After a few muses from @kcwxguy I found myself knee deep fiddling with Google Visualization. It soon became a fresh way to visualize my forecast model data based on LRC theory. The winter of 2012-13 begins my third year following the cycling weather patterns of the northern hemisphere. An eagerness to learn has grown into a passion. From a once inconceivable backyard snowfall forecast in 2010, to a winter outlook for Oshkosh in 2011, to seasonal forecast numbers for the entire Midwest in 2012-13. The idea has certainly grown on me.
As we get "pattern change" shoved down our throats the next two weeks I want to reiterate the fact that this "pattern change" is not something new to the eyeballs that have been following the cycling patterns of 2012-13. The particular pattern has been projected for months. It is evident in all of the trends for the cities that will be affected. I will focus on temperatures. Below is a screenshot animation from the OSNW3|WxClimate site of a Google Geo Chart depicting the maximum temperature deviation for the Midwest cities selected for trends this season. There are three images in the animation. An image for Dec 1-14, Dec 15-28 and Dec 29-31. Clicking on the image will take you to the maps website for a larger view.
What isn't on the media radar yet, well at least I haven't seen it, is the extreme warm-up that could take place in the Midwest the last few days of 2012. Below is another screen capture of the OSNW3|WxClimate site. This Google Motion Chart is showing all of the cities max temperature departures from average for the month of December. By following the thick blue line it is evident something warm will be recurring near the end of the year. The same idea is shown above in the third frame of the animation.
(From the Event Mapping page click on "Motion Chart" to use the chart yourself)
We all know a weather prediction made one month out is seldom followed through to fruition. Most of us will not trust a computer generated forecast more than 3 days out. A major asset of the theory, in my opinion, is it's ability to predict significant "pattern change". Give or take a day, I am confident this will all take place, even before the populous had hints from long range computer models.
If there are any questions or thoughts on my research and analysis of the LRC or how I presented the material just let me know in the comments section of the blog. Thanks for reading!
Your work is fascinating. I am very interested to see if you're correct with the big warm up at the end of December. I am also interested in learning more about the LRC but I cannot find much information about it online. How did you gather so much knowledge about it?
ReplyDeleteI am also very interested in the warming trend at the end of the month. It could be a snow pack killer for areas with snow on the ground if it happens. Feel free to shoot me an email to further discuss the second question. Thanks for stopping by and dropping a line.
DeleteI sent an email a few days ago. I was wondering if I sent it to the right email address. I found an email address on one of your other sites. Thanks.
ReplyDeleteI need more specifics. Use the gmail account. :)
DeleteJosh,
ReplyDeleteIt did not warm up at the end of December.
Why do you believe in voodoo science like Lezak's Recurring Cycle, while poo-pooing Man-Made Global Warming and the empirical scientific evidence supporting it?
Anonymous, thanks for stopping by the blog and taking the time to leave a comment!
DeleteThe late December warm up projected by my LRC based algorithms certainly did not take place. However, if you're following along with the cycle you noticed the flow in the middle of the atmosphere was strikingly similar. It will be fun to watch this pattern evolve when it recurs around February 22.
http://www.hpc.ncep.noaa.gov/dailywxmap/dwm_500ht_20121109.html
http://www.hpc.ncep.noaa.gov/dailywxmap/dwm_500ht_20121230.html
I am currently working on the addition of a teleconnection variable into the algorithm that will increase the accuracy of the theory's use here at the surface.
As for the voodoo and empirical evidence comment, I will reiterate what I wrote to another Anonymous in a different blog entry. I assume the climate change and global warming topic came from reading my February column in the ONW? I feel the global warming debate is much like debating politics and religion. Bottom line, whatever takes place, you and I will need to embrace and adapt.
Josh,
DeleteLezak’s Recurring Cycle is a scientific hypothesis, not a scientific theory. Please stop calling LRC a theory. It is not. Man-made global warming is a scientific theory, just like the theory of gravity. In science, a theory and a hypothesis have significantly different levels of evidence needed to support them. Please research their definitions so you stop confusing them with your readers.
Yes, humans must adapt to ongoing climate change. However those who deny that humans are warming Earth due to burning fossil fuels also tend to deny the need to adapt to the significant global warming that is occurring today. For example, the North Carolina legislature refuses to accept that the rate of the rise in sea level is increasing. So they passed a law allowing the sale of coastal real estate that will be inundated by the Atlantic Ocean within decades.
I did post the comments on “Predicting Future Weather Using Unproven Ideas and Other Voodoo.” That is an accurate way to describe Lezak’s Recurring Cycle. But please stop calling it a theory. The evidence does not exist to support LRC as a theory.
And please stick to telling Northwestern readers what the weather was like and what is predicted based on scientific evidence such as temperature and precipitation averages, rather than the voodoo science you are describing.
Anonymous, to keep things streamlined I responded to your comment in the "Predicting Future Weather Using Unproven Ideas and Other Voodoo" blog entry. Thanks for taking the time to stop by the blog and comment!
Delete