Solar wind increased and Harvey & TD became disorganize

[Jim Hughes]

It seems like everyone is somewhat puzzled why TD 9 never became better organized yesterday. Well the solar wind speed was rising somewhat considerably and this has can have effect on systems. Emily comes to mind right away. We had some talks about it in the TWC forum last month.

Do you remember when Emily became very disorganized in the Caribbean while she was a tropical storm? The solar wind speed rose sharply during this time.

The solar winds were hovering in the low 400's late on 8/4. The hourly average bottomed out 8/4/20z. (400 km/sec) It fluctuated in the 400-415 range until 8/15/10z.

The solar wind speed started rising steadily there after and the highest hourly average the past 12-15 hours was at 8/5/23z. ( 520 km/sec)

It is now subsiding slightly and TD 9 seems to be getting it's act together now. The solar wind has a connection to these storms . If you read the research papers that I have spoken about you would understand how this might possibly be occurring.


Jim

[Tampa Bay Hurricane]

Yes now it makes sense. Given this correlation between solar wind speed and tropical activity I can see why TD 9 was not developing yesterday. Well, as it's looking more favorable today, given the subsidence in solar wind speed, how long will the subsidence last?

[Jim Hughes]

Yes now it makes sense. Given this correlation between solar wind speed and tropical activity I can see why TD 9 was not developing yesterday. Well, as it's looking more favorable today, given the subsidence in solar wind speed, how long will the subsidence last?

The solar wind speed has continued to diminish this morning and it is currently down to around the 450 km/sec. range.....( Have you noticed how lows are trying to form around the gulf and SC coast today during this diminishing state?)

The solar wind speed should continue to weaken over the next day or two unless a partial CME arrives. DXLC reported an erupting filament around the central meridian yesterday and they mention a partial halo CME.

I have yet to view any LASCO images. This eruption could cause an increase in solar wind speed sometime around the latter half of the 8th...if true...and if it was big enough....I will post something if it does rise

[Tampa Bay Hurricane]

Yee-haw--- looks like more activity these next few days due to diminished solar wind speed- the tropics should bring it on, cause I am ready to watch awesome storms (just as long as they don't hurt anyone on any land). YEE HAWWW!

[Windy]

This is just me speaking, but I'd take you much more seriously if you made these sorts of predictions and correlations before the "desired outcome" happened. Maybe give everyone a heads up and say "this storm is going to do this" (something very specific) a good day or two before it does it. With special props to you if your forcast doesn't mirror the NHC's. It's not exactly hard to come up with random correlations after the fact.

Not to mention that causation and correlation are entirely different things, and you've provided nothing but correlations and unsupported speculation about why the correlation should be seen as the causation.

[Jim Hughes]

This is just me speaking, but I'd take you much more seriously if you made these sorts of predictions and correlations before the "desired outcome" happened. Maybe give everyone a heads up and say "this storm is going to do this" (something very specific) a good day or two before it does it. With special props to you if your forcast doesn't mirror the NHC's. It's not exactly hard to come up with random correlations after the fact.

Not to mention that causation and correlation are entirely different things, and you've provided nothing but correlations and unsupported speculation about why the correlation should be seen as the causation.

First let me tell you Windy that it is very hard to post here..write longer e-mail discussions ...do research and have a family life... I actually did make a forecast for TD 8 but it did not form as quickly as I thought.

The favorable parameters that I stated for my reasoning stayed around for the next couple of days and TD 8 formed. As well as TD 9.

These forecasting parameters are not new and many people received them prior to the season.....again.....

I used to make only 72 hour outlooks years ago but I found that I could grasp everyones attention more with 36 hour outlooks. One well respected individual told me years ago that if you are going to bring forth a bold theory you need to make bold forecasts.

I think it would be some what hypocritical for my forecasts to continually be different that he NHC's since I think the atmosphere responds to these changes. So of course it would be less likely that they would be different.

As far as a reasoning for these possible influences. I pointed you toward several different research papers. Why would you totally disagree with this possible correlation.

Do you assume that since no mention of the tropics was made that there is no possible relationship? The NAO can effect the tropics....Everything causes waves and they cause feedbacks....

Most historical solar- climate research areas have shown that space weather seems to have a stronger winter time relationship with the Northern Hemisphere compared to other areas.

