NBC Action Communities

Ooh! I love this! A series of maps, and we have to figure out what Gary is talking about!!

Map #1=  We have a zonal flow with the Jet Stream way up north, predicted on the models for Friday. Which means a nice warm up for the weekend.

Map #2= The 850mb temps showing down-sloping which means a warm up for the weekend.  The Temps for Saturday are forecasted to be around 71 degrees.

Map #3= The pattern them shifts to a SW Flow on Sunday as a large interesting storm (trough) is forecast to develop. And it will "shoot" pieces of energy at us which should equal rain on Monday.

------------

Good analysis Andrew!

Gary

27 degrees this morning in Easton, MO

It happens to everyone.  Modelitis.  I found this interesting in how much just one day of models can change a forecast.

Here is from the Climate Prediction Center on Sunday for precipitation trends 8-14 days out...

http://tinyurl.com/yh4vo6y

And here is yesterday's view

http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/predictions/814day/814prcp.new.gif

Almost completely opposite.  Granted, the Sunday run for the CPC is mostly just model guidance, but falls in line with how much models have been changing run to run lately.

Oddly, it seems the CPC continues to ignore the Euro based on their forecast weighting.

Scott-the CPC sunday forcast is not "mostly" model guidance. It is 100% computer generated. So of course it has "modelitis"--it's nothing but models. It's not really comparable to the weekday forecasts, which have human input.

Scott, without a legend on those maps, I can't tell what the colors indicate, except that the darker ones mean more of...whatever they represent. Can you explain?

There is a legend at the bottom of the maps....A = above average B = below average. darker means higher chance of that. those maps scott posted are for precip.

scott - have you thought about putting out a similar style forecast - maybe every 15-30 days - of temp/precip anomalies using your forecast method?  

we had a nice frost on the yard this morning in SE Lee's Summit this morning...
31 degrees

Thanks RDub, I went back and looked again -- still can't see a legend, but now I don't need one.

Rdub - yes, you are correct.  Just seems consistent that even in other days, they had really jumped on a prolonged stretch of zonal flow shown in the GFS until the most recent runs.

Bizarro - yes..I have thought about that.  

Scott -

Last week (Thursday) we had a short discussion about the mesoscale claims by the LRC team and I asked a few questions of you and Gary.  It seems you're more willing to elaborate on the details more than others on the team, so I'm hoping you can help me out here.

As a refresher, I had posted:

>>>>>>

I guess the part I'm confused by is when you give the example above from 7 or 8 years ago...it sounds astounding [that you could 'draw a line' on a map and say the snow would not fall past that line]...but if I look at a different year's data, it doesn't look as convincing.  For instance, last year...there were some pretty big storms within the viewing area, but some of the storms went north and socked areas by St. Joe while others went south and dropped more snow by or around KC...so even though a storm was considered the "same" storm from one cycle to the next, it didn't always follow that same path and make those mesoscale similarities.

I guess the hard time I have with it is that it seems as though if a storm does double up on the same area, it becomes a "see, look - it fits the repeating cycle pattern all the way down to the mesoscale!!" but if it misses by 50 or 100 or 500 miles, then it is explained away as being "not every repeat has the same features at the surface...look at the long term long waves instead - that is where the LRC really exists." and that "the next time around, the storm may look very different."  This sounds like the get-out-of-jail free card...it is the trump card whereby one can claim success with any outcome.

It seems to argue both ways is to really fudge the theory a bit and make it look more robust than it really is.  

>>>>>>

You replied to that you understood the confusion/discrepancy and then you mentioned that you had more thoughts and that you'd elaborate on in more detail another time... so I'm curious, could you explain your thoughts on this issue (rather than demurring with "let's see how it sets up and follow it later"...that seems to be the usual response to the tough questions by other members of the team - I'm looking to you because I know you want to step up to the tough questions).

