Here we go again.....Same as last year.... year before....

[Jim Hughes]

Okay folks. I was told last year that I can not talk about certain things in The Talkin Tropics forum. So I must abide by the rules. But some people might have missed what occurred yesterday. So here's the link to an interesting event. At least from my perspective. It's in The Global Weather Forum.

When does coincidence end ? Correlation means nothing of course but one should not disregard something just because we currently are unable to understand a possible relationship.

I am referring to this event and 91L Invest.


http://www.storm2k.org/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=83796



Jim

[HouTXmetro]

I'm lost, in laymen terms please.

[MWatkins]

Okay folks. I was told last year that I can not talk about certain things in The Talkin Tropics forum. So I must abide by the rules. But some people might have missed what occurred yesterday. So here's the link to an interesting event. At least from my perspective. It's in The Global Weather Forum.

When does coincidence end ? Correlation means nothing of course but one should not disregard something just because we currently are unable to understand a possible relationship.

I am referring to this event and 91L Invest.


http://www.storm2k.org/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=83796



Jim

First of all I don't believe we really have an invest here. There are no dvorak estimates anywhere supporting TC or sub-tropical classification, I can't find any model runs anywhere, and ATCF isn't showing any record of an invest classification.

TPC isn't giving it special treatment and there is nothing at all tropical about the low pressure system out there, nor will there be with water temps where they are and the upper shear the way it is.

Also, if this were the first true invest of 2006 I think it should be tagged 90L instead of 91L. It oculd be this is really valid and the computer systems aren't configured yet, but I doubt it.

It's just a late season non-tropical low pressure deal with the potential to perhaps acquire some sort of limited sub-tropical characteristics at some fuzzy time in the mid-term future.

I don't think it's a very compelling argument for GW or the other thing you're not able to discuss.

Of course I could be completely wrong about everything I've written here, too.

MW

[Air Force Met]

First of all I don't believe we really have an invest here. There are no dvorak estimates anywhere supporting TC or sub-tropical classification, I can't find any model runs anywhere, and ATCF isn't showing any record of an invest classification.

Of course I could be completely wrong about everything I've written here, too.

MW

You aren't wrong. This is nothing but giving the team practice at pointing the site at a feature. This is an extratropical cyclone. If the NRL posted invests on systems such as this...we would be going year-round. This is nothing. Period. Period. Period. Testing. Testing. May I have your attention please.

Look at the 300mb...you don't GET any more baroclinic than that. And please...look at the cyclone-phase...

http://moe.met.fsu.edu/cyclonephase/gfs ... 18/25.html

It's cold-core. The NRL isn't going to issue a REAL invest on a COLD CORE system. Come on guys. Let's use our noggins...it's why God gave them to us!

They are practicing...or else someone's a real knothead and needs to go back to Keesler and take Dyno I and Dyno II over again.

[Jim Hughes]

First of all I don't believe we really have an invest here. There are no dvorak estimates anywhere supporting TC or sub-tropical classification, I can't find any model runs anywhere, and ATCF isn't showing any record of an invest classification.

TPC isn't giving it special treatment and there is nothing at all tropical about the low pressure system out there, nor will there be with water temps where they are and the upper shear the way it is.

Also, if this were the first true invest of 2006 I think it should be tagged 90L instead of 91L. It oculd be this is really valid and the computer systems aren't configured yet, but I doubt it.

It's just a late season non-tropical low pressure deal with the potential to perhaps acquire some sort of limited sub-tropical characteristics at some fuzzy time in the mid-term future.

I don't think it's a very compelling argument for GW or the other thing you're not able to discuss.

Of course I could be completely wrong about everything I've written here, too.

MW

I can only go by what was posted. Or what the officials put out. I think you would agree that everybody always has an opinion about whether such and such a storm is stronger or weaker or where's it heading.

As far as believing in relationships. Well like I have said many times before. All I have ever asked is for people to pay attention. I have given out methodology rules to follow. This may only be a very small part in the whole process but I think that this is fair. Especially when someone is trying to bring along a new area of science.

BTW I do not follow the tropics as much as most people around here so I was recently fairly shocked when I noticed how closely the South Pacific had followed my theories.

One could speculate about the presence of the strong positive SOI and how this might be enhancing the relationship in much the same manner that the favorable AMO might be. Just a thought.


Jim

[Jim Hughes]

First of all I don't believe we really have an invest here. There are no dvorak estimates anywhere supporting TC or sub-tropical classification, I can't find any model runs anywhere, and ATCF isn't showing any record of an invest classification.

Of course I could be completely wrong about everything I've written here, too.

MW

You aren't wrong. This is nothing but giving the team practice at pointing the site at a feature. This is an extratropical cyclone. If the NRL posted invests on systems such as this...we would be going year-round. This is nothing. Period. Period. Period. Testing. Testing. May I have your attention please.

