Space Weather/Tropical Development Ahead

[Jim Hughes]

No TD formed today in the Atlantic as you[sic] space weather people predicted in your first post on this thread. So what's the explaination for that?

For the baratropic folks, I would say MJO.




I would totally agree with this Mike. I mentioned the MJO relationship in a reply back to to a Weather Channel OCM back in May after a bad forecast of mine.

I usually monitor it every day , and I mentioned this in this forum in a post about WPAC activity this weekend. I have unfortunately been rather busy Thursday-Friday with home front ...driveway extended.. paved and forum posts....I slip up monitoring thoroughly, and MJO, which had been non-player with no discernible phase for a good deal of the week before, changes phases and it now is inhibiting Atlantic activity...Oh well snooze you lose...Learn from mistakes...that's the key.


I hope sme people would look at this URL and monitor it more often in relation to any space weather activity/posts.


http://www.apsru.gov.au/mjo/

It's fairly obvious that the WPAC may have been effected by these favorable space weather changes. Certain MJO phases enhance areas while they inhibit other areas. Some phases are occasionally neutral phases for different parts of the globe.

You and some other former TWC members may remember the relationship Emily and the WPAC storm in mid July. We briefly touched base on it...more you and someone else after my space weather comments. I think Nesat, a different WPAC storm, may have also followed Atlantic as well.

Check out the past 40 & 90 day day diagram at the MJO URL. You have to do it yourself... no URL. You can see how the MJO phase has been moving through 1-4 and it was almost neutral. If you check out the different phases you can see how the two areas might be affected if the space variables were favorable enough.

[Jim Hughes]

No TD formed today in the Atlantic as you space weather people predicted in your first post on this thread. So what's the explanation for that?

I would not use the term people. Nobody but myself was forecasting tropical development and I was dead wrong..... So if you are going to take a swing with the bat aim it at me Not Mike or anyone else who has posted some things.

Let's keep a tab over the long run. We both know the current score.

[loon]

What I find interesting here, are the responses you've gotten. I'm all for new ideas on the weather, so I enjoy following your thoughts. I for one, find Jan's responses to be the best so far, actually looking into the arguements, giving solid feedback and not afraid to look into it. Unlike others, like dreezee who have (apparently) nothing better to do then belittle people and their ideas. As was stated, there are plenty of other threads to drool over, you don't have to read these. This is all new stuff, and I believe should be explored. My question is WHAT DOES IT HURT? At the very least, the theory is disproved, and then you can write it off and go high five your friends about how you were right about the "quacks" on the weather board. At the very most, the theory is proved and we learn of a new tool for forecasting. The probably effect is of course, small doses of new understandings of the world around us and what makes mother nature tick. Why this always scares folks into flaming the thread starters is beyond me.

On a side note, I've seen a few posts this year about turtles nesting higher up, or other animals acting different in some way, and most on here would back that up with their life, however the true *science* behind these events is mostly the hazy "they can sense it". I think the difference is everyone can relate to the dog acting funny before a thunderstorm, but almost none of us can relate to space weather effecting algae blooms. I just wish people would leave these guys alone for those of us that want to see where they go with all this, and see what comes of it, I don't believe it is hurting or bringing down the board in anyway, minus possibly bringing out the worst in some peoples posts to flame them.....

cheers,
loon

[Jim Hughes]

Jan,


Sorry but I had to edit this after copying quotes wrong


If you are unwilling to observe both ends at the same time than you are right and this currently bears no fruit in the true scientific sense.

I started posting things in here and in TWC forum because of I have gotten some notoriety over the years because of my uncanny accuracy in forecasting both climate patterns and individual weather events. These are comments made by others...trained meteorologists..not mine...

These variables that I speak about are the building blocks of my methodology. Do I know the exact mechanism behind them ? No of course not but I feel that I am in good company since the scientific community does not have the answer yet either.

I read allot of different research papers and that is why I am sharing them. No research paper directly deals with my theories alone but they all touch base on lets say cousins or distant cousins.

