I think that there are some similarities between what I have been researching and EU ideas. All of the conclusions I have reached are a result of reading scientific research, and continuing on past the point where lack of further funding stopped the original researchers. It is not so much a "new paradigm" just a composite of research that was discontinued, for lack of funding or interest by main stream meteorology. It is astrophysics, with real data, weather records, and a cyclic pattern used to create a forecast that works better in the ten day to 90 day range than the standard models.

http://www.aerology.com/national.aspx

I have posted to my site, daily weather forecast maps, of the forecasts I generated. My web site contains no commercial content. It is only intended to show new ideas that have been overlooked. I had not heard of the contested EU ideas until I found these boards. If you do not find my forecasts to be accurate (after really looking them over) I would like to know what % of accuracy they did achieve.
(Sites for solar wind flow and charge data are available at
http://www.n3kl.org/sun/noaa.html
http://www.lightning.ece.ufl.edu/
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/stories/20030210/
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/magnetic/
a good source of planetary positional information can be found at:
http://space.jpl.nasa.gov/
http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/eph

These are some of the sources of data I use in my research. when the conventional methods are as good as the 30 to 90 day ahead results that I get, I will quit doing what I am, till them someone has to do it. I think freely contributing my time, without asking for any federal funding is no reason for being attacked by persons with less understanding of reality, than can be easily found in the research data base.

Nice link to an article about solar induced currents into the earth's weather system...
http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/20...olarstorm.html
patterns of ozone production and movement can be followed at the link to one of their pages...
http://toms.gsfc.nasa.gov/
They have a nice archive of past ozone patterns available on their ftp site. I have used this data to track effects on earth's weather after solar flares, and during the occurance of Heliocentric conjunctions of Earth with the other planets. It is from making many observations over the past several years that I have come to the conclusions posted here.

http://www.sec.noaa.gov/primer/primer.html

The region between the Sun and the planets has been termed the interplanetary medium. Although once considered a perfect vacuum, this is actually a turbulent region dominated by the solar wind, which flows at velocities of approximately 250-1000 km/s (about 600,000 to 2,000,000 miles per hour). Other characteristics of the solar wind (density, composition, and magnetic field strength, among others) vary with changing conditions on the Sun. The effect of the solar wind can be seen in the tails of comets which always point away from the Sun.

The solar wind flows around obstacles such as planets, but those planets with their own magnetic fields respond in specific ways. Earth's magnetic field is very similar to the pattern formed when iron filings align around a bar magnet. Under the influence of the solar wind, these magnetic field lines are compressed in the Sun ward direction and stretched out in the downwind direction. This creates the magnetosphere, a complex, teardrop-shaped cavity around Earth.

The Van Allen radiation belts are within this cavity, as is the ionosphere, a layer of Earth's upper atmosphere where photo ionization by solar x-rays and extreme ultraviolet rays creates free electrons. Earth's magnetic field senses the solar wind its speed, density, and magnetic field. Because the solar wind varies over time scales as short as seconds, the interface that separates interplanetary space from the magnetosphere is very dynamic.

Normally this interface called the magneto pause lies at a distance equivalent to about 10 Earth radii in the direction of the Sun. However, during episodes of elevated solar wind density or velocity, the magneto pause can be pushed inward to within 6.6 Earth radii (the altitude of geosynchronous satellites). As the magnetosphere extracts energy from the solar wind, internal processes produce geomagnetic storms.

Air masses and the clouds in them, that are perturbed from equatorial areas carry a net positive residual ionic/static charge, that helps prevent rapid condensation, by mutual static repulsion between condensational nuclei. These static charges helps to maintain more uniform size of nebulized droplets, aids in super cooling, and results in rapid precipitation when meeting air masses from more polar regions which carry a residual negative ionic/static charge, that also prevents rapid condensation by mutual static repulsion inside of the clouds in the polar air masses.
Upon meeting at a frontal boundary, the static charges on the colliding air masses allow the condensational nuclei to attract each other, and help the temperature gradient, to generate the rapid precipitation usually seen in narrow frontal boundaries.
No where have I said anything about dropping any of the standard practices, I have only said that a few things had been left out of the mix. One of the ingredients concerns the variations in the homo polar charges on the Earth, and the interaction with fluxes in magnetic field strength of the passing solar wind.

The Moon is magnetically and gravitational locked to the Earth, and when I looked at the Auroral displays, the extension of fields between the Earth and Moon produces a bulge in the displayed Auroral activity that rotates with the moon. Lunar permanent magnetic fields balance induction forces that are felt upon the Earth (working similar to someone moving a magnet in and out of a coil), counter balancing the Solar magnetic field rotation at the same 27.32 day frequency. The lunar declination period results from, these Interplanetary magnetic fluxes that drives the magnetic fields of the Earth's internal dynamo into typical shock excited oscillations, at the driven periodicity.

It is the Earth/Moon barycenter, not the center of mass of the Earth alone that scribes the smooth ellipsoidal orbit of the Earth/Moon system on the ecliptic plane, the center of mass of the Earth follows a spiraling path, as a result of the leveraging of the moon's declinational and rotational movement. With this spiraling of the center of mass of the Earth above and below the ecliptic plane. The Lunar declinational component cycles from a minimum of 18 1/2 degrees, to a maximum of 27 1/2 degrees in the 18.6 year Mn cycle, displacing the center of mass of the Earth 800 Km to 1400 Km either side of the ecliptic plane.

