Better Than The Models ?

[La Bise]

I do find the idea that only a book would give Method X the thorough explanation it deserves quite puzzling in this day and age unless it is seen as an hommage to the great elders who had no need for such modern tools as the internet where entire lives are published nevermind books...

Anyhow, this is beginning to sound more and more like some strange excercise in hooking an audience then coming up with the most arcane utterings you can think of thus keeping everyone on tenderhooks as to what is behind it. The very precise forecast, 100% accurate or thereabouts according to the man himself, could prove to be a red herring, if not too far from reality, enough will believe there is something rather than just a bit of clever statistical gambling.

Anyhow, we shall see...

[Candice]

Food for thought? (Found this whilst browsing around alternative weather forecasting methodology)

In 1686, Dr. J. Goad’s Astro-Meteorologica, based on 39 years of his own astro-weather observations and correlations, was published in London. Until the end of the 19th Century this text was the leading authority on the subject. It includes a transcript of astronomer Johannes Kepler’s diary of astro-weather observations from June 28, 1617 to August 9, 1629. Here Kepler expounded some of his theories relating planetary phenomena to atmospheric changes. It is a matter of historical record that he attained recognition for his remarkably accurate long-range weather forecasting long before advancing his laws of planetary motion. Kepler’s “Mysterium Cosmographicum†is a fully documented record of his work from 1602 to 1629.

Critically tested astro-weather forecasts during the last century, ventured for various parts of the world more than a year in advance, support and confirm Kepler’s theories. He discovered that additional magnetic angles of 30, 45, 135 and 150 degrees between celestial bodies synchronized perfectly with atmospheric reactions.

Edited January 5, 2011 by Candice

[k19]

I do find the idea that only a book would give Method X the thorough explanation it deserves quite puzzling in this day and age unless it is seen as an hommage to the great elders who had no need for such modern tools as the internet where entire lives are published nevermind books...

Anyhow, this is beginning to sound more and more like some strange excercise in hooking an audience then coming up with the most arcane utterings you can think of thus keeping everyone on tenderhooks as to what is behind it. The very precise forecast, 100% accurate or thereabouts according to the man himself, could prove to be a red herring, if not too far from reality, enough will believe there is something rather than just a bit of clever statistical gambling.

Anyhow, we shall see...

Using cycles and past days with the same factors coming in to play suggests that it's already statistical gambling ha!

But yes even if MB shed some light on why the method is using only 3 basic factors but requires 200 pages, i'm by no means saying he should reveal all, I just think its strange to 'test' this method when in fact, if he gave out minor pieces of information then others could help refine the system. Great inventions/discoveries are rarely the sole work of one person, and usually take years to develop, but today with the internet that could be sped up so much!

Very well said, I see that MB wants to write a book (makes a lot of money!), if there is anything in his fourth dimensional theories but like you I can't understand why he can't at least enter into reasoned debate with us. After all both Roger and Fred have shared their methodology with us and have therefore gained certainly my respect and that of many others on this forum with their reasoned and well thought out methods.

Just one thought I had though. If weather was able to be forecasted every day on every spot on the planet for the next 100 years just think of the impact that would have on everyday life. We'd all want the same 2 weeks off work, same wedding days etc etc and it would certainly (for me anyway) rather take the edge of things if I knew that on the 24th July 2021 it would be hot and sunny! There'd be nothing left to look forward to and certainly no model watching or weather forums.

Yes I see what you mean its a real dilemma. If everything natural/human on earth can be predicted in advance, and the world knows this then countless would be saved, but also countless lost, as the world turned to mush- if economy's could be predicted the world wouldn't function. Although I think that at this stage it seems that only 'extreme' weather events can be forecasted by this. I.e MB is predicting a sever weather event in 25 days, and the low pressure of November 12th was relatively severe by normal standards. It seems the system didn't work for a relatively 'average' day ( As far as last december goes!) with the christmas forecast.

[Timmytour]

There are ways to determine whether or not getting a forecast hit is good or bad. Google degrees of freedom, chi-squared test, standard error etc etc.

What amazes me is that someone wins the lottery at some 14,000,000:1. I mean, did they put that much in it to win £3m?