When I sent out a January 5th e-mail discussion calling for many repeatable December patterns (Two cold waves , and a snowstorm 22nd-24th , and January would match December Warm/Cold ) I talked about the 27-28 day wave once again.. (Australia paper...Most lkely C-Hole related in my opinion but need to read better.)

The Norfolk VA area had received a snowstorm on December 26th and I said that conditions would be ripe for another ... closer storm track to our area and NE . This was also read over the radio air waves so nobody can say that I am making this up.

Seasonal storms occur seasonally . So I am not to sure why everyone would think that the polar areas would be effected now just like I would not expect a southern latitude storm to form around the ITCZ in January during certain space weather conditions.


Once again we keep coming back to radiation and the old way of thinking. ...Crude example...


When a new homicide investigator is assigned to an unsolved murder case he or she will briefly go over what the other investigators have looked into just to make sure they did not miss anything but most of their time and effort are going to go into new areas of investigation...untouched. This makes logical sense if they thought their peers were capable of doing their job right.

The scientific community OTOH, as a whole, for many decades, has continually danced around the light brite subject, as I like to call it, instead of magnetic vectors , electromagnetism, particle fluxes..etc..

It's obvious, if there is a connection, then it's most likely related to how the ionosphere both receives and distributes all of these different variables and things like lightening, Elf's, QBO phases , MJO, semi permanent atmospheric-oceanic teleconnections are all built into the distribution - highway system.

[joseph01]

I was hoping this stuff would not make it here from the Weather Channel Board. The TWC board is down so it was bound to happen....

Now that it has, perhaps it could be suggested that it have its own forum, like "Space Weather/Earth Weather". I agree with the moderator that said " He/They are entitled to thier opinions like everyone else", and I agree with that. However, I could make the argument that it does not yet anyway, belong in with the rational, logical, coherent, and verifiable influences, regarding tropical weather phenomenon. Many posts were very negative toward it. I wonder if it's because some dislike seeing this mixed in with what is normally a very sober forum.

[Jim Hughes]

In responding in this thread, I was specifically addressing the hypothesis (implied in the original post) that solar flare activity can trigger tropical cyclogenesis. It was in this vein that I responded to your "answer" involving Schumann resonances.

It is gradually dawning on me that you are espousing some different (possibly unrelated) set of hypotheses. Exactly what these may be I have been unable to divine.

It is my experience that such discussions tend to meander around all sorts of notions, related and unrelated, in a frustrating manner which results in a failure to investigate any one hypothesis in a rigorous fashion. It is in the hope of evading this common result that I would like to confine any discussion I participate in to the original idea which started this thread.

Jan

Actually Jan I have never said a solar flare causes anything nor would I like to limit it to an X-ray level. I waited for all the particulars were in on the X1.3 flare before I even started this topic. It was the associated Type II/3 and Type IV/2 events that made me forecast an upcoming development not the x-ray level.

Most people outside of space weather look at x-ray levels when talking about heightened solar flare activity.

Many strong x-ray's flares, in the x-class level, like the most recent one, can have less of an effect upon the earth's environment than a moderate M-Class event because they may have been an impulsive event. (Very quick rise/fall)

This is not me talking heresay this is a scientific fact. The size of the eruption...magnetic field...location etc. play a much bigger role then the flares x-ray size. Even a smaller class C-flare can bombard the earth with more particles than then the bigger ones sometimes.

It seem like you are at least willing to consider or talk about this. So I would like to propose something. Yesterday's forecast is water under the bridge .... would using the MJO phases as a forecasting guideline be good for you?

In other words I will look at the eight phases from the MJO URL I gave. We already know my forecasting formula...We then look at specific areas during specfic time frames of when the MJO is in the proper phase. If it's not we throw it out...What about it?