Increases in the global homo polar generator magnetic fields, increases the pole to equator potential, slows down the polar negative leakage, increases the generation of positive ions at the equator and ITCZ, and during the charging cycle time inhibits tropical precipitation rates. Adds positive ion energy to hurricanes that are moving to the mid latitudes, (that just happen to be) in sync with the lunar equatorial crossings (North or South).

With the inverse mechanism in effect post Synodic conjunctions, with periods of decreases in field strength, the global circuit discharges through fast moving polar air masses, that carry these strong negative ionic / static discharges, so that when meeting equatorial air masses give rise to increased intensity of thunderstorms. At times of the year when the Earth comes into alignment with the outer gas planets, these effects are increased in proportion to resultant magnetic flux changes, and are felt as changes in the global weather patterns. The addition of other heliocentric conjunctions of other planets, in combinations, also affect the Earth's global circuit to some degree, depending on the planets' sizes and Synodic angular proximity to the Earth.

http://sec.noaa.gov/pmap/index.html
http://www.nerc-bas.ac.uk/public/uas...rnt/intro.html
http://hpiers.obspm.fr/
http://www.mpe-garching.mpg.de/www_plas/plasma.html
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2...htm?list159023
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/671874.stm
http://www.spaceweather.com/
http://sec.noaa.gov/today.html

You are right that the permanent field of Venus is weak and disoriented. The permanent magnetic fields of other planets have been measured by NASA probes. Such fields are too weak, and the other planets much too far away, to have any noticeable effect on the magnetic field near the Earth. Maybe a little basic electronics training is in order here, Ferro magnetic materials take on a permanent magnetic field orientation when in the form of crystals that cooled quickly. The orientation of the permanent fields orients with the field lines dominate at the time of quenching from the melted or heated state. Nice examples are the central ocean ridges and the evidence for polar magnetic reversals for the Earth. When the magnetic materials are bound up into compounds that leave no pure iron crystals, the resultant permanent field is very weak or non-existent.

However the magnetic permeability (the ability to conduct magnetic fields) remains strong in the gaseous or liquid state, and in varying degrees in solid compounds. Looking at the solar system as a composite system, with the sun at the magnetic center, and the planets, and all of the small
bodies revolving around it as an integrated magnetically connected whole. The natural assumption I make is that all of the dynamically fluxing magnetic fields extending from the sun are coupled into all of the bodies in a relevant strength, dependent upon the amount of magnetically permeable material included in that body. Not the weak standing residual field created from the solidification of their crusts.

The ionized particles in the flow patterns of the solar wind follows the pattern of the magnetic field lines that are focused by the relativity highly conductive Ferro components in planetary bodies. These Ion streams are well know for the large gas planets, but exist for all bodies, it is these saturateable core passive induction, forces that, coupling the magnetic field flux that forms the solar wind flux, as ions are pulled out from the sun as a result of the expansive surges in the magnetic field lines pulled out to couple thru the increased resultant coupling thru Synodic planetary alignments as they pass one another. When the earth is in the line of fire of these magnetic storms, we have satellite radiation assault problems.There are also, resultant ACTIVE magnetic fields, internally generated due to the magnetic reluctance induced setting up MHD fields and eddy currents which creates power outages.

I have now posted to my national forecast pages, the combined last three cycles of data. The repeatability is still good. Trends in the patterns this time can be found in the 54 day pattern that carries over to the "today,s forecast". This data is also still presented, without any compensation for residual differences between the cyclic patterns. I am gaining insights on how the driving forces in the current cycle are varying from the other three. I am still wanting to design an active program that combines, the past three cycles, and the recent / current variances, and derive compensations for adjusting the "Forecast" to reflect the current differences.
Aerology.com
Richard Holle

01-July-2004, 09:39 AM
http://space.jpl.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/wspace?

What I find important is the alignment of the planets with each other with respect to the sun (Heliocentric) and when also in line with the center of the milky way. These effects are related to magnetic flux strength, which has some effect upon the global weather patterns on ALL of the planets. If you watch the dust storm patterns on Mars for several years, Mars has severe dust storms every time it gets passed by the Earth. Or when ever it laps one of the outer planets.
http://nova.stanford.edu/projects/mgs/dmwr.html
http://arc.iki.rssi.ru/eng/index.htm
http://www-mgcm.arc.nasa.gov/MGCM.html

And from the last link.....
LARGE DUST STORM SWALLOWS MARS
June/July, 2001: Beginning in mid-June, 2001 a region of increased dust abundance began to appear in the Hellas Basin. This activity persisted for over a week until June 26 when the storm began to intensify and expand.
Earth had a heliocentric conjunction with Mars on June 13th 2001, while both of them were in opposition to Jupiter with in the next 48 hours. All in line with the sun and the center of our galaxy.