The chances are that there will be low pressure north of the UK. The area is not renowened for it's Icelandic Low for some reason some meteorologist decided to do after ten pints in the pub - it is because it is a semi-permanent area of low pressure. Therefore the only important part of this forecast is the depth and the pressure gradient - not hard to forecast deep lows going through the GIN corridor to be honest - ask anyone who lives in Shetland/Orkney.

I don't need elves, nor gnomes at the end of my garden to figure that one out; I wonder if William Hill would take a bet that 300 of the 356 days a year that Iceland will be near or under low pressure?

As I've said before - this is not cynicism; this is scepticism. Scepticism is even more warranted if the fellow wants to take hard earned money out of people's pockets exploiting the curiosity of people around here. The rags-to-riches element is something I didn't realise before.

VP.... he's predicted the kind of event that, even with the December we've had, could be the defining event of this winter!!!

That's not just a prediction of low pressure in the North Sea at this time of year! If that's all there is to it, then it's not going to be the kind of prediction that really stands up, especially because his detail is not exactly vague. To me he's talking about something that last happened on the scale of 1962.

Now, if he's right, and it turns out that there is a storm that's talked about in the same breath as 1962 which occurs at the time he's talking about it, I don't think it's something that can easily be discarded as luck. Perhaps his "lucky guesses" will be more akin to knowing a lot more about the form involved than the average punter?

He's laid down a detailed forecast -involving what sounds like a one in a hundred years event - a month in advance. He's previously got two detailed forecasts laid down a month in advance a hell of a lot closer than the models were showing the position for the same timeframe two weeks in advance. I honestly don't know what more you expect him to do.

If....and I stress if, it comes off, then to me it would certainly be as worth following as the squabbling that takes place on the model thread where the two weeks time is FI that it seems no two people can interpret the same!

Besides......even before his forecast kicks in my respect for him grows..... he's a Spurs fan

I wonder if the year ending in one is part of a cycle that indicates we could be in line to win the Champions League!

[Coast]

OK, I'm actually not interested in what the method is. I'm keen to know the following though, to get a better understanding of how you (Nick) feel you have arrived at the ability to make these predictions:

1) Are you the founder/inventor of this methodology?

2) If not, how many other people or organisations are studying it do you think?

3) When was the method first discovered/theorised?

4) How did you first become interested in the method with regard to it's potential for weather forecasting?

5) It has been mentioned that other natural phenomena can be predicted, can you expand on which ones?

6) Will you (or others practising the method) be submitting it for independent scrutiny by any organisations or for scientific analysis when you are comfortable with its success rate?

7) Do you (or others) see it as a commercial enterprise ultimately, or would it be passed on for all to use free of charge (for the 'greater good')?

Obviously, if your method is proven, you will be challenging hundreds of years of scientific research into weather and natural phenomena by thousands of professors / scientists around the world and by Governments who have committed hundreds of millions of Dollars, so I fully appreciate why you are keeping a lid on it.

If you have found the 'magic key', then I could imagine the immense commercial interest in it. But even more important is the ability to save lives in countries all around the world by organising growing seasons, avoiding natural disasters (moving people away from predicted floods, drought, earthquakes etc) - the spin off's could prove to be the biggest impact made to the life of modern humans and their environment.

I'm looking forward with interest to how this one pans out.

[Barbmac]

Where do I start? A book is a long way off from being written, let alone published! The “method†(for the n^th time) has not proved anything or itself. I am just testing, that’s all; and in the very early stages at that.

If (and that is a very big if) the method got to being anything close to half decent and people were seriously interested in the method, I would prefer to write a book rather than write articles in magazines or write on internet forums. Why? The only reason: because it would be a lot easier to explain things in a book and do justice to the subject.

As you have said previously, MB, you are at the early stages of your method in terms of seeing whether it holds up to give you the results you're hoping for, in forecasting terms. The only way forward to get to that point is time, time and putting out forecasts of what you think is brewing on the weather horizon, waiting to see how close you are to reality, and then tweaking your model if you find you're not hitting the spot.