[Aslkahuna]

Well, I personally made no such forecast so I'm off the hook there. My goal is to explain Space Weather itself and to make note that there are studies going on in this field. There is no question whatsoever that Solar Activity levels and more importantly the variability of it over the longer term affects the Earths climate system-the evidence of that is too strong to refute. The question is, during these periods of climatic variability brought about by the variability in the Sun's magnetic cycle what short term effects might we see. Also, is this long term variability associated only with luminosity increases or also the Geophysical effects of the activity increase as well. As I said earlier, we KNOW that large thunderstorms and large thunderstorm complexes send electrical discharges into the Ionosphere and that there is an observable effect in terms of what we call Sporadic E which I had to deal with when making HF Propagation Forecasts. So, if thunderstorms can affect the ionosphere is there any feedback from there down. Hard to say and I'm sure it's being looked into. That said, I would like to see a rigorous independent statistical analysis to see if there are really any correlations. I know someone who could do it but he's busy on other studies.

Steve

[kevin]

There are people like this on every area of human understanding. They are not renegades, nor are they careful thinkers. More often than not they are people who know they are making things up, but delight in leading others astray from the conventional.

Aslkahuna, there is a difference in your science which is quantifiable and based on peer reviewed articles that actually address the topic at hand, and Methane Mike's grab and pull from every discipline. You're focusing on stuff that exists, and he is just saying a lot of words.

Meaningful conversation with trolls ends in no gain.

[x-y-no]

Actually Jan I have never said a solar flare causes anything ...

OK, but that's what I understood you to be claiming when you wrote:

The LASCO images , and the time of the X1.3/2B flare lead me to believe that we should see a tropical depression develop by 7/31/21z

It sure seemed to me that this was hypothesizing solar activity as causative of tropical cyclogenesis.

... nor would I like to limit it to an X-ray level. I waited for all the particulars were in on the X1.3 flare before I even started this topic. It was the associated Type II/3 and Type IV/2 events that made me forecast an upcoming development not the x-ray level.

Ok ... but that still does nothing to address the issue of causation. Whether we're talking about X-rays or Gamma-rays or plasma flow or whatever, the same two issues I raised still apply.

...

This is not me talking heresay this is a scientific fact. The size of the eruption...magnetic field...location etc. play a much bigger role then the flares x-ray size. Even a smaller class C-flare can bombard the earth with more particles than then the bigger ones sometimes.

Let's have some numbers. What's the total energy delivered to the Earth's atmosphere by such an event? What's the energy distribution (polar vs tropical, widely spread or concentrated)? How do these numbers compare to the radiative input, and to the kinetic energy of the weather systems you think are affected by such events?

It seem like you are at least willing to consider or talk about this. So I would like to propose something. Yesterday's forecast is water under the bridge .... would using the MJO phases as a forecasting guideline be good for you?

In other words I will look at the eight phases from the MJO URL I gave. We already know my forecasting formula...We then look at specific areas during specfic time frames of when the MJO is in the proper phase. If it's not we throw it out...What about it?

I'm certainly open to the possibility that the MJO can give some indication of probable development, although given that we just had the most active July in history during a pretty much neutral MJO regime, I'm thinking it may be more a negative than a positive indicator (i.e certain phases may indicate suppression in certain regions).

I'm not sure how that relates to solar phenomena, however. But by all means, let's try some specific forecasts and maybe I can grasp what it is you think is going on.

Jan

[kevin]

He has been doing this for years. He has been using the same exact sentences for years! It is very simple, he has no technical training though he will say he learned things in the US Military, but seeing the number of military posters on this board it will quickly become apparent that he did not learn the necessary skills to be a scientist there, when he posts where he served and doing what job.

[senorpepr]

He has been doing this for years. He has been using the same exact sentences for years! It is very simple, he has no technical training though he will say he learned things in the US Military, but seeing the number of military posters on this board it will quickly become apparent that he did not learn the necessary skills to be a scientist there, when he posts where he served and doing what job.

For what it is worth, the USAF does have a space weather program and also maintains several solar observatories worldwide as well as a space weather center at the USAF Weather Agency.

Now that it has, perhaps it could be suggested that it have its own forum, like "Space Weather/Earth Weather". I agree with the moderator that said " He/They are entitled to thier opinions like everyone else", and I agree with that. However, I could make the argument that it does not yet anyway, belong in with the rational, logical, coherent, and verifiable influences, regarding tropical weather phenomenon. Many posts were very negative toward it. I wonder if it's because some dislike seeing this mixed in with what is normally a very sober forum.

