2005 compared to 2012 for a hurricane season guesstimate

[Weatherlawyer]

> http://my.opera.com/Weatherlawyer/blog/2012/04/20/lunar-phases-for-2005-and-2012?cid=87680552#comment87680552

There are not many summer months that don't match in some way or
other. I suppose I should not have counted March or April. Hurricanes
in May are fairly rare too. And October is taken to be the end of the
season in the North Atlantic.

But it was all just a rough exercise. I couldn't figure a way to show
the matches up, so I just erased them in a spreadsheet.

If you want to try it, here is the link for lunar phases:

http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/phase/phase2001gmt.html

What counts with hurricanes as much as if not more than the times of
phases per se, is the runs of them. So there is not going to be much
correlation with this first effort.

[Weatherlawyer]

On Apr 20, 2:51 am, Weatherlawyer <weatherlaw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> http://my.opera.com/Weatherlawyer/blog/2012/04/20/lunar-phases-for-20...

>
> There are not many summer months that don't match in some way or
> other. I suppose I should not have counted March or April. Hurricanes
> in May are fairly rare too. And October is taken to be the end of the
> season in the North Atlantic.
>
> But it was all just a rough exercise. I couldn't figure a way to show
> the matches up, so I just erased them in a spreadsheet.
>
> If you want to try it, here is the link for lunar phases:
>
> http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/phase/phase2001gmt.html
>
> What counts with hurricanes as much as if not more than the times of
> phases per se, is the runs of them. So there is not going to be much
> correlation with this first effort.

What an abortion the MetOffice Home page is. It looks like the people
who designed page weaver were hired to do something similar but
different.

Needles to say i couldn't find the proverbial in the cattle fodder.
I did eventually find the Site Map.

There is an exhaustive list of stuff covered by the MetO. So I can't
say I'm surprised the front page was such a mess. And they hadn't even
put much in it, compared to what they could have. So what do they have
to say about the coming season?

See for yourself. It's in here somewhere, probably:
> http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/about-us/help/sitemap

This is what the insurance bods have to say:

"The key factors behind the TSR forecast for a slightly below-average
hurricane season in 2012 are the anticipated small supressing effect
of the July-September forecast trade wind at 925mb height over the
Caribbean Sea and tropical North Atlantic region (7.5 to 17.5 N., 30
to 100 W.) and of August- September forecast sea surface temperature
for the Atlantic MDR (10 to 20 N., 20 to 60 W.)"

PDF:
> http://www.tropicalstormrisk.com/docs/TSRATLForecastApr2012.pdf

[Brian]

So are you saying that the moon has something to do with the occurrence of
hurricanes?

--
Regards Brian

[Weatherlawyer]

On Apr 20, 8:27 am, Brian <bcl...@es.co.nz> wrote:
>
> So are you saying that the moon has something to do with the occurrence of
> hurricanes?

I spent 15 to 20 years trying to make it fit.

It was like the bloke who tried to train his donkey not to eat grass.

He had nearly got it it to obey him...
when it died.

There is a link. A STRONG one.
But there is also another step.
The missing link.

I'm toying with the idea it is something to do with the planets.
Victorian England and the Colonies (the USA included in those days)
was awash with Lunarists like me and your own Ken Ring doing this sort
of thing.

The intangible thing was that sometimes they were so spot on it was
breathtaking. Yet it defied then known physics.

This was in the days that volcanoes were supposed to be caused by
underground fires. (Geologists still believe in a similar chemistry,
originally left over heat from creation now nuclear fission.)

Of course we have the North Atlantic chart now to rectify things
somewhat and satellite techniques to patrol the earth's surface
instantly. And we understand that gravity is not the only source of
planetary interference. In fact cutting edghe rocket science
(literally in both meanings of the two phrases) is working on the
effect of light itself on the facets exposed to light sources.

But the solar system can arrange sound effects on earth. I don't know
how the outer atmosphere can affect the sub surface, I don't know how
a current of air forces over a mountain can do it either.

But it seems to.

What I am looking at, or about to try and find out more about is
retrograde motion. I suspect the only people interested in that sort
of thing at the moment will be Astrologers.

I have always had a religious antipathy for them. But these days I
don't class them as low as scientists. I have a very low estimation of
Scientism. It seems to regard peer pressure as a good thing. And it is
structured in such a way that nobody can break free unless he is a top
professor at some well regarded University.