You've also said that a book might be in the offing once you get close to a decent result. But that, you admit, is probably a long way off, especially given that you need time to see how your forecasts pan out. That approach is fine if that's what you choose to do, but in that case you'll be leaving us all in the dark on the details as to how you go about your modelling for a long time. How long, a year? Two years to get the results? Then another long wait whilst you write your book. I think that if your method is showing even half-decent results after the next couple of forecasts people will be champing at the bit to know more about your methodology. I know I will! I won't want to wait 2-3-4 years for the book. We want the T-shirt! B)

I don't see why only a book can do justice to your subject. You could set up a website or even a simple blog and write there. You don't really need a finished work to publish that way, either. You could start with a general intro, such as Roger has done, and go from there. I honestly don't see interest being maintained in your forecasts if you don't at some (near) future date begin to elucidate something about your methods, because there are a lot of intelligent people on this forum alone who'll be keen to learn more, and without that chance I think their interest might wane.

Just one thought I had though. If weather was able to be forecast every day on every spot on the planet for the next 100 years just think of the impact that would have on everyday life. We'd all want the same 2 weeks off work, same wedding days etc etc and it would certainly (for me anyway) rather take the edge of things if I knew that on the 24th July 2021 it would be hot and sunny! There'd be nothing left to look forward to and certainly no model watching or weather forums.

Maybe that's the shape of things to come, Candice! I find it hard to believe one could ever be that precise about the weather, but who knows! There could also be huge benefits, think of agriculture! We could still have weather forums - Severe weather forecast for x date, where will you be? How is it for you? Don't see why that wouldn't continue.

[Buzzit]

If it is proven to be broadly correct over time it will be a particular bonus to Paul and the storm chasers

[VillagePlank]

Now, if he's right, and it turns out that there is a storm that's talked about in the same breath as 1962 which occurs at the time he's talking about it, I don't think it's something that can easily be discarded as luck. Perhaps his "lucky guesses" will be more akin to knowing a lot more about the form involved than the average punter?

My comment about the lottery wasn't just some quip. A lottery player knows that there is 14m:1 (ish) odds on striking it lucky. However, winners, as far as I know, do not play the game 14 million times in order to get a win. In most cases it's a weekly ticket with ticket numbers not drawn at random (birthdays, anniversaries etc etc) but ball numbers drawn entirely at random.

All of this, of course, is all well known; that is why we have confidence tests - statistical tests that verify whether a spot on hit is likely to be lucky or otherwise. In the case of lottery winners it is well known that a win is sheer luck. Literally, sheer luck - they haven't beaten the odds through some skill nor method.

And I guess that's what I'm saying here; get the method out there so that it is repeatable (if it is on spreadsheet, then chances are software could be written for it within a day) and then proceed to make many many predictions. This does NOT devalue the premise - this produces a sample set from which an analysis of just how 'lucky' or otherwise this method really is.

I wish MB all the best in the world - I am endlessly fascinated with alternate methods, and how the ancients 'got by' of which our existence is evidence that indeed they did. However, and unfortunately, a spot on first week of Feb forecast where 95% of it is correct leaves us none the wiser, rationally, although, of course, curiosity will increase exponentially.

Edited January 6, 2011 by VillagePlank

[Barbmac]

If it is proven to be broadly correct over time it will be a particular bonus to Paul and the storm chasers

Unless all the other storm chasers also know and all turn up at once, thereby jamming the roads!

[MurcieBoy]

I seriously have loads of work to do in my day to day work this month (I have fallen behind). However, I will respond to Coast’s questions. With respect, please, please do not flood me with more questions, as I do not have time to answer them and you may be wasting your time asking them, as the “method†may fall flat on its face by 5 February and we are simply talking about hot air.

1) Are you the founder/inventor of this methodology?

I don’t have a final “methodology†as such; as it is the process of testing. If the Feb 2011 forecast fails badly, then it may mean wholesale changes to some of the fundamental aspects of the “methodâ€. I suspect the ancients had this down to a fine art, so I will never be the founder/inventor; whatever the final “method†turns out to be (if indeed I get to having a “method†that works well consistently).

2) If not, how many other people or organisations are studying it do you think?

Honestly, I do not know.

You will only know if they exist if they are producing months or years in advance very detailed daily or even hourly forecasts (that actually come good).

3) When was the method first discovered/theorised?

