Some Permutations.
Weatherlawyer
A phase at midday or midnight indicates a misty cool spell of clam
weather with any winds coming from the north or east.
This is true, too, for times at 6 o'clock.
The pressure system is stalled with Lows and Highs in almost equal
number surrounding Britain and the overall pressure something like
1016 millibars.
Going back one hour to 11 o'clock (or 5) the weather in Britain tends
to be fine. Cold nights and sunny days with little cloud.
Back another hour and the weather tends to be unsettled with ridges or
troughs (spurs from High or Low pressure areas) intruding.
Those spells are likely to bring volcanic activity earth wide. Which
in turn aught to mean that the pressure in the North Atlantic at least
(I can't really comment on the North Pacific) should be slack. That
is, the Low pressure areas not very low and the Highs not very high.
With lunar phases at around 9 or 3 o'clock there should be a lot of
thunder about Britain. (Not that much as other countries go but for us
any thunderstorm is to be savoured.)
8 and 2 o'clock phases should bring tornadoes to the US Midwest.
(Actually it should bring a series of nation wide storms there
starting in the NW and moving to the east in summer further south in
winter.)
In Britain we tend to get ridges and troughs again but the clouds
betraying the weather are more like the ones associated with derecho
winds in North America; long cylindrical striations usually stretching
from hill to hill often crossing the horizon.
And with the phases at 1 o'clock and at 7 o'clock we get weather from
the Atlantic proper. Driving rain and windy stuff. Lots of it.
OK. That was the easy bit.
Now let's look at the permutations.
Dawlish
Have you a scrap of evidence for any of these bizzare links between
lunar phases and the weather on one tiny part of the earth's surface?
Weatherlawyer
>
> Have you a scrap of evidence for any of these bizzare links between
> lunar phases and the weather on one tiny part of the earth's surface?
Yes.
Or no.
As the case may be.
What is a bizzare. Is it a blizzard in mid summer?
Define "a scrap of evidence"
And: "tiny part of the earth's surface". Which "one"?
In unity there is strength.
In your case it will take all weak.
Dawlish
All you have done is make statements which you somehow feel are causal
links.
W: no evidence - no use.
Weatherlawyer
>
> All you have done is make statements which you somehow feel are causal
> links.
Or rather, in your case, links missing.
> no evidence - no use.
And unfortunately for us, you won't realise your best course if that
is the case, will you.
Still, never mind, eh? Mustn't grumble. At least you live out
Exitdoorway. Things could be worse. Half a nice day.
Dawlish
Then produce some outcome evidence W and stop evading the issue.
As I said - and it is completely pertinent, however much you'd like it
to go away; "no evidence - no use". After monitoring of 8 predictions,
an outcome percentage success of 14.2% doesn't look good. I'm awaiting
the "strong" earthquakes around the Isthmus of Panama in this quarter
"spell". You've still got a couple of days left and I imagine your
fingers are now crossed as I'll add this to the monitoring. That kind
of success rate makes all the causal links you've referred to, in the
first post on here, more than questionable. Really it would make
anyone think that they simply don't exist except for you.
The abuse can't be far away.
Weatherlawyer
> On Jun 11, 9:17 pm, Weatherlawyer <Weatherlaw...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > no evidence - no use.
>
> > And unfortunately for us, you won't realise your best course if that
> > is the case, will you.
>
And unfortunately for us, you won't realise your best course...
Oh, dear its that deja vu again.
Dawlish
W. You are not kidding! Deja vu.....blimy! Every time. Escape the ask
in any way whatsoever. Phrase the forecasts in unintelligable language
and don't be specific; ever. Don't give any indication of outcomes.
Don't discuss why forecasts were successful, or, more often than not,
unsuccessful. Try to denigrate anyone who monitors what you are doing.
Resort abuse as a measure at any stage.
Still a couple of days before this "spell" runs out. No indication of
"strong" earthquakes around the Isthmus of Panama. Mind you; just
think how you could have come back if you'd guessed Vanuatu this
time......oh, but look here!!
"My money would be on the Loyalty Islands and Vanuatu. They are
always
good to go."
Good guess; wrong spell!
You cannot be serious!
gal...@deletethisbitblueyonder.co.uk
wrote:
>On Jun 12, 8:09=A0am, Weatherlawyer <Weatherlaw...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jun 12, 7:30=A0am, Dawlish <pjg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Jun 11, 9:17=A0pm, Weatherlawyer <Weatherlaw...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > no evidence - no use.
>>
>> > > And unfortunately for us, you won't realise your best course if that
>> > > is the case, will you.