And too many of them will have been brainwashed or closeted into
specialist research by the time they are old enough to think for
themselves.

***

There is a bank clerk in Coimbatore who is able to forecast
earthquakes and cyclones using a glorified sundial. He doesn't
forecast stroms because he believes contemporary geology. And
contemporary geology can't believe him because for once in its futile
existence contemporary geology applies Newton's laws of Motion.

Sad really because the only times his earthquake forecasts are wrong,
there is usually a typhoon or something to spoil it.

The weather and seismic disturbances are intimately linked.

Skywise will be along in a moment to insist this isn't true. He is a
pedant. But believe what you like, I will have nothing to do with
counter arguments. Suck it and see for yourself, you lazy tyke.

[Brian]

Thanks for your point of view.
I believe that everything in the universe has a purpose. The question I ask
myself is what is the purpose of the planets? and I'm sure they have not
been created as something just for man to look at. There seems to be a
balance in the universe and it one of the planets suddenly fell apart then
it could mean the destruction of the universe. So it is possible that the
moon and planets effect the earth.

I also believe that there is missing knowledge that has not been passed on
in the generations of man. Maybe a complete kingdom was destroyed and along
with it the knowledge that would answer some of the questions we seek.

Its interesting that between 1900 and the year 2000 there are been more
technical advances than any other century. Why is that? Did knowledge get
destroyed in tne past? Were inventors accused of witchcraft? A few
questions worth thinking about.

--
Regards Brian

[Brian]

I was expecting s reply from weatherman.


--
Regards Brian

[Weatherlawyer]

On Apr 21, 9:45 am, Brian <bcl...@es.co.nz> wrote:
> Brian <bcl...@es.co.nz> wrote:

I was expecting a reply from all the other denizens of this forument
of imbroglio.

[data...@yahoo.com]

keep an eye on the Butte...


hurricanes are duck soap...

everyone in the path not having insurance flips out...

this cawses a deep 'distortion' of 'normal' 'reality'.....

bringing 3 days ahead to today now. whoooooaaaaa !

aha, we say, 'there's a deep distortion of normal reality AND !!!!

the weatherman sez folk in location M are in deep shit.

having tuned in thusly, itsno prob tracking the complete path.

the heavy winds going thru met areas actually produce a mental sound as gravel and water in a thinwalled cement mixer.

[data...@yahoo.com]

I woke several times floating on an air mattress. The walk to camp forded a thigh deep stream, in winter no water.

http://www.usatoday.com/weather/stormcenter/2005-11-30-hurricane-cycle_x.htm

[Weatherlawyer]

On Apr 20, 3:44 pm, Brian <bcl...@es.co.nz> wrote:
>
> I believe that everything in the universe has a purpose. The question I ask
> myself is what is the purpose of the planets?

We can't have a single planet without them. Not at the distances we do
now.

Once you have taken on board all the ramifications of the first direct
measurements of gravity, the Cavendish Experiment, you have to realise
that even on the other side of the sun, they all affect us.

But that is only as attractants. As such it is too small an amount to
cause weather or seismicity. But if they have a part in affecting our
planet, they must all affect each other too.

And if they do that, they must also affect the sun.
I have stated many times on here that it is too difficult to believe
the sun is a fusion engine.
Which leaves one obvious alternative.
One too silly for anyone but me to believe.

> There seems to be a

> balance in the universe and if one of the planets suddenly fell apart then

> it could mean the destruction of the universe. So it is possible that the
> moon and planets effect the earth.

If one atom was out of place it would ensure the collapse or dispersal
of the universe, eventually.
One of the Psalmists (IIRC) stated that not one celestial orb has gone
missing since creation.

Which is in disagreement with Hertzsprung and Russel
I know who I prefer to believe.

But who is to say who was actually the better astronomer?
What has conventional astronomy accomplished?
Astronomers in the good old days had to perform signs with their
craft. They had to do something productive with their knowledge.

OTOH, I don't know what that was.

> I also believe that there is missing knowledge that has not been passed on
> in the generations of man. Maybe a complete kingdom was destroyed and along
> with it the knowledge that would answer some of the questions we seek.

>

http://my.opera.com/Weatherlawyer/blog/2012/04/23/an-american-prophet

> Its interesting that between 1900 and the year 2000 there have been more

> technical advances than any other century. Why is that?

Nothing assists a nation's sophistication as much as warfare, not even
genocide.
Nothing assists a nation at war as much as genocide though. You can
pay for a lot of weapons with gold teeth.

