Daily Astro-climatology Report

[VillagePlank]

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.

Perhaps an opportunity for us to take you to a flat,warm,non-fizzy drinking establishment?

[Roger J Smith]

Thanks for that idea. This is less of a vacation than a personal business trip and I won't be in the south at all, except for Gatwick airport briefly at each end of my trip. Will be tapping into that "sound northern thinking" which has been so evidently missing from my life these past many years.

Seeing how lousy the weather has been without me there, I can only speculate that people may very well be huddled inside their homes for the duration of my visit, since it is bound to get worse then.

[Roger J Smith]

Continuing on with some other CET findings, I can just say briefly that I have finished all the data sets that I can identify as significant, if anyone wishes to make any further suggestions, please do so.

The data sets not yet presented here include some of the other asteroids (but as I said these look similar to the Vesta profiles posted), Neptune and Pluto (to follow shortly), the very important retrograde signals from Mercury and Venus, to be posted over a week or two, and profiles showing any contributions from lunar declination, lunar perigee, and solar activity (those in about two weeks to a month).

What this all means is that I have perhaps 30 to 40 profiles, depending on how many asteroids one cares to include, and within these, many segment sub-profiles that can be substituted to sharpen the analysis, ready to be incorporated into a master set of equations that should generate results from which we can compare back data to the model's predictions, and see if there are any standard errors pointing to other variables.

Following is the N-year or Neptune profile. Neptune takes 165 years to orbit the Sun and therefore the N-year in our atmospheric data is only about 2.2 days longer than an earth year. To analyze the monthly CET data, I arranged the numbers so that the first fourteen Jans, Febs etc, then the next thirteen Febs, Mars, and so on, fell under similar columns, so that the 12-month profile essentially jogs one month forward every 13.5 years, on the average.

The N-year profile does not resemble the other outer planets but is still rather large in amplitude. Instead of having a peak at Neptune conjunction as with all the others from Mars to Uranus, it has a peak shortly after Neptune opposition. The signal is also less robust from the overall period to the "modern" period 1901-present. Here are the actual anomalies in the N-year, with opposition (from 1659) occurring in month 7.

ALL YEARS....-.08....-.05....-.00....-.01.....-.00.....-.01...+.08....+.01....-.11...+.15....+.09...+.05

1901-2007....+.44..+.41..+.52..+.25...+.21..+.46..+.43..+.57..+.18..+.26..+.43...+.53

modern

segment

increase....052...046...052...026...021...047...035...056..029...011...034...048

That last row indicates the rather divergent values of the modern segment temperature rise in the N-year. You can see that this increase slows down to only a very small fraction about 3-5 months after Neptune opposition, compared with the general half degree rise in other parts of the N-year. This gives me something to search for in the data, not sure what exactly, but some process within the N-field that used to spike temperatures about 3 months after opposition is no longer active in that way. With the general lift in the flow and the far northerly presumed impacts of the N-field, this may be something to look for in data over Scandinavia or Iceland nowadays.

Edited September 9, 2007 by Roger J Smith

[Roger J Smith]

For Pluto, one would not expect much of a signature as this recently demoted planet is really more like a distant asteroid not much bigger than Ceres, the largest asteroid. Its orbit lies generally outside that of Neptune although recently it spent some time closer to the Sun as its orbit is quite eccentric. The perihelion occurred recently, in the 1980s, and it takes 248 years to orbit the Sun.

Pluto opposition took place in January in 1659 which places the opposition in month one of this profile.

The data analysis took segments of 25-30 years depending on the speed of Pluto in its orbit (faster recently so fewer years in the segments, slower in the 19th century so more years then). The overall profile is quite weak, as expected. I have listed it below for the sake of completeness, but it shows only faint signatures at best.

The more recent profile from 1901 to 2007 would include the more recent chunk of time when Pluto was near perihelion. Here there is a larger signature consisting mainly of a temperature increase in the four months that begin with Pluto conjunction. The increase here is on the order of 0.2 C degrees. I assess this as twice to three times larger than would be expected from any extension of the concepts established from either planets or asteroids, so it may just be "one of those things" that shows up in a data set. There was a similar rather unexpectedly large profile in the Toronto data set. Possibly a good deal of this comes about because of contamination from the modern Neptune signal, as Neptune has been slowly passing Pluto through the time frame of 1901 to present.

All data .....+.01...+.00...+.06...+.11...-.10...-.08...+.06...-.02...+.05...+.15...-.05...-.07

1901-2007...+.45...+.33..+.31...+.28..+.36...+.19..+.49..+.46..+.57..+.62..+.25..+.35

modern

segment

difference....44...33..25...17...46...27...43...48...52...47...30...42

Edited September 9, 2007 by Roger J Smith

[Roger J Smith]

The lunar declination cycle of 18.6 years results from the rapid precession of the nodes of the lunar orbit, which is inclined at 5 degrees to the earth's equator. This fact results in the addition or subtraction of the five degrees to the declination created from our 23 degree inclination to the plane of our orbit around the Sun, in various places around the lunar orbit, during a period of 18.6 years. Currently, we have just passed a peak in declination where the Moon ranges 29 degrees above and below the equator, whereas at a minimum in the 18.6 year cycle, the range would lie between 18 degrees above and below.

The data set begins with a year 7 in this cycle, and taking the averages of years that have similar year numbers using the convention of year one in any given year of maximum declination whenever actually obtained (Jan to Dec), the numbers line up as follows from year one to year 19 (there are fewer year 19s than other data points).