-------------

Jerry,

When I talked about drawing the line a few years ago, it was that years LRC that gave me confidence in drawing the line, and to be that specific takes us down to the meso or micro scales.  It always depends on the weather pattern and there are some patterns that the defining lines are right in our viewing area, and others are not.  There are features that go down to the meso and micro scale that are going to be unique to this years LRC. What are they and how am  I going to describe them to you and show you? We will know a lot more by early January. Between now and then let's pay close attention as these should be able to help the forecaster as a storm is approaching or moving through.  As the pattern cycles, one cycle may not be as amplified as another cycle so storm systems sometimes go well north or south near the same longitude. But, if you are closer to a "long term" longwave trough this won't happen as often.  Let's see how it sets up this year and we will try to predict these variabilities. 

Gary

Bizarro - I did leave quite a bit of thought as I recall to your initial post, but yes..indeed, this is an excellent question that would warrant a great deal of detail to capture correctly.  Certainly, I am up for the discussion, but do not think I could get it all in one reply.  That is an essay waiting to happen.  I find many may find my long, droning explanation as annoying or "talking down" in explaining what I think.

In the end, Gary is the SME and probably has the best base to work from.  Unfortunately, this forum does not allow the ease or ability to supplement analysis with peripheral data needed to really do it right.

That said, remember..I was a very harsh critic in the past.  I fully understand your feelings regarding how things at times are not carried forward enough.  

I have made myself available using the LRC blog as a location to discuss [more friendly with functionality to include graphics in replies], or via email, or heck...would be happy to meet in person over a coffee to discuss.  Certainly, it is clear I am not adverse to dialogue.  LOL

I feel it is valid to answer tough questions..and would never dream of running from them.  As a critical thinker, I feel it critical to answer those types of questions as it always seems to turn to a learning experience and point of focus for all involved in the discussion.

If you are really game in really diving in, I am all for it.  If the purpose is to banter for sport, I will pass.

And yes, I realize I did not answer your question in this reply, though I hope I provided some reasons why as well as a path for you to get "all you can eat" analysis from my perspective.

Gary,

I have to admit some frustration with some of these tougher questions, Gary.  It seems the responses to many of the tougher questions during the off-season (like summer into fall when your theory isn't in effect) are always "let's wait and see how the upcoming cycle sets up" so there is no response. This happens CONSTANTLY.  Yet when the season is actually underway, the tough questions frequently get replied with things like "let's look at this when things settle down a little bit - right now, we're in the middle of another cycle and we're still working on the upcoming forecast..."  This is the alternative that happens the rest of the year.  

That leaves those of us with tough questions virtually never getting responses...the answers get shrouded in what appears to be a legitimate reply of "let's tackle that later" but later never comes.  I don't need to see the upcoming winter to have answers to the questions that have already been asked...why can't they be answered using old data rather than waiting for upcoming data?

I guess in this case I do see a *hint* in your response above indicating that some years, you can see a higher level of precision with your theory (like that year with the snow lines) but other years, you can't get as detailed.  So I guess I just have to put this question to rest...I've tried so many times, yet the detailed responses are lacking.  When you make frequent, repeated claims as strong as that your theory can be supported on the microscale and mesoscale, yet you fail to step up with specific evidence or explanations of seeming disparities, in my eyes (and in the eyes of many others), it does a great disservice to your theory.


Scott - I'll be honest, I see the theory as having some significant holes (that's no secret)...such as the one I outlined above, among others.  I do not feel it is a proper response to such tough questions to tell the questioner that they must be willing to spend hours or days or weeks delving into their own analysis and study...PARTICULARLY when many of the still-unanswered questions do not require a super-detailed response.  If a straightforward claim such as the LRC can be useful on the microscale and mesoscale features...and a question arises asking for examples and an explanation as to how seeming disparities can be explained, a thesis need not be written...and hiding behind the claimed complexity of a response that is as of yet unprovided is not legitimate - it is no response at all.

It seems by your response that you are shifting the ball back into the court of the questioner - calling on them to do more of their own analysis or dedicate hours and hours of their own time...and then when the questioner is unwilling, you can claim "see, the doubters can't step up to the challenge - they're not worthy of a response by me."  