I suspect thousands of years ago by the ancients.

4) How did you first become interested in the method with regard to it's potential for weather forecasting?

I had been working for years in developing a system for trading futures on the Dow Jones. About 5 years ago, I forecasted the move in the Dow from around 10,000 to over 13,000, but was unhappy at not being able to predict what the market would do within a week or day. So being a bit of a perfectionist, I abandoned my trading and set to work on trying to understand how to achieve what I could not do.

The breakthrough in my “method†came last summer when I began to write down key obstacles that I needed to overcome and with some lateral, out of the box if you like, thinking, I have a “method†that I am testing. It may fall flat on its face in February 2011, I must re-emphasise!

NB: the method for the Dow was gleaned from scraps of sometimes conflicting information gained from reading hundreds of books over the last 22 years. So please do not ask me to name books, as (a) it was a long time ago; and (b ) no single book or a few books will give anything valuable. For those that are interested, the key is undertake your own extensive reading (picking up books that suit you) and then step back, stay calm, do not rush and try and piece the jumbled jigsaw of pieces together; and then test it to see if it works. Be prepared to keep making wholesale changes to the “methodâ€

5) It has been mentioned that other natural phenomena can be predicted, can you expand on which ones?

I haven’t been able to predict the weather yet! Re other stuff, my hunch is that anything within the Earth’s atmosphere is predictable. Apart from the Dow, I have not tried to predict anything else.

6) Will you (or others practising the method) be submitting it for independent scrutiny by any organisations or for scientific analysis when you are comfortable with its success rate?

Yes, that is one of the objectives of writing a book. I would like it to be as scientific as I can make it, so it can come under the most severe scrutiny. Naturally, accurate and consistent forecasts made months ahead are the most vital part of the book.

Can you imagine releasing the “half-cooked†unproven “method†now, it will be torn to shreads in seconds. It’s far too early to think of anything like that. As I keep saying, the “current version of the method†may fall flat on its face by 5 February!

7) Do you (or others) see it as a commercial enterprise ultimately, or would it be passed on for all to use free of charge (for the 'greater good')?

The aim is for it to be available free of charge for all the world to use. I am working totally alone on this (and have been all my life), my motivation has always been to get to grips with understanding how Nature works. If I was financially motivated, I would specialise in the Dow and not the weather; or simply abandon my study and concentrate on my profitable business interests

Obviously, if your method is proven, you will be challenging hundreds of years of scientific research into weather and natural phenomena by thousands of professors / scientists around the world and by Governments who have committed hundreds of millions of Dollars, so I fully appreciate why you are keeping a lid on it.

If the “method†can prove itself, I believe it will be merely reiterating what the ancients knew all along. It is for others to answer why they are not using the “methodâ€

I repeat again, the “method†has not proved itself at all yet; its far too early.

If you have found the 'magic key', then I could imagine the immense commercial interest in it. But even more important is the ability to save lives in countries all around the world by organising growing seasons, avoiding natural disasters (moving people away from predicted floods, drought, earthquakes etc) - the spin off's could prove to be the biggest impact made to the life of modern humans and their environment.

I have to say again, I have no “magic keyâ€. However, it’s the saving of lives that appeals to me and also in giving people an opportunity to understand for themselves how Nature works (humans are of course a part of Nature)

I'm looking forward with interest to how this one pans out.

So am I. This is a critical forecast. If it broadly succeeds it will be a major verification of the “methodâ€; if it fails, well, there may still be big positives, as I may be able to learn something new for further enhancement of the “method†– which is the ultimate objective of this “testing stage†of its evolution. If it succeeds I will not be able to learn anything new, as I already have that knowledge.

Like I say above, always be prepared to make wholesale changes to the “method†(there is no shame in getting things wrong, so long you can learn from the failure). This is not a race, a workable method may take longer to find than we anticipate (I learnt this point about 21 years ago!).

[Weather Boy]

Sorry if you're feeling badgered MB, but how is it that in your forecast you say that you are 100% confident, yet in your posts you say that the methodology is not proven and you clearly allow for the possibility of failure?