If someone with a good working knowledge of calculator with scientific notation, Watts/meter^2, or would whip out a slide rule and figure the net electrical power involved in the inter action of the solar wind with say a conservative 6 earth radii. In terms of Gigga watts per hour, or whatever values applies, might put this argument into prospective, rather quickly.... Values for the parameters could be found at several links I already posted. Speed in Km per second, X density about 1 electron per cm^2, X cross sectional area of 6 Earth radii= Wattage x10^???

Nice graphics for those that learn visually
http://www.universetoday.com/am/publ...me.html?272004
3D View of a Coronal Mass Ejection. 8)

I invoke "Fair Use" to quote the following archive extracts.

"Solar Activity and Terrestrial Thunderstorms," New Scientist, 81:256, 1979.
Data collected from electrosondes (balloons measuring atmospheric electrical currents) over the Antarctic ice caps infer that solar flares stimulate large surges in the flow of electrical charge from the upper atmosphere to the earth's surface. Because this unidirectional flow of fair-weather electricity must ultimately be balanced by thunderstorms somewhere on the planet, it follows that the frequency and severity of terrestrial thunderstorms are dictated, at least on the average, by solar activity. Formerly, global circuit theory had it that the thunderstorms themselves were the driving force behind the fair weather current flow. Now it seems that the sun calls the tune and that thunderstorms do not arise at random."

"Do Cosmic Rays Trigger Lightning Discharges?" New Scientist, 77:88, 1978.
"Science has long claimed to have the explanation of lightning discharges well under control. But the discharge paths followed by lightning strokes often seem unnecessarily tortuous when more direct routes are readily available. The mechanism by which large reservoirs of unlike charges are built up is also obscure. Cosmic rays have now been proposed as both a source of charged particles and a provider of low-resistance ionized conduits for lightning to follow. Primary cosmic rays carry considerable energy, most of which appears near the earth's surface in the form of cascades of secondary particles that create complex ionized tracks as they penetrate the dense lower atmosphere. Lightning bolts would tend to follow these precursors along their crooked trails."

(http://radarmet.atmos.colostate.edu/...esday-a1.htm)?

Seems that current research still considers electrification to be the result of thunderstorm formation, not the cause. "...For reasons that are not widely agreed upon, a cloud-to-ground lightning flash originates in this mixed water and ice region...!"

This seems to be a fairly typical textbook explanation, missing out, as ever, the reasons for the charge accumulation.

Even granting, for the moment, that "electric weather" is worth considering, its value in weather forecasting needs to be demonstrated (as an "interesting hypothesis," it does little or no practical good). Exactly how do we forecast the occurrence of thunderstorms, using the electric weather/universe approach? What about other types of weather? So I have spent 30 years and thousands of dollars, getting my site on line, to find out for my self.

Electricity and weather are inextricable linked. But electricity does not necessarily cause local weather to behave in a certain way since there are many other stronger factors. But it does influence global weather, which in turn influences local weather. This view accords with a recent report (17 November 2003) in Geophysical Review Letters by Joseph Dwyer of the Florida Institute of Technology, which says that according to conventional theory electrical fields in the atmosphere simply cannot grow large enough to trigger lightning. “The conventional view of how lightning is produced is wrong.” And so “the true origin of lightning remains a mystery.”
The article goes on to say that differentials may trigger lightning, although they are not responsible for the charge build-up. This is not the view of conventional meteorology, sure, but maybe this will change...

But to completely ignore the effects of electricity on weather, when (a) the Earth is being hit by 50 to 100 thunderbolts per second, (b) the upper atmosphere is carrying million ampere currents (c) the atmosphere has a vertical electrical field of up to 100 volts per meter, seems to me to be a little short-sighted. [Reference: The Earth's Electrical Environment (1986) On line in full (http://www.nap.edu/books/0309036801/html/)]

(So far as I know) I am about the only person to spend 25+ years looking at Lunar declinational tidal effects as "The main meridional forcing mechanism of the atmosphere." I think that in finding the proof of the connections between the Solar wind variations, global weather patterns, the electromagnetic interactions of the solar wind with the planets, lies the key to solving the long-term modeling problem's and providing answers that work.

http://www.redorbit.com/news/space/1...ere/index.html

There are now results that show seasonal shifts in Saturn's weather, so why is it so hard to think there are not tidal effects on the Earth's weather driven by the Moon's declinational movements.
If RTomes can show a measurable effect on the sun by the outer planets, what could be so difficult about believing the Moon (much closer) and swinging not 6 degrees but an included angle of 57 degrees, would not have a measurable effect.
My assumption is that it is the driving force behind the creation and maintenance of the jet streams, and the Rossby wave patterns. Just because it can visually be seen in the entire series of daily satellite photos is enough for me, to want to find the relationship between the patterns and planetary movements.

I have been looking at Lunar Declinational periodicities and have found a natural analog weather forecast, that runs better than the models. I first looked at 27.32 day declinational cycles and filtered data by 27.32 day periods, and got a 5:1 signal to noise ratio.

Upon looking further at satellite photos, I saw that the Rossby wave patterns, generated by the lunar declinational tidal perturbations, as meridial flow surges, was a four fold pattern . I should have been looking at 27.32 X 4 = 109.28 day long patterns, so I redid the data, and got signal to noise ratios closer to 14:1 in temperature data sets.