Look at the 300mb...you don't GET any more baroclinic than that. And please...look at the cyclone-phase...

http://moe.met.fsu.edu/cyclonephase/gfs ... 18/25.html

It's cold-core. The NRL isn't going to issue a REAL invest on a COLD CORE system. Come on guys. Let's use our noggins...it's why God gave them to us!

They are practicing...or else someone's a real knothead and needs to go back to Keesler and take Dyno I and Dyno II over again.

It would not matter if it was cold core low or extra tropical cyclone. I have written before about this relationship with even winter time storms.


Jim

[Air Force Met]

It would not matter if it was cold core low or extra tropical cyclone. I have written before about this relationship with even winter time storms.


Jim

What about the occurance of winter storms, even during a period of solar mins (you know...when we actually used to have one)? or the fact that this particular system was progged in it's current location and strength LONG before the flare even left the sun?

[MWatkins]

First of all I don't believe we really have an invest here. There are no dvorak estimates anywhere supporting TC or sub-tropical classification, I can't find any model runs anywhere, and ATCF isn't showing any record of an invest classification.

Of course I could be completely wrong about everything I've written here, too.

MW

You aren't wrong. This is nothing but giving the team practice at pointing the site at a feature. This is an extratropical cyclone. If the NRL posted invests on systems such as this...we would be going year-round. This is nothing. Period. Period. Period. Testing. Testing. May I have your attention please.

Look at the 300mb...you don't GET any more baroclinic than that. And please...look at the cyclone-phase...

http://moe.met.fsu.edu/cyclonephase/gfs ... 18/25.html

It's cold-core. The NRL isn't going to issue a REAL invest on a COLD CORE system. Come on guys. Let's use our noggins...it's why God gave them to us!

They are practicing...or else someone's a real knothead and needs to go back to Keesler and take Dyno I and Dyno II over again.

Thanks for the reassurance....I didn't think I was...but the satellite/pressure analysis portion of my tropical brain doesn't kick in for another month so I had to leave myself an out.

BTW I do not follow the tropics as much as most people around here so I was recently fairly shocked when I noticed how closely the South Pacific had followed my theories.

One could speculate about the presence of the strong positive SOI and how this might be enhancing the relationship in much the same manner that the favorable AMO might be. Just a thought.

Jim...my post is probably better suited to the other thread. I understand you're working off what's being posted in here. I was moreso replying to the idea that this is some sort of Invest, and not really addressing the content of your post...so that's my fault and I didnt mean to hijack the thread.

On a broader scale there could very well be something going on between solar activity and all sorts of weather happening on this planet, and other thank knowing that solar energy drives all weather and aspects about albedo and milankovich cycles and etc. I'm really not qualified to chat much about those kind of things, other than to mention it as in interesting theory.

MW

[Derecho]

I'm lost, in laymen terms please.

Sometimes when you're confused and don't understand something, it's not your fault.

This is one of those times.

[KatDaddy]

Perhaps I am way off basis but solar flares may play a role in some way shape or form but correlating a test Invest is absurd for this time of year. I have an old co-worker/friend who believes the rapid strengthening of Rita and Katrina was due to solar flares. Well I will watch this hurricane season and sea if this may hold some truth.

[mobilebay]

I'm lost, in laymen terms please.

Sometimes when you're confused and don't understand something, it's not your fault.

This is one of those times.

You made my day Derocho!

[Jim Hughes]

I'm lost, in laymen terms please.

Sometimes when you're confused and don't understand something, it's not your fault.

This is one of those times.

If you are also confused than you should ask. But I think the appropriate place would be in the other forum.


Jim

[Air Force Met]

Perhaps I am way off basis but solar flares may play a role in some way shape or form but correlating a test Invest is absurd for this time of year. I have an old co-worker/friend who believes the rapid strengthening of Rita and Katrina was due to solar flares. Well I will watch this hurricane season and sea if this may hold some truth.

I concur with your post. I do not understand how it could be possible at all that a Ex.trop. storm of this strength (and let's face it...it ain't much) and which has been progged by models to be at this strength for a couple of days, is impacted by a solar flare...since it is the strength the models said it would be long before the solar flare left the sun and had any impact on it.

Now...if the models had said it would be X mbs...and it was X-20 mbs...then maybe...but it's the same as progged before the earth knew there would be a flare...so unless the earth (and the GFS model) has ESP and can tell the future...and then takes it's ESP calculations and inputs it into the model output...this didn't happen this time.

[Ixolib]

I'm lost, in laymen terms please.

Sometimes when you're confused and don't understand something, it's not your fault.

This is one of those times.

Sounds like a song...

