Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,589
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    cryptoblizzard
    Newest Member
    cryptoblizzard
    Joined

My thoughts on the winter turnaround


BethesdaWX

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 217
  • Created
  • Last Reply

why not give them to Ian or mattie g for safe keeping that way we know you didn't edit them? You honestly expect us to believe you given your past?

Well thats the thing, I might edit them, it won't change my forecast at all, I don't think...it's just a gap thing, I'm working on a few things because there are 2 holes in my hypothesis, as I mentioned before. But I won't be keeping it all to myself much longer, at least I think so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well thats the thing, I might edit them, it won't change my forecast at all, I don't think...it's just a gap thing, I'm working on a few things because there are 2 holes in my hypothesis, as I mentioned before. But I won't be keeping it all to myself much longer, at least I think so.

:facepalm:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well thats the thing, I might edit them, it won't change my forecast at all, I don't think...it's just a gap thing, I'm working on a few things because there are 2 holes in my hypothesis, as I mentioned before. But I won't be keeping it all to myself much longer, at least I think so.

Ok. For everyone here who has a shred of scientific integrity, read this post carefully.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, here is my guess for the rest of the season - we are not going to get snow ever again (this season).

Don't ask me how I came up with that, I don't want to jinx it.

thanks.

I think there is a paper Hansen did that supports it.

It has something to do with THE ocean's thermal's inertia's

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there is a paper Hansen did that supports it.

It has something to do with THE ocean's thermal's inertia's

Does Hansen have a degree in anything? It needs to be an oceanography degree with a specific focus on meteorology for me to take it seriously.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alright, let's see here...

I took the IMF graph:

post-96-0-09886500-1327700721.png

Cut out the years that don't show the correlation via your guidelines:

...the correlation should not work well during periods with weak and/or flipping IMF's. I lag the IMF by 3 years...

...correlation is bad 2 years on either side of the IMF flips.

EXAMPLE: See IMF flip in 2000, year 1998- 2002 = poor ENSO correlation for the 2001-2005 period [3 year lag]

post-96-0-55305100-1327700757.png

And superimposed it on the SST map and pushed it forward by three years to account for the lag:

post-96-0-97022000-1327702349.png

...I grabbed a more complete ENSO graph from http://www.cpc.ncep....s-fcsts-web.pdf

I took the AP Index chart, matched up the time scale, and pushed it forward by exactly 6.5 years as per your earlier post:

post-96-0-07366300-1327702975.png

Then I subtracted the irrelavent time periods from the ENSO graph and the AP index graph and came up with this as a final result:

post-96-0-70534000-1327705572.png

Let me know if any of that's wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

how are you editing them if you have made predictions?

you are just 100% wishcasting. this thread totally proves that.

Wrong, as usual.

I'm not wishcasting at all, frankly I'm loking forward to SevereWX season...I've been saying the exact same thing since December when I made the prediction. At your request I will dig up quotes.

Like a 50yr old woman doesn't have anything better to do than harass a 19 year old met student and his experiments...get a life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alright, let's see here...

[attachments=bunch of graphs]

Let me know if any of that's wrong.

Thanks for doing this work. I have no idea if what you've produced means we can look forward to historic snow totals after an otherwise snowless winter, but I'm impressed you took the time to do that, lol. :guitar:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for doing this work. I have no idea if what you've produced means we can look forward to historic snow totals after an otherwise snowless winter, but I'm impressed you took the time to do that, lol. :guitar:

No prob... I was interested in seeing just how well these things line up via BB's constraints and thought it would benefit everyone to see a few steps worth of BB's methodology in one clear graph.

Waiting on BB to confirm if it's correct or not...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alright, let's see here...

I took the IMF graph:

post-96-0-09886500-1327700721.png

Cut out the years that don't show the correlation via your guidelines:

EXAMPLE: See IMF flip in 2000, year 1998- 2002 = poor ENSO correlation for the 2001-2005 period [3 year lag]

post-96-0-55305100-1327700757.png

And super-imposed it on the SST map and pushed it forward by three years to account for the lag:

post-96-0-97022000-1327702349.png

...I grabbed a more complete ENSO graph from http://www.cpc.ncep....s-fcsts-web.pdf

I took the AP Index chart, matched up the time scale, and pushed it forward by exactly 6.5 years as per your earlier post:

post-96-0-07366300-1327702975.png

Then I subtracted the irrelavent time periods from the ENSO graph and the AP index graph from the previous post and came up with this as a final result:

Let me know if any of that's wrong.

Well you did it right, but honestly I completely forgot to mention the important 3rd step which is the Hale Cycle/PDO connection. I was under the impression you would correlate the 1950-1976 period and 1998-2012+ period, not the 1976-1997 period which is why I posted the whole AP history. In my hypothesis, you cannot correlate AP index to ENSO during the solar induced +PDO in response to the 22yr Magnetic Hale Cycle, since a +PDO represents "thermal rebound". PDO/ENSO are almost 1 entity.

You'll find a better correlation in the 1950-1976 period, and the 1998-present period. When the IMF goes south, the PDO flips. So just do the same thing but eliminating the +PDO period.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well you did it right, but honestly I completely forgot to mention the important 3rd step which is the Hale Cycle/PDO connection. I was under the impression you would correlate the 1950-1976 period and 1998-2012+ period, not the 1976-1997 period which is why I posted the whole AP history. In my hypothesis, you cannot correlate AP index to ENSO during the solar induced +PDO in response to the 22yr Magnetic Hale Cycle, since a +PDO represents "thermal rebound". PDO/ENSO are almost 1 entity.

You'll find a better correlation in the 1950-1976 period, and the 1998-present period. When the IMF goes south, the PDO flips. So just do the same thing but eliminating the +PDO period.

I did do the 1998-present period using your constraints (obviously some of that got cut out), and the IMF graph you gave me only goes back to 1967, so I don't see how you would have expected me to go earlier than that (or how you would have used the IMF in your "formula" unless you have another graph with the earlier history).

That's also a really small dataset.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did do the 1998-present period using your constraints (obviously some of that got cut out), and the IMF graph you gave me only goes back to 1967, so I don't see how you would have expected me to go earlier than that (or how you would have used the IMF in your "formula" unless you have another graph with the earlier history).

That's also a really small dataset.

I know, I'm not sure how I left that step out, but the polar fields can be simulated in reconstruction:

Vuk-polar-fields-10.png

Ap-Index-1932-now.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...