[Paul Sherman]

If it is proven to be broadly correct over time it will be a particular bonus to Paul and the storm chasers

I did ask over on Ukww before that thread got locked about wether he could give an indication of the Upcoming Tornado Season (As he stated he could do this for anywhere in the world) but never received an Answer, In any case it is not particlarly Hard to predict Troughs entering the Pacific West during May it is more a Set Of Dates during the May 1st to June 30th Timescale I would be Interested In.

I wonder wether Murcie has any ideas to What Areas of the US Conus "Might" be affected this Upcoming Season As I have my own Hunches seeing as this will be a Healthy la Nina season.

My own Guesses would be 4 or 6 Outbreaks that would be Worthy of a "20 Plus" Tornado Day favouring Kansas Northwards and also further East from Arkansas to Illinois.

If he has the time I would certainly be Interested in his thoughts and Intensity of Troughs as La Nina can also favour 1 Week Ridge Patterns.

Regards

Paul S

[MurcieBoy]

Sorry if you're feeling badgered MB, but how is it that in your forecast you say that you are 100% confident, yet in your posts you say that the methodology is not proven and you clearly allow for the possibility of failure?

OK quick reply (as I'm going to lunch!).

In the video I said:

"Given my current level of understanding (which I accept has not reached its ultimate level of maturity), I am almost 100% confident this Great Storm will take place."

That is true, I am almost 100% confident based upon "my current level" of understanding. I currently cannot see how it will fail; BUT as I say above, I am still learning, I could be wrong. That is why it is an "Experimental Forecast"; "testing" out forecasts (based upon my current level of understanding).

Hope that clears it up for you.

[Coast]

However, I will respond to Coast’s questions.

Thank you for the detailed reply.

For me (as I have stated sceptical, but viewing the forthcoming 'event' closely) the crux will be your detailed prediction of the early February storm. In my mind, if you are going to claim this:

If my level of expectation of the 12 Nov ’10 prediction was say 75% positive; my expectation for this forecast is considerably higher.

and then counter it with this:

So here it is folks, the Great North Sea Storm of 2011 that should (if it happens) go down in history:

I would keep it very much to myself until I'd tested it out several hundred times and wasn't putting myself up for a potential public flogging in the stocks! After all, you have been studying this for a number of years, why not wait a few more years until you had tested the method quietly, on your own, before releasing a 'non production ready item' into a number of public forums where debate, questioning and possible misunderstanding will always be thrown at you when it doesn't go to plan.

You can't call a head and then tell us there was always the possibility of flipping the tail!

[MurcieBoy]

I would keep it very much to myself until I'd tested it out several hundred times and wasn't putting myself up for a potential public flogging in the stocks! After all, you have been studying this for a number of years, why not wait a few more years until you had tested the method quietly, on your own, before releasing a 'non production ready item' into a number of public forums where debate, questioning and possible misunderstanding will always be thrown at you when it doesn't go to plan.

I posted the Feb 2011 forecast on here because I was asked by AF #46 and Snooz #45 to offer more forecasts.

OK if your view is the wider feeling on here, that is my last forecast that I will post. I don't want to risk being suspended from another forum.

All the best

Edited January 6, 2011 by MurcieBoy

[Timmytour]

Thank you for the detailed reply.

For me (as I have stated sceptical, but viewing the forthcoming 'event' closely) the crux will be your detailed prediction of the early February storm. In my mind, if you are going to claim this:

and then counter it with this:

I would keep it very much to myself until I'd tested it out several hundred times and wasn't putting myself up for a potential public flogging in the stocks! After all, you have been studying this for a number of years, why not wait a few more years until you had tested the method quietly, on your own, before releasing a 'non production ready item' into a number of public forums where debate, questioning and possible misunderstanding will always be thrown at you when it doesn't go to plan.

You can't call a head and then tell us there was always the possibility of flipping the tail!

I don't see how MB can win here. One poster's telling him he ought to reveal everything the thinks he might know because it will help save lives and another is urging him not even to reveal what his forecasts are!!!!

To me it's simple. Forecast the extremes with the detail that is currently being put on them. The success or otherwise of those forecasts will determine what respect such forecasts are given in the future and intensify the curiosity about the methods used to arrive at them.