>>
>> > The abuse can't be far away.
>>
>> And unfortunately for us, you won't realise your best course...
>>
>> Oh, dear its that deja vu again.
>
>W. You are not kidding! Deja vu.....blimy! Every time. Escape the ask
>in any way whatsoever. Phrase the forecasts in unintelligable language
>and don't be specific; ever. Don't give any indication of outcomes.
>Don't discuss why forecasts were successful, or, more often than not,
>unsuccessful. Try to denigrate anyone who monitors what you are doing.
>Resort abuse as a measure at any stage.
>
>Still a couple of days before this "spell" runs out. No indication of
>"strong" earthquakes around the Isthmus of Panama. Mind you; just
>think how you could have come back if you'd guessed Vanuatu this
>time......oh, but look here!!
>
>"My money would be on the Loyalty Islands and Vanuatu. They are
>always
>good to go."
>
>http://groups.google.com/group/sci.geo.earthquakes/browse_thread/thread/1b8=
>05ab87592ad62/39d7ee72268f3d0b#39d7ee72268f3d0b
>
>Good guess; wrong spell!
>
>
>
>You cannot be serious!
Do you ever think that you're barking up the wrong tree, Dawlish?
WL reminds me of the late great Tommy Cooper who mostly could not
successfully manage to perform a magic trick on stage but nevertheless
always kept people (including me) entertained. WL also throws some
pretty clever puns and phrases our way if you watch out for them.
Keep it coming, Mr McNeil.....!!
Geoff
( ;- )}
terry tibbs
betting shop
bugger off will you
Weatherlawyer
I'm sorry you don't fooly appreciate my gift but here goes:
Earthquake size is expressed by its magnitude.
Magnitudes usually are measured from the amplitude and period of
seismic signals as they arrive and are recorded at a seismic station.
For a given earthquake, the amplitude decreases with increasing
distance (due to attenuation of the signals) and a distance dependent
correction is applied when computing magnitude to result in one
magnitude value for each station.
Earthquake size does not depend on where an earthquake was recorded,
this is contrary to felt effects - the intensity - which decreases
with distance from the earthquake source.
Several methods exist on how to compute magnitude - in principal, all
methods provide the same or a similar value. However, there are
fundamental differences on how these magnitudes are computed
(sometimes resulting differing magnitudes). Here is a short summary,
describing various magnitude types:
ML:
The local magnitude ML is computed for earthquakes, which occurred
relatively close to the recording stations. Typically this is done for
earthquakes within a few hundred kilometers between the earthquake and
the recording station. The first magnitude scale developed 1935 by
Richter (the 'Richter-Magnitude') is such a local magnitude; even
today earthquake size is commonly given as 'Richter-Magnitude'.
mb:
The body-wave magnitude mb is typically recorded for earthquakes that
occurred more than about 2000 kilometers away from the recording
station. It can be computed relatively fast, because its value relies
on the amplitude of the so-called P-phase of an earthquake. P-phases
are waves travelling through the body of the earth's interior and are
the first signal that reaches a seismic station.
For large earthquakes (magnitude larger than 6), mb 'saturates',
meaning that even if the actual size of the earthquake is larger, the
value of mb does not increase any more. In such cases, seismologists
have to rely on other magnitude types.
MS:
The surface wave magnitude MS is measured from surface waves. These
waves travel along the surface of the earth with a velocity much
slower than P-waves travel through the earth. Therefore, one has to
wait a longer time, until these waves arrive at a distant station and
MS cannot be computed as rapidly as mb. Depending on distance, it may
take up to 1 or 2 hours until surface waves arrive, compared to a
maximum of 20 minutes of P-waves.
MS is measured from 20 s period waves (compared to 1 s for mb) and
'saturation' begins only for very large (magnitude larger than 8)
earthquakes. The slow surface wave speed is the reason, why
seismologists cannot distinguish quickly between a strong and very
strong (magnitude > 6) earthquake.
Earthquakes close to the earth's surface (say, the upper 30
kilometers) generate large surface waves compared to a same-size
earthquake at larger depth (this has to do with how surface waves are
generated).
Shallow earthquakes are more prone to cause damage than deep ones; a
high MS-value compared to the mb-magnitude thus indicates that strong
damage might have occurred for an earthquake close to a major urban
area.
The ratio between MS- and mb-magnitude is also a good measure to
distinguish earthquakes from (nuclear) explosions. Explosions have a
much smaller source-volume than similar sized earthquakes and
explosions typically cause less shearing motion (which mainly generate
surface waves) than earthquakes.