Now research dollars are very hard to come by. Especially in this field. So anyone lucky enough to get some is going to try and concentrate on areas where they might pay off.

Really reliable solar wind measurements, particles etc... have only been around for a 25-30 years. Then you have to take into consideration the amount of tropical storms...data base small.... compared to things like air temperature readings ..barometric pressures etc....... So it does not surprise me that no extensive research study has ever been done yet

You know very well the bigger the data base correlation the more likely that it will be accepted. If it is statistically shows a relationship.

Plus one other note . Today's science says that it is not a relationship until statistically proving. I can not do a statistical analysis and I have spoken about this dozens of time over the years. So you are telling me that this is definitely not a science because one has not been performed.

Well science operated for centuries without this method and they sure seem to have advanced quite well in my opinion.

Do not take this out of context. A statistical analysis would give this credence if it pasts the litmus test but do not assume that it is a pseudoscience just because one has never been done on it.

I am quoting Jim Cantore hear....or paraphrasing him..off of memory. I feel I can name him here since this was said over the radio air waves.

He was specifically asked on a local Washington DC radio show on the Wednesday before the big coastal storm, last January , about both me and my methods. Tony Kornheiser , the shows host, had received a forecast from me on January 4th, calling for this event around this time, as well as some cold wave dates ...those occurred also.

Jim said that my theories were definitely unique and that they had never been proving scientifically but they also had never been scientifically disproving either.

He like may others have received numerous forecasts-outlooks over the years. So if anyone should be my judges it should be these people. Ask one of them to go on record calling this a pseudoscience. I guarantee you they will pass on that statement. They will say they do not know. They have seen to much occur when I say it will occur.

This is not something I just stumbled across Windy. I have been doing this for a long time now. People like yourself have just recently heard about me and my methods so you assume that I make these relationships up after the fact....Sorry .....this is not true

[Windy]

This is just me speaking, but I'd take you much more seriously if you made these sorts of predictions and correlations before the "desired outcome" happened. Maybe give everyone a heads up and say "this storm is going to do this" (something very specific) a good day or two before it does it. With special props to you if your forecast doesn't mirror the NHC's. It's not exactly hard to come up with random correlations after the fact.

Not to mention that causation and correlation are entirely different things, and you've provided nothing but correlations and unsupported speculation about why the correlation should be seen as the causation.

First let me tell you Windy that it is very hard to post here..write longer e-mail discussions ...do research and have a family life... I actually did make a forecast for TD 8 but it did not form as quickly as I thought.

Oh, I appreciate that it is. But you go through so much effort to push an idea and to tell everyone that you were right after the fact. What I'm saying is that most of your verbiage wouldn't even be needed if you could provide specific, accurate FOREcasts using your methodology. Your work would speak for itself. As it is, you spend 3/4 of your time fighting off people like me, who think that what you're doing isn't science. (Note: I'm not saying that research into space weather and its possible effect on atmospheric weather is not a science -- I'm just saying that the way you're going about it here on this board isn't science.)

I used to make only 72 hour outlooks years ago but I found that I could grasp everyones attention more with 36 hour outlooks. One well respected individual told me years ago that if you are going to bring forth a bold theory you need to make bold forecasts.

That's pretty much what I'm telling you, too. Make some bold forecasts, especially when your forecast would go against the grain of "established" meteorology. Put your neck on the line. It's not useful for you to wait until AFTER something has happened and then point back into the past and try to show some sort of correlation between your theories (which you seem to think are far enough along to be of use in forecasting) and what actually happened.

BTW, accurately forecasting 72 hours out is a great deal more difficult than accurately forecasting 36 hours out. Or, that is to say, the degree of uncertainty is much greater that far out. So, if you could consistently nail it that far out significantly better than the average, then people would certainly listen to you.

I think it would be some what hypocritical for my forecasts to continually be different that he NHC's since I think the atmosphere responds to these changes. So of course it would be less likely that they would be different.

I see where you're coming from here, but surely you run into instances where you feel your theories better predict what will happen than established meteorology, which leaves space weather out of the equation. If that never happens to you, then using space weather for forecasting isn't very useful, is it, since you can get the same results using traditional methods? Of course, that doesn't make research into it useless, since it's always nice to know the cause of things, but it doesn't do the world of weather forecasting any good if you can't show them how they can do it better. And the only way to do that here on this board (since you don't have a legion of grad students willing to execute your research directives) is to do it better first, and then show the establishment how you did it.

