The maps I’ll show today are rich with information. I’ll not be able to discuss much of it because I mainly want to make an argument, about what it means when shapes and sizes of images of different phenomena that we see on these maps conform with each other. Yesterday we had a good example of such conformity in central Canada, linking air temperature anomaly to precipitable water (PW). Today we’ll see something like it in central Asia, with a couple of more things added; but first, the argument:
The maps we are working with cover a large set of widely differing natural phenomena. Each of the phenomena is composed of its own set of internal differences, generally with respect to intensity, as revealed in different parts of the planet. These differences are all capable of being mapped out in a standard visual manner, using color coding to show multiple variations in degrees of intensity. The result is maps chock full of interlocking images of varying shapes and sizes. Because the shapes and sizes of these internal images are clearly drawn and consistently located, it is not difficult for a curious observer to search for comparisons among the maps of different phenomena. Apparent incidents of conformity will soon begin to appear for anyone who does this. Any such incident could of course be accidental, but what if it’s not? What if there is an underlying natural connection between the two images?
Whenever the degree of conformity is so high or so consistent that a natural connection is suspected, the ordinary likelihood would be that one of the phenomena must in some way be involved in causing the shape and size of the other, so that is the first thing to look for. Which one is acting as the cause, and by what process? The answer could be obvious, or it could take some investigating. The objective is always to get clear and reliable answers, hoping to establish valid principles that will help to easily explain incidents of conformity that may occur elsewhere. That is essentially how I go about this work. Do incidents of conformity actually occur with high frequency? I’d say the maps are replete with them, leaving an observer in a state of wonder and frustration at times when conformity should be there but is not obvious. This can happen simply because there is so much complexity to deal with in any weather system. Principles of explanation are always evolving, always in need of refinement, but even in a rudimentary state I believe they can provide answers that have a decent level of credibility and usefulness.
Now for today’s map work, offering a fairly vivid example of how incidents of conformity tend to pile up as well as overlap. We’ll start with a warm anomaly in the shape of an arrowhead, seen here as it juts upward from the area of the Caspian Sea, with borders not far from those of a couple of large and extremely cold anomalies:
I think a warm anomaly of this strength would not be there without a reasonably strong input of PW. The PW image would also need to be of a shape and size that sharply limits any possible extension of high-kg values into the territory occupied by the surrounding cold anomalies. So let’s take a look:
So far so good, but what could be stopping the PW concentration dead in its tracks, when we know that concentrations like this would rather keep moving northward in the direction of the pole? I think the answer must almost certainly lie with sufficiently strong jetstream winds that should be found standing in the way—and there they are:
Finally, this particular positioning of jetstream winds seems a bit peculiar. Knowing how their pathways are governed by high-level air pressure configuration, I’d guess that we are likely to find a similar impression on the margins of the configuration, which on their own part must be existing in the area of this location, that will basically conform by having a deviated shape:
You might also want to look at the warm anomalies and PW stream trails that exist within the large area mass shaded with dark-gray tones.
Carl