ANOMALIES IN THE 18.6-YEAR CYCLE, EXPRESSED IN .01 DEG CELSIUS

-15..-01..-21..-07..-01..-02..+04..+11..+15..-02..+01..+08..-29..+13..+16..+10..+00..+03..+10

Expressed graphically below

..............................xx..................xx...............

..........................xxxx...............xxxxxx.......xx

......................xxxxxx.......xx....xxxxxx....xxxx

....xx........xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx....xxxxxxxxxxxx

....xx....xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx....xxxxxxxxxxxx

xxxx....xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx....xxxxxxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx....xxxxxxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx....xxxxxxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Edited September 9, 2007 by Roger J Smith

[Roger J Smith]

I would have to study the above lunar declination data further to draw many conclusions, but you can see that the first portion of the cycle (which is where we are at present) is on average a little cooler than the rest of the cycle, which would relate to findings made many years ago by Bryson and confirmed by Hubert Lamb that the peak in lunar declination leads to more meriodional flow and blocking, thus with some lag time producing a cooling effect in mid-latitude temperatures. I found roughly the same effect for Toronto, with a peak coming somewhat earlier than in the CET, around year 5 for Toronto, whereas for the CET the peak comes in the lower declination-range years around year 9 to 11. The sharp trough in the temperature profile at year 14 has no obvious explanation, I don't think this data point caught 1962-63 quite head on although both 1684 and 1740 were year 14s, so this is possibly just a spurious signal with regard to this variable caused by the relatively low number of data points in the sequence (349/18.6 = approx 19). I don't think the lunar declination was a strong causative factor in this coincidence of two very cold winters.

The theoretical tie between the declination range and ocean temperatures is fairly complex, and subtle, but the general idea is that the powerful warm currents such as the Gulf stream and the Kuro Siwo should be enhanced from about year 3 to year 8 as the declination range decreases and forces stronger cyclonic development southward into the mean path of these currents. By years 9 to 11 the effect is dampened by a more southerly storm track, then the effects weaken as the flow decouples and spreads out due to gradually increasing meriodional flow. Since this factor would anomalously impact winter temperatures in particular, one should expect to find milder winters around the time of minimum declination range in the CET, whereas for North America, the minimum in winter temperatures comes about the same time as the lower range encourages a southerly storm track and more invasive arctic air.

The whole sequence of the 18.6 year cycle has led some researchers to identify various phases such as mild fast flow, increased continental effect with stormy oceans, bland and mild, then blocked and variable, as four basic stages from about year 2 onward. This works better as a deep background feature than any sort of month-to-month forecasting tool, in my experience. I am looking for better guidance from interactions between lunar declination, perigee and key events such as the Jupiter conjunctions with the Moon in forcing storm track variations.

Edited September 9, 2007 by Roger J Smith

[Gray-Wolf]

So what happens (Global pressure anomalies wise) when what you outline above coincides with exceptionally quiet solar periods?

Would this combination tend to 'reinforce/augment' the measurable anomaly/effect?

The 'blaming' of this years Polar melt is down to H.P. predominance...any links do you think?

Edited September 9, 2007 by Gray-Wolf

[Roger J Smith]

I'm a few days away from posting the CET profiles for solar activity. The next topic up will be lunar perigee, which I hope to post tonight your time. Then I may have time to post the solar cycle CET profiles. I am quite neutral on this topic, in all the years I have been doing this research, I have not found large correlations between solar activity and weather but others say they have, and I'm just following the number crunching exercises in developing my theory. If something shows a big profile then I have to consider cause and effect, especially for something as long as the CET has been observed, and when the first half matches the second half, or the three thirds match up, so much the better.

But I have no preconceived notion of what the solar activity cycle will show because that is the one profile I have not finished, would only take 30 minutes though.

So my answer to that question is delayed until I can have a look at the numbers.

[Roger J Smith]

Now we move on to the topic which has interested BFTP greatly, the lunar perigee. While the nodes move around the Moon's orbit (nodes are where the instantaneous orbital plane intersects the mean orbital plane, in the Moon's case, an extension of the earth's equator into space), the perigee of the orbit, or the closest point to earth, also migrates rather rapidly around the orbit as seen from the fixed frame of reference of the stellar background (this is "fixed" over longish time scales but not permanently, of course, even the stars move relative to one another).

The motion of lunar perigee completes a journey prograde around the orbital path in just 8.86 years. This means that if the lunar perigee occurs near the northern max position in year one, it will move forward to be at southern max in 4.43 years and all the way around to the northern max position again in 8.86 years. At present, the position is approaching northern max but will not be there until early 2009. The data set begins with perigee at southern max.

The data analysis shows that the signature of lunar perigee is quite robust and relatively large compared to other elements. The first half of the data look very similar to the second half when subjected to a 9-year analysis adjusted to fit 8.86 years by dropping each 63rd year. These curves were derived from some annual averages of years one through nine in the cycle because I was interested in seeing if the annual anomalies persisted from month to month, or if the different flow patterns of winter, spring, summer and autumn had different effects. That question remains somewhat unresolved, I plan to discuss the numbers with Fred (BFTP) who has been thinking about this subject in detail for many years. But as far as the gross signature on an annual basis, here is what the first and second half of the data look like. The only change, really, is the half C deg rise in the later period's signal.