As far as a reasoning for these possible influences. I pointed you toward several different research papers. Why would you totally disagree with this possible correlation.

Yeah, you seem to do that a lot, point to other people's work without explaining how it ties into what you're talking about. Consider just explaining things yourself, summing up the supporting research, and then using the papers as supplemental footnote info. Will all due respect, I'm not going to go plow through some giant research paper on the off chance that it somehow relates to whatever strange thing you're claiming.

Do you assume that since no mention of the tropics was made that there is no possible relationship? The NAO can effect the tropics....Everything causes waves and they cause feedbacks....

Can, maybe, etc. Show how, do research, publish research, etc. You're not doing that that I can see. I can say that maybe God is responsible for all weather and that Hurricanes require a team of angels pulling in different directions in each quadrant of the storm. But without some primary research proving, or at the very least strongly suggesting, this -- well, why should anyone care what I think? Unless you're hoping that someone else will go and do all of this research for you and steal the credit for the discovery -- which, if you're right, will be exactly what happens.

Now research dollars are very hard to come by. Especially in this field. So anyone lucky enough to get some is going to try and concentrate on areas where they might pay off.

I agree that it's tough to find money these days for weather research (just look at Project Vortex 2 -- even that's not assured, and that has some darned clear-cut science behind it), but if indeed one could forecast significantly better than the current average using these sorts of new methods, SOMEONE will fund research into it. Of course, you would first require a pot to pee in, so to speak, which means you would need to form a coherent, logical hypothesis based on what IS out there right now, and would need to appear to be an actual scientist willing to use the scientific method to get the answer.

Really reliable solar wind measurements, particles etc... have only been around for a 25-30 years. Then you have to take into consideration the amount of tropical storms...data base small.... compared to things like air temperature readings ..barometric pressures etc....... So it does not surprise me that no extensive research study has ever been done yet

Honestly, you don't need a ton of money to do the research you're suggesting. You really just need a strong background in statistics and a good idea of what you're looking for. 30 years should be plenty of data to at least show if there is something to what you're talking about. Write any peer-reviewed papers on the topic lately? Again, if you're really on to something here, you're wasting your time with these posts on Weather Boards. Especially if you're right, since you won't get any credit if you don't do any of the research.

You know very well the bigger the data base correlation the more likely that it will be accepted. If it is statistically shows a relationship.

No, it's that there is a strong body of science behind current forecasting methods. There isn't any real science to speak of behind your theories. That's what scientists do: they use science to answer questions. Apparently most scientists don't think that your theories (I use that term in the loosest sense, since theories technically require a hypothesis and a large body of supporting research) answer any worthwhile questions, lest there would be vigorous work going on to research the effects of space weather on tropical systems. YOU seem to have an active interest, but apparently no interest in actually following through with the research, since you spend your days here, trying to convince amateur weather enthusiasts instead of writing that earth-shattering research study that you seem to believe you have in you. This blows my mind, since I'd think you'd want to be That Famous Guy who discovered, researched, and proved that space weather drives tropical weather.

Plus one other note . Today's science says that it is not a relationship until statistically proving. I can not do a statistical analysis and I have spoken about this dozens of time over the years. So you are telling me that this is definitely not a science because one has not been performed.

Well, duh. That's what statistics are, Jim. They show relationships. It's a form of logical research. If you can't show it with statistics, and you can't show it through other logical, scientific methods, then you've got nothing of real value. You may as well just say that elves control the weather: it's equally plausible as every other non-science driven theory.

Well science operated for centuries without this method and they sure seem to have advanced quite well in my opinion.

We've come farther, science and technology wise, in the past century than we have in the preceding 2,000 years combined. It took us 20,000 years to go from the horse to the car. A little more than 50 years later we were playing golf on the moon. Today we're discussing all of this in a virtual world created within a virtual universe, designed entirely so that geeks like myself could shoot the bull about the real-time photos of the clouds I get streamed to me from a camera spinning 22,000 miles above the globe. Sorry, the Platonic method has nothing on ol Aristotle. Your problem is pretty clear now: you can't actually show what you want to show with science, so you say "forget science! They didn't need science back in the eleventh century!"

