If everyone looked at things the same way, discussions wouldn't be as interesting imo. Instead, we analyze these things in very different ways, which sometimes leads to some lively discussions/debates. Your methods incorporate the latest and greatest meteorological based research that you've been heavily involved in or reading. I'll never be able to analyze things that way nor do I desire to. I'll leave that to you. There'd be no point in me trying to replicate what you're doing. I wouldn't post in that case. Complex meteorological based analysis is not my area. My pro background is analytical/statistical research oriented and not met. My specialty is looking at history and statistics/patterns, looking for patterns in a group of numbers (for any area, not just met), and trying to determine the chances of something happening based on those patterns that I find. I actually like to follow the KISS principle. I prefer to avoid overly complex analyses (which I couldn't necessarily even do well) and explain them in a way that I think most everyone could follow. When I write, I think about myself as a reader of what I'm writing. To be honest, I can't always follow what you're saying, which is ok. I don't need to. You keep on doing what you like to do and I'll keep on doing what I like to do. Just please try not to get me riled up into an argument. Keep it classy, please.