I know plenty about atmospheric science...and I know more than enough to know that the LRC has holes.  I'm not the only one that has valid questions.  It would behoove you to try to tackle them and step up to the challenges rather than demur with "you (the questioner) needs to get more engaged in the theory".  That's not how science works.  As so many others have posted here, it is up to you - the proponent of the theory - to provide your evidence.   It is not up to the skeptics to prove its non-existence.  I know you agree with these tenets, but by shifting the ball out of your court, you seem to be disparaging your own acknowledgments of the responsibilities of the proponents of a theory.  If the proponents of the theory weren't making such bold claims as "it is bigger than el nino" or "it works on the microscale" then the questions may not be valid...but with such lofty claims, they are.

As for the specific issue at hand here - sure, post away on your lrc blog or even here - you can easily tinyurl pictures here - or wherever you'd like and when I have time/energy, I'll respond how I see fit...but as I see it, MY level of participation in the questioning process should not dictate how you respond to the valid, tough questions that have been asked my many - not just myself.  These are not questions "for sport", rather for science...and I'm not the only one asking them.

-------------

Bizarro Jerry,

I embrace all of your dialogue.  My biggest challenge when answering your questions is time.  I often just write a very quick response and you deserve and everyone deserves more thought on the subject.  We will obviously be spending a lot of time on the LRC very soon as I issue the winter forecast.  I promise you that I will devote a bit more time and thought into my answers.  "holes in the LRC", certainly.  We are working to fill in those holes.

Gary

Every year you seem to figure it out sooner, last year it came out in december and now it comes out in two weeks! Have a good dry week and hope that all the farmers can finish harvesting there crops!!! It wouldn't be good if they went to waste...

Gotta give it to you, Bizarro - that was a well crafted response.  Let me try to address just a few of your thoughts.

1.  Clearly the responsibility is with those making the claim to provide evidence.  In many cases throughout this last year, I believe analysis has indeed been provided showing in many cases quantifiable examples of how the LRC is working.  

Yes, there are some questions still within the LRC.  There are certainly many questions that we have as well.  The lack of answers does not explicitly imply there is not an answer or it is not possible, rather it has not been found yet.  

2.  As far as the independent investigation, I see your point, though my intent is not how you describe.  I speak from personal experience regarding the LRC and not the typical method of scientific process.  As a critic, I was very frustrated as well with the same things you describe.  I don't feel this blog will ever get to the level of detail you seek.  It doesn't for me, but I am not sure that is the intent of this blog.  It seemed natural to provide the separate spot to better focus on specific questions. It is available for this reason.  

To quench my own curiosity, I had to do my own research using the tenants that were communicated.  I mention this as not a typical method of investigation, as in the scientific process, this is not the way to do it.  I realize that.  I only mention it if you personally really want to learn it.  Otherwise, it is well within the right of critics to dismiss the theory until it goes through the proper process - though my personal feeling is that it is shortsided to dismiss any type of discovery due to delays in formal process.  Just my feeling of it, though my cognitive reasoning supports your statements.


As it seems you have a passion to understand, it doesn't seem like a stretch to ask that you look deeper at some of our published analysis.  I can honestly say now that if I disengage from analysis even for a week regarding the LRC, it falls out of focus.  It is not easy to see or understand without staying engaged in the analysis.  Likely for this reason, it DOES seem so cloudy for many.

No doubt about it, much needs to be learned and communicated regarding the theory.  Speaking for myself, I have learned far more about what it is and isn't in the last two years.  I have also found a great deal of supporting documentation validating many of the core conceptual elements of the LRC.  In addition, there are other things being reviewed that seem to relate to the LRC.  Much of this still needs far more analysis as internally, we are just as critical of discovery as those critiquing the LRC as a whole.

In the end, logically, I am not going to be able to argue much of your points above.  They are solid.  That said, I offer a path for greater understanding as a personal offer to those seeking more info.  I understand in the greater process, this is not a valid approach, but if you want to hear it out...it is available.  That is all I can offer at this time.

In light of the current resources and time, while I wish we were further along in being able to define all of what is asked, we are not there yet.  

I like the initial winter forcast in nov. but the one I really "hold your feet to the fire on" is the revised winter forcast in mid to late dec. ongoing. I dont see anything wrong with a revised winter forcast as needed.