Jim said that my theories were definitely unique and that they had never been proving scientifically but they also had never been scientifically disproving either.

Which is just a nice way of blowing you off, in my opinion. Candidly, I don't really care how many people you bounce your ideas off of, I'm more interested in seeing primary research. The fact that you've been at this for a long, long time and that you've bounced your ideas off of so many people and nothing has come of it yet doesn't exactly help your case, IMO.

This is not something I just stumbled across Windy. I have been doing this for a long time now. People like yourself have just recently heard about me and my methods so you assume that I make these relationships up after the fact....Sorry .....this is not true

Well, until you actually somehow demonstrate otherwise, logically, the valid thing for me to do is to file your ideas in the same place that I file the possibility of ghosts, aliens, and the Loch Ness Monster. Interesting ideas with lots of anecdotal accounts, but nothing of substance to lend it support. Really, the ball is in your court, Jim, but if you haven't taken it to the hoop in all the many years that you've been "looking into" this stuff, then my proddings probably won't do anything to motivate you. Which is too bad, because, if you're to be believed, you could be one of the more famous researchers of the decade. The fact that you haven't and that you aren't makes me think that you've probably got nothing.

[Matt-hurricanewatcher]

What would happen if this went under a 100?

[tropical]

Two words: Scientific Method

Another couple to consider are Hypothesis and Theory

Here's two more relevant words: Raven Paradox

Understanding how these pairs relate to eachother are key in determining how one should approach this topic.

And in conclusion, I'll gracefully leave the discussion with this pair: Peer Review


Science... it's not just for breakfast anymore.

[Jim Hughes]

What would happen if this went under a 100?

The solar wind speed?

It can not get that low if what we believe to be true...is true . I think I have seen it in the upper 200's before on a few occasions. The solar wind speed, and the IMF's magnetic field components, is related to the solar magnetic field strength and the structure of it's origin of source on the solar surface.

It would almost be impossible, from what we know currently about the sun , compared to other stars, for it to attain the level of strength needed to hold back the solar wind. Actually it would be quite scary.

That extreme magnetic field strength would have to be released sometime. I would not want to be around for that show.

Remember the solar wind speed is only on part of what I have talked about. It seems to be what everyone likes to follow through. Or talk about.



Jim

[Jim Hughes]

Well Windy...Like I mentioned in an earlier thread I do like to get into dialog's's like this because they are meaningless from my standpoint but you seemed to have tried to be analytical so I figured I would reply back to you one more time.

Although I must confess I feel like I am in the dark with you because I have no idea about your expertise. So you may very well be acting like another individual that I ran across years ago but I will not go into that..although you do eerily remind me of this gentleman.

This has nothing to do with parts of your critique but I have a hard time understanding how anyone can critique something when you fail to read up on the subject matters to what I am referring to.

I completely understand your comments about how one is supposed to bring forth a theory within the scientific establishment but you seem to be stuck on only this. I am not disagreeing with this part. How many times must I repeat this statement?

Do you understand the Bx or By components of the IMF or any other magnetic field vectors or components? Or what the proton density level is? What about how a coronal windstream differs from other high wind speed associated events?

I am not going to take the time of explaining or touch base on Tinsley's theory of electroscavening to you or anyone else. I am posting things for people to read ..to learn....You need to read these papers yourself.

If you think that you are above this and you have nothing to learn than that is fine with me. This shows me allot about your character as well. A few other people have said that they read some of them. So I definitely would respect their comments much more openly.

I find it quite humorous , that what you accuse me of, assumptions, you do quite well yourself. You make all sorts of assumptions like that JC was just blowing me off kindly or you say my theories must be wrong because nobody has come forward after all these years etc.

JC is not going to tell me in an e-mail that if you give me enough notice I will drive my family up into the mountains and go away from the city lights to see the aurora if he did not respect my capabilities. Granted this is not the weather per say of this forum but these comments speak for them self.

A local Washington DC senior OCM, who was once in a high ranking meteorological position, would not have conversed with me a few dozen times over my early forecasting years either if I had not been accurate over the long haul. Would you still be conversing with me several years down the road if my forecasts were below 70%.