Of course MB doesn't have to share what he is currently sharing. But I for one am glad he is. There's plenty of posters telling me in the modelling thread that I can't believe what GFS, ECM or UKMO are modelling next week (unless it's what they want to see). So for once it's nice to see someone put something up from a month out and be prepared to stand by it.

VP... I like the wording of your last post I'm not saying he will be revered like a God if the forecast comes true.... just that his further forecasts will generate more respect and consideration, and will reduce the numbers being prematurely dismissive.

Edited January 6, 2011 by Timmytour

[Coast]

OK if your view is the wider feeling on here, that is my last forecast that I will post. I don't want to risk being suspended from another forum.

No, it's my view as I stated and not that of any other member or Netweather as a forum or a whole. I'm sure there is nothing currently here that would cause the team to even consider such action!

I was thinking on my lunchtime amble, this reminds me a little of Dragons Den. You know what you are going in to face, but if you have got a partially tried/tested prototype, that may let you down in front of a huge audience, isn't it better to wait until another series when you have perfected it in the shed, than run the risk of Bannatyne, Jones, Caan, Paphitis and Meaden ruining another potentially great possibility?

I don't see how MB can win here.

By showing that his method holds water consistently?

[OldMetMan]

I posted the Feb 2011 forecast on here because I was asked by AF #46 and Snooz #45 to offer more forecasts.

OK if your view is the wider feeling on here, that is my last forecast that I will post. I don't want to risk being suspended from another forum.

All the best

I for one DO want you to continue forecasting, I believe what you have created is very important and I see nothing wrong in the way you are doing it. If the February forecast doesn't pan out - so what? Your previous 2 forecasts were pretty damned good, and as you have been at pains to point out, it is a developing system and you will learn as you go.

[lorenzo]

On the thread on Piston Heads he mentions the same method can be used to predict earthquakes, and in reply to one of my questions he suggested anything can be predicted on the earth, and so for that reason the variables he's using are not on this planet.

This I think is entirely relevant if there is a cycle or DNA pattern then the variables have to come from a '4th dimension' i.e looking down on earth? i.e space.

Even if the method is proved worthy, as I have always said, the only place I would discuss it in detail would be in a book, so as to give the reader and the subject my greatest respect...

All I can say is that any method for weather prediction should solely be judged on its results and not how good the method sounds or who advocates it. That is why I say nothing in detail about the method at this stage but focus totally on making sure my forecasts are very specific, as detailed as I can make them, very clear and not open to misunderstanding.

I feel that giving the reader the greatest respect and saying nothing about the methods used are at odds with each other, yes I get the book thing but I concur with Roger that speaking more plainly about some of the background does not necessarly create misunderstanding or the rubbishing of the theory / method.

It is interesting and if you're on to something then good luck with it, however I can see whay many are sceptical where there is word play, cryptic posts and deflection of questioning on any of the methodology being used.

Time - in whatever dimension - will tell. Looking back at the list of Low pressure systems I put up leads me to believe that more often than not a decent LP system will form in or around the UK at the start of February, also this appears to be at the star or the end of decades, give or take 2-3 years, so there is a big hit ratio there for some form of storm. This leads me to wonder if this is a safe forecast where the gist of what you are predicting will come off, but perhaps not to scale detailed in the video. Therefore continuing the suspense?

[k19]

I posted the Feb 2011 forecast on here because I was asked by AF #46 and Snooz #45 to offer more forecasts.

OK if your view is the wider feeling on here, that is my last forecast that I will post. I don't want to risk being suspended from another forum.

All the best

Do not assume that his view is shared by all. If you get this one right then your forecasts will be much anticipated

[lorenzo]

Yep - I would second that, I think the majority of peoples on here would be receptive to alternative forecasts still provided, the November one was very good.

[VillagePlank]

I wonder what the price of cotton is going to do this year and whether it could've been predicted in 1967?

Edited January 6, 2011 by VillagePlank

[nking]

OK if your view is the wider feeling on here, that is my last forecast that I will post. I don't want to risk being suspended from another forum.

All the best

I hope you will continue to post your experimental forecasts and will not be deterred by those that seem to want to bring back the “dunking stool†or worse

[Roger J Smith]

The theory of a correlation between lunar phase and storminess has already been demonstrated in several different ways in research that I've published. Here are a few examples.