Explosion MS-values are thus typically much smaller than for an
earthquake of the same size. For shallow seismic events, the mb/MS
ratio is thus a good discriminant (large ratios pointing to an
explosion).
Mw:
The moment magnitude Mw is the only magnitude that is directly related
to the physics at the earthquake source. Mw is derived (based on
theoretical considerations) from the seismic moment M0, which is the
product of the fault area times average displacement at the fault
times material rigidity.
In theory, Mw does not saturate since M0 includes the complete
earthquake rupture.
Several ways exist to determine Mw; often Mw is obtained by fitting
seismic waveforms or spectral amplitudes by scaling synthetic
seismograms to match observed seismogram amplitudes. The procedures
are (a bit) more time consuming than simple seismogram amplitude
measurements (ML, mb, MS) and Mw for larger events globally are
currently available several hours after an earthquake.
M:
Whenever the magnitude type in one of our lists is given as 'M', this
means, that the seismological observatory reporting the specific
magnitude did not specify how the magnitude was computed. Often, these
are magnitude values from the NEIC.
You may assume, that such a magnitude value represents 'their best
effort', and for strong earthquakes such magnitudes often are
magnitudes of the type Mw.
http://www.seismo.ethz.ch/redpuma/magnitudes.html
*******
What this all does not say is that the background noise is 5.5 M
"whatevers" for negative North Pacific and Atlantic anomalies and for
positive anomalies according to the height and depth of the sea level
highs and lows, the likelihood for runs of greater than 6 M. increases
with the contrast of air pressure systems at sea level.
(I have no idea how upper air levels affect the convergence of sub
soil acoustics. No doubt that which accompanies severe storms
accompanies severe earthquakes.)
*******
Some more background:
MAP 5.1 2009/06/12 14:32:56 -17.355 167.637 35.9 Vanuatu
MAP 4.1 2009/06/12 11:42:52 53.090 172.766 15.6 Near
Islands
MAP 6.0 2009/06/12 09:44:20 -17.611 167.748 52.6 Vanuatu
MAP 5.0 2009/06/12 09:24:45 -17.540 167.677 53.6 Vanuatu
MAP 5.0 2009/06/12 08:47:43 -17.491 167.650 53.2 Vanuatu
Having removed everything below 4M. (blasted Alaskan 4.1!!!) we have 4
medium sized quakes showing up consecutively at one place. (OK, I'm
hoping the Alaskan will be marked down, they usually drop a couple of
magnitudes on closer inspection.)
I haven't checked the Atlantic sea level charts but I have no doubt
that there were a sequence of parallel occlusions accompanying one or
two Lows predicted before the Vauatuans occurred.
A pair indicates that the meteorological storms are ended. That is,
there will be no more tornadoes; and three indicates that the storms
extant are ended but that another is due to scale up. 4 of them, on
the other hand, is something quite rare. And it is a pity that that
bloody Aleutian took place when it did to muck things up.
But there you go.
Or not as the case may be.
Weatherlawyer
> the idiot dawlish is back again spamming us with his crap gfs t+240
> betting shop
>
> bugger off will you
Fat chance. He has a psychosis. Just live with it. He has to.
So do his workmates.
Just be thankful he is not an United States of American. Imagine if he
ran for presidunce. They'd all vote for him. Or if he joined their
navy, promote him as vice admiral in charge of counting the spoons at
Pearl Harbour's mess halls.
Well someone has to do something there to cope with all the seamen.
gal...@omittthisbitblueyonder.co.uk
<Weathe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Jun 12, 8:35=A0pm, galy...@deletethisbitblueyonder.co.uk wrote:
>>
>> Keep it coming, Mr McNeil.....!!
>
<snip lots of erudite stuff>
>
>But there you go.
>
>Or not as the case may be.
>
You are a tease! I thought you might say that!
Best wishes
Geoff
Dawlish
> On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 15:22:48 -0700 (PDT), Weatherlawyer
>
> >On Jun 12, 8:35=A0pm, galy...@deletethisbitblueyonder.co.uk wrote:
>
> >> Keep it coming, Mr McNeil.....!!
>
> <snip lots of erudite stuff>
>
>
>
> >But there you go.
>
> >Or not as the case may be.
>
> You are a tease! I thought you might say that!
>
> Best wishes
>
> Geoff
You have a fan W!