The 18.6 year Mn cycle of ~6793.65 days holds the declination angle the
same but is the .6 year off of seasonal, so does not work, the 19 year Metonic cycle, skews the declinational angle over two or three cycles off of a good match. But it seems that one (27.32 day) declinational cycle short of a saris Solar /Lunar eclipse cycle yields, a period of ~6558 days which is 240 X 27.325 days. This conserves the four fold Rossby periodicity, holds the declinational angle close, and also almost synchronizes the planetary returns of the inner planets, to similar positions relative to the star field.

http://www.aerology.com/national.aspx

try user name .......Kstate
and pass word ......Maps08

for a free viewing of all of 2008 weather maps.

The forecast generated on the above website, reflects the natural cyclic patterns, of the lunar declinational tides returning in phase three cycle in a row, with the temperatures averaged together, for highs and lows for each day, and all forms of precipitation display as a composite of all three cycles.

The dates applied to the finished maps is for this, "the fourth cycle".
To have these maps follow the actual weather as well as they do, speaks to me as proof of the existence of a real cyclic pattern, of a real effect, of the Lunar declinational tidal forces at work.

The problems with this forecast method is the interference of the outer gas giant planets, via inductive effects of the solar wind streams of condensed concentration of ions following the increased magnetic flux of the solar magnetic fields that couple though each of / and all of the planets in relative strength to their "magnetic conductivity" not just their weak residual local global permanent magnetic fields.

At times of a Heliocentric conjunction of Earth, with one or more outer planets, that surge in solar wind strength and density (about 30 degrees wide)has secondary induction effects in the homo polar generator effects felt on the Earth standing electro magnetic charges, and by the rules of induction, increases the poles (-) to equator (+) charge gradient, and drives warm moist tropical air masses off of the ITCZ into the mid latitudes. For the first 12 to 15 days, then the effect reverses, and
the gradient reduces to the nominal, driving large polar air masses, toward the same mid latitudes.

When the Lunar declination mid summer and winter is close to the ~23 degrees of the solar apparent declination the atmospheric tidal bulges combine and move in phase, as the syzygy of the two are much stronger, greatly increasing the meridial flow, to even sometimes across the ITCZ, hence the pressure wave difference. The variations caused from out of phase heliocentric conjunctions with Earth, by the gas giant planets causes the compound signal seen in the data, viewing only the pressure oscillation.

This pattern I am using compensates for the El Nino cycles as it is part and parcel of the pattern. The Morning Glory waves in Australia, are an annual effect that peaks at syzygy by the same combination of atmospheric tidal components, meeting no topographical resistance clear across the Indian ocean.

The spring tornado outbreaks in the USA are created, and defined by the eddy on the Lee of the Rockies, by deflection of the westerly winds, as the Lunar tidal effects, primary waves as the tropical air masses are perturbed Northward as the Lunar declination goes to Maximum North, and drags tropical moisture with residual positive ionic charges on it. Generating outbreaks of tornadoes, when the wrap around of the northern air mass combines to form the other half of the tidal bulge.

This springs outbreak of 80+ (after ground team review the count now is 43) tornadoes was due to the increased effect, of the Heliocentric conjunction of Saturn with Earth, (February 23rd 2008) causing a greater than usual surge in the ionic / static charge gradient, intensifying the effects. As the same type of atmospheric tidal effects happened at Maximum South Lunar declination, with a (normally smoother mixing) in a secondary tidal bulge.

The moon was at maximum North declination of the 8th of May 2008, the tidal bulge that it produced brought tornadoes into the mid west, and now into the Southeast this is typical of a three day surge in severe weather, at maximum North lunar declination and at Maximum South declination they are produced starting a day later, from the day of to four days after culmination.

The forecast it generates is fairly stable but there are pulses of interference injected into it by the outer gas giant planets. The most recent heliocentric conjunction / transit of Saturn's solar wind stream, caused a surge of warmth and moisture to enter the South Eastern US, that is now 03-04-2008 being squeezed out in a spat of
severe weather, before the pattern returns to running with out outer planet interference until the heliocentric conjunction with Jupiter, on 07-09-2008.

The pattern is quite usable as a forecast, feel free to look at it and give any feed back you have.

Richard, at face value this looks an interesting statistical finding. Can you provide more details? I don't know about the electricity theme in your OP, but am interested in planetary effects on the weather. I discussed at Planets and Rain and posted graph here.

I read your links and looked at your graph, I think what you are seeing is the 27.32 day lunar declinational cycle....

If you resort your data by Lunar declination, you will see a combined result much better than Lunar Phase relationships give. ( the improvement from {27.32 day periods}5:1 to 14:1 {for the 109.28 day period}signal to noise results above) as compared to a 1.9:1 ratio for lunar phase relationships.
If you look at dates close to in sync with consideration of the 18.6 Mn signal you will see an even greater signal to noise enhancement.

What I have done is look at this set of data I am using (~22,000 daily reporting stations) for the whole USA, and pulling out the temperatures, or precipitations, for the date 13,550 days ago, and for the dates 6,558 days ahead and behind the center date. roughly 19 years ago, 37 years ago, and 55 years ago, and averaging the three date's Temperatures together for the same reporting stations, making a grid and contour map from the compiled data, to generate a forecast of the current cycle.

