile is generally 0.2 C degrees warmer than the overall recent period, and also quite sharpened up in terms of the range, in this case from -0.31 to +0.98 C or 1.29 C overall. This is quite a large chunk of the territory to be explained, so one can see why field segments are probably more useful in long range forecasting.

Okay then, I will leave this J-year material for digestion and discussion leter on, the other segments are interesting and I may find one or two more illustrations worth putting up after reading any discussion.

[stormchaser1]

Morning Roger

Interesting Posts [As always}

Thanks for sharing

Nigel

Edited May 7, 2007 by stormchaser1

[Roger J Smith]

Could say more about these J-field segments later, but I wanted to move on to show the basic profile of some of the other major components of the SSMF, starting here with the S-field profile.

The analysis here is based on the fact that Saturn has a synodic period of 378.1 days on average, meaning that the earth passes Saturn about 13 days later each year. This varies little as Saturn does not have as eccentric an orbit as even Jupiter, with its own rather mild eccentricity (I could say more about that too, LOL).

Saturn has just passed its closest point to the Sun in the past few years, a phenomenon which happens quite close in angular terms to where the earth has its perihelion, early in EOD January.

The 29.46 year period of Saturn means that it returns essentially to the same set of opposition dates every 59 years, with the set in between displaced by seven days or so. Given that fact, there are 57 synodic "S-years" in 59 years, and the analysis was performed on that basis, with leap months every 2nd, 5th, 9th, 12th, etc year to make up the appropriate matrix that kept the Saturn opposition in month 4 on average. That was due to the circumstance that the earth passed Saturn on 16 April in 1659 at the start of the CET records.

As with Jupiter, the analysis here will be for the whole period of record 1659 - present first, then the period since 1901 to present to show the more modern profile. There are enough month 13s in the analysis to use this partial group but bear in mind it contains only about 30% as many data points.

The overall profile looks like this:

..........................................XXX..............................

..........................................XXX..................XXX......

..........................................XXX..................XXX......

..........................................XXX..................XXXXXX

XXX....................................XXXXXX............XXXXXX

XXX..................XXXXXX......XXXXXXXXX......XXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX......XXXXXXXXX......XXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

.02 -.02 -.04 -.04 .01-.00 -.05 .14 .04 .02-.06.12 .05

Then the more recent 1901-present profile shows this:

..................................................................XXX......

..........................................XXX..................XXX......

..........................................XXX..................XXX......

..........................................XXX......XXX......XXX......

..................XXX..................XXX......XXX......XXX......

............XXXXXXXXX......XXXXXXXXXXXX......XXX......

............XXXXXXXXX......XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX......

......XXXXXXXXXXXX......XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX......

......XXXXXXXXXXXX......XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX......

......XXXXXXXXXXXX......XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

.18 .30 .36 .38 .36 .21 .37 .46 .32 .41 .31 .48 .20

You'll notice that the modern profile has not changed much from the longer-term; once again it is about 0.3 C higher on average.

The overall amplitude of the S-year profile is a little smaller than the J-year profile, but not as much as the relative mass and distance of Saturn would imply. Once again this points to mass over a sixth root of distance being the operative force here, as though whatever effect we are seeing here is more resistant to breakdown over distance than gravitation alone. It points to an uninterrupted stream of focused particles perhaps being the medium that transmits the effect.

Also, once again, these effects are in isolation fairly small. Anomalies that average 0.2 C degrees above or below some baseline are themselves fairly insignificant.

These profiles can also be sharpened up using segments. Some of the segment profiles have reversed form in recent years which is something I think may be attributable to the mean latitude of S-field activity being quite high compared to J-fields, thus any kind of effect from high latitude blocking may be reversing in the "modern climate" -- this is something that many observers have been speculating on from their own perspectives too.

As far as any analysis of the S-year goes, it appears very similar to the data for Toronto -- a prominent peak around 3-4 months after Saturn opposition, timed for the S-2 field passage (the S-1 field passage comes on average just before opposition). This prominent peak is lagged 1-2 months relative to the Toronto data, showing some sign of system rotation around the northern hemisphere, or a received signal over North America and a transmitted pulse downstream in the westerlies.

S-field analysis gets tricky because the individual S-fields have cyclonic rotation and thus warming or cooling is redistributed fairly extensively compared to a warm-throughout J-field or Mars-field sector. With powerful cyclonic rotation including at times north to south vortmax activity, the warming of an S-field can be reversed for several days, then restored. There are other cyclical factors introduced by the timing of said rotations.