However, again, you've produced a whole load of retrospective stuff
and your "explanations" are just links that you see - they aren't
really there. It's your lack of capability to predict that brings into
question everything about your theory. You can write long posts until
the cows come home justifying your predictions, but the words just
don't add up. Again, you've made a prediction about "strong"
earthquakes around the Isthmus of Panama, mentioning nothing about
Vanuatu in your analysis of this quarter "spell". Look back to the
first post. You can't suddenly begin to justify earthquakes in the
Vanuatu area, simply because they have happened and therefore there
must have been a cause related to your theories. You guessed the wrong
place for the earthquakes.
You think your theories are correct, but the actual outcomes, in terms
of predictions show clearly that they aren't. It's only when someone
looks into these outcomes that your scribblings are revealed as what
they really are.
No prediction accuracy: no use.
Weatherlawyer
>
> The background noise is 5.5 M "whatevers" for negative North
> Pacific and Atlantic anomalies combined.
As there is a certain lack of convergence.
So here is another set of permutations:
A state where both oceans are negative, giving the above results.
(Tornadoes.)
One where the Atlantic is negative and the Pacific is positive (I
think this indicates a surge of Hawaiian volcanic activity.)
Another where the Pacific is negative and the Atlantic is positive.
And one where both oceans are positive. (Lots of convergence above and
below ground.)
> For positive anomalies: According to the height and depth of the sea
> level pressures, the likelihood for runs of greater than 6 M. increases
> with the contrast of air pressure systems at sea level.
>
> 5.1 2009/06/12 14:33 17.4S. 167.6N. Vanuatu
> 6.0 2009/06/12 09:44 17.6S. 167.7N. Vanuatu
> 5.0 2009/06/12 09:25 17.5S. 167.7N. Vanuatu
> 5.0 2009/06/12 08:48 17.5S. 167.7N. Vanuatu
So this 6.0M. was pushing it. >
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/eqcenter/recenteqsww/Quakes/quakes_all.html
> When we have 4 medium sized quakes showing up consecutively
> at almost the same location.
It has the same effect as a much larger quake. The weather changes
with very large quakes. Contemporary models and such come
"right" (possibly needing less correction. I wish I could say.)
> I haven't checked the Atlantic sea level charts but I have no doubt
> that there were a sequence of parallel occlusions accompanying one or
> two Lows predicted before the Vauatuans occurred.
Yep!
But only one pair of parallels as far s I know. And that with a 997 mb
Low just west of the UK. I have no doubt* that this Low was some 80
degrees from Vanuatu when the series occurred.
But I have not checked my facts. I'd bet too that in another part of
the ocean or in the N Pacific some 80 degrees from said series there
is the other pair on file.
There is one for midnight on this site: >
http://www.wetterzentrale.de/topkarten/fsfaxsem.html
Zeigen for the 13th June
> A pair indicates that the meteorological storms are ended. That is,
> there will be no more tornadoes; and three indicates that the storms
> extant are ended but that another is due to scale up.
> 4 of them is something quite rare.
Pity this set was flawed. But talking about convergence. They were
some 5 or 6 minutes apart:
*14:33
09:44
09:25
*08:48
If they had all arrived on time it would have been a very large quake.
Contemporary theory has it that magnitudes don't add up in the same
way I'd put them and I don't intend to find out what they consider the
increase would be. It was on line once as that is where I read it.
Anyone except Dawlish wishing to follow it up can do so at their
leisure. I imagine Dawlish would eat his teeth before finding out
anything, even if he knew how.
But I am being unkind to an unfortunate. I should be more generous. He
provides so much entertainment. I hope he doesn't hang himself in his
desponderence one day, when he could be trained with so little effort.
Do they have trains at Exitdoor?
I'm sure they do. Let's hope the driver knows him.
Dawlish
Oh W. All I ask is some confirmation through a few correct forecasts.
If you do that, it will be worth looking into. Without that; why
bother? The abuse shouldn't be necessary, though it is for you when
you are questioned by anyone. It's your pattern.
The phrase; "no forecast accuracy: no use", will continue to haunt
you.
Whenever anyone reads this stuff, just think of that. Until W really
begins to anaylse the accuracy of his forecasts and shows some kind of
statistical evidence that these constant (kind of) forecasts show a
link between the moon, tectonics and weather, the stuff that is being
presented for us is pure fantasy. Entertaining fantasy, perhaps, as
your fan has said, but pure scientific fantasy. True, isn't it?
sutart...@googlemail.com
>
> A phase at midday or midnight indicates a misty cool spell of clam
> weather with any winds coming from the north or east.
I love clam weather with a scalloped sky, it warms the cockles of my
heart especially when I can flex my mussels with a quick scampi down
to the shops, or use my oyster card for a trip up west. I may even
play chess outside if I can find enough prawns, but being a shellfish
sod I do get very crabby when I lose.
