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

[DoctorHurricane2003]

Since they are investing a real-life system, and not a fake one made up by the meteorologists, I believe the 90 system is correct.

Though for the future they might want to consider using the 70-series to invest extratropical systems such as this.

[Air Force Met]

Since they are investing a real-life system, and not a fake one made up by the meteorologists, I believe the 90 system is correct.

Though for the future they might want to consider using the 70-series to invest extratropical systems such as this.

Please see my post on the 91L thread. They aren't really investigating a system. Per the NRL (via email), the NHC wanted to test the microwave products so the NRL opened up an invest box on a real low...so they could test the microwave imagery on a real-life low. Even if it is extra-tropical you can still test the microwave data to make sure its working good...which is what the NHC is doing and which is why the NRL opened the invest box.

[DoctorHurricane2003]

I know I know, I read it. I was just saying, to avoid confusion here and with people not aware of the test in the air force, etc.

[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.

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

I concur as well Jim. This is something that has been seen before, and noted, that the planets seem to actually spur flare activity on the Sun, and that the Earth does the same. We've also seen the same with comets. Filmed many times, as comets neared and passed by the Sun, immediate flare activity was seen from the surface of the sun.

[canetracker]

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.

Thanks for posting that Senorpepr. I feel 91L was probably not worthy of an invest, but I did not think they would have used a number in the 90's for a test. As you posted in this and an older thread, 80's are for testing.

[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.

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 -

Sorry I have to disagree with you here. The things that I have written about before preceded these strengthening phases.

I even gave out 12-36 hour windows for strengthening periods in some past forecasts and I also usually give exact lag time effects etc...

If I have time I will discuss them over in the Global Weather Forum with you. Or you can read back over some of my discussions from last year.


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 -

Sorry I have to disagree with you here. The things that I have written about before preceded these strengthening phases.

I even gave out 12-36 hour windows for strengthening periods in some past forecasts and I also usually give exact lag time effects etc...

If I have time I will discuss them over in the Global Weather Forum with you. Or you can read back over some of my discussions from last year.


Jim

Sure, I will take a read.

[melhow]

Sounds like The Strong Proton Events are playing back in town.

They're my faaaaaaaaaaavorite...

[jasons2k]

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.

That's 4 (one unamed) out of how many? Mere coincidence IMO.

[curtadams]

More to the point - look how wide the windows are! Andrew is nocked as "lunar-related" because it occured within 2 days of a maximum declination - which makes a 5-day window. Maximum declinations occur twice a month - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_standstill - so 10 days out of 29 in the lunar month fall in this window. So, in the last 15 years, 4 major weather events have occured during lunar cycle conditions that apply ONE-THIRD of the time! Oh, I'm *so* impressed.

[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.

That's 4 (one unamed) out of how many? Mere coincidence IMO.

There's nothing coincidential about it. That is just a short list. The Moon has very predictable cycles, and we can count the lunar maximums north, or south, as well as forecast ahead the closer than normal perigees, for instance. See for yourself. That Moon is not up there for entertainment, and you should always note its positions when forecasting weather events, the same as sea mariners do when wanting to know low and high tides, for example. But, see for yourself. Go back, find the lunar maximums, as recent as this month, and look at the tropical cyclones that took place around the Tropic of Capricorn.

[Theo]

More to the point - look how wide the windows are! Andrew is nocked as "lunar-related" because it occured within 2 days of a maximum declination - which makes a 5-day window. Maximum declinations occur twice a month - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_standstill - so 10 days out of 29 in the lunar month fall in this window. So, in the last 15 years, 4 major weather events have occured during lunar cycle conditions that apply ONE-THIRD of the time! Oh, I'm *so* impressed.

You call a 2-5 day window with a large storm "wide?" I don't think so. There's nothing wide about it. To forecast a window of that size from months in advance? And you call it wide? Please. If you knew anything about Lunar maximums, north or south in declination, then you would know that they are strong within a five-day stretch. As for your "math" - I don't get your point since the list I provided is a short one. You can do your own homework and see for yourself how the Moon is very closely linked to unstable weather such as tropical storms, hurricanes, large snowstorms, etc.