I will post this section and then briefly compare the overall J-year and S-year profiles to see if they have similarities. To do that, of course, we will have to shift the S-year profile back three months so that month 4 becomes month 1, then the two profiles can be more directly compared. At this point, also, I should point out that the Mars-field profiles are bigger and more interesting than these S-year profiles, so hang in there, this is only about 5-10% of the total variability explained in this developing model.

Edited May 14, 2007 by Roger J Smith

[Roger J Smith]

Here we can compare the J-year profile with the S-year profile for the 348.3 years of the CET data.

Jupiter presented as follows:

..........................................XXX..............................

..........................................XXXXXX........................

..........................................XXXXXX........................

..........................................XXXXXX........................

..........................................XXXXXXXXX..................

..............................XXX......XXXXXXXXX..................

XXXXXX......XXX......XXX......XXXXXXXXX......XXX......

XXXXXX......XXX......XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX......

XXXXXX......XXX......XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXX......XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXX......XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

.01..01.-10.-01.-15..04.-02..18..15..05.-02..01.-06

and then Saturn adjusted back three months so that opposition would occur in month one as in the J-year

........................XXX................................................

........................XXX..................XXX........................

........................XXX..................XXX........................

........................XXX..................XXXXXX..................

........................XXX..................XXXXXXXXX............

......XXXXXX......XXXXXXXXX......XXXXXXXXX............

XXXXXXXXX......XXXXXXXXX......XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

-.04.01-.00-.05 .14 .04 .02-.06 .12 .05 .02-.02-.04

This gives an interesting average profile as follows:

................................................XXX........................

..........................................XXXXXX........................

..........................................XXXXXX........................

..........................................XXXXXXXXX..................

..............................XXX......XXXXXXXXX..................

......XXX............XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX......

XXXXXX......XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX......

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

-2....1...-5...-3....0....4....0...12...14....5....0...-1...-5

(average deviation in hundredths of a degree C)

This small but significant signal demonstrates that more heat from the Sun is reaching the earth when the two largest outer planets are on the far side of the solar system. The profiles for Mars, Uranus and Neptune are fairly similar, adding to this modulation. Whatever process this represents must be fairly complex, since by gravitation or perhaps even magnetism alone, it would be intuitive for the signal to be reversed (more heat with the large outer planets on our side of the Sun pulling additional material in our direction). The explanation must have something to do with either a substantial lag effect due to curvature, or some process acting on our magnetic field to strengthen or enlarge the polar vortex creating the opposite effect in temperature from what one might expect. Although it is a small enough signal to be almost negligible, one can see that if five to ten similar signals are operating in sync, a fairly large anomaly could ensue.

Edited May 14, 2007 by Roger J Smith

[Roger J Smith]

The 25.625 month profile of Mars in CET

Well, finally enough time and rest to get to the most interesting profile of all, the Mars-year profile in CET values.

Mars is travelling at almost half the speed of the earth around the Sun, a circumstance which means that we pass Mars every other year, or more precisely, every 25.625 months. Since Mars is considerably closer to the Sun when it is on the September side of our own orbit, or in "EOD September," the autumn oppositions tend to be spaced a little more like 27 months, while the late winter and spring oppositions are barely 25 months apart. Thus, any overall Mars analysis is somewhat smoothed and the full strength of the signal is best seen in the various segments.

It should be noted then, that Mars returns to similar opposition dates after 15 and 17 years, but there are closer date similarities for 32 and 47 years, and particularly 79 and 126 years.

For the overall analysis, the CET data are arranged in blocks of 8 times 25.625 months, or 205 months, in the following sequence: 26, 25, 26, 25, 26, 25, 26, 26.

Note that for 1659, the Mars opposition (a reminder, all pre-1752 dates in this study and in the CET are adjusted to the modern calendar) took place on 01 December. Although that's just into month 12 of the profile, the timing of subsequent Mars oppositions puts the scatter of the dates from month 11 to month 13.