Weatherlawyer
there is one that follows the moon as it is a cold wave at 6 am and
warm one at 9 am. Also presumably this wave occurs at noon and 6 and 9
pm.
I don't know if it can be measured for all the other background
changes but early in the days of admiralty log books providing the
weather data that people like FitZroy tried to work with, a certain
mid Atlantic island governor studied the phenomenon and deduced such a
wave from statistical analysis.
A small step from that is looking at the Atlantic chart every 6 hours
and watching these small pressure waves build up. I don't pretend to
know their cause but you really can see Low pressure regions develop
as these things converge.
This is what I mean when I use the term. I have no real idea what the
more knowledgeable understand about it. Nor do I care over-much.
Likewise when a series of waves sound waves reach a certain point
under the earth where they can meet and reinforce other sets of waves
arriving there from different directions, the peaks and troughs
produced have a frequency of their own.
Sometimes these are barely noticeable. Sometimes they peak as small
tremors, sometimes as larger ones and sometimes as catastrophic
earthquakes.
And the weather changes.
Permutations of these effects are tornadoes, volcanic eruptions and
above cloud lightning. Too little is known and almost nothing is
reported on the latter phenomenon to make conjugation with lunar
phases possible.
Since it IS possible to show a relationship between the other stuff
(one only has only to look for a series of the right lunar phases
running consecutively for that.) it is possible to work out what the
weather should be doing when it palpably is not doing what it should.
It doesn't take much experience to form the idea that a run of certain
weather should bring a devastating phenomenon. Since these usually
occur at the end of the run the time to watch out for them is towards
the end of the last of the similar phases.
Although the present run, now ending has been a wet spell or series of
spells, the type of wet spells has differed one from the other. But we
should still be able to see something interesting as the next phase
takes hold on the earth.
The 29th of June 2009, should be an interesting distraction as it
breaks the spell temporarily:
29 JUNE 11:28 A spell of fine weather with ridges dominating part of
the spell.
7 JULY 09:21 An unstable thundery spell of the sort that didn't
produce much thunder IIRC from the 25th April.
15 JULY 09: 53 And this one is some 30 minutes different from the last
which is quite a near miss for lunar phases which are seldom that
obliging in producing matches.
I think even smallbrain should be able to follow that, and I don't
mean that in the way he usually runs up one's backside after every
post.
Dawlish
But W. For the hundredth time. If all this works, why can't you use it
to predict??
Weatherlawyer
> and watching these small pressure waves build up. I don't pretend to
> know their cause but you really can see Low pressure regions develop
> as these things converge.
>
> I have no real idea what the more knowledgeable understand about it.
This is what one source (RA-Aus) says about convergence, divergence
and subsidence:
Atmospheric vertical motion is found in cyclones and anticyclones,
mainly caused by air mass convergence or divergence from horizontal
motion.
Meteorological convergence indicates retardation in air flow with
increase in air mass in a given volume due to net three dimensional
inflow. Meteorological divergence, or negative convergence, indicates
acceleration with decrease in air mass. Convergence is the contraction
and divergence is the spreading of a field of flow."
http://www.auf.asn.au/meteorology/section1b.html
I on the other hand am talking about an increase in the number of low
pressure waves. As they arrive already in combinations that take the
pressure to 990 to 980 millibars they already consist of a number of
wavlets each worth about 2 or 3 millibars decrease in pressure.
They converge off Iceland and Greenland as if waiting the full
pressure capacity required to get them over the Mid Atlantic Ridge.
This has to be some 970 or so minimum IIRC.
When they hit land once more you can see them separating out into
their constituent air masses. Blowing where they list.
The article goes on to describe what happens without explaing why. It
is difficult to see why an air mas floating free of any vessel has to
build up or con~/di~ ~verge:
"If, for example, the front end of moving air mass layer slows down,
the air in the rear will catch up – converge"
How? And more importantly; why?
"The air must move vertically to avoid local compression.
If the lower boundary of the moving air mass is at surface level all
the vertical movement must be upward. If the moving air mass is just
below the tropopause all the vertical movement will be downward
because the tropopause inhibits vertical motion."
How and why?
"If the front end of a moving air mass layer speeds up then the flow
diverges. If the air mass is at the surface then downward motion will
occur above it to satisfy mass conservation principles, if the
divergence is aloft then upward motion takes place.
Rising air must diverge before it reaches the tropopause and sinking
air must diverge before it reaches the surface.