[Jim Hughes]

Perhaps I am way off basis but solar flares may play a role in some way shape or form but correlating a test Invest is absurd for this time of year. I have an old co-worker/friend who believes the rapid strengthening of Rita and Katrina was due to solar flares. Well I will watch this hurricane season and sea if this may hold some truth.

I concur with your post. I do not understand how it could be possible at all that a Ex.trop. storm of this strength (and let's face it...it ain't much) and which has been progged by models to be at this strength for a couple of days, is impacted by a solar flare...since it is the strength the models said it would be long before the solar flare left the sun and had any impact on it.

Now...if the models had said it would be X mbs...and it was X-20 mbs...then maybe...but it's the same as progged before the earth knew there would be a flare...so unless the earth (and the GFS model) has ESP and can tell the future...and then takes it's ESP calculations and inputs it into the model output...this didn't happen this time.

Your assumptions seem logically correct but you are also assuming that the earth's environment has no idea what lies ahead. Certain variables precede solar eruptions or space weather impulses. This might feed into the system before hand and the dice are possibly loaded ahead of time.

Changes in the ionosphere have been seen PRIOR to major flarings. The author of the paper theorized magnetic field reconnection between the earth's magnetic field and the Sun's as an explanation. So the earth's electrical environment actually responded before we saw the event even occur.

There is an awful lot we do not understand here. Talks like this can only help in my opinion.



Jim

[Air Force Met]

Your assumptions seem logically correct but you are also assuming that the earth's environment has no idea what lies ahead. Certain variables precede solar eruptions or space weather impulses. This might feed into the system before hand and the dice are possibly loaded ahead of time.

Changes in the ionosphere have been seen PRIOR to major flarings. The author of the paper theorized magnetic field reconnection between the earth's magnetic field and the Sun's as an explanation. So the earth's electrical environment actually responded before we saw the event even occur.

There is an awful lot we do not understand here. Talks like this can only help in my opinion.

Jim

Theorized? So...nothing tangible...and we are talking several DAYS out here....not just a little bit. So...how many DAYS out do these reconnects and changes take place? Then we can go BACK and look at how many days the model had predicted the formation of an Ex.trop cyclone.

But the bottom line is the model doesn't have that built into it's equations...neither does it have changes in the ionosphere built in. It has to have tangible atmospheric CHANGES to input...not in the ionosphere...in the troposphere and stratosphere. That would NOT happen until the arrival of a flare (assuming it had an impact at all). The model predicted cyclogenesis based on dynamics in the troposphere and strasophere...not the ionosphere.

I do know this also...even when there is nothing going on in the sun, extratropical systems form off the coast of the southeast US. I also know that there are the same number of intense extratropical systems during a solar min year (a real one) than there are during a year with massive flares.

Extratropical cyclones happen when nothing is going on in the sun...and they happen when something is going on...and they are about the same strength each time. If there were a copnnection...we would see a measurable global decrease during a solar min in ET cyclone activity and intensity and a measurable peak during the max. That does NOT occur.

If you cannot MEASURE it...you cannot scientifically study it. I cannot measure it...because I see no evidence of it. You show me evidence over decades of extratropical cyclopnes decreasing in global intensity and numbers during solar mins and vice versa...and I'll consider it.

But I've been a Met during a couple of mins and maxs...and never wondered where all the extratropical cyclones have gone.

[wxwatcher91]

Also, if this were the first true invest of 2006 I think it should be tagged 90L instead of 91L. It oculd be this is really valid and the computer systems aren't configured yet, but I doubt it.
MW

They changed the number up to 91L because 90L was used already for the South Atlantic system in March.

[Jim Hughes]

Your assumptions seem logically correct but you are also assuming that the earth's environment has no idea what lies ahead. Certain variables precede solar eruptions or space weather impulses. This might feed into the system before hand and the dice are possibly loaded ahead of time.

Changes in the ionosphere have been seen PRIOR to major flarings. The author of the paper theorized magnetic field reconnection between the earth's magnetic field and the Sun's as an explanation. So the earth's electrical environment actually responded before we saw the event even occur.

There is an awful lot we do not understand here. Talks like this can only help in my opinion.

Jim

Theorized? So...nothing tangible...and we are talking several DAYS out here....not just a little bit. So...how many DAYS out do these reconnects and changes take place? Then we can go BACK and look at how many days the model had predicted the formation of an Ex.trop cyclone.

But the bottom line is the model doesn't have that built into it's equations...neither does it have changes in the ionosphere built in. It has to have tangible atmospheric CHANGES to input...not in the ionosphere...in the troposphere and stratosphere. That would NOT happen until the arrival of a flare (assuming it had an impact at all). The model predicted cyclogenesis based on dynamics in the troposphere and strasophere...not the ionosphere.

I do know this also...even when there is nothing going on in the sun, extratropical systems form off the coast of the southeast US. I also know that there are the same number of intense extratropical systems during a solar min year (a real one) than there are during a year with massive flares.