The 26-month profile derived from this analysis is shown below:

................................XX

................................XX

................XX............XX....................XX

....XX........XX............XXXX............XXXX....XX

....XX........XX............XXXX............XXXX....XXXX

....XX........XX............XXXX............XXXX....XXXX

XXXXXX....XXXX....XXXXXX........XXXXXX....XXXX............................XX

XXXXXX....XXXX....XXXXXX........XXXXXX....XXXX............................XX

XXXXXXXXXXXX....XXXXXX........XXXXXXXXXXXX............................XX

XXXXXXXXXXXX....XXXXXX........XXXXXXXXXXXX........XX........XXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX....XXXXXXXXXXXXXX........XX........XXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX........XX....XXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX....XXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX....XXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX....XXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX....XXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

04 13 04 -04 16 04 -09 02 21 13 -11 -09 03 12 15 -04 11 08 -16 -16 -07 -26 -11 -06 -06 10

Edited May 17, 2007 by Roger J Smith

[Roger J Smith]

Some technical issues with the graph prevented lining up the numerical data with the graph, and also the last entry should be slightly higher on the graph (this line kept wrapping).

However, just looking at the numbers, these represent anomalies in the CET in hundredths of a degree C. They appear in the same order as the graph, and what we see in general terms is a fairly large signal on a regular basis (this analysis is based on almost 164 complete cycles of the Mars year).

The amplitude is 0.47 degrees which makes the signal larger on this time scale than the J-year or S-year signals. The same result was derived from the Toronto data.

The peak of warming comes in month 9, while the coldest period arrives around month 22 of the cycle. The Toronto data have their warmest and coldest points almost reversed from this, so the general theory developed from the comparison is that the signal moves slowly downstream and is probably driving some sort of oscillation in general terms across the Atlantic on a roughly biennial basis.

Whether this is identical to the often-cited QBO (quasi-biennial oscillation) or not, is unclear to me, as the QBO is often cited as being 26 to 27 months long. This may seem like a minor difference, but it would separate out the two cycles over the length of the CET. I have not yet been able to derive 27 or 28 month signals from my CET data set and will get onto that shortly.

Looking at the Mars-year profile shown here, there is evidence of a finer resolution in terms of Ma-4, Ma-3, then Ma-2 and Ma-1 field signals in this data, assuming a 9-month lag. The Ma-4 peak occurs in month 9, the Ma-3 in month 15, then Ma-2 around month 26 (which should show a higher peak in the graph) and Ma-1 around months 2-5.

Notice the rather large contrast from year one to year two of this profile, in general terms. The first two thirds of the profile is generally above normal and the last third is generally below normal, in both cases by about a tenth of a C degree or more on average.

Will post shortly the "recent" profile 1901 to present.

Edited May 17, 2007 by Roger J Smith

[Roger J Smith]

The recent profile including the data from 1901 to 2007 (Apr) looks like this (note the scale is compressed by a factor of 2 to 1 from the overall profile):

XXXX

XXXX

XXXX........................XXXX........XX

XXXXXXXX................XXXX........XX....XX........XX

XXXXXXXX............XXXXXX........XX....XX........XX

XXXXXXXX............XXXXXX........XXXXXX........XX............................XX

XXXXXXXX............XXXXXX........XXXXXX........XX............................XX

XXXXXXXX............XXXXXX........XXXXXX....XXXX............................XX

XXXXXXXX............XXXXXX........XXXXXXXXXXXXXX........................XX

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX........XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX................XX

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX....XXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

71 70 56 52 15 16 17 47 59 61 09 10 61 41 53 24 22 30 56 20 21 07 14 11 11 64

Once again, the last column (month 26) should reach higher and would start to wrap the graph if posted any higher.

The analysis here is similar to the long-term, although the field profile I have identified as Ma-1 (months 1-4 or 26-4 more likely) is now somewhat warmer than the Ma-4 profile. This may once again indicate secular changes with the lifting flow in general, allowing the full warmth of the Ma-1 field to come closer to the CET zone.

In the overall theory, Mars fields are your standard Euro or Bartlett type highs that come along gradually and persist over given longitude sectors for many months at a time. So a slightly more northward track for these up to a certain critical point would induce greater warming relative to the overall shift in temperature.

In the recent data, the coldest periods continue to be a good half degree below the peaks, and the longest cold period in relative terms occurs around the Mars conjunction in the cycle.

To end this section, I will shortly post a segment of the Mars data showing the cases where Mars is near its perihelion, with oppositions in September and October.