This is effectively a daily weather forecast with a 19 year lead time, because of the sorting method, the Lunar Declinational tides effect is modulated by the Synodic conjunctions of the Inner planets, and the dates I have chosen puts the lunar phase, declination, perigee and apogee cycles all back into sync to this cycle for the forecast day, they are all figured in synergisticly.

With the exception of the Synodic cycles of Earth with the gas giants. Where the interference of these planets throws the patterns off and the forecast "misses for the three week period" (as noted above, paragraph 6) centered on the Heliocentric conjunctions of Earth with any of the Gas giants.

The details you are asking for are in my last post you quoted from, with the addition of the size of the data set I am using. The data set is comprised of the TD 3200 daily 24 hour observations of ~22,000 extended stations, from 1885 to 1998.

The proof for me is the accuracy of the "Forecast" that this process generates.

Welcome to BAUT, Richard. I think you will find many members here who are qualified to consider the technical merits of your claim, and willing to challenge your claims on scientific and mathematical grounds.

I am not one of them (being unqualified in the technical aspects of your claims).

I do, however, have a more "historical" question, related to the quoted passage below:

You cite a lack of funding as the reason this research was previously discontinued. Could you tell us a little bit about the amount of funds that would have been necessary to continue the research, the amount by which the original researchers fell short, the reasons given for why their funding was discontinued and the source(s) of funding you found with which to continue this research?

Thanks in advance!

It was well said in the Planetary effects on sunspot cycle thread by Rtomes


Quote:
Originally Posted by orionjim View Post
I’m not sure if you gave the three proposals (tidal, COM and Jupiter’s moons) to be a statement of mainstream thinking.
No. I gave them as background to the idea that the planets have effects on the sun. There is ample evidence from studying the frequencies found in sunspot numbers that they relate to planetary periods. However no mechanism has been generally accepted as explaining everything.
Quote:
From what I have read from the current experts on sunspots none of the three proposals you mentioned are ever talked about. I think today’s main expert on Sunspots is NASA’s Dr. David Hathaway and I have never read or heard him speak about planet alignment relative to sunspots. He sees the sun as a dynamo that among other things produces sunspots.
We need to distinguish between mainstream and logical. Seriously.

Any person who depends on getting their income from their scientific work is never going to look seriously at planetary alignments and sunspots. Why? Because it sounds like astrology. Most people will run a mile before they get associated with that. The main reason that serious papers were published in the 1960s was that NASA needed to be sure that they were not sending astronauts to the moon to get fried by solar flares. So some serious effort went in and as I understand it the only thing that they found that was useful was planetary alignments. (end of other thread copy paste)

international geophysical year was the last year that any funding was approved for studies of lunar effects on the weather. Before calculators were invented, let alone computers. At the end of WWII there was an excess of pilots in the service, so they put them to use looking to see if Ben Franklin was right or wrong.

They flew in large grid patterns, looking for Static charges in the clouds and the atmosphere. What they found was what any electrical engineer should know, was there were no electrical fields that did not have associated magnetic fields. Although they did find there were huge wandering magnetically coupled electrical fields, they did not have the ability to plot them on paper effectively enough to form any decision other than...There were no static fields found, end of study...

After an exhausting push to look for lunar phase signals in the atmospheric circulation patterns, at about the same time, funding was stopped if the word moon or lunar appeared in the proposal.

Of all the OCEAN tidal periods the declinational component is the weakest one to the point that it is not detectable above the noise. after a couple of studies, they jumped to the wrong conclusion that the dynamics of the ocean also applied to the atmosphere, although one was bounded and the other is not.

I am the first person to look into Lunar declinational tides using weather data and a computer. There is now some 20+ years of global weather satellite photos archived hourly for most of the period, that could be animated into a sequenced movie to show the four fold (109.3 day) pattern of the lunar declinational tidal forcing of the periodicity of the movement of the Rossby waves and jet streams.

All of the funding I have had at my disposal has come out of my normal work income, no one else, personal or government body, has contributed financially to the production of this study in any way. Some of the early data base I was allowed to sample for free, by copying the local stations stored data, in the late 80's I started buying data from NOAA out of my own pocket. Computer, software, printer supplies, all out of my own pocket from my hourly wages as a Machinist.

I got to spend many hours in the Linda Hall Research Library, at UMKC reading the "Synopsis of Meteorological, and Geophysical Abstracts" of research done from 1950 thru 1982, copying any I found reverent, before I moved out into central Kansas, and have relied on searches via the Internet, and a couple of visits to universities on vacations since.

NCAR in Boulder twice, M.I.T.'s building 54 once, (where I ironically found the 54 and 109 day patterns in their photo archive workroom), I tried to show them to Peter Stone the head of their program, but he was headed out to be a keynote speaker in Madrid, at the time, and had only an hour for me to see him.

When I lived in Kansas City, I used to get to visit with Paul Schaffer, who was the head of their training program about my ideas, he is now in charge of the Severe Storms Labs in Normal Oklahoma, and appears to be unreachable by the "general public", that I am.

Richard,

Thank you for your quick response.