Il uv to read all the debate in here regarding the lrc and all the different arguments pro and con. I well simplify everthing down to 3 words sunny and 70 i that i s all i care about , and warm and dry winter , all the other debate is just window dressing. life is to short to disagree just unite and smile .

Bizarro-rock on with yo' bad self!  WAYYYY better than anything I could come up with.  However, I would like to say, "What HE said!"

I have followed this blog for years and your assessment is 100% correct.  However, as KSHB owns the blog, they can do as they like.  That may mean many different things, but to me, it means they will continue to tout the LRC even though they provide no proof.

I won't blindly follow the theory as many on this blog do.  Many of them are "originals", have gone to the BBQ, bought the t-shirt.  They will believe anything told them with no supporting documentation.

I do not doubt that Gary fully believes he has found something.  However, until he is able to provide the scientific community with tangible evidence, it will only be blog fodder.

One thing that I have noticed,(not per say lrc related) is how far along the trees are this year, really they are already becoming so bare, it looks more like Thanksgiving time to me rather than just getting into November. things are starting to look familiar again on the GFS, it will be interesting to follow.

JOCOWX - I applaud your response.  It brings to light a way I can communicate a point that I struggled with earlier.

As it relates to my propensity of asking  critics to put in some effort, your comment illustrates it perfectly.

"They will believe anything told them with no supporting documentation. "

This is a false statement very common with the garden variety critic.  Because the information is not spoonfed when they happen to read it, it doesn't exist.  This is the root of my angst for asking for critiques to research their stance prior to hobbling over to the mighty soapbox.

JOCO - rest assured, there is ample reading material on supporting documentation with the LRC should you care to read it.  It is available.  Should you want to explore any one of the many examples specifically, I will happily give you any platform you would like.

While Bizarro brings up a very good point today, I will continue to find it intriguing to see the wanna be critics come out of the word work with less than compelling argument or otherwise incorrect assertions.  I have and continue not to shy away from any critique, but please bring some substance.

Bizarro did a great job today.  I implore the others to put in the same effort if you really want to be taken seriously.

Wow, I just clipped a rose off of our true rose bush today and put it in a a little flower holder, I don't think it has ever flowered this late before!!!

Bizarro, if you have specific questions I will give you my theories that I have developed over the many many years I have been studing all of these patterns.  You can shoot me an email and I will answer any questions you have.
Doug Heady
dheady@koamtv.com

Scott, where is this "ample reading material"? Is it all just this blog, or the lrcweather.com blog?

On lrcweather.com, I see a tab for "LRC" but it has very little information. The "LRC summary" is 2 paragraphs. Under "LRC Accuracy" I see a page worth of verification for winter forecasts from 2008. And frankly, the information on this page is cherry picked data. For example, there is no mention of the forecast blizzard for March 2008.

Is all this "ample reading material" in one place, laid out in a systematic, organized way? It really needs to be. It's disingenuous to tell people they need to read up more on your theory when it has never been laid out in a single place, easy to find and systematically organized.

--------------------

Rdub,

First of all, it isn't Scott's theory. And, secondly, I agree.  It needs to be organized, rewritten, and updated. 

Gary

Gary,
I just signed up client number 2.  This has been a good week.  To bad the weather is boring for us, lol.
Doug

Thanks Gary! You should have a few map challenges like that!!

Scott, you answered exactly how I thought you would.  There is nothing false about what I wrote, but there's plenty false with your response.  There is nothing, NOTHING on this blog that offers proof of the existence of a repeating cycle, only words to that effect.  Where is all the "evidence" on your LRC site?  

While you're busy patronizing, go back and re-read my post.  There's plenty of substance there.  You know better than anyone else on this blog (probably) who the LRC proponents are.  If I write their names/handles, I'll get banned.  

Does the word "proof" get you all riled up?  It should.  Publish a flippin' research paper that can be scrutinized by the scientific community!  