Extratropical cyclones happen when nothing is going on in the sun...and they happen when something is going on...and they are about the same strength each time. If there were a copnnection...we would see a measurable global decrease during a solar min in ET cyclone activity and intensity and a measurable peak during the max. That does NOT occur.

If you cannot MEASURE it...you cannot scientifically study it. I cannot measure it...because I see no evidence of it. You show me evidence over decades of extratropical cyclopnes decreasing in global intensity and numbers during solar mins and vice versa...and I'll consider it.

But I've been a Met during a couple of mins and maxs...and never wondered where all the extratropical cyclones have gone.

Sorry Air Force Met. I am not trying to be disrespectful here but it looks to me like you do not follow space weather all that much. You also have not read what I have specifically written about in the past.

I have never said that all areas are effected so I have no idea why you bring up global tropical intensity levels. Baranyi and Ludmany research papers support possible regional influences depending upon many different variables.

I have no idea what you have observed over the years so I am not to sure how you can deny that their is no connection. Nor anyone for that matter. My methodology is unique so you can not say that other scientific researchers have also looked into this. One, well known , national meteorologist, basically mentioned this about me over the radio air waves last year on a local radio show.

Do you look at LASCO images every day? Or do you read the Daily Events listing to find out what has occurred? Or do you monitor the solar wind components on a daily basis also? I apologize if you do but I am going to guess that you do not. You are not alone though.

The cyclical nature of the solar cycle is somewhat irrelevant in the overall scheme of things here. So minimum and maximum are not all that important in regards to the relationship with storminess. What type of activity occurs is more important.

One of the strongest geomagnetic storms ever occurred in February 1986 after a DSF / Proton event. This preceded solar minimum by about seven months. The strongest x-ray flare (X-Class) in almost four years occurred in July 96', which was 3 months after solar minimum. (BTW this was when Bertha formed.) No stronger flare occurred for sixteen months until l November 1997.

Solar minimum is an extended average of the monthly sunspot number. Nothing more. It is a somewhat frivolous observation count that has has continued into modern times. I have never referred to any type of sunspot count when either forecasting or writing up a discussion.

My hypothesis has dealt with many other variables and last year's tropical season gave them more credence in my opinion. We may have been five years away from solar maximum last year but it was by far and away the most conducive eruptional time frame because of the favorable variables for tropical enhancement. This is not a post analysis. I have written about this for years and I wrote about it in this very forum before the likes of Katrina , Rita, Wilma and others.

As far as the magnetic field reconnection and the researchers theory. You would have to take it up with him. I believe he showed equations and talked about Joule heating but I might be mistaken. It has been a long time since I read the paper. I was only using it as a reference point. anyway.

I was just trying to point out that there are many things we do not understand. If you go back a 2-3 decades ago most people within the community disregarded any connection between localized changes in the ionosphere and earthquake activity. But minor changes have also been seen here. I know this is different but we are still talking about the earth and the ionosphere talking to each other.

I am sorry but the earth has a very complex electromagnetic environment. And it resides in a very complex electromagnetic environment.


Jim

[Theo]

Perhaps I am way off basis but solar flares may play a role in some way shape or form but correlating a test Invest is absurd for this time of year. I have an old co-worker/friend who believes the rapid strengthening of Rita and Katrina was due to solar flares. Well I will watch this hurricane season and sea if this may hold some truth.

More like Lunar Maximums actually. The Moon moves all flexible matter - and the atmosphere - or air - as well. If you look at lunar positions correlated exactly to some hurricanes and large snowstorms -

Hurricane Katrina slams into the Gulf Coast
August 29, 2005
Moon at maximum north declination on August 28, 2005

Hurricane Wilma pounds the Yucatan Peninsula
October 21-23, 2005
Moon at maximum north declination October 22, 2005

Atlantic Coast Blizzard of 1993
March 12-13, 1993
Moon at maximum south declination on March 14, 1993

Hurricane Andrew
August 24, 1992
Moon at maximum north declination on August 22 1992

These Lunar positions correlate exactly to unstable atmospheric conditions. With the Moon, it is gravtiational, and apogee and perigee cycles mark Earthly weather. The Sun regulates the seasons, and with the geomagnetic influences - everything in the solar system plays a part. Remember that every square foot of the Earth is pierced by geomagnetic lines of force.

[senorpepr]

Also, if this were the first true invest of 2006 I think it should be tagged 90L instead of 91L. It oculd be this is really valid and the computer systems aren't configured yet, but I doubt it.
MW

Mike,

While I agree that this isn't invest-worthy, I should point out a few things. Technically, a test should be labelled an 80-series number instead of a 90-series. However, beyond that, I wanted to say that it was labelled 91L because 90L was used to ID a tropical disturbance in the South Atlantic a few months ago.