I have a further question for you: It does not sound like very much funding at all is needed for the research you are doing. Why couldn't research have continued, using private funding on the same scale as yourself? Surely if there were good science to be done, and good scientists were already involved in doing it, and the could continue to do this good science simply by investing some percentage of their own paychecks in it, why would they stop?

Most research is funded by grants, most research is done by people working on getting their P.H.D. or other graduate studies. These grants are the main incomes of most researchers, so most bid on the research projects with the most liberal funding, or longest grant periods.
Professors sort thru students, and match them to grant funded research, based mostly on skills, talents, interests, and abilities as viewed by the assigning professor. There are some politics played in the background in some cases I'm sure. Status is sought by most as part of the outcome of the project, pinning their future careers, on the value seen in their work, making a name for them selves etc...

There are surges in funding approved by government agencies , politics play a heavy role in where the funds go, by both subject, and schools picked. For instance the Dr. Gray and the hurricane forecast funding is getting iffy lately with a couple of really dry seasons, that were predicted as normal levels of activity, that did not develop at all.

Currently it is the studies being pushed to prove, or disprove the global warming, and the importance of the human side, of the process, that is drawing the political support. They seem to have abandoned the El Nino process, when they could not work out models, for it that worked well. Now we are in a cooling trend for the past almost 10 years, and funding is just starting to shift gears, (more changes will be seen after the elections are settled).

Global power production / consumption and fossil fuels are the current power tools, of the rich and powerful, people and nations. Soon it will be water quality, and the efficiency of photosynthesis of solar energy into food, that will take center stage, as the population grows further, and energy sources, get sapped dry.

I have spent over 20% of my annual income in this endeavor, and over 40,000 man hours, (mostly on nights and weekends) in the past 30 years, (just the web site start up costs are now about $9,000.00) and have received only ridicule for "wasting my life", on some thing that was "proved wrong" back in the 50's in the highly political pursuit of monies available for modeling budgets, every one now in the upper echelons of the NWS got there because of their early posturing of them selves into the leading edge of the technique as it formed.

It is my opinion that more data needs to be added to the mix to get a cake, than flour, sunlight, heat, and water, I am proposing adding some sugar, and a couple eggs, to the mix.

The pattern I have found was intended by me, to be used as a base reference, for grounding the models in reality, so the "butter fly effects of the out of control", feedbacks did not get that way. I cannot tell "the experts how to do their job".

I have not been able to reach the ears of the NWS, because there are gatekeepers that require substantial degrees, and university support before grants can be applied for, or papers can be submitted, research published, screened by peer review, and then the internal politics of that whole system.

Very few people who want to be successful, run against the wind and get anywhere, most just go with the flow, and follow the cash, till retirement. I have just pushed on knowing it works, and have faith that some day it will be recognized for what it is.
So far only one person has clicked on the link to the forecast web site, from this forum, in the past 10 days it has been posted here. (according to Gooogle)

Does anyone else have any other questions on the stance I take in this thread????

I was told to be careful, you guys would tear me a now one!

I was hoping for a spirited open debate, where I could learn some thing, and maybe improve my communication skills on this subject. I am wondering if no one has any other questions, are you just waiting for the 30 days to run out, and hope I fade away?

Or have I posted this in the wrong section, and it shouldn't be in the ATM section??

Have been 14 more visitors to the site, and several returned a couple of times, and still no comments?

I am surprised to hear that the Moon and Venus have "permanent magnetic fields".
If you can really show that, please do.

And I am also interested in the "Moon being magnetically locked to the Earth"

Please explain these ATM proposals.

__________________

Any comments in glorious red are to be considered in ModeratorMode.


善數, 不用籌策 (shàn shù, bù yòng chóu cè)
He who is good at counting, uses no counting tools
“A good scientist has freed himself of concepts and keeps his mind open to what is”
道德經, 二十七 (dào dé jīng, 27)

(I stated >)You are right that the permanent field of Venus is weak and disoriented. The permanent magnetic fields of other planets have been measured by NASA probes. Such fields are too weak, and the other planets much too far away, to have any noticeable effect on the magnetic field near the Earth. Maybe a little basic electronics training is in order here, Ferro magnetic materials take on a permanent magnetic field orientation when in the form of crystals that cooled quickly. The orientation of the permanent fields orients with the field lines dominate at the time of quenching from the melted or heated state.

(edited here to add next paragraph as well for clarity >)However the magnetic permeability (the ability to conduct magnetic fields) remains strong in the gaseous or liquid state, and in varying degrees in solid compounds. Looking at the solar system as a composite system, with the sun at the magnetic center, and the planets, and all of the small
bodies revolving around it as an integrated magnetically connected whole. The natural assumption I make is that all of the dynamically fluxing magnetic fields extending from the sun are coupled into all of the bodies in a relevant strength, dependent upon the amount of magnetically permeable material included in that body. Not the weak standing residual field created from the solidification of their crusts.