So your point is, "put in the same effort if you want to be taken seriously".  Ok, completely disregard anything I've ever written on this blog and just work with what Bizarro wrote.  You won't provide answers to his questions, let alone mine.  Your arguments don't hold water if you believe that only those questions that are posed in your required form are the ones you have to answer.  You haven't convinced anyone other than garden-variety weather people (outside of the KSHB weather team and Doug Heady) that the LRC exists and yet those garden-variety weather people ask you to prove something and they just get talked down to?

Scott, when you provide the "ample reading material" you tout, for scientific review, please let someone know.  Then I won't have to waste MY time in your drivellish responses.

Let me condense it for you Scott:  You have to deal with the bantor along with the scientific retorts if you want acceptance of your theory.

Where exactly is the "proof" on the LRCweather.com site?  Is there a tab missing?

Scott, I'm still trying to figure out your rules.  What constitutes a "garden variety critic"?  Is that anyone who doesn't have a degree in meteorology?  I can't ask any questions that you don't like / hurts your feelings / doesn't have at least 3 scientific words?  Do I need to perform a Chi-square or T-test on some of your data before I'm allowed to ask a question / make a comment?  Or better yet, am I supposed to get the data myself?

You consistently place the burden of proof on the people who make the comments or ask the questions.  Why is that?  The burden of proof lies squarely upon those that purport the existence of the theory.

Rdub - it is in the LRC blog.  It is all in one place.  It is still just organized by date, but doesn't take much effort to find many of the past examples.  In fact, there were several blogs made for the very effort of referencing past entries that were content rich.

I am curious about something.  There is quite a bit of banter about wanting "proof".  If something didn't exist at all, wouldn't it be difficult to provide even one example that it does?  

Then...how much is enough?  1-10-100?  I am not sure.  Since it is a theory and not a law, there will be some cases where the theory will not work or apply.  This is consistent by definition.  

I suppose if just a few map to map comparisons had been presented, I can see how there may be reason to fully discount any claims, but I know over the past three years through here or the lrcweather.com blog, many examples have been presented.

How much is enough?  I suspect asking on a blog, I would get many different answers likely based on individual comfort level.

If there was nothing at all to the theory, there would be a mountain of counter examples how it fails for every example provided.  I applaud Bizarro for his efforts today and he makes some great points.  For the data driven examples on the lrcweather blog, I have not seen any critique regarding what it presented.

Dunno...I fully understand what is being asked, but it seems to be able to come up with many examples to date, that there must be something there if even we don't understand all of the workings yet.

Your point is well taken.  

Re: Blizzard of March 2008.  Yup, it missed Kansas City, but did it really miss all together?  Do you remember how far in advance it was forecasted?  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_blizzard_of_2008

Jocowx145.  I haven't looked at every single thing on the lrc weather site so I am sure you are right.  I can't give you proof either that a pattern exists.  I have never really cared to prove it.  When I did all of my research years ago I had to prove to myself that what I was seeing is true.  I forecast long range, at least 4 weeks out if not further b/c I feel like I can do and have been able to do it for years.  But you are right, I can't prove this to you.  Gary and I have a hard time proving things to each other b/c his beliefs are different than mine our on how and when the pattern sets up.  All I can do is sit and show you that pattern.  Proof, no I can't do that.  I understand your frustration and I hope Scott is able to provide you with proof of what his theories are.  However I haven't looked into much of his research b/c I just have to know what supports my theories.  I just haven't done the research to say here it is on paper.  I know that the pattern sets up in August and is completely set in mid October.  So I look for that, find the cycle length and plug away with my forecasting.  I just haven't ever tried to prove it to show to others b/c I have no need to.  So I understand where you are coming from that you want proof.  I hope scott is able to provide what you are looking for.  Take care,
Doug

JOCO - It seems you took offense to my entry.  I apologize, it was a bit sharp but not intended to offend.  

What I mean by "garden variety" are those that have not made any attempt to read what has been published before going on a rant.  Regarding the rest of your post, I will leave it alone as it seems more subjective than anything I can discuss objectively.

I am going to assume it to be largely rhetorical.

As far as placement of burden, I have been very consistent in noting indeed it is those proposing to provide evidence.  We have provided examples/evidence.  What I am asking for is those who continue to rant to read those examples so that we may have something objective to debate.  Otherwise, it is void of anything that can be shown to be or not be.  