These numbers represent the CET anomalies in a 9-year cycle starting with perigee at southern max.

ANOMALIES for 1659-1837 ... -.25 ... -.29 ... ..02 ... -.35 .... .05 ... -.11 ... -.20 ... -.23 ... -.12

ANOMALIES for 1838-2007 .... .13 .... .15 .... .32 .... .13 .... .38 .... .15 .... .06 .... .05 .... .25

MEAN (weighted) .................. -.07 ... -.08 .... .16 .... -.12 .... .21 .... .02 ... -.08 ... -.10 ... -.07

The main signal here is the temperature rise when the northern max is supported by perigee. This seems to strengthen the lunar event in the short-range time scale, northern max, and since this is generally a warmth-producer for mid-latitude locations near timing lines, then a northern max at perigee will support greater warmth. In the Toronto series, the southern max at perigee is also a warmth creator relative to the background. This is beginning to show up more in the second half of the CET possibly due to the general lifting of the flow -- strong southern max events tend to occupy rather moderate latitudes in storm track analysis, so any lifting of the flow will begin to add their warming signal more rapidly.

In the North American analysis, there is a rather definite 2.21 year sub-signal that is probably the same as the widely discussed QBO (earlier I mentioned that the 2.15 year Mars cycle decouples from the QBO over long time intervals). The peaks occur when the lunar perigee is either at northern or southern max, or during the Moon's transit over the equator.

The lunar perigee occurs every 27.55 days, whereas northern max is every 27.32 days. You can see, then, that the perigee does not coincide with the northern max for more than a few months, but anything within about 24 hours is close enough to link the events. Both Fred and I have the feeling that lunar perigee in winter is a high pressure building causal factor, so that if it also occurs away from strong lunar events, it can be associated with strong arctic high pressure. Perigee and retrograde blocking can combine to produce massive high pressure.

These are topics that I think need further detailed research.

Edited September 10, 2007 by Roger J Smith

[Roger J Smith]

SOLAR ACTIVITY and CET

The analysis was done from 1713 to present, since the solar activity in the Maunder minimum which had just begun in 1659 and ended with the weak cycle of 1705, cannot very easily be incorporated into the rest of the analysis, and in any case, what we are interested in deriving is some index of CET during normal solar activity ranging from moderate to strong peaks in most of the period since the 1718 peak.

Wishing to place the peak year near the middle of a 12-year profile (the average is 10.3 but the cycles are normalized to have the peak year in year six) the analysis began with the year 1713.

The overall signal is very weak for the CET. I understand from other researchers that larger signals are shown in other parts of the world, but for the CET, the basic results (1713-present) show a slightly cooler regime from the solar minimum to near the peak, then an irregular series of slight peaks that are 0.2 C degrees higher than the initial cooler period, lasting until well after the solar activity peak.

The data become less reliable near the end of the running 12 to 14 year average because these years are more and more randomly scattered relative to the next peak (year 12 in this cycle can be anywhere from 10 to 2 years before the next peak).

Thus I ascribe no meaning or significance to the averages beyond about year 11 of the analysis, although there are not any really large variations even there (random scatter should flat line).

The actual signals are so weak in appearance that I would simply incorporate them into the model on the basis of a 0.2 C degree rise starting at solar activity index of moderate or about 100, and terminating this bias when activity waned below 50 (weak). I can always look at any ideas raised by proponents of solar activity as a driver of climate, but apparently if there is driving at work, it is occurring closer to the poles, I would imagine, and this would be plausible in a system dependent on geomagnetic variations to any extent.

There is a rather obvious 0.15 C degree biennial oscillation in this data that lengthens to 3 years near the end of the series. This may just be a fluke of the data, or it could open up an avenue of research.

Peak years of solar activity are somewhat arbitrary in most cases. There are usually 2-3 years with very similar activity indices and sometimes 4-5 as with 1968-72. In each case I used the peak years listed by Schove as quoted by Hubert Lamb, except that I used 1801 and not 1804 following the modern re-analysis convention listed in more recent literature.

This backtracks to the question -- should there be any signal in temperature (CET or anywhere else) from solar activity? What does increased solar activity bring to the table in terms of affecting weather on earth?

The Sun actually puts out less heat during the solar maximum, as sunspots are relatively dark and cool areas of the surface that radiate less heat. However, the conduction of heat through the solar wind probably more than compensates in the more active solar active years. This has led some to speculate that enhanced solar activity leads to greater storminess, a factor that should push some regional temperature values up. Perhaps in the sort of climate enjoyed in the CET zone, enhanced storminess is not much of a factor one way or the other -- what you gain in southerly wind transport, you lose in solar radiation and perhaps then different climate zones will show the solar activity signal better.

For what it's worth, the signal is even weaker in the Toronto data series from 1840 to present. I considered it to be entirely random.

I wouldn't discourage anyone from looking at this factor in other regions, and perhaps in terms of precip or sunshine hours in the UK data -- it's quite possible that it shows up better with these variables.