(below is a current link V)

http://www-ssc.igpp.ucla.edu/personn...ers/venus_mag/

(Excerpt from article>)Magnetic Field

When Mariner 2 flew by Venus in 1962 at a distance of 6.6 planetary radii (Rv), it did not detect any evidence of an Earth-size magnetosphere. Mariner 5, passing within 1.4 Rv in 1967, detected the signatures in the solar wind of deflection around an 'obstacle' at Venus. The small inferred size of that obstacle placed an upper limit on the magnetic dipole moment of Venus of ~ 10-3 that of Earth. Later Venera 4 made magnetic measurements down to 200 km altitude, still detecting no planetary field but providing data that reduced this estimate by about an order of magnitude. In a 1974 flyby, Mariner 10 merely confirmed the existence of a small, nearly planet- size obstacle. Venera 9 and 10 were put into orbit around Venus in 1975, but did not approach Venus closer than ~ 1500 km. Nevertheless, the data that these spacecraft obtained in the wake of the planet provided the first evidence that an Earth-like magnetotail was absent, and that instead a structure related to the interplanetary magnetic field occupied that region of space. The most definitive measurements of the magnetic moment of Venus were obtained during the Pioneer Venus Orbiter mission in its first years of operation (1979-1981). Repeated low-altitude (~ 150 km) passes by that spacecraft over the antisolar region, coupled with dayside observations to the same altitude, proved the insignificance of a field of internal origin in near-Venus space. The observed fields for the most part could be explained as solar wind interaction-induced features, to be described below. The new upper limit on the dipole moment obtained from the Pioneer Venus Orbiter wake measurements placed the Venus intrinsic magnetic field at ~ 10-5 times that of Earth.

Of course, the weakness of the present measurement does not imply that Venus has always been bereft of an intrinsic field. Theories of the dynamos operating in the liquid cores of the newly accreted terrestrial planets suggest that there was a magnetic moment of Venus of the same order as Earth's for about the first billion years of Venus' life. During that time, thermal convection from the heat left over from accretion drove the dynamo. However, after that energy source diminished, there was apparently no source to replace it. While solid core formation in Earth's interior maintains its dynamo to this day by virtue of the related 'stirring' of the molten core around it, Venus appears to either lack the necessary internal ingredients (chemical or physical) for solid core formation, or to have ceased such processes at an earlier time if they resulted in complete core solidification or arrested core solidification. It is important to note that, contrary to popular belief, dynamo theory does not credit the smallness of the magnetic moment to the slow rotation of Venus (a Venus day of ~ 243 Earth days is almost equal to the length of its year of ~ 224 days, and its sense of rotation is retrograde). It is also notable that Venus would not have maintained any remanent crustal magnetic fields from its proposed early period of dynamo activity because the temperatures in the crust are expected to be above the Curie point (below which such fields could persist in rocky materials).

(one of several links showing measurement of the moon permanent magnet fields V)

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten.../281/5382/1480

I may have been mistaken to say locked, what I meant to say was interactively interconnected, as evidenced by the archived polar shots from this site, that was up and running live, when I formed the opinion. Most of the polar views, that were once posted daily, showed a clearly elongated enhancement of the ozone production in line with the moon's current position that moved with the rotation of the Earth to stay oriented onto the line between the Earth and Moon. I cannot find the site that used to post the Polar Aurora pictures as well, that agreed with the ozone data. I think that satellite went down earlier.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Obs...zone.toms.html

Okay, you mean slight magnetization of the crust of the moon, not a dipolar field.

But how can there be a magnetic(?) link between the moon and the Earth, when the moon is most of the times outside of the Earth's bow shock and thus only interacting with solar wind magnetic field?

Also, I think everyone now agrees that Venus has no internal magnetic field and the whole magnetosphere is created by draped field lines from the solar wind. There could be slight surface anomalies just like at Mars, but that will be all (although the surface temperature of Venus may be above the Curie point, destroying any anomalies). In a couple of months the periapsis of VEX will be lowered and we will get even closer to the surface.

__________________

Any comments in glorious red are to be considered in ModeratorMode.


善數, 不用籌策 (shàn shù, bù yòng chóu cè)
He who is good at counting, uses no counting tools
“A good scientist has freed himself of concepts and keeps his mind open to what is”
道德經, 二十七 (dào dé jīng, 27)

Richard, I finally got a little bit of time to look at this.

Below are some graphs of the Geocentric Z-axis in km of the Earth-Moon barycentre in ecliptic coordinates at various time scales as generated by the NASA JPL Horizons Online Ephemeris - can you elaborate on how the Earth's ~400 km wobble above and below the ecliptic plane may be useful for weather forecasting?

__________________
Carl Smith
The land of Oz

While visiting at NCAR in Boulder I spent some time looking at their body of geomagnetic data, for purchase. They gave me a "catalog of geomagnetic data" book to order from, and a sample book of one year of published charts, graphs, and tables of the data, (several years old) to show me the printed format it was available in.

When I got it home I proceeded to plot out all of the interesting times when there were large disturbances in the global fields. What was apparent from the plotting was the times when the moon or the Earth passed thru the other's magnetosphere's tail,the turbulence of the interaction of the two was felt at the surface of the Earth.

I also found a paper that showed during a total solar eclipse the Ionosphere's E and F layers rebounded to almost their normal night time height.

It is this I was referring to about the Moon and Earth being intrinsically linked. (not locked) The quotes I found in the original EU thread post were sniped out of the original Hypothesis I had posted to my first web site that was later lost, due to hard drive failure.