> Did knowledge get destroyed in the past?

Every time a war takes place, knowledge dies.
Worse, It's usually balance of trade problems that causes warfare.
Investment is only encouraged when it suits a war effort. Wiser rich
people get the hell out of things. So wise people don't invest in
unstable countries.

Thus technology tends toward stupid.
In fact unstable countries tend towards stupid across the board, Look
at Britain under the Conservatives. Look at the USA under Bush. It's
rape and incest all the way down.

> Were inventors accused of witchcraft?

Not just them.
Keppler's mother was but that was to keep him at home.
People are weird, sordid and stupid.

Kopernik got his info from the Arabs and Jews. A bad political move
that.

[Brian]

Thanks Weatherman for your views on these subjects.

Science says that energy is neither gained or loss but transformed. Yet we
gain energy from the sun so we must lose energy.

Another very wild theory I have is that Aliens exist but they don't come
from out of space instead they live in the deep ocean hidden away from
mankind. They are an intelligent race of people that have lived on earth
for a very long time. Anyway just a theory.
--
Regards Brian

[Skywise]

Brian <bcl...@es.co.nz> wrote in
news:341655423356875338.2...@free.teranews.com:

> Anyway just a theory.

Perhaps you meant to say "conjecture" and not "theory"?

Brian

[Skywise]

Weatherlawyer <weathe...@gmail.com> wrote in news:9bdedc29-668d-4023-
b2b2-514...@f37g2000yqc.googlegroups.com:

> Skywise will be along in a moment...

Coriolis.

Brian

[Brian]

Agreed Skywise. Conjecture is a better word.

--
Regards Brian

[Skywise]

Brian <bcl...@es.co.nz> wrote in news:1728759556356945433.817001bclark-
es.c...@free.teranews.com:

I feel one of the difficulties with the average layperson
understanding science is how scientists use words. The
way everyday Joe uses a word can be very different from
the way and meaning a scientist uses it.

In my experience I have many times found myself in a heated
discussion on some topic only to suddenly realize that the
two of us are effectively speaking a different language.

I'd like to see those on the side of science be more
explanatory in their meanings when using words that can
potentially be misunderstood by those not well versed in
the language of science.

"Theory" and "conjecture" is one of the most common
misunderstandings I've encountered.

BTW, I hope I didn't inadvertantly imply any insult in
my correction. I've noticed sometimes I accidentally
come off the wrong way when all I intend is to help
folks learn new stuff and gain a greater understanding
of the wonders of science.

Brian

[Brian]

No problem Skywise. Its a useful word to add to my vocabulary.

I find the best way to explain something technical to someone is to refer
to common items. "As powerful as an atom bomb" is better understood than a
number and unit of measurement that is not understood.
It can be age related as explaining how to use a microwave oven to a young
person is easier than trying to explain it to a older person.



--
Regards Brian

[Weatherlawyer]

On Apr 26, 4:33 am, Skywise <i...@oblivion.nothing.com> wrote:
> Brian <bcl...@es.co.nz> wrote in news:1728759556356945433.817001bclark-
> es.co...@free.teranews.com:

There is no difference in the meaning of the two terms.
You can't formulate a conjecture without having an inkling. That in
science a theory is supposed to be a couple or so more steps neared
the truth is no proof of its validity. The same is true of an
hypothesis.

Science would progress a lot better if scientists stopped nit picking
and ladled out the unvarnished lack of truth with frankness.

It would give the unwashed a level playing field to get muddy in.
Once the average layman knows the geologist is laughing at the cranks
for the colour of their coats -despite the fact they are not wearing
any trousers themselves, they will be several steps to understanding
how little the actual scientists know.

[Brian]

The worst thing is when they pretend to know something they don't know.
--
Regards Brian

[Skywise]

Weatherlawyer <weathe...@gmail.com> wrote in news:54e9a252-102e-41cb-
8530-5ca...@c28g2000vbu.googlegroups.com:

> There is no difference in the meaning of the two terms.

Confucious say, "A closed mouth gathers no foot."

Brian

[Skywise]

Brian <bcl...@es.co.nz> wrote in news:1215879171357124832.599772bclark-
es.c...@free.teranews.com:

> The worst thing is when they pretend to know something they don't know.

Yes, a typical trait of those who think think they are smarter
than the experienced and trained scientists.

Brian