I never gave out any of my forecasting tools until very late in 1999 and that was just one. The coronal hole effect upon temperature trends and steering currents. I never gave out another one until the summer of 2002 and that was only to one or two people. I started seriously talking about that particular correlation, with DSF's & EPL's with tropical development , in the summer of 2003.

I never brought forth my forecasting methodology for the ENSO until this past March. So one should not assume that just because nothing has been written yet that it will never appear in print down the road.

Now if you want to think that the writer of the research paper is the finder that is fine with me. I can recall several years back in 1999 I believe when a story was running across the wires. It read something like this "Researcher finds relationship of intense hurricanes with LA Nina "

I was laughing so hard I almost fell out of my chair. Do you think this guy, or woman , found this correlation first? I mean Bill Gray and others had talked about it for years. This person obviously needed his or her name stamped on something for personal comfort. They just put together some numbers differently and they got some type of credit for something that everybody else already knew existed.

One can go on and on with examples of how science is supposed to work just like a politician can talk all day from the pulpit but this does not mean that the people as a whole are going to live by these so called written rules.

I will forecast events ahead just like I have always done before. These can be bold forecasts.... like the one last January calling for five different weather/climate events to occur and every one of them did or they may be tropical developmental forecasts. Who knows...but they will continue and some will end up in newsprint or talked about over the air waves just like they previously have been .

And if this offends certain establishments so be it.

Everybody has their own mind and they will be able to judge things for themselves. I know that some people in power structures like to think that they make all the rules and everyone has to live by them but this is untrue.

Am I trying to make new rules? No I am not . I am saying that I can forecast quite accurately by using space weather variables along with the standard meteorological climatological factors. If someone wants to do a statistical analysis of my forecasts they can. I would be more than happy to go along with this.

Just to be on the same page here. I would NEVER consider Harvey or Irene an accurate forecast since I did never did forecast their development....no time to evaluate... I have just been pointing out that they followed my methodology.

BTW. You can come back and say what you want and you can have the last word. This particular discussion ceases from my end. It's a waste of my time and I would think it would be a waste of yours also. Now if you think reading my posts are also a waste of time than I think you should bypass them. A few less total view counts will not make me sleep less at night. Have a good day Windy


Jim

[Windy]

Well Windy...Like I mentioned in an earlier thread I do like to get into dialog's's like this because they are meaningless from my standpoint but you seemed to have tried to be analytical so I figured I would reply back to you one more time.

You're more than welcome to ignore me. I just thought that it might be helpful for you to understand why some (probably most, to be honest) readers find it very difficult to take you seriously. That's the kind of thing I'd want to know about if I were in your position.

Although I must confess I feel like I am in the dark with you because I have no idea about your expertise. So you may very well be acting like another individual that I ran across years ago but I will not go into that..although you do eerily remind me of this gentleman.

This has nothing to do with parts of your critique but I have a hard time understanding how anyone can critique something when you fail to read up on the subject matters to what I am referring to.

Again, it's not our job to go around researching things just to understand you. It's your job to present your ideas in a logical, understandable way. If you wish to use the research of OTHERS (I note again that you've posted zero research of your own), then feel free -- but be sure to summarize the research. Link to the research so that the reader can verify what you're saying, but don't expect readers to go and read hundred page papers to try to divine what the heck in that paper you thought related to your ideas. This is a common tactic of people who've got nothing: they know that none of their readers are going to waste that much time doing the research for the person making the claim, but then they can claim that if only the reader would do the research, everything would make sense. YOU do the research and tell me about it. I'm not the one pushing a radical hypothesis.

I completely understand your comments about how one is supposed to bring forth a theory within the scientific establishment but you seem to be stuck on only this. I am not disagreeing with this part. How many times must I repeat this statement?

Well, okay then -- but why are you so puzzled that so few people trust or even care about your ideas? You're talking about rewriting entire field of meteorology, but you can't be bothered to use the scientific method.

Do you understand the Bx or By components of the IMF or any other magnetic field vectors or components? Or what the proton density level is? What about how a coronal windstream differs from other high wind speed associated events?

Did you know that if the population of China were to walk past you in single file, the line would never end because of the rate of reproduction? Now that we're done sharing meaningless and irrelevant trivia questions, maybe we can get back to the issue at hand.

I am not going to take the time of explaining or touch base on Tinsley's theory of electroscavening to you or anyone else. I am posting things for people to read ..to learn....You need to read these papers yourself.