Edited May 17, 2007 by Roger J Smith

[Roger J Smith]

The Mars analysis is then further divided into seven segments which represent various parts of the Mars orbit in terms of when the earth encounters the Mars fields on its way around the Sun. For segment seven in the data, Mars is encountered in opposition in September or October in the data (segment one is mainly November-December).

The raw data are as follows in hundredths of a degree anomalies:

-45 -06 61-13 10 34 -31 38 26 11 -25 -34 28 -22 16 32 -08 05 02 10 -27 -08 06 -45 -27 -14

These can be compared to the overall anomalies and the "segment relative anomaly" is then calculated as follows:

-49 -19 57 -09 -06 30 -22 36 05 -02 -14 -25 25 -34 01 36 -19 -03 18 26 -20 18 17 -39 -21 -24

This tends to show that in the months around the Mars conjunction a year after these close Mars oppositions, the CET values are generally lower or perhaps "even lower" than usual. Since these are summer-autumn half-year months (the segment begins with a November), the Mars segment can be used to predict a higher than average possibility of a cool summer and autumn in these cases. Notice that the winters in these segments are generally mild.

As I continue to develop this theory and methodology, I am sure that combining segment analyses for the main variables will lead to more accurate predictions as time goes on. These segment signals combined may be adding up towards about half the variability in general of the CET, and this is before considering some of the other data sets that have so far not been completed, such as the second-order Jupiter-asteroid sets.

Other Mars segments are quite interesting too. Segment five with early summer oppositions starts out with quite a run of very warm months corresponding to the summers a year before these oppositions. These would generally be cases with the earth opposite Mars after its perihelion as it approaches EOD January. The anomalies in the overall data for months one and two in segment five are 0.77 and 0.59 C degrees. This may indicate the role of the Mars field sectors in swelling or contracting the size of the Bermuda-Azores highs on a regular basis.

[Roger J Smith]

U-field analysis -- similar to S and J field sectors

This next part of the CET analysis has opened up some further questions for my research, because whatever scaled equations might hold for Mars, Jupiter and Saturn, any of them would predict a much smaller signal for Uranus, a planet with about 20 times the earth's mass located 20 times as far from the Sun as ourselves, and four times as far as Jupiter.

However, the signal analyzed is actually in the same range as the J-field and S-field signals. This also showed up in the Toronto data although the signal there was not quite as large (all of the Toronto signals are somewhat larger but that may be due to the more variable temperature regime there).

The Uranus opposition in 1659 was in late July so that month seven of this series represents opposition in general. Uranus has a fairly circular orbit that takes just over 84 earth years, so the length of the U-year or synodic period is about 365/84 days greater than an earth-year. The data set is thus arranged by averaging out groups of seven, so it begins with seven Januaries, proceeds to add the following seven Februaries etc to group one in the twelve-month profile.

The long-term signal from this U-year is shown below.

......XXX............................................................

......XXX................................................XXX......

......XXX................................................XXX......

XXXXXX................................................XXXXXX

XXXXXX............XXX..............................XXXXXX

XXXXXX......XXXXXX..............................XXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX..............................XXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX............XXXXXX......XXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

.07 .15 -03 .01 .02 -10 -08 -05 -05 -10 .13 .07

(anomalies in hundredths of C deg)

and the more recent profile is similar but raised about 0.4 C degrees (this profile shown at half the vertical scale of the overall profile above):

......XXX............................................................

......XXX................................................XXX......

......XXX................................................XXX......

XXXXXX................................................XXXXXX

XXXXXX................................................XXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX..............................XXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX..............................XXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX..................XXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX......XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX......XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

.54 .70 .44 .44 .41 .27 .11 .24 .25 .32 .65 .53

(anomalies in hundredths of C degree)

It is remarkable how close the recent profile is to the long-term, the process at work seems to have continued on in the warmer climate since 1901, with very minor adjustments.

I have not had time to do U-field segment studies, but for one thing, Uranus has such a circular orbit with low inclination to our own, that there should not be vast differences in segments. However, eventually I will do this, there may be some process worth studying here, as Uranus has a very large orbital tilt to the solar system plane, and its magnetic field is aligned more with that plane than the other planets in the solar system.