Anecdotally, it is pretty easy to show that mild or cold winters do not follow much of a pattern with respect to solar activity. The colder weather of the Maunder minimum could just be a coincidence on a longer time scale, too. But with regard to cold winters in the solar-active portion of the CET since 1713, I would just note the following:

1740 -- occurred near the end of a moderately strong peak (1738) so sun still quite active

1784 -- occurred just after a quiet Sun period between two strong peaks

1795 -- occurred during a long downward drift in solar activity long after the very active 1787-88 peak

1814 -- occurred during weak activity before the weak 1816 peak

1820 -- occurred on the downslope after the weak 1816 peak

1881 -- occurred in a weak upswing from no activity to the weak 1883-85 peak

1895 -- occurred just after the moderate 1893-94 peak

1940 -- occurred during the flat-peaked long-duration 1937-42 maximum

1947 -- occurred at the peak of the very strong 1947 cycle

1963 -- occurred during the onset of a quiet sun period between strong cycles peaking in 1957 and 1968

1979 -- occurred near the peak of the moderately strong 1979-81 peak

1982 -- occurred during rapidly declining solar activity

1986,87 -- occurred during the upswing towards the 1989 peak but during rather low activity levels

There seems to be some bias here towards the time after peaks, but the scatter is quite large and probably approximates random with this number of cases (I may have missed a few equally cold winters).

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

The lunar perigee occurs every 27.55 days, whereas northern max is every 27.32 days. You can see, then, that the perigee does not coincide with the northern max for more than a few months, but anything within about 24 hours is close enough to link the events. Both Fred and I have the feeling that lunar perigee in winter is a high pressure building causal factor, so that if it also occurs away from strong lunar events, it can be associated with strong arctic high pressure. Perigee and retrograde blocking can combine to produce massive high pressure.

These are topics that I think need further detailed research.

Hi Roger

Some good number crunching there and some interesting links/connections. Have had very little time lately with only fleeting visits open to me. Agree with above

BFTP

Edited September 10, 2007 by BLAST FROM THE PAST

[senmut]

Yes it looks correct-idea of big influence of lunar perigee on hig pressure formations,...I made some simple charts, notes, from which is quite clear too, that big rainfalls are usually some days after Lunar perigee, but also after lunar apogee,...

[stormchaser1]

evening everyone

This is a site i find very interesting {regarding apogee and perigee} if anyone is interested the link is below

http://www.fourmilab.ch/earthview/pacalc.html

just type in a year in the box and check out the archives

nigel

[Chris Knight]

I'd be interested in getting some models (mathematical) worked out, which would factor-in lunar perigee/apogee, solar perihelion/aphelion, the lunar phase cycle, and the lunar declination at any of these times, and then also factor-in the sunspot phase of the Hale cycle.

The idea would be to look at the combined major tidal and energy variations going back pehaps to 1700 and project forwards for a century or so.

Basically it is adding together a series of sinewave functions of different periods over time to see when they are producing additive and subtractive effects, a bit like this:

, which is an adaptation of a figure published in:

http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?reques...PS%3E2.0.CO%3B2

BTW, I believe that there is an error in the way the data was handled here - that the Hale Maxima and Minima were handled as being positive and negative, whereas in terms of energy changes, the Hale Minimum is equivalent to the Hale Maximum as far as Sunspot number maxima are concerned.

It's not too difficult to do in Excel, but will take a lot of work, which would be much easier with a maths program. It would also cut out many of the sources of potential error that Excel manipulations would probably bring in. It also means being fairly confident in extracting ephemera data from the JPL and other sources.

Any collaborators out there?

Edited October 5, 2007 by Chris Knight

[Chris Knight]

Loony thread continues here!

[Roger J Smith]

Research update Jan 2008

Hello to all who follow this new research ... I am going to post some detailed information in the next "month" (lunation) to help you visualize what's happening in both your sector and in North America.

The research is going quite well and I feel that I am making considerable progress now that I have followed UK weather in detail for almost three years. My CET forecasts are getting closer to reality and some of the particular event forecasts have been encouraging, notably, the severe weather last June 15th predicted three months in advance on a statistical basis from the model.

But nobody knows more than yours truly how much more ground there is to cover, I am by no means Piers Corbyn enthusiastic about where the research is currently situated, and all of my forecasts are meant to be taken as research-driven probabilities compared to background random values, rather than definitive statements that you can take to Lloyds of London (or Ladbrokes) with cash in hand.

Here's the general situation for this lunation summary to follow ...

The moon is currently approaching northern max, meaning it is reaching its declination max for the current cycle of 27.32 days. This is combined with the MaC and JO events, meaning that additional energy is derived from an opposition (a near occultation in some areas) with Mars, and the alignment with Jupiter which is across the other side of the Sun at present time. These events have been shown statistically to promote low pressure generation near timing lines (see the research summary, but I assume most current readers went through that earlier).

Hence I refer to the current set of events as (NMax + MaC + JO) events in the research and expect to find some fairly vigorous lows crossing timing lines especially where supported by zonal or SW flow. The upper flow according to this theory, as you may recall, is theorized to be driven by field sector locations in the SSMF, so that these lunar events are secondary energy peaks that in and of themselves do not have enough power or enough duration to create the slow-moving and large-scale features that we call ridges, troughs, cut-off features, etc.

Drop back in once a day and you'll find a detailed summary of how each event over the UK and eastern North America sectors are being analyzed from the research perspective, and also, any other global highlights of interest. I will go into some detail over the month about J-field second order energy rotation, since a strong J-field sector is apparently over the UK and another one over the east coast of N America at present time. The basic idea here is that energy rotates around a J-field (represented by mid-latitude high pressure and upper ridge and thickness anomaly features) in a counter-clockwise pattern and when large moons of Jupiter reach their "new moon" positions relative to Jupiter, these are found as disturbances in higher latitudes of the field sector, whereas when they reach their "full moon" positions the energy is retrograde and against the flow (often leading to windstorm conditions within the sector).