You are contradicting yourself. You're posting things for people to read to learn... but you're not going to bother to explain or touch base on things. I'm losing patience with you. To be candid: I don't think you're being honest. I not positive that YOU understand these things, otherwise you'd have no problem explaining them and how they relate to your hypothesis. I think you just have an idea in your head and are irrationally attaching to it any study or research paper that sounds like it might relate. It shouldn't take this much effort from your readers to get you to show what you have in terms evidential backing for your ideas, and by "show", I don't mean a random list of papers by other people. I mean a good ol' logically constructed argument. You know... like a research paper!

If you think that you are above this and you have nothing to learn than that is fine with me. This shows me allot about your character as well. A few other people have said that they read some of them. So I definitely would respect their comments much more openly.

Yes, so long as you're magically divining new fields of meteorology with no research or method whatsoever, feel free to do the same with my character. Getting around to ad hominem rather quickly, aren't you? This is only your first reply.

I find it quite humorous , that what you accuse me of, assumptions, you do quite well yourself. You make all sorts of assumptions like that JC was just blowing me off kindly or you say my theories must be wrong because nobody has come forward after all these years etc.

That's how logic works, Jim. Until you give me a reason to believe you, I can assume whatever I want. You're the one making a science claim here, and doing it, as you admit, outside of the scientific method. I don't need to believe anything about your claim until you show my why I should. I really am trying to get you to show me (and everyone else) what it is you're on about by posting the paper that you surely have to have written by now on the topic, but alas, I'm having little luck.

It does kinda blow my mind how many "respectable people" you reference (who, oddly enough, never mention you) as having shot your ideas at, as if that were a good thing. "Jim Cantore didn't laugh my ideas off the air! He just said that there was nothing to suggest that I was right! Finally, I've been validated!" How is it that you think that helps your case? What I'm getting at is that name dropping is meaningless. None of the names you mention actually support your ideas, you just bounced your ideas off of them. I can mail my theories on government to the POTUS, and I suppose when the form letter comes back I could try to feel big by telling all of my friends that the President himself has reviewed my theories and sent me a response, but does that REALLY lend to my credibility, or am I just puffing myself up with hot air?

JC is not going to tell me in an e-mail that if you give me enough notice I will drive my family up into the mountains and go away from the city lights to see the aurora if he did not respect my capabilities. Granted this is not the weather per say of this forum but these comments speak for them self.

No, it shows that he thinks you're a cool person. I hang out with a lot of my friends all the time -- heck, I move their furniture -- it doesn't mean that I agree with or even respect their scientific theories. Get JC to come here and personally support your theories -- then your mentioning his name will make at least a little sense. Surely he'll do that for you if he's willing to drive all the way into the boondocks to share quality time with you under a moonlit sky.

A local Washington DC senior OCM, who was once in a high ranking meteorological position, would not have conversed with me a few dozen times over my early forecasting years either if I had not been accurate over the long haul. Would you still be conversing with me several years down the road if my forecasts were below 70%.

Yes, and where is his statement of support for you? And why won't you name him? Just mentioning that you converse with actual scientists doesn't make you one. Why do you keep dragging these people out? I don't care if the Pope himself decrees that you're right -- unless you can show people WHY you're right, nobody has any reason to believe you. Science isn't a popularity contest, it's a contest of observations, theories, and facts.

I never gave out any of my forecasting tools until very late in 1999 and that was just one. The coronal hole effect upon temperature trends and steering currents. I never gave out another one until the summer of 2002 and that was only to one or two people. I started seriously talking about that particular correlation, with DSF's & EPL's with tropical development , in the summer of 2003.

I never brought forth my forecasting methodology for the ENSO until this past March. So one should not assume that just because nothing has been written yet that it will never appear in print down the road.

Okay, now we're getting somewhere! You have a paper in the works. What's the hypothesis? What study/research are you currently involved in? What's your methodology? Any preliminary results?

Now if you want to think that the writer of the research paper is the finder that is fine with me. I can recall several years back in 1999 I believe when a story was running across the wires. It read something like this "Researcher finds relationship of intense hurricanes with LA Nina "

I was laughing so hard I almost fell out of my chair. Do you think this guy, or woman , found this correlation first? I mean Bill Gray and others had talked about it for years. This person obviously needed his or her name stamped on something for personal comfort. They just put together some numbers differently and they got some type of credit for something that everybody else already knew existed.