Or as you say, just blog fodder.

Scott, I'm sorry, but what's on the LRCweather blog now doesn't really cut it. It's a series of unconnected blog entries that are mixed in with numerous other unrelated postings. It is organized by date, but how does any reader know what date to look for? It's not organized by subject, or by analytical method, or anything else that would be useful to the reader.

http://www.facebook.com/home.php#/photo.php?pid=30560079&id=1152330872

Here is the flower, I'm kind of upset because my cat ruined it. X-I - Per the LRC, some people just fallow because they want it to be true, thats why it is hard for something like this sometimes. Have a good day everybody!

Skylar

Scott, please tell me you are not serious with that wiki link. That blizzard happened on March 9, 2008. Gary's prediction was "There will likely be a blizzard and massive winter storm very close to us between March 21st and March 28th."

This is a good example of something that did not fit well with the LRC but has never really been examined or analyzed.

Rdub, as a contributor who wrote some of them, I would disagree.  There are several in depth examples showing both graphical and statistical outputs supporting the theory.  

I will take a look to see if there is a way to better organize it.

By the way, the blizzard forecast was made on Feb 13, 2008 and can be found here:

http://community.nbcactionnews.com/blogs/weatherblog/archive/2008/02/13/2534506.aspx

--------------------------

Rdub,

Thanks for the memories. If anything, I hope everyone see's how much effort it takes to just write a blog entry like that one.  It really takes hours to put together. Anyway, there were some accurate forecasts and then the big miss on my "signature" storm that year.  I was bold, and I often am when it comes to forecasting the weather.  There have been a few big busts in my life of forecasting, but the hits far outway the busts.  It is still a big work in progress and we are moving forward.

What a discussion today!  Thank you for participating.  I will hopefully be more involved and answer some of your questions in the days and weeks ahead.

Gary

"If something didn't exist at all, wouldn't it be difficult to provide even one example that it does?"

Actually, scott, no. Suprious correlation and other data artifacts are incredibly common. that is why the proponents of theories have to work very hard to show their results are not merely a result of chance.

Scott, some of the blog postings have useful information. But they are not organized in a useful way, where people can find them easily. And they (as far as I've seen) aren't really linked in a way that provides a comprehensive analysis, at least not yet.

Rdub - I didn't remember the specific claim...  I just picked the first thing that popped up regarding that time period.  Yup, based on your specific information, that link wouldn't really apply.  Looking back at that time period, there were quite a few notable events through the Plain states, but Gary would have to answer that one.

Fair enough Rdub, makes sense.

Scott, "a blizzard and massive winter storm very close to us" is not the same as "quite a few notable events through the Plains states".

Here's what Gary said on March 24 08 "We are in the part of the pattern that I thought would produce the snowstorm, but the jet stream is flat, very strong, but to our north."

So, obviously, here is an example where the pattern did not "recur" as expected.

--------------

Rdub,

I was really only a year off as we did get snowstorm at the end of March this year.  Anyway, I am sure there are many examples of where our forecasts have failed when I have gotten that specific, but there have been a lot of successful forecasts as well.

Gary

Ok, I got it Scott.  Detractor=troll.  Good luck with getting your theory accepted with that attitude.

I'll let IYO, smarter people ask the questions.  I LMAO with your "proof" argument.  Hope you include that in your paper too.

I for one am glad that we are a long way from a Blizzard. Gary's forecast for this week looks fantastic. Doesn't get much better this for the beginning of November.

I see lots of trail riding in my future this week - trying to get as much pleasant outdoor time before ol'man winter takes hold.

I'm a big boy-I can take your retorts Scott.  Hopefully you can put as much energy into an actual, factual, proof response as you do to defending your lack of it.

Rdub, I remember year and that March.  We had a 52 day pattern that year and it was very amplified when that cycle came through late January and early feb.  However, the next cycle that came through in late March was more zonal but the waves where still there.  The same systems were passing through the flow, but because it ended up more zonal it didn't produce the weather at the surface that it did 52 day prior.  You just have to give that one up to human error.  I have learned a ton since then and I am sure Gary has as well.  You can use that example when the forecast was wrong.  However, I am sure Gary can give plenty of examples when the forecast was right.  The human factor comes in to play when I forecast.  I have to make sure I see all the little details.  If I miss a few, I will get burned.  That is where the forecasting comes into it just like every other part of the weather.  I hope that makes sense.  Great blogs today.