On the North American side, I have been looking carefully at daily weather maps and monthly anomaly charts for the actual structure of U-fields. The theory suggests that they should be centered a little further north than S-fields. There are no large satellites in the Uranus system of five principal satellites, and any analysis of temperature records to find a trace of them as second-order rotational elements has failed to show anything, probably as expected given that they are on the order of 1/10 as massive as even the moderate players in the S-moon system. Without rotational features to look for, these fields have proven elusive to spot in the atmosphere, and although a periodic oscillation of about half a C degree is not a tiny element in overall variability, it is not so large that any obvious large-scale signature would be left. I have come to the conclusion that U-fields have some fairly significant impact on subarctic air mass temperatures and this variation then translates into changes in the air mass distribution further south, so although places like the Great Lakes region and the British Isles may generally be further south than the actual structure of atmospheric U-field effects, they may be influenced in this way by the strength or weakness of arctic air mass outflow.

Perhaps then it is no coincidence that we are at the point with September oppositions where the 12.14-month cycle of Uranus is conducive to a weakening of winter arctic air masses in the northern hemisphere.

Edited May 20, 2007 by Roger J Smith

[Roger J Smith]

I've been really busy with a variety of non-meteorological things for the past week or so, and that's why I haven't posted more details on this research.

Things are at a very exciting stage for this right now. As you can see from what I've posted, there are four fairly solid curves derived from Mars, Jupiter, Saturn and Uranus. And their significance increases when you take segments rather than the whole period of record. These four components alone, taken from segment analysis rather than overall profile analysis, could be responsible for a healthy chunk of the natural variation in the CET, in the range of 30 to 50 per cent.

Now, I have hinted that the asteroid belt is hiding some secrets in this model framework, and generally, here's how that seems to play out, based on both the CET analysis and the Toronto analysis. They give similar results.

Each of the larger asteroids (roughly the top 20 or 30) seems to generate a small profile similar to Jupiter or the other planets we've looked at, namely, a peak in temperatures when that asteroid is behind the Sun in conjunction, and a minimum when it's at opposition, on our side of the Sun as we pass in between it and the Sun. Understand of course that the asteroids are scattered mainly between 2.1 and 3.8 AU, with a few outliers on either side, and because of harmonic resonance gaps, they tend to fall into families at about 2.3, 2.5, 2.7, 2.9 and 3.1, then 3.4 AU for the most part.

Because there are usually three or four asteroids in each of these belts with very similar periods, only a very long-term analysis like the CET can provide, is able to separate these out to any degree. The 160-year Toronto period is not long enough in some cases to get them more than 25% separated.

The general rule is that each of the "significant" asteroids in the theoretical model generates what I call a shadow Jupiter profile, a profile similar to Jupiter's but usually in the order of 0.1 to 0.15 C degrees above and below normal, with the peak at conjunction and the trough at opposition.

With 20 or 30 of these profiles all lurking in the data base, much of the time they cancel each other out and it is only when an unusual number of these minor players are in a similar longitude in the solar system that some effect may be expected as several curves superimpose. Most of the synodic periods are 15 to 17 months for these curves. The largest in both data bases is that for Vesta, which is not the largest asteroid, but in terms of size and distance combined has a higher index value than Ceres, the largest asteroid and one of the three largest signals I've found in the analysis. The other particularly large signal is from the asteroid Victoria which is another fairly close one as well as being moderately large. Significant curves exist for such asteroids as Flora, Juno, Pallas, the cluster at 3.13-3.14 AU which contains a number of different players, and further out, Camilla and Cybele.

Taken alone, none of these curves are very significant in the scale of the 8-10 C amplitude of CET anomalies, any given one represents about 1 per cent at most. But with 20 or 30 to consider, you have an accumulation that can sometimes generate a chunk like 10-15 per cent when a lot of these curves superimpose. And those cycles tend to come and go over fairly long time periods because asteroids are all chasing each other around the merry-go-round of the solar system at similar speeds so their mutual overtake periods are quite long, for example, Ceres overtakes Pallas about every 350 years.

I will post one asteroid curve to show that it does resemble the planetary curves, look for that in the next post.

Meanwhile, the other area of significance in this planetary study would be the two inner planets and their postulated retrograde features in the model. Because these two planets (Mercury and Venus) both have very large inclinations to our orbital plane compared with the outer planets or even Mars, segment analysis is essential here. A retrograde feature at 70 N is obviously nothing like one at 40 N in terms of the impact on CET, whereas in North America, the model's grid compacts into the trough below the NMP so to some extent you can see a larger signal from the overall analysis. For the CET the overall analysis looked fairly flat and I was expecting that with the spread out nature of meteorological longitude across Europe in the model.