Personally, I think with all of the recent news, a geology forum, which is something I've previously suggested, would work very well here at Storm2k. Earthquakes, tsunamis, and volcanoes have really attracted the attention of people, even before this past week's tragedy. It would be an outstanding venue to post data and imagery.

In addition, a lot of attention is becoming focused on space weather now that a lot of the stuff we take for granted are tied to satellites in space that are easily affected by solar events. With that in mind, I think solar weather would be a nice addition as well.

[kevin]

He didn't work there senorpepr. I know the USAF has a space weather program, issues advisories and is vital to the safety of our power grid and satellites. Methane Mike didn't learn anything substantial, and is a quack.

No one else notices his complete quackery?

[senorpepr]

I'm not going to touch the relation of space weather to tropical weather simply because I don't have nearly enough knowledge to begin commenting on it.

However, for those that are completely discounting the effects of space weather on Earth altogether, I suggest you reconcider. A lot of the things we use, such as television, radio, and phones, are very dependent on space weather.

It goes much further than that. What about our pilots flying at high altitudes? They are affected by radiation. HF communications are highly dependent on solar weather. The studying of it allows forecasters to better aware our troops in the field what frequencies to use and therefore reducing casualites to do missed communications. Ponder this: without space weather, we would miss impacts to the GPS accuracy. Minute changes to the atmosphere thanks to a solar event can throw off the GPS accuracy by several meters. Since our precision-guided missles run off of GPS information, a few meters off and our bomb just hit a school or a hospital rather than a terrorist hideout.

[senorpepr]

He didn't work there senorpepr. I know the USAF has a space weather program, issues advisories and is vital to the safety of our power grid and satellites. Methane Mike didn't learn anything substantial, and is a quack.

No one else notices his complete quackery?

It be quite honest, I haven't really read much in this thread other than some bickering here and there. So honestly, I didn't know the background of your comments. I just wanted to point out that the US military does run a space weather program and hopefully reduce the comments about how space weather is bogus.

[Aslkahuna]

I myself DID work at what then called SESS (Space Environment Support Section) at AFGWC (which is what the Air Force Weather Agency is called today). I was there during the 1979-80 Solar Max and my job was to put out those advisories whenever a Flare or some other event occurred and the HF Propagation Forecasts and the coordination with SEC on the Joint Report along with other duties. Being an amateur astronomer already very familiar with Solar activity (one of my favorite observational pursuits) I already knew much of what it was I was was doing before undergoing the training for it. Years later when I came to Fort Huachuca and encountered a Test Officer having problems with a certain system he was testing, I quickly realized that a. his problem was directly related to Solar activity and b. that it would be a good idea to get back into the game on a local basis. This time with an additional touch-I would actually monitor the HF Propagation every day and I would also actually observe the flares durig the daytime thus my forecasts were often better detailed and more concise than even the SEC ones and often different. I continued this service up to the time I retired and I know that we saved some Test Officers some grief by coming up with a natural explanation for the occasional unfavorable test results they would get. I still follow what's going and the advances since 1995 have been phenomenal and the sight of a large Solar Flare is still exciting. I'm interested to know if we can make connections but so far I'm skeptical though willing to see what people have to say. Again, a rigorous mathematical analysis would prove the presence or absence of a correlation. One important thing to note-unverifiable results are not the province of those who look at Solar- Terrestrial Relationships only-we see them all of the time and most notably in the ongoing Global Warming debate.

Steve

[sponger]

I agree the field is relatively new and wide open to explore. That being said, every science starts out as unknown and full of hot air. I for one am open to these outside ideas. I think you have to have an open mind about these things. Thanks for the post Jim!

[x-y-no]

We've got three separate things going on in this thread, and they need to be distiguished, IMHO.

We have the study of space weather, and its impact on the magnetosphere, ionosphere, spacecraft, aircraft, power grids, etc. Obviously this is an important and entirely legitimate field of study.