I will also detail how the S-field cyclonic rotation is shaping up and this will be of relevance as S-field rotation has been analyzed across the central Atlantic and west-central N America at present. These energy packets tend to interact with a q.s. ridge to produce various types of blocked northerly or southerly events, depending on where the S-field energy is distributed.

Another feature of interest will be the current Mercury retrograde event. Mercury will move to inferior conjunction on the 6th of February and is currently making the turn past its greatest elongation. In this theory, that should be building high pressure as the magnetic disturbance of Mercury moves through the J-field sectors in particular, and with rising latitude as Mercury's orbit now takes it above the ecliptic plane and towards its latitude max at this inferior conjunction (a term meaning the point where Mercury passes between earth and Sun, although in this case, above the line joining earth to Sun).

The basic word on retrograde Venus effects is this -- they are currently near Alaska and west Siberia in the system, and heading slowly west in each case. Thus there is nothing much we will be discussing in the next month in this regard.

I realize that I have made very limited progress in the area of attracting new interest to the theory, but to be honest, I rather expect this, until people could perhaps expect reliable long-range forecasts from this source on a regular basis, why would most weather followers turn in this direction when as we all know there are many other interesting exhibits at the weather exposition (and I try to follow them all, figuring that many are other ways of looking at the same complex subject, so perhaps would contain information I could use to benefit my research).

On the other hand, one would have to say that the comments I made a month ago with regard to the January CET must be either a totally improbable set of guesses in the dark, or some manifestation of a growing ability to reason out how the atmosphere will behave within some reasonably small range of error. I choose the latter, because I am not really very good at guessing anything, otherwise I would be a millionaire sports lottery player or perhaps a world class poker player, neither of which is anywhere near being true. And I don't feel as though I am guessing what the weather will do either -- this is a developing science and I hope to prove, eventually, a promising one at that.

So I will start tomorrow with the first report, looking at northern max and the current set-up of the J-field in some detail.

BE THERE OR BE SQUARE as they say ...

[jethro]

Thanks Roger, fascinating stuff which I follow with increasing curiosity. Keep up the good work!

[Roger J Smith]

Here are some observations from today in an effort to position the model parameters.

The timing lines have been observed to be shifted well east of equilibrium values the past two weeks across Europe and the Atlantic, but have been closer to equilibrium in North America. This tendency is thought to be related to second-order variations in the magnetic field set-up that guides the weather systems, and is caused by the effects of Mercury on the inner SSMF structure, pulling it over to the "past" side of the earth's orbit (meaning the part of the solar system where the earth has already swept through). The logic of the system in general is that events ahead of the earth will show up disproportionately to the west of timing line one in central N America, while events behind the earth will show up more to the east. So when Mercury is moving towards its inferior conjunction, two related effects can be expected across Europe -- timing shifts east so that events pass the UK earlier than event time, and high pressure begins to swell and show northwest retrograde tendencies (because Mercury's disturbance in J-field or S-field sectors will be rising as well as moving west in general).

I have been doing some research on the timing of strat-warming events and found that they do tend to correspond to this part of Mercury's orbit, so that perhaps the process has to do with geomagnetic energy disturbances moving towards the NMP and then lifting off the surface as the generating SSMF disturbance moves higher in the solar system (high = north) and goes over top of the earth's north pole. This would explain similar outlooks in the predictive phases of both concepts. However, the details that I have uncovered suggest that this strat-warm episode may not deliver all that much by way of cold weather to the UK, more of an aid to Greenland high building than Scandi high building in this case.

Now since timing line three has an equilibrium position near Iceland to Ireland to the west-central Mediterranean, lows on average arrive over Ireland near event time and pass the UK about 6-9 hours after event times. But with the timing lines shifted well to the east into the North Sea, the events are passing the British Isles early. The N Max event was the deep low which was near the Shetlands early on the 19th and then moved to Norway around event time 20:00z. The full moon event is the next wave west of Ireland, timed to cross the timing line around 22:14z. Note that this wave will be phased in the timing structure with stronger low pressure to the NW-NNW around Iceland (timing lines run from NW to SE). This can be attributed to the onset of the expected blocking phase with Mercury now rising above the ecliptic and rushing through its perihelion towards inferior conjunction. The net effect of this, given the proximity of established warm J-field sector, should be a succession of highs swelling up at higher latitudes but with a tendency for the process to shift WNW towards Iceland and Greenland.

One of the byproducts of the recent drift of the NMP away from northern Canada seems to be that Mercury's effects in the system are being dragged further west so that the chance of a Mercury retrograde event tapping Siberian air will be diminished. This is all part of the resetting of the meteorological grid into a pattern that drops heights over the Pacific sector and raises them over the eastern Atlantic and Europe. And I think this has a lot to do with the "even larger teapot" phenomenon since the end of the 1980s, as the NMP has shifted a good 5 degrees north and 15 degrees west since then.

Last February, with the Mercury IC event coming 17 days later, the set-up of the retrograde was further north, as Mercury was already well above the ecliptic at this corresponding time and this all contributed to the brief arctic incursion, the snowstorm, and the withdrawal to the north of the blocking high that so disappointed many winter watchers.