I will post some of these retrograde-oriented segment analyses later on, as I am still studying them to understand what they are showing me. There are some large peaks and troughs in them, but they also change more from early data to recent data. This seems to reveal a principle that many might have suspected from an entirely different starting point, that as the climate has warmed, blocking latitude has shifted north, and what used to happen a lot now happens rarely, namely, the blocking easterly circulation from a NE'ly source.

All of this is very complicated and makes the model that much more difficult to put into operational terms for forecasting.

There are also some significant if smallish curves available from lunar declination (the years after the declination minimum in the 18.6 year cycle get colder than normal on a regular basis), and from lunar perigee (a cycle of 8.86 years) that has sub-cycles of 4.43 and 2.215 years. These two lunar components seem to operate from a statistical differentiation in the frequency of blocking high pressure and the latitude of the jet stream. I have not really completed my analysis for the CET here, so look for some of those results in about two weeks to a month from now.

The only other astronomical feature that suggests itself for analysis would be sunspots. My first look at this tells me two things. First of all, on the gross scale, of course as everyone knows, there was a notable cold spell that seemed to start just after the CET series begins in 1659, possibly about 1667-70, lasting to about 1709, that was very cold, and also in this period there were either very few or no sunspots of any consequence. After that, solar activity has varied in a smaller range with three main ascending series of peaks, 1718 to 1789 being the first series, 1830 to 1870 being a shorter second series, and 1917 to the past peak (1999-2001) and possibly beyond (??) being the third series. Between these, there were intervals of what could be termed moderate to weak activity with smaller peaks and longer periods of zero activity. Those lasted from about 1798 to 1828 and from about 1874 to 1914 although these periods were not entirely without moderate peaks of activity such as 1893-94.

Correlating temperatures with this complex series since the warming around 1710-1715, is no easy matter, but trying whatever grids I can design to study CET variation and solar activity, I have come to the conclusion that the correlations since the LIA are either very weak or random. In other words, the gross change that accompanied the "Maunder minimum" may well have been cause and effect of some significance, or perhaps it was a coincidence based on volcanic activity somewhere distant from Europe. But the connections that are supposed to exist from 1710 to the present evade detection by the usual methods such as lining up the anomalies in the same matrix as the sunspot cycles. This is not to say that there is no connection, but just a note that I have failed to establish one in my study of it. I did not go in with a formed opinion on the subject, having read both positive and negative estimates before in the literature.

[Roger J Smith]

Well, the asteroid Vesta is in opposition today, and is actually a naked eye object for people in very good viewing locations and using binoculars.

So to celebrate that fact, here is the surprisingly large profile of the 16.56 month synodic cycle of Vesta since 1659 in the CET anomalies.

The opposition is in month seven of this cycle.

............................................................XX....

............................................................XX....

............................................................XX....

............................................................XX....

XX........................XXXX............XXXX....XXXX

XX....XX................XXXX............XXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX....XXXXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

.04 -.04 .01 -.04 -.04 -.03 -.04 .03 .04 -.06 -.04 -.02 .03 .03 -.00 .15 .03

Note the strong peak (.15 C deg above normal) in the 16th month of this 17 month cycle, around the conjunction or the time where Vesta is behind the Sun. Vesta has an orbit that takes it about 8 degrees above our plane on the Feb-Mar side of the Sun and 8 degrees below on the Aug-Sep side. This makes segment analysis vital, also, the orbit is rather eccentric although not as much as many other asteroids, about like Mercury's. I have not finished the Vesta segment analysis, but some of them are quite sharp in their warmings and coolings. In the Toronto series which is based on daily and not monthly data, there is often a very strong temperature spike just after Vesta opposition. This is beginning to show up in the more recent CET values too.

The 1901-2007 Vesta profile is shown below. It has changed from the long-term in that it has a more prominent two-peak appearance. Although this sort of profiling using 20-30 asteroids may add some precision to the overall model, it may also demonstrate a quasi-random nature to the processes at work, because it is theoretically possible that the planetary field sectors are relatively robust (resistant to change over time) where the asteroid field sector effects, whether they are free-standing or second-order alterations of the J-field energy, may not be robust, but subject to a sort of sputtering appearance in part because asteroids are not very stable objects physically and could undergo surface brightness changes. I think the process that is demonstrated by this research is a delicate one that resembles the sort of ejection phenomena seen when comets approach perihelion. Although some may then say, well then why bother studying this if it is subject to changes over time, the establishment that temperature variations could be quasi-random in the long term is also a worthwhile if perhaps disappointing sort of finding in this kind of research. In other words, nobody guaranteed anyone who entered this line of research from any of a hundred entry points that there would be a predictable model waiting at the end of the journey.

