Blocking low ?
N_Cook
week. ?
Weatherlawyer
>
> What is keeping that low between 50 and 60 deg lat., 40 and 30W long. this
> week. ?
Astrometry and harmonics.
There is a basic common value [ρx,y] for any examples of variable
behaviour: X and Y.
It correlates to the [for example] expected weather with random
background low value seismic disturbances: E.
That could well vary to a standard deviation [σx and σy] where [for
example] a modest hurricane [σx] would produce a series of not very
low Lows instead of a Col of some 1010 mb [σy].
Which, if you wanted to get technical would equate to:
ρx,y = cov(X,Y)/σxσy = E((X - μx)(Y -- μy))/σxσy
Which is as far as I could push that particular envelope with my
limited grasp of maths. If you are the sort of turkey that like this
sort of stuff, there is a lot more on here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation
Best I can do I am afraid. I can't guarantee a word of the maths.
Only in this case it was a twin hurricane apparently:
http://groups.google.com/group/uk.sci.weather/tree/browse_frm/thread/7af05f2567fe5778/e044c8744ff3e7bf?rnum=1&_done=%2Fgroup%2Fuk.sci.weather%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2F7af05f2567fe5778%2F08e5914f6b42696a%3F#doc_30c1ed284f556ce4
JPG
> On Apr 21, 8:10 am, "N_Cook" <dive...@tcp.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
> > What is keeping that low between 50 and 60 deg lat., 40 and 30W long. this
> > week. ?
>
> Astrometry and harmonics.
Ley-lines and pyramid power.
(might as well join in!).
Martin
Robin Nicholson
<j_peasemold_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Ley-lines
There is apparently one such crossing close to where I live according
to some toothless crone in the village. What do I expect from such
proximity?
R
Weatherlawyer
>
> An High off the west coast of North America that reached right to the
> North Pole, decayed over this spell. Off the east coast in the
> Atlantic a pronounced Low grew from the low 970's to the 990's before
> moving up into the Davis strait between Greenland and Canada.
>
> It eventually crossed Greenland ending up at the mouth of the Baltic
> at Sweden - Denmark/ North Sea. Meanwhile it was replaced in Greenland
> by an High that reached 1035 mb.
>
> That and another in the middle of the North Atlantic at 1036 mb,
> worked in concert with the Low to produce the snowy weather in Britain
> that I vaguely remember.
>
> The series culminated in the Chinese quake: 7.2 M. Xinjiang border region.
> http://earthquake.usgs.gov/eqcenter/eqinthenews/2008/us2008pvcl/
>
> IIRC too, the Baltic Low hung around for another spell and lasted
> until the next large magnitude quake:
> 2008 04 09 - Loyalty Islands - M 7.3http://earthquake.usgs.gov/eqcenter/eqinthenews/2008/us2008qqa2/
>
> (at the risk of repeating myself.)
>
> If I am wrong; THEN laugh at me.
>
> If I am right...<expurgated version>
Take a serious look at your mental constraints you absolute duffer.
Here is the news for those that care:
(This is the antithesis of BBC weather forecasting, so beware. It's
like getting on a bigger motorbike or starting up a non-Windows Vista
computer.)
https://www.fnmoc.navy.mil/efs/dynamic/US058VMET-GIFwxg.EFS.no_atl_gale_0.gif
Unless I am mistaken, one can almost see how the thing is going to
climb into the Davis Strait.
Or if your name is JPG the Met Office Atlantic map has just been
updated:
I just started to find you a link but then I thought, you could use
the mental exercise.
And it will give you something to do while waiting for the next
instalment.
Richard Dixon
> I just started to find you a link but then I thought, you could use
> the mental exercise.
Are you always this condescending when people question your methods?
Richard
JPG
Wasn't it Richard Dawkins who said that you shouldn't be so open-
minded that your brains fall out. A sense of humour wouldn't