Getting back to the present, after the full moon event, which will cross the UK on Monday ahead of the timing for the reasons given above, the next strong event is the twinned RC+SC event on the 24th (SC is 25:02z). This will show up as another strong vortmax following the Monday event in the main jet stream further north, and its effects near the UK will be found in a dangling frontal wave.

In tomorrow's discussion, I will get into the J-field energy rotation which is going on within this other system of energy peaks and which is currently centered near the UK as the J-4 field sector has been slowly drifting east this winter. The J-3 field sector is analyzed as being over timing line 2 near Newfoundland to east of Bermuda. There is not much separation between them because the J-1 and J-2 fields have very little flex at this point in Jupiter's orbit. These would show up in the western half of the Pacific in this system. And as I mentioned in yesterday's introduction, the S-2 field is apparently over the central Atlantic from recent analysis, so the flow to the west is reinforced into a turbulent large-scale ridge with a trough embedded, part of the reason why there has been such a non-stop menu of various types of low pressure coming at the UK from different directions within the envelope of SW to NW.

As for the events near timing line one (which curves from west of Hudson Bay, Great Lakes, South Carolina) that sector is currently in a large-scale trough as a space opens in the SSMF between S2 and J3 field sectors, and no Ma-field sectors are located nearby (these are embedded in J-field sectors at present time). The S1 field sector is over the west coast and the J3 is in the western Atlantic. With Venus retrograde field sectors now moving away to the west of Alaska at high latitudes, the whole sector around timing line one is opened up for arctic flow and the lunar energy is depressed as it has only low heights and thicknesses to work with. Consequently, the N Max event has been crossing timing line one off the east coast. There is no eastward displacement yet of timing line one, but I am expecting this in 5-7 days as the Mercury retrograde effect develops. The end result of that, by the way, should be a sequence of very strong high pressure near Greenland and then Baffin Island around the end of January and early February. This will tend to drive the polar vortex further southwest towards Hudson Bay.

Something to follow, as the timing lines shift east in N America, they should begin to return to equilibrium in Europe and by later February they may drift west of equilibrium for a while, then return to equilibrium.

Enough for today, then, the discussion tomorrow will include some analysis of the J-field energy, and the S-field structure in general, which will become more interesting in later February and March because the S-2 field sector should by then have arrived over western Europe, so we'll be dealing with S-field energy regimes which are cyclonic and prone to occasional northerly set-ups.

You can probably see how all of this can be used to formulate long-range forecasts and get some idea of monthly regimes and tendencies, but as I say, the research is developing and for the time being I am concentrating more on analysis than forecasting.

Edited January 20, 2008 by Roger J Smith

[stormchaser1]

Evening Roger

Another interesting read [ thankyou for sharing]

Just a quick question, If ive done my calculations right {which i doubt very much] the next Northern max i think should be scheduled for around the 14th Feb , if this is correct this would be in line with the First Quarter moon phase, and also Perigee will take place on the same day{ with indications from past data i have , Could this lead to a very stormy period for some parts of the uk ? The first quarter should be around 0333hrs , also with this theory , im also coming up with a wintery period around this date too }What are your thoughts on this ???

nigel

[Roger J Smith]

Nigel, I have the northern max at 15:22z with the MaC and JO energy slightly later. Also J-field energy peaks on the 15th in its most positive (warm-advecting) phase of rotation. This all adds up to a good opportunity for strong low pressure probably across northern regions of the UK, very mild temperatures for most, and a strong pressure gradient from deep low to strong high over Europe. The lunar perigee is still on average about 2 days before northern max, will be closing in on it (due to its period being 0.23 days longer) through the rest of 2008 so that next winter's northern maxes will be at perigee.

My assessment of perigee in this research model is simply that whatever effects the moon might be having, would be expected to be stronger at perigee (and weaker at apogee). I don't find any peaks of significance for first or third quarter alone, but these can tend to get aligned with other events for fairly long periods as those events show up at those times, so I would caution you in your investigation to watch for any effects drifting away in time from these positions.

Anyway, some of the stronger events in February should be around S Max (3-4), new moon (6-7), northern max (15-16) and full moon with RC/SC support (20th). S-field should be sweeping strong lows north to the west of Ireland at various other times and I will comment on that as we get closer. The J-field energy peaks hit the S Max and N Max events in particular.

Although I've mentioned that timing has shifted east and events are coming through a bit before the average time for timing line three (UK), this should soon decrease to equilibrium and the February events are not as likely to come through the UK earlier than their precise event times. I am going to keep a careful watch on this in 2008 because a lot of the precision in this forecasting method depends on an accurate understanding of timing line variations.

[Weather-history]

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

Well then why Spica is singled out? The Moon occults thousands and thousands of stars every year and if it is regardless of spatial separation then each and every star it occults or approaches to will have its own impact not just Spica.

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

Hi Rog

Sonow Jan has verified your updated forecast, well done and further support for your method. The one area I am particularly interested in is the NMP movement and as you say has 'matched' the 'even larger teapot' northward migration of the PFJ and i prefer and suspect that your option is the right one. This will be shown with although a GHP will develop it won't extend far enough SE towards the UK to provide sustained cold pattern. This can only go on for so long [64,000 dollar question...how long] because if movement continues the NMP eventually will be heading 'south'. Lunar influences are of importance IMO but not the driver...I am moving from that as it is only part of the jigsaw of which you are ahead in putting the pieces together, even solar alone is not the answer but part of the bigger picture. Good to see real time back and keep it up.