As the surface pressure is the weight per unit area of the overlaying
column of air, and even though divergences in one part of the column
are largely balanced by convergences in another, the slight change in
mass content (thickness) of the over-riding air changes the pressure
at the surface."
Dawlish
See last post. Answer asked question.
Weatherlawyer
> that in the way he usually runs up one's backside after every post.
Talking about chimneys, much has been advised about the stalling of
the trans ocean currents calle dthe Global Conveyor.
(Sub zero water leaving the Arctic arriving at the Weddel Sea is split
several ways as it runs around the Antarctic. Eventually it usually
arrives at the surface at certain rich fishing grounds.)
"Peter Wadhams, an oceanographer at the University of Cambridge, UK,
last year reported a substantial weakening of convection ‘chimneys’
down which surface water flows in the Greenland sea, but it is unknown
how much of the observed effect is due to natural variability." >
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/01/atlantic-circulation-changes/
(First time I have read such a quote that even mentions the
fundamental error of attributing new found data to global warming by
disaster mongers aka geo-science researchers.)
The point is that if these flat calms occur naturally as the phases of
the moon dictate then this sort of thing in the Pacific, Indian and
Atlantic oceans. (I have copied them, so you will be able to see them
at a later date provided I still have the required account(s) are
likely result of that and can thus be dated to runs of the lunar
code.)
> https://www.fnmoc.navy.mil/efs/efs.html
You have to get a certificate from here before the other link will
open at the US military site > https://www.fnmoc.navy.mil/public/)
One important permutation to this as a codicil to the previous post, a
run that is only one spell out of the ordinary can be overridden (I
know not how) by the original run if the following spells are also
part of the old run. As is the case this June (2009) I imagine this is
inertia (hysteresis) in the system when a fairly positive spell
doesn't have the ante to change the whole set up of all that water.
Which points to another opening in the knowledge base if a massive
quake occurs with the spell:
Oops, I got distracted and forgot what just occurred to me. "I'll be
back."
The original post went on to explain:
"Everyone quoted is however agreed on one thing: "the notion that [a
future change in the themohaline circulation] may trigger a mini ice
age is a myth”.
The evidence of previous changes for instance at the Younger Dryas or
during the 8.2 kyr event is quite strong, and significant coolings
were observed particular around the North Atlantic, but even such
localised coolings are not predicted to occur if the circulation slows
as an effect of global warming."
There are certain things happening on the planet that were in days of
old put down to God acting to draw our attention to our waywardness. I
presume this is based on the contract set up between Moses's people
and the creator.
Since it is in a way God acting as if from heaven (the sun and moon
causing these runs) there may well be more to it than simple
deforestation. Of course the priests of Egypt can come up with counter
arguments and replications in their churches.
For instance denuding natural forest in tropical countries opens the
land to desertification. Deserts do not usually send vast quantities
of freshwater to sea and this article points out a natural flow in a
fairly arid modern USA can supply 500 cubic kilometres of the precious
stuff to the Gulf of Mexico.
Before the forests of North America were ruined by colonists in the
18th century the outflow must have been vast.
So it remains to be seen how much of this act of god can be restored
by human activity if anyone cared to start. Removing US influence in
Arab and South American nations would be a big help. Maybe relocate
the modern day nation of Israel. (Libya would make a nice change for
them.)
But I digress...
What I was thinking was that the displacement of these chimneys
according to the time of the phase of the moon, might find them
occurring in less well known regions. Areas yet to be exhausted of
fish by the fact that they don't live there in significant numbers,
yet.
Maybe God is giving the planet a breathing space to save it from
ourselves.
Meantime more of the same, I think, from the next spell:
15th June 2009 @ 22:15
Since this is classic volcano country the North Atlantic at least,
will remain negative.
Or not, as the case may be.
There is a seed for a storm over at the Philippines. So a TC with some
large Mag fives are on the cards. Maybe one or two sixes.
I wonder if it is the increase of submarine volcanic activity that
causes there slack surface pressures.
They would certainly mess with the Global Conveyance. And with the
convergence of low pressure from Newfoundland.
Weatherlawyer
>
> Another permutation:
> a run that is only one spell out of the ordinary can be overridden
>
> Which points to another opening in the knowledge base if a massive
> quake occurs with the spell:
Maybe it is just such "Meteorological convergence indicates
retardation in air
flow with increase in air mass in a given volume due to net three
dimensional inflow."
Only applied below ground that causes them to build on one another:
Convergence indicates redirection in seismic flow with increase in
something something in a given scrambled eggs due to net three
dimensional flow.