The last (three year graph) is of a scale I think that be used to understand the processes (that border on EU ideas) that I have come to realize, drive the severe weather outbreaks.

When the Center of mass of the Earth, is forced above or below the ecliptic plane, inductive forces place a differential static or ionic charge from one pole to the other, (normally maintained by Homo polar generator effects) shifting the normal positive band of charge at the ITCZ back toward the ecliptic plane intersection. When the COM of the Earth, is Maximum South, the counter balancing Moon is at Maximum North declination, for that 27.32 day long cycle.

The inductive charge gradient appears at the same time as the declinational angle culminates, and due to the pendulum movement effects, hangs at about the same angle for almost three days, before the two bodies sweep through the rapid movement phase, of close to 7 to 10 degrees per day across the equator (for the Moon), the ecliptic plane (for both).

There by producing surges in the meridial flow, via declinational tidal bulges in the atmosphere, in phase with the Lunar movement, and the creation and maintenance of a ionic charge gradient across the frontal boundary in addition to the thermal contrast, as well as the moisture content (dew point), for the three days at maximum declinational culmination. Enhancing the precipitation rates, maximizing and sustaining the ionic charge gradient.

Negative charges are free to travel as liberated electrons, that fan out ahead of the moving cold front, as the normal production of Sirius clouds.

Positive ionic charges on the other hand, have to move whole molecules, to travel, so are trapped mostly in the surface layers with high moisture content, that form the updrafts into the lightning producing clouds. As the ions from both sources rush toward each other, (typical convergence speeds in a thunderstorm are in excess of 50 to 70 MPH) all moisture with ionic charges on it combine to form neutral precipitation, all condensation nuclei, become trapped in the droplets, the moisture attracted to each other falls when massive, and the dust free cold air exits the clouds as down bursts, invisible outflows.

The visible clouds them selves, are constantly being reinforced with fresh ionized air mass, so the charge process due to non visible turnover, is many times the volume it appears to be as seen from the ground. Powering the rapid condensation, and the left over ionic charges are discharged as lightning. (Grapnel processes still apply to intra cloud transfer of charges) Most of the power is in the invisible incoming air flow, and the large volume of processed deionized air is also not visible as it exits the thunder cloud, which is what makes it dangerous for aircraft.

The tidal bulge dynamics can be used to judge the inertia of the frontal system to plot it's movement. And the inertia of the center of the air mass is a better indicator of the potential movement of a storm than the resultant frontal boundary or the low pressure generated along it. Once the tidal component is calculated into the tracking of tropical storms, and hurricanes, they take predictable paths, make turns as the Moon crosses the equator, and shift off to the north East, as the lunar declination goes toward Maximum.

I’ll just stand by my tornado forecast from the "this is simple thread"...
In response to "what defines a storm chaser's personality?"

Posted: Mar 19, 2008 4:59 AM
If I told you the best dates for tornado chasing were:
March 28-30th
April 4th
April 10-12th
April 25th-28th
May 22-24th
June 4th-6th

Would you schedule your vacation, or change your wedding plans,
on the chance I was going to be right??

As we are coming up on the June 4th - 6th dates, and the maps I used to generate these comments are still posted to my site unaltered....

I wanted to at least post this info before I got locked out of posting anything else.
My 2008 tropical storm / hurricane forecast as of may 3rd...

www.aerology.com

If you would be interested in looking at the detailed maps it has generated for
the whole year of 2008, enter these.....

Kstate ........user name
Maps08 .......password

for your use looking at
the severe weather days as well as the three or four, tropical
disturbances that will probably have names as they come ashore.
Around July 6th- 12th,
August 18 thru 23rd,
September 14th thru 19th,
and another around October 5th thru October 18th.
If you have the time to look at this and send a reply I would greatly
appreciate it.

Richard Holle

Richard, thanks for bringing up this discussion.

It seems that not many here participated, and very little was challenged in the life of the thread.

I think you can take that as a compliment in one sense, as it appears that nobody can find fault with your ATM model! Of course, it could simply be that nobody feels qualified to challenge you on anything, but I find that a bit odd on a board where mainstream astronomy is king, and your model in part depends on both solar and planetary factors!

All the best in your work.

Regards,
Carl.

Addendum:
BTW, your model has not been debunked, so if you have anything new to present it seems to me that there can be no valid objections to you starting a new thread!

__________________
Carl Smith
The land of Oz

I would not be quick to interpret the relative absence of expressed challenges as a validation of Richard's idea. It would require statistical analysis of a vast amount of weather data over a very long period to find out whether or not there is enough correlation to start thinking about possible causation. The jury could be out for a long time.

The binding constraint is less statistical validation than acceptance of the paradigm of interpreting earthly cycles against cosmic patterns. I don't think enough people have looked carefully enough at the data to assess if the limitation on its scientific acceptance is the period of time under study or reluctance of the scientific community to investigate the data at hand - perhaps because of a lack of interest in the cyclic model of time that underpins it.

Yes, but there has been plenty of time for a cursory examination and a few pointed questions to see if his model has any obvious holes in it, and no one has identified any or they would have been all over it with glee-and-fervor.

__________________
Carl Smith
The land of Oz