Fred

[Roger J Smith]

Mr Data, the analysis in the original study over the Great Lakes region and timing line one provided the various temperature and precip peaks which were then associated with two sets of gravitational wave sources, fixed (i.e. stars and galactic equator) and moving (i.e. planets moving slowly against this fixed background).

I can understand why you raised your question, however, it appears to me from long observations of this theory that the Regulus and Spica events are real, also the "A" event which obtains from the fact that Antares and Aldebaran are virtually opposite one another in the sky so that they combine (the Regulus and Spica events like the major planetary events come in sets of opposition and conjunction per 27.32 day cycle).

Why only these and not others, you asked?

First of all, the northern max in particular sweeps up a number of candidate individual stars such as Canopus, those in Orion, Gemini, and even Canis Minor and Major. This may account for its larger intensity, so here I am saying the rule I am about to describe is not being broken. The southern max does not include any particularly large nearby stars but is the position of the galactic centre.

The rule I refer to is this, the gravitational source must register at a significant level in the equation implied for interaction with the Moon, which at current stage of development is not based on mass over distance squared but relies on a very slow drop-off of the distance factor implying that the gravitational waves are focused and do not lose intensity very quickly over space. That they do lose some intensity is shown by the fact that Jupiter's effect is larger than that of Regulus by a factor of about 2:1 in the research values whereas Regulus is a very large star of about 200 solar masses.

The few stars which seem to have enough mass and small separation from the Moon's orbital path are all basically first magnitude stars and when I have tried to isolate other possible candidates along the track of second or third magnitude, the data spikes are so small as to be negligible. Also looking for the effects in real time show no results. The situation is similar with Uranus and Neptune, which have very small data set signatures (this over 168 years now) compared with even Mars and Saturn, two of the less intense planetary components of the model.

Another thing that favours Spica in the data analysis is that the Moon's orbit takes it past this star about four days after Regulus and four days before the A-S Max cluster, which separates it out so completely from the others that in the atmospheric system, its events can be given that extra day of energy cycle which helps along what is clearly the weakest member of the group (SpC energy peaks are about half those of RC on average).

As I have mentioned in the section before, there is an alternate concept at play, the N Max from upstream timing lines must of necessity keep moving downstream, on average it takes 3-4 days which is the mean separation to the RC event, so in the first year of this research I was calling the RC event the northern max resonance.

Another sign that the stars aforementioned are really blasting out enough gravitational wave energy to perform this action, can be seen in the annual temperature profile near timing line one. There are second-order peaks where the Sun moves past northern max, Regulus, Spica, the A stars, and S Max. These are fairly subtle but on the order of 1 C degree.

Just to sum up then, your question seemed to be this -- there are thousands of stars, so why does Spica get any particular billing in this model? The answer seems to be that five or six particular stars have enough mass and are located close enough to the Moon's path, for there to be a significant interference wave set up. Other stars are either not high enough on the mass over distance (to inverse sixth power as it turns out) scale, or, are located near the Northern Max and swept up into that energy peak, or, are too far from the path of the Moon through the sky to create an interference potential.

I did say that I would address the J-field energy question today -- running out of time, will just say this very briefly -- the UK has appeared to be in a J-field sector which is the J-4 field, and this sets up as a mean upper ridge with its centre near the southern Bay of Biscay. Energy can be observed running around this feature in a clcokwise (anticyclonic) direction with the logic of the system as follows -- energy on the timing line at J-moon transit, and energy swept back against the flow at eclipse. This sweep back process is subtle, except in a few cases in N America where the energy gets embedded in upper NE winds in summer, then you can sometimes track the energy as a wave, but most of the time the sweep-back phase is best seen by watching satellite animation and picturing energy rippling back through the oncoming westerly flow.

Today's event has been described already as the full moon event reaching timing line three in an eastward displaced position. The shaping is conforming to J-field energy, and you can see this if you run a satellite animation. J-III energy has been sweeping back through the past 24 hours, while J-I and J-II energy are progressive and related to the two energy waves visible as of 18z around the Thames estuary (that being J-I) and northeast England (J-II).

As I have to run out, I will say more about J-field energy in the next few days when we get another peak. The J-I energy is overtaking J-II every 3.5 days at a point about 6 hours before J-I reaches transit (this point is continuously slipping back around the orbit towards the mutual eclipse point, it was at the mutual transit in November), hence 12 hours before J-II reaches transit. These different speeds of orbital motion, superimposed on different energy loops, give me some idea in advance how the energy of a given system will operate, which is why in the snowfall thread from yesterday I was suggesting possible gusty thunderstorms in southeast England at this point.

One other note, the deep low east of NF is a classic S-field event where S-V energy overtakes S-VI energy, I will place further info on that later or tomorrow, as I don't have time to look up the details.

Edited January 21, 2008 by Roger J Smith

[Roger J Smith]

Note on the activity in the S-2 field located just east of timing line 2 in the western Atlantic.

Activity in this field is cyclonic, energy loops around in vast ovals that are centered around the Labrador coast or some distance to the east around 50N 50W at present. The inner energy loops are mainly weak and have more relevance to meso-scale events when for example an S-field is over the Great Lakes in spring or summer, or western Europe. Usually it takes alignments of 2 or 3 out of 4 of the inner loops to achieve very much more than disorganized cloud bands and very small pressure signatures of 1-2 mbs.