It wants working on.
Got it:
The present set up has a seismic harmonic that will change for the
next one.
In the middle of the change, the acoustics hit a peak.
And the series of waves also peaks in a time that indicates the motion
of the trains. Consider the aftershock at Vanuatu. It was some hours
after the first three.
So the trains built up every so many hours. Of course by then some
components had already diverged. Which explains how with such events
the most powerful is considered to be the main shock and the others
aftershocks, despite the fact that aftershocks sometimes (often) occur
first.
"Well they would wouldn't they?"
> 5.1 2009/06/12 14:33 17.4S. 167.6N. Vanuatu
> 6.0 2009/06/12 09:44 17.6S. 167.7N. Vanuatu
> 5.0 2009/06/12 09:25 17.5S. 167.7N. Vanuatu
> 5.0 2009/06/12 08:48 17.5S. 167.7N. Vanuatu
Nearly 5 hours separate the last two quakes. Presuming these are all
the same trains of sound waves, the largest peaks are 5 hours apart.
That is roughly the time they take to cross the planet.
So the physics is possible.
Hell, the physics would explain the ring of fire.
Ah well, another one for the archives. I wonder how many must die
before anyone comes up with the above all on their own.
Dawlish
>
>
>
> > I think even smallbrain should be able to follow that, and I don't mean
> > that in the way he usually runs up one's backside after every post.
>
> Talking about chimneys, much has been advised about the stalling of
> the trans ocean currents calle dthe Global Conveyor.
>
> (Sub zero water leaving the Arctic arriving at the Weddel Sea is split
> several ways as it runs around the Antarctic. Eventually it usually
> arrives at the surface at certain rich fishing grounds.)
>
> "Peter Wadhams, an oceanographer at the University of Cambridge, UK,
> last year reported a substantial weakening of convection ‘chimneys’
> down which surface water flows in the Greenland sea, but it is unknown
> how much of the observed effect is due to natural variability." >
>
Just answer what I asked of you W and stop trying to pull the wool
over people's eyes by writing a lot.
Weatherlawyer
> will remain negative.
The N Pacific looks negative too >
http://www.weatheroffice.gc.ca/data/analysis/947_100.gif
> Or not, as the case may be.
> There is a seed for a storm over at the Philippines. So a TC with some
> large Mag fives are on the cards. Maybe one or two sixes.
2009/06/14
6.1 M. 05:59. 5.4 N. 126.5 E. Mindanao, Philippines >
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/eqcenter/recenteqsww/Quakes/quakes_all.html
Dawlish
I wondered when you'd notice that. I'll give you it. Good guess. 2/9
22% from 9 monitored forecasts. Still hopeless, but I want you to see
I can be generous. What I liked here was that it was a slightly
clearer forecast. However, there was no indication of when the
earthquake should have occurred in, but we'll forgive you that this
time. Now if you are going to forecast, be clear about it, or I'll
have to begin to take your half-suggestions as forecasts and then your
accuracy percentage will drop faster than an Italian Prime Minister's
trousers.
If there is no earthquake around the Isthmus of Panama, you'll be back
down to 20% from 10 tomorrow. If you wish to claim "forecasts" you are
also expected to return to all those you get wrong as well, remember.
Dawlish
>
> - Show quoted text -
No earthquake around the Isthmus of Panama. 2/10; 20% over 10
predictions. A small sample, but I've been very generous too. It's not
going well, is it, W.
I do hope you come back to explain why this prediction was wrong.
Weatherlawyer
I suddenly realised that these ocean basin oscillations are the next
order of magnitude to the convergence thingie.
However powerful a tropical storm may be. We usually have the same
phenomena most weeks in the North Atlantic which is how I reckon the
state of the oscillation.
But Tropical Storms do more damage as the tides associated with them
are similar in proportion to northern hemisphere tides. A 20 or 30
meter tide is a twice daily, 6 or 7 days a month phenomenon in British
waters for example.
However powerful a tropical storm may be, the storm is only a small
part of the system.
As an whole, the convective currents on or in the oceans are in
themselves only a part of the thing. And in the series of spells still
ongoing, the fact that all the oceans are negative is the next order
of magnitude in events.
But even then these things are mere covering, superficial.
I'd always thought there was a step between the three body problem and
any direct occurrences because of the sun and moon. Such is a given
for ocean tides and the same is true for so called disastrous
phenomenon.
It is only logical that there is more to this next order of magnitude;
the oscillating of its air pressure systems and the oscillation of the
whole set of seas. (As an aside I wonder how the Arctic ice fits in.