Second we have Jim Hughes' ideas on the influence of solar flares and coronal holes on Earth's weather. I don't deny the possibility of some effect, but I find the idea of individual events (or small sets) having significant impact on tropical cyclogenesis very implausible for the reasons I've brought up (and other reasons as well) - but I'm entertaining the idea that higher latitude influences might, just possibly, exist - which is why I'm trying to extract some proposed mechanism from him.


Jan

[Jim Hughes]

Actually Jan I have never said a solar flare causes anything ...

OK, but that's what I understood you to be claiming when you wrote:

The LASCO images , and the time of the X1.3/2B flare lead me to believe that we should see a tropical depression develop by 7/31/21z

It sure seemed to me that this was hypothesizing solar activity as causative of tropical cyclogenesis.

... nor would I like to limit it to an X-ray level. I waited for all the particulars were in on the X1.3 flare before I even started this topic. It was the associated Type II/3 and Type IV/2 events that made me forecast an upcoming development not the x-ray level.

Ok ... but that still does nothing to address the issue of causation. Whether we're talking about X-rays or Gamma-rays or plasma flow or whatever, the same two issues I raised still apply.

...

This is not me talking heresay this is a scientific fact. The size of the eruption...magnetic field...location etc. play a much bigger role then the flares x-ray size. Even a smaller class C-flare can bombard the earth with more particles than then the bigger ones sometimes.

Let's have some numbers. What's the total energy delivered to the Earth's atmosphere by such an event? What's the energy distribution (polar vs tropical, widely spread or concentrated)? How do these numbers compare to the radiative input, and to the kinetic energy of the weather systems you think are affected by such events?

It seem like you are at least willing to consider or talk about this. So I would like to propose something. Yesterday's forecast is water under the bridge .... would using the MJO phases as a forecasting guideline be good for you?

In other words I will look at the eight phases from the MJO URL I gave. We already know my forecasting formula...We then look at specific areas during specfic time frames of when the MJO is in the proper phase. If it's not we throw it out...What about it?

I'm certainly open to the possibility that the MJO can give some indication of probable development, although given that we just had the most active July in history during a pretty much neutral MJO regime, I'm thinking it may be more a negative than a positive indicator (i.e certain phases may indicate suppression in certain regions).

I'm not sure how that relates to solar phenomena, however. But by all means, let's try some specific forecasts and maybe I can grasp what it is you think is going on.

Jan

I guess I can understand you thinking that I meant the effects from x-class flare by itself after reading it again but when I mentioned timing I was referring both to the placement of all the other variables that I had spoken about during the previous days as well as the 31/21z forecast . I went forward 36 hours from the flaring/eruption time. This is the delayed time frame that I have noticed over the years.

The variables... in place.... were the solar wind diminishing from it's earlier high peak the previous 24-36 hours...The >2 Mev electron fluence was above 0.0e+07 so if the solar winds had increased from a transient from one of the earlier CME 's it most likely would have stayed above this level. The Stanford Mean magnetic field reading had also just turned positive the day before so the NE solar quadrant was conducive. (The origin of the event.)

Like I mentioned earlier smaller x-ray flares can produce larger particle events. The most recent X-1.3 2/B flare is a good example. There was a > 10 MeV proton event and >100 MeV also rose but it never reached event level.

You can see the numbers here.

http://www.sel.noaa.gov/ftpdir/indices/ ... Q3_DPD.txt

On September 12th , 2000 a classic hyder flare occurred after the eruption of a 23 degree filament in the southern hemisphere. the M1.2 LDE , two ribbon flare , produced a larger proton storm and the flare was much smaller than the X1.3/3b.

http://www.sel.noaa.gov/ftpdir/indices/ ... 00_DSD.txt

http://www.sel.noaa.gov/ftpdir/indices/ ... 00_DPD.txt

I'll grant you that the basic rule of thumb is correct most of the time but on several occasions smaller x-ray flares can bombard the earth' ionosphere with both higher proton and electron levels.