Energy loops 5 and 6 in this system representing moons S-V and S-VI seem to drive most of the energy, and whenever S-V overtakes S-VI there is a rapid deepening of low pressure, particularly if that happens just after transit where the cyclonic loop is moving NNE from its lowest latitude position. This will currently be the case (22:10z) with both S-V and S-VI just passing transit positions. A deep low is forming southeast of NF moving towards eastern Greenland. If you watch animated satellite imagery you should be able to see the inner loop of energy overtaking the outer loop, then later 22nd into 23rd, another surge of energy as S-IV energy catches up and passes both of these in turn.

S-VII also a fairly energetic loop, is currently opposite S-VI at the northwest end of the energy loops, so located well northwest of the centre around northeast Hudson Bay. A low pressure area created here will usually just fill gradually while vortmaxes rotate further south towards the jet stream, reinforcing arctic outbreaks in many cases.

Since the period of the overtake is about 6.5 days, these well-situated cases occur about every two to three weeks, others happen in the less favoured northern part of the rotation and lead to retrograde low developments over Baffin Island and Hudson Bay. In the winters of 2006 and 2007 we had some S-field action over western Europe leading to retrograde energy flows over the North Sea at times, but that set-up will be more like late February into March this year. Note that similar S-fields pass given locations every year plus 12 days, on average, but also this year the field flex has reduced which is further slowing down the S-2 field from past years (it is a little behind where it was relative to Saturn and earth the past two years and this adds to the 12 day orbital lag).

Other S-field activity is taking place over western N America where a rather weak low is trying to shift north into the huge arctic air mass over the western states and provinces.

As the full moon timing is later today (around 14h GMT) you might want to check out maps and imagery for the Great Lakes region where the event is crossing timing line one around central Indiana in the next few hours. I would describe this as a moderately energetic but warmth-deprived low attempting to lift northeast but not able to do more than create a disturbed arctic flow from a SE to E direction across the Great Lakes. Temperatures will rise a few degrees with this, but since there is no field sector providing a source of higher thickness, the event will only push temperatures up to about -4 C.

The current analysis for western Europe is that timing may be rapidly returning to equilibrium. Where I have seen this before, the process seems to be that over a period of 3-5 days, the old timing becomes replaced by a new set of timing events and for a day or two you have the remnants of the old systems competing with new ones that are forming further to their west. This may be happening now and I may be declaring equilibrium restored by Thursday or Friday at this rate.

At any rate, I hope people are enjoying reading about the weather from this entirely different perspective and not finding it too dense to follow -- I am more or less used to all this after so many years and of course it is a frustration that it has not caught on as a more widely used frame of reference, but I suppose one might have expected that. Still, it is a source of encouragement to have met a few people willing to try to see things this way (some of whom already were before the encounter, in fact).

Edited January 22, 2008 by Roger J Smith

[Roger J Smith]

Well, things are getting very interesting in the model section now, and it's time for an update on this research perspective.

The weak SpC event (Spica's conjunction with the Moon) is approximately 29:01z and this should be phased with J-field energy in loops I and II while III and IV are in the re-load phase with their energy circling around to the south and west in the J-field.

The combined effects of the SpC and J-field energy will be seen in the Tuesday night frontal passage and should assist in placing both the lunar and J-field timing lines for the bigger events later in the week. I'm currently estimating that both are phasing over the UK as timing structure is pulled west by the ongoing Mercury approach to i.c. on the 6th.

With regard to this Mercury event, the normal sequence is for blocking high pressure to develop rapidly to the north or northwest of the UK and transfer west into the central Canadian arctic. That process seems to be developing on schedule. The actual signature of this retrograde event is probably the developing block near Newfoundland, which should transfer rapidly northwest through next week.

As I've speculated in the model thread, although events are chaotic with this disruption going on, the rebound to the previous flow should be rapid, although not before the weakness in the jet allows one big surge of the very cold air that has been chilling over Greenland all winter long under the larger than normal polar vortex.

When all this energy rebounds around Wed or Thurs, the models are indicating rapid cyclogenesis between timing lines two and three, and, note there are three factors that might lead to storm development almost as intense as the 18z GFS was showing on Sunday (which might prove a bit OTT, but perhaps not by much).

First, there is a rapid phasing of J-field energy as J-III makes transit on Thursday around 21z with J-I and then J-II following within 18 hours. Meanwhile, J-I passes J-II about the same time as J-III is at transit. This induces a collapsing wave in the J-field energy structure, which is what the models seem to be showing around 09z Friday. J-IV energy through this period will be rippling across Greenland and should emerge over the high latitudes north of Jan Mayen to provide a capture low north of Svalbard after this UK storm comes and goes. This is why I think the flow may quickly return to a fast SW once this episode is done.

Second, the timing structure is moving west slowly which tends to intensify storm development (think of equal and opposite reactions). And there is a fairly strong event on Feb 1, the A event which is quickly followed by the strong peak of S Max + JC with other secondary events, so that events are being steered faster by the accelerated pace of lunar events through the period.

Third, the conventional meteorological setup is very conducive to storm intensification, with supercold Greenland air flowing out over the 7-10 C waters south of Iceland, not taking the long way round either, just flowing straight out behind this developing system. It would not be that surprising if it did bomb out and form a supercyclone of damaging intensity, so we will continue to monitor things from this perspective to see if events are positioned as expected in the meantime.

Edited January 28, 2008 by Roger J Smith