Maybe that too is down to a negative oscillation in the Arctic.)
I wonder what other steps there are between the engineering miracle we
live on and its reactions to the other planet in our orbit.
Weatherlawyer
>5.1M. 14:32:56 -17.355 167.7 Vanuatu
>4.1M. 11:42:52 53.090 172.6 Near Islands
>6.0M. 09:44:20 -17.611 167.8 Vanuatu
>5.0M. 09:24:45 -17.540 167.7 Vanuatu
>5.0M. 08:47:43 -17.491 167.7 Vanuatu
>
> Having removed everything below 4M. (blasted Alaskan 4.1!!!) we have 4
> medium sized quakes showing up consecutively at one place.
>
> that there were a sequence of parallel occlusions accompanying one or
> two Lows predicted before the Vauatuans occurred.
>
> A pair indicates that the meteorological storms are ended. That is,
> there will be no more tornadoes; and three indicates that the storms
> extant are ended but that another is due to scale up. 4 of them, on
> the other hand, is something quite rare.
Now the USGS has redrawn the minimum datum line. Instead of cropping
the list at 4.0 M. for the minimal list, they are using that magic
number 5. >
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/eqcenter/recenteqsww/Quakes/quakes_big.php
It makes more sense but without a backdrop to gauge the number of
lesser quakes, it feels a little naked. But I think it will save me a
bit of time in the long run.
Meanwhile there is still this list >
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/eqcenter/recenteqsww/Quakes/quakes_all.html
Dawlish
>
> - Show quoted text -
They never have listed all the earthquakes of 4-4.9M. There are an
estimated 13,000 of these a year - and average of 40 per day - and
only a selection have ever been published on the USGS site that you
refer to.
You've been using a completely flawed dataset ever since you started
and you never actually noticed.
Weatherlawyer
>
> However powerful a tropical storm may be, the storm is only a small
> part of the system.
>
> As an whole, the convective currents on or in the oceans are in
> are mere covering, superficial.
>
> I'd always thought there was a step between the three body problem and
> any direct occurrences because of the sun and moon.
>
> live on and its reactions to the other planet in our orbit.
"The Sun passes through 11-year activity cycles in few of which the
star failed to become active
According to predictions, since the beginning of 2009, many more
sunspots and solar flares should have been identified on its surface.
They say that the magnetic phenomenon called solar jet streams is
responsible for this delay in the Sun's response time.
These streams are generated at the poles of the star, and then travel
towards the Equator at a relatively low speed of ten kilometers per
hour. When their journeys take them to 22 degrees latitude North and
South, they mark the beginning of a new solar cycle. But exactly why
the cycle starts when the streams reach this precise latitude is still
unknown.
NSO researchers believe that the reason why the latest cycle of the
Sun was delayed is that the jet streams moved slower than usual. Those
generated in 1996 took 13 years to reach the 22-degree-latitude and to
trigger a new period of activity, rather than the regular 11 years."
Weatherlawyer
>
> Every morning a minute pressure difference follows the sun. Presumably
> there is one that follows the moon as it is a cold wave at 6 am and
> warm one at 9 am. Also presumably this wave occurs at noon and 6 and 9
> pm.
>
> I don't know if it can be measured for all the other background
> changes but early in the days of admiralty log books providing the
> weather data that people like FitZroy tried to work with, a certain
> mid Atlantic island governor studied the phenomenon and deduced such a
> wave from statistical analysis.
> A small step from that is looking at the Atlantic chart every 6 hours
> and watching these small pressure waves build up. I don't pretend to
> know their cause but you really can see Low pressure regions develop
> as these things converge.
> This is what I mean when I use the term. I have no real idea what the
> more knowledgeable understand about it. Nor do I care over-much.
> arriving there from different directions, the peaks and troughs
> produced have a frequency of their own.
> Sometimes these are barely noticeable. Sometimes they peak as small
> tremors, sometimes as larger ones and sometimes as catastrophic
> earthquakes.
>
> And the weather changes.
I hadn't appreciated the inverse relationships although teleconnections were obvious before I even knew of uk.sci.weather's existence or how to find weather charts... never mind the word teleconnection:
> Permutations of these effects are tornadoes, volcanic eruptions and
> above cloud lightning. Too little is known and almost nothing is
> reported on the latter phenomenon to make conjugation with lunar
> phases possible.
>
> Since it IS possible to show a relationship between the other stuff
> (one only has only to look for a series of the right lunar phases
>
> It doesn't take much experience to form the idea that a run of certain
> weather should bring a devastating phenomenon. Since these usually