I would tend to disagree with the Neutral MJO being non important if there is a connection. We had a substantial increase in solar activity/space weather during early July. It exceeded the previous six weeks or more. We had also gone into another lull slightly after mid month until the other day.

I am unaware of anything being written or said about a strong conducive MJO phase being present , to possibly explain the extreme nature of July's activity. Something other than the MJO must have been involved....besides SST's... This is where I believe thst space weather may have played a factor

An increase in the proper space weather variables ..if the relation is true...may still be able enhance tropical activity when the MJO is neutral while it's the inhibiting MJO phases that would hurt the relationship.

The proper MJO relationship would then possibly enhance the relationship and this increases the chances of more intense hurricanes....if true.

Time will tell if there is a connection. I realize that a proper statistical analysis must be done but I look forward to watching both the tropics and the MJO phases. This forum is a very good place to be and I know allot of people post updates about different areas. So it will be easier for me to monitor.

Hopefully others will to. I will try and keep things updated space weather wise and MJO wise...Plus come up with the MJO phase numbers for each region..EPAC included


Jim

[Jim Hughes]

Jim,

I have a question for you.

High frequency light would tend to cause O2 to be split into ozone at a higher rate. So after a period of solar activity, which may by itself disrupt the capacitive couplings that organize a storm, should the space wind drop and the event wane, there is still then a remaining relatively increased level of ozone, which is of course conductive, that may increase the conductivity of the ionosphere and increase the ability for an intense capacitive coupling to occur that has the degree of power to cause the cloud microphysics changes required for a tropical storm to form.

In any event, with the next storm to come I will point out some specific mesovortices bahaviors tied to lightning, which but for an EMF connection should have NOTHING to do with such a behavior from a purely barotropical standpoint (especially if the strikes are in the CONUS in the afternoon when the tropical storm is on the night side of the planet. There is no other reasonable explaination.0 Occum's razer, baby. Just sliced you.

Yes Mike you can have an increase in ozone production during increased solar activity.. not sure about the exact numbers... but you can also have a reversed relationship occur during large proton flares.

I think I recall reading that the one last January , second only to the October 1989 proton flare reduced the ozone by approximately 1%. That's pretty big in the whole scheme of things....Major stratwarm followed down the road a bit at the 30 hPa level I believe it was also related to the QBO / solar hemisphere origin.

[slowjoe]

I was hoping this stuff would not make it here from the Weather Channel Board. The TWC board is down so it was bound to happen....

Now that it has, perhaps it could be suggested that it have its own forum, like "Space Weather/Earth Weather". I agree with the moderator that said " He/They are entitled to thier opinions like everyone else", and I agree with that. However, I could make the argument that it does not yet anyway, belong in with the rational, logical, coherent, and verifiable influences, regarding tropical weather phenomenon. Many posts were very negative toward it. I wonder if it's because some dislike seeing this mixed in with what is normally a very sober forum.

I am in desperate need of finding the 'ignore' option for these space_weather_weenies.

Its called, do not read nor reply to these threads...easy enough. I believe even the thread title indicated it was space weather related, therefore, your post is more harmful than good, and only proves that you read all the way to page three of a "space weenie" text, rendering an "ignore" button useless even if there had been one.

I'm not backing up their thoughts nor dismissing them, however this IS a weather forum, they ARE discussing what they think effects some aspects of tropical weather, and the only people that I feel are out of place so far are those attacking other members posts or just posting to flame the threads in general.

cheers,
loon

LOON,

You just complained about my post and said it was out of place for attacking other members' posts. But you were attacking my post, joseph01's post and dreeze's post in the process.

ANYWAYS

1) I reaad this thread to determine if these guys are for real or if they are just here to stir up a bunch of trouble.

2) In my opinoin, they are here to stir up trouble.

3) They are polluting what is otherwise a very knowledgeable and educational place for amature weather enthusiasts. Because so many amatures log on here to LEARN something about meteorology, these irrelavant and blatantly intetionally-trouble making posts serve only to pollute.

Joe