I hope there is, but I am not sure there will be.

In any case, this is what Vesta's field profile has looked like in the past 107 years.

....................XX....................................XX....

....................XX................................XXXX....

........XX........XX................XX............XXXX....

........XX........XX................XX............XXXX....

XX....XX....XXXX................XX....XX....XXXX....

XXXXXX....XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX....XXXX....

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX....XXXX....

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

.34 .32 .48 .24 .34 .61 .29 .27 .29 .29 .49 .28 .35 .18 .56 .57 .16

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

Other asteroid profiles are being developed, some of these are fairly small but segment analysis becomes more necessary as the eccentricity and inclination of the orbits increase.

Edited May 30, 2007 by Roger J Smith

[stormchaser1]

Morning Roger

Ive just found out that Mercury has been parallel to the Sun between June 6th and June 17th (this year} My question is Could this be one of the Main reasons why we have had cooler temps??? also would this be one of the reasons we have had this atrociuous weather over the last few days??

Another question Mercury will cross the Sun between June 29th and July 1st What affect should this have ??

nigel

Edited June 16, 2007 by stormchaser1

[Roger J Smith]

Nigel, now that I have all this data in a workable file, I have so far found that the Mercury signals are very small for the summer months, and what used to show up fairly regularly in the winter data suggesting blocking or retrogression now seems to have flipped over to a warming signal.

All that I can say from this research so far is that the current set of Mercury analogues show a warmer than average summer in the CET.

As for the recent spell of bad weather, this was actually predicted in another thread on electromagnetic radiation, have a look at my posts around 11-13 March and you'll see what I mean.

The main reasoning behind the severe weather recently from this theoretical perspective is a strong northern max with secondary support. The field structure that most supports this from a re-analysis of the past week is the S-2 field which has been showing a tendency to develop closed lows and cyclonic rotation of energy centres since mid-May in this timing sector.

I expect this tendency to fade out in July as the S-2 field should be further east in the grid by then. Unlike quite a few others here on NW, I continue to think that this summer may turn out quite hot and set some records for warmth in the long run.

Getting back to Mercury and the whole question of how these retrograde signals fit into the otherwise progressive nature of the field sector theory, I am pretty much convinced that the magnetic field is fading and shifting northwest in general, which may mean that a lot of the analogue techniques that might have been useful a few decades ago, will now turn out to require a large shift spatially so that it will be a matter of developing forecasts from studying past weather in southern France or northern Italy in analogue situations.

[stormchaser1]

Morning Roger

Thanks very much for the Info! much appreciated thankyou!

Nigel

[roberthines]

thks roger me learning new stuff in this area.

Still got lots more to learn about the weather and stuff

[Roger J Smith]

Just thought I would mention that the next step in this CET analysis should probably be some form of re-analysis or backcasting program based on the results derived so far, at least going back to about 1901 if not further.

This will take a substantial amount of time and effort, which does not necessarily blend very well with my situation at present, so realistically it could take up to a year to get through the bulk of that project and assess how much of the variance in CET values is being routinely "predicted" in the back-cast analysis, with some attempt made to factor in the apparently rapid recent shift of the grid that I am using.

It may be necessary for me to locate some reliable anomaly data from a few sites to the southeast of the CET to check out how the signals appear for those locations, then develop some sort of predictive technique based on the apparent changes in the magnetic field structure in recent decades. Clearly this will impose a positive bias on the forecasts, which is pretty much my personal bias outside of Jan and Feb so far in my two years of getting some real-time experience, but these generally above normal forecasts have been doing reasonably well, in fact I didn't really bite the whole apple for the very warm month of April, but the index values did give a fairly good result.

Therefore, if it seems that I have closed up shop because there are no new posts, please bear in mind that I have extensive work to do, and a variety of other concerns on my plate which won't likely go away for the rest of my days here on your lovely planet, warming though it may be for the time being.

By the way, I will be in England in July, so expect some really god-awful weather around the 5th to the 12th, this is a fully reliable component of the RJS model, sadly.