There are a bajillion ideas that get floated around out there, as you graphically illustrate. The purpose of science is to study them, and then show whether they're logically likely to be true. The guy didn't rubber stamp his name to a field where everyone else did the work -- the guy went out and busted his butt to prove a previously unproven haunch. What's your big aversion to doing science? Your ideas are pretty revolutionary (please don't start telling everyone on the internet that I called your ideas revolutionary) -- you'd think that you'd want to get them accepted in the easiest way... by demonstrating them using the well-worn scientific method!

And if this offends certain establishments so be it.

Everybody has their own mind and they will be able to judge things for themselves. I know that some people in power structures like to think that they make all the rules and everyone has to live by them but this is untrue.

With all due respect, Jim, your methods are offensive to rationality itself. You're selling an idea while refusing to show anyone why that idea is right. I can dig that you want to be a rebel from the establishment, but when that establishment is "logical thought", then it's going to be hard to convince people of your New and Exciting Science Theory (tm). I feel like the Wendy's "Where's the Beef" lady... Where's the Science?

BTW. You can come back and say what you want and you can have the last word. This particular discussion ceases from my end. It's a waste of my time and I would think it would be a waste of yours also. Now if you think reading my posts are also a waste of time than I think you should bypass them. A few less total view counts will not make me sleep less at night. Have a good day Windy

Ah, the ol' "I'm dropping this discussion because the respondent is only persuaded by the use of valid logic and facts" ploy. I mean look... this entire endeavor (attempting to get your 'science' ideas out there via Weather Boards instead of just sitting down and writing up a study) is a waste of your time. But if you're going to do this, at least try to explain how your methods work, why they work, how you've arrived at your conclusions about the previous two questions, and statistically how your standardized and measured forecast accuracy compares with, say, the NHC. It sounds like you're not real sure about #1 and #2, that the answer to #3 is "I just thought of it one day, but haven't researched it any further", and that you've got no real idea about #4. This may not actually be true, you may have long and detailed answers for all four questions, but have we seen them here yet? Not that I can find.

Anyhow, I wish you luck if you're right, because it's going to take the scientific community a long time to figure that out at this rate.

[Jim Hughes]

Yee-haw--- looks like more activity these next few days due to diminished solar wind speed- the tropics should bring it on, cause I am ready to watch awesome storms (just as long as they don't hurt anyone on any land). YEE HAWWW!

Actually the solar wind speeds increased significantly shortly after around 8/6/15z. They steadily rose to the 700 km/sec level before tapering off. They have diminished to about the 500 km/sec level this afternoon.

Some of the hourly averages were the highest that ACE has recorded since last March.

Trying to forecast solar wind speed levels can be tricky and you have to rely on the daily observational reports regarding solar eruptions from several different observatories as well as good satellite images of the different wavelengths....Like from SOHO.

A well defined and fairly large transequatorial coronal hole is about to cross the central meridian. This will bring along a prolonged solar wind increase by Friday or slightly earlier.

This may bring elevated winds along but the >2 MeV levels may not fall below the 0.0e+07 level. This can some time happen with C-Holes and transients. So the wind speed may not be an inhibitor like it usually is. I have spoken about this important factor before in my original threads.

The Stanford Mean magnetic field readings should be changing to negative today so the proper solar quadrants to watch for increased activity are the SE/NW.

[kevin]

Windy, I am intrigued by your ideas regarding cyclonegenesis via angeleos! I believe that if one takes into account the number of fairies per square kilometer along with the number of religious services and prayer wheels spun in Nepal.... you will see the clear correlation with tropical weather.

Also the Schwarzschild radius :

http://en.wikipedia.org/math/99c84a654a ... 771131.png

[gigabite]

...at this rate.

Maybe I can help you under the correlation with a little allegory.

Back it the day I was oiling the receiver of my m60 on the up channel on the Delta. It was a hot palmy day near the beach. The wind was blowing just hard enough that little swirls would shadow dance across the sandy bottom.

As the solar wind blows across the upper atmosphere energy is transferred from molecule to air. It creates a ripple effect that is transmitted along to random points the taller the weather system is the more likely it is to react to the momentum.

