Jul 6, 2013

Predicting Future Weather Using Unproven Ideas and Other Voodoo

After further analysis I may have had a miscue in my day counting back in May. Never the less. It is summer in the CONUS. The jet is moving pole ward. Looks like there may be an event this time around, but as pointed out way back in January, it's a wimpy Low.

I will likely be posting the 7/7 map, along with storm reports from the forecast below.

originally posted May 18, 2013

BUST - I think that H in the four corners held the system from dropping down. A result of the jet stream shifting north? Slowly but surely. No matter, I'm confident that the pattern we are moving into spun several @weatherchannel named storms this winter (grey shade). Will watch this particular pattern (yellow shade) through it's entirety - in early July (5-6) when WI will surely be in the path. LOL.

"Cycle 5" May 13-14, 2013

originally posted Apr 28, 2013
Again the time is nearing. How is this pattern going to act this time around? The bet has evolved into an accompanied count of reports from just a warned area. This idea is absurd. Right? I assume I will be laughing at myself in two plus weeks. (For some reason I banked on the cycle coming in at 51 this time around. Seems it may be 52 or 53. My dates need to be extended by a day or two)

A projection - May 13-14, 2013

originally posted Mar 25, 2013

The time has passed, I lost the bet. Now we wait until May 13-14 for the next recurrence. How will it act?

"Cycle 4" March 23-24, 2013

originally posted Mar 12, 2013

Update: Archived radar loops of this storm from past cycles.

20121016-20 "Cycle 1"
20121208-12 "Cycle 2"
20130129-31 "Cycle 3"

originally posted Jan 28, 2013

We may have been a bit cryptic on the AccuWx Forum LRC Thread, so I will attempt to toss all the images into a quick blog entry. Click on each of the images for more information.

"Cycle 1" October 17-18, 2012

"Cycle 2" December 8-9, 2012

"Cycle 3" January 29-30, 2013

This is the pattern I have chosen to wager a "weather future" on. While the future may not be my retirement fund, it very well could be some of the best BBQ I have ever tasted. I am not a severe weather guy, nor have I ever chased, but if I were to pick dates on when I would, it would be March 25-26, 2013 ish. Using a 53 day cycle length I may be a day or two long on my dates. We'll see how it turns out. I've already read some trash talk of my choice; "you will need it to wrap up more next time. Wimpy surface low" - LOL. Be that as it may, I am wishcasting a winner! We will have a very good idea of what it looks like in the Pacific 2.5 - 3 weeks prior to the CONUS version. Stay tuned to the AccuWx Forum LRC Thread.

If there are any questions or thoughts on my research and analysis of the theory or how I presented the material just let me know in the comments section of the blog. Thanks for reading!


  1. Josh,

    How can you embrace Lezak's Recurring Cycle, which has little scientific evidence supporting it, whereas you state no support for Man-made Global Warming which has mountains of empirical scientific evidence supporting it?

    Yes, climate change is inevitable. It is also inevitable that Earth's global temperatures will warm when atmospheric carbon dioxide levels increase by 1/3rd in 50 years due to human burning of fossil fuels, as happened. Scientific data demonstrate that Earth is warming as CO2 concentrations rise.

    1. Anonymous, thanks for stopping by the blog!

      As the description of this blog states, it is "A journal of learning the LRC through research, analysis, and attempts at forecasting." I embrace the theory because thus far in my study I have been unable to conclude that it doesn't exist. And it's fun.

      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.

    2. Josh,

      You did reveal your politics in this month's Northwestern column. You also revealed your limited understanding of science. Anthropomorphic global warming has the empirical scientific evidence to support it as a scientific theory, just like the theory of gravity.

      Lezak’s Recurring Cycle is a hypothesis, though you call it a “theory.” In science, a theory and a hypothesis have significantly different levels of evidence to support them. Please research their definitions so you stop confusing them with your readers.

      As for your column, you should stick to the facts and stop making claims that are not supported with facts. You make Doug Zelmer look like a scientific expert.

    3. Anonymous, thanks for taking the time to respond. I truly appreciate the feedback on the column. It is the first since I began submitting it.

      Consider Lezak's Recurring Cycle a marketing tool. See links below for a taste of the science behind ISO's.

      ISO 1
      ISO 2
      ISO 3
      ISO 4

  2. Only someone with their own agenda can take a look at the Northwestern article and think that Josh is revealing "his politics" in it.

    1. When I was young, I did not know that acceptance or rejection of established scientific theory was political. Today those who reject man-made global warming do so for political reasons. That is because there is a lack of verifiable scientific evidence to reject man-made global warming.

      In The Northwestern, Josh wrote, “Climate change is inevitable on planet Earth.” That is true. But it is also the excuse used by deniers of man-made global warming to block any actions to at least slow down the rate of human caused emissions of CO2 that is the primary driver of today’s observed global warming.

      So yes, I revealed my political agenda. My politics believe in the scientific method. From the evidence that science has gathered, humans must do more than adapt to man-made global warming. We must take steps to significantly decrease greenhouse gas emissions. Otherwise climate change due to global warming will be so disruptive as to cause significant hardship. I believe it is better to prevent than to adapt.

  3. Amusing comments. No question at best, Lezak’s Recurring Cycle is an ill-defined hypothesis. That said, the premise isn't new or unique. As presented above, it really is more an extension of the ISO/MJO. For that alone, the premise has some merit. Assuming each year has it's own unique duration within the parameters defined generally within the ISO definitions - perhaps. Even if so, trying to forecast to a point location is near to impossible. Hovmoller plots also can do similar things in long range trending, but with similar lack of precision or resolution as the "LRC". Interesting idea..and I think what is being communicated on this site is fairly transparent in that it is a learning/experimentation purpose rather than cramming it down anyone's throat. Using this premise by any other name than an extension of the ISO or any other claims of precision/accuracy is marketing at its finest.

    1. Anonymous, it truly is a learning and experimentation type of work. The Anonymous comment above "theory vs hypothesis" sparked consideration on my part. After more investigation, I am well suited to acknowledge the LRC as a viable application of ISO. Thanks for stopping by and leaving a comment!