Good discussion today.  A good takeaway is to present information a bit more organized.  I will look into that!

Wow - that old blog post that RDub linked to has some gems within it - that is a fantastic discussion.

Fascinating also to see how Scott's views have changed.  In the 2:18pm comment, you were sure looking for some detail that I never see in LRC forecasts these days, Scott!

But that's just one of many gems in that discussion.  Wow!

All I want to know is the pattern going to get more exciting soon? Ready for that first inch.

Bizarro - as you can read, indeed I was rather assertive as a critic.  This is why I understand much of what you are saying.

I have seen much more and done much more research since then and I am not sure I have been able to communicate clearly how much things have changed in my ability to see the pattern etc.  

The only way I was going to know for sure if it was there or not was to do my own research which I spent several months working on.  Even through that stretch I ended up with more questions than answers, but did find enough to accept that there was something happening even if I didn't understand what.  

Since that time, I have been researching other theories in atmospheric science and that has helped put some things in place for me.  It is still a puzzle and needs some pieces, but in doing research using 500mb data and teleconnection analysis, I am able to see the LRC in a quantitative manner and have learned a great deal more about it that never appeared on a blog.

I certainly understand the criticism.  If you read enough through the past blogs, I think I used every argument that I now attempt to defend.  

Many questions do not have a clear cut answer that I can show or explain on a blog and others I simply don't have an answer for yet.

Until such time it all can be put together, there will be many doubts.  I understand that.

I know something surprising, but can't say anything. :X

I guess I am one of those who have "gone to the BBQ" and heck I have even "bought 4 T-Shirts and 2 Coffee mugs"..

Scott, Jeff, Ed, Gary and Doug-- I get it....my company gets it---that's why we are clients.....it's a shame that lately so many have worked so hard at criticizing and being pesimistic-instead of opening there minds and being optimistic...especially those who call themselves weather enthusiasts.

We appreciate all of the hard work that goes into your research, and back you all 100%.

My glass is half full...what about yours...

Jon Powell

-------------

JP,

Thank you for the support.  Most of the criticism comes from meteorologists and math experts that want equations and numbers.  We will be working diligently to show the LRC mathematically somewhere down the line.  I will get into it a bit in today's blog entry, that I am writing now.

Gary

Gary,
I too have a job that is in the public spot light. I want to say that you take criticism very well. I remember when you issued the blizzard prediction. Then i remember when the pattern went zonal. It was a real kick in the pants. Anyways, i follow the blog and have put a lot of time into looking at the LRC, or formally known as the GRC, and have come to the conclusion that it does exist. Thanks for your passion and dedication! Ryan in Chillicothe

Jon,
I am glad your glass is half full.  You will definitely see the benefits.
Doug

Oh Andrew, don't hold it in, your just teasing everybody! :)

Sorry not until Gary says it first. :X

Wow. Looks like I missed out on some heated discussion.
I think the thing we all need to keep in mind is that we're still learning about the LRC and how to properly use it in forecasting. To think the theory is completely settled is silly. I think every one of us will admit that there are many things we still don't understand and it's implications in forecasting.

On the surface, looking at the initial presentation of the theory would warrant identical storms every X days. We all know that's not the case. When it comes to mesoscale features, the larger-scale differences from cycle to cycle warrant how to utilize any similarities down to the mesoscale. Are these differences a result of teleconnections, seasonal differences, etc? To what magnitude? These are all questions we are still working on so we can better utilize the cyclic wave pattern to improve forecasts.

So, take a breath... look at some of the quick 500mb graphs from last year to show the repeating wave pattern, and enjoy the nice weather this week!
http://lrcweather.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=123:no-el-mapa&Itemid=29
http://lrcweather.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=125:more-fun-with-graphical-comparisons&Itemid=29