It is no coincident that the GOES variant N in equipped with a new Solar X-Ray Imager (SXI) has been developed by the Lockheed Martin Advanced Technology Center to permit the observation and collection of solar data products. It also has The Space Environment Monitoring (SEM) subsystem has been enhanced by the addition of the Extreme Ultraviolet (EUV) sensor, Energetic Proton, Electron, and Alpha particle
Detector (EPEAD), the Magnetospheric Electron Detector (MAGED), the Magnetospheric Proton Detector (MAGPD) and dual magnetometers on a 27.9 foot (8.5 meter) long boom. The EPS sensors have been expanded on GOES-N,O,P to provide coverage over an extended energy range and with improved directional accuracy.

Observations are proving to be more convincing than philosophic insight so that the new generation of weather satellites will be able to map the solar wind in 3d.


http://www.ccrc.sr.unh.edu/~stm/AS/Weat ... r.html#Sun

http://sec.noaa.gov/ws/

[Jim Hughes]

Steve,

I noticed that you gave the URL to the Wang -Sheeley Model. This is usually a good thing to look at for somewhat reliable data when one is trying to figure out what kind of solar wind components awaits us down the road.

May I suggest at this stage of the solar cycle that you rely more heavily on the WSO predictions compared to the other two. I think I have mentioned to you before that the solar poles are much weaker now at this stage of the cycle compared to the previous few. This is why we are seeing stronger flaring and more transequatorial coronal holes at this late stage.

Wilcox's data is more attuned to these parameters than the NSO or Mount Wilson. I would only give them slightly more credence when the sun is active like in early or late July. Just a thought

[Windy]

...at this rate.

Maybe I can help you under the correlation with a little allegory.

Nope, sorry. What you are saying comes across as complete nonsense, if you've been following the thread.

[luvwinter]

Ya know Windy,

Just a thought here. I have followed some of these threads also and although I don't understand alot of what Jim writes it is somewhat interesting to conteplate a correlation between space weather and tropical weather. I don't know why you have to continually pick at Jim. No one is tying you to a chair and sitting you in front of the computer pointing a gun to your head and making you look at the screen. Can't you just read it and take it in for what it might be worth and if you don't like it don't read it. As a member I don't enjoy reading posts where others have to continually pick at other members and belittle what they say. If you know for a fact he is incorrect then fine you have that knowledge. Sometimes there are things in this world that we can't for sure explain but believe in. Live a little.

[Windy]

Ya know Windy,

Just a thought here. I have followed some of these threads also and although I don't understand alot of what Jim writes it is somewhat interesting to conteplate a correlation between space weather and tropical weather. I don't know why you have to continually pick at Jim. No one is tying you to a chair and sitting you in front of the computer pointing a gun to your head and making you look at the screen. Can't you just read it and take it in for what it might be worth and if you don't like it don't read it. As a member I don't enjoy reading posts where others have to continually pick at other members and belittle what they say. If you know for a fact he is incorrect then fine you have that knowledge. Sometimes there are things in this world that we can't for sure explain but believe in. Live a little.

Originally, I got into it because I was genuinely curious what the heck Jim was talking about and why (assuming he wasn't just another net mystic) he refused to go about the one way of dispersing his ideas that might have some effect... a research paper in a peer reviewed journal. When Jim more or less refused to explain what he was talking about and how he arrived at the conclusions and methodology that he uses, and then admitted that he doesn't know the first thing about science or how to go about it, I got frustrated. Because he pretends to be an expert in the made up "field" that he talks about. It would appear, given his former reputation on other weather boards, that this was a fairly typical reaction to fairly common behaviour from Jim. His ideas are very much out in left field, and he goes on a great deal about them. This isn't the George Nory show; start spouting volumes of pretend-science here and sooner or later someone is probably going to ask you to explain yourself!

Now that he's made it clear that he doesn't believe in the scientific method and isn't going to explain why he believes what he believes about space weather's effects below the stratosphere, I've really got no more reason to keep picking at his ideas. His 'theories' are intellectually backrupt, apparently, since he can't muster up anything at all to defend or explain them. Anything further is kicking a dead horse, and I suspect that this horse enjoys the attention that comes with getting kicked.

[kevin]

Yes, thank you for debunking him windy.