I took the daily pressures in the winter months (Dec to Feb) for Malin Head, Ireland, assuming it would best reflect the pressure variations at a point near the most active storm track where it crosses timing line three in my research model. (in that model, there are nine timing lines numbered eastward from a primary timing line in eastern North America). The results of that pressure study showed 14 mb variations between minima at full and new moon, and peaks about mid-way between them. A more detailed study showed that the pressure troughs were strongest when northern max and southern max were overlapping the full and new moons, in late December into early January.

More anecdotal, but this list of major UK storms shows at least the potential of considering the four primary energy peaks as being significant in UK storminess. Events which do not fit this postulate show the nearest syzygy or dec-max event in brackets. The research model does have a third set of peaks which fit these outliers, but I don't want to complicate this discussion too much at this point.

26-27 Nov, 1703 (OS) ... new moon (27 Nov 22z OS, 8 Dec NS)

25 Dec 1821 ............ new moon 24 Dec 13z

6-7 Jan 1839 ........... (full moon 31 Dec 01z)

26-27 Jan 1884 ......... new moon 28 Jan 05z

8 Dec 1886 ............. full moon 11 Dec 09z

27-28 Feb 1903 ......... new moon 27 Feb 10z

31 Jan - 1 Feb 1953 .... full moon 30 Jan 00z

16 Oct 1987 ............ (N Max 13 Oct 01z)

25 Jan 1990 ............ new moon 26 Jan 20z

27 Dec 1998 ............ (N Max 1 Jan, full moon 2 Jan 1999)

11 Jan 2005 ............ new moon 10 Jan 12z

19 Jan 2007 ............ new moon 19 Jan 04z

As you can see, seven out of twelve of these major storms occurred very close to a new moon. Three of the twelve were more than 2.5 days from a primary energy peak. The average separation in timing is less than half that expected at random.

Finally, a third research project is a much larger one, the main body of work in my theoretical development, a study of variations near timing line one in eastern North America. I am currently discussing that in a thread on the American Weather Forum (formerly Eastern US weather forum), at this address:

http://americanwx.com

The thread is active and should appear somewhere on page one of the recent topics page. I am showing the evidence for enhanced winter storminess in the east coast and lower Great Lakes regions, and here again, there is a strong correlation with the primary energy peaks. Such major storms as the blizzard of 1888, the blizzard of 1996, the Great Lakes superstorm of Jan 1978, and last winter's 10 Feb snowstorm, all happened on primary energy peak dates. But the study being developed on that forum relates to about 100 storms in total and shows their distribution.

Meanwhile, the background of the research is that profiles can be generated at any point being studied, showing the temperature, precip and pressure (also in some cases wind and sunshine hours) profiles or signals at event times. For Toronto, the data point that I used to develop the theory, a full moon in the period 15 Dec to 5 Jan when N Max is virtually coincident, has a signal of about 2.5 C deg, 5 times random expected precip, a 10 mb pressure wave, and peaks in wind speed. This is a very smoothed signal of physical reality because the weather events (as postulated) can track across the timing lines between 35 and 55 deg north depending on atmospheric large-scale features, so that what's really needed is subsets of data to establish signals in different weather patterns. That in short is why the long-range forecasts that Fred and I have been making in recent years have shown some improvement (as I think is generally accepted), as one could see from this discussion, it would be really hit or miss to take long-term average signals that smooth out so many different cases. Those long-term signals might show significance but could not be used reliably for forecasting.

Anyway, back to the daily grind.

[Pie Man]

I posted the Feb 2011 forecast on here because I was asked by AF #46 and Snooz #45 to offer more forecasts.

OK if your view is the wider feeling on here, that is my last forecast that I will post. I don't want to risk being suspended from another forum.

All the best

MB,

I am interested to see your 'forecast' but if you won't discuss your method, your workings, or your data sources then you have little credibility in my eyes.

If you now refuse to post any more 'forecasts' unless we stop asking you about 'your method' then that further reinforces my doubt.

I'm sorry, but I'm not willing to worship your ego until you can show me some science.

Pieman.

[PhD in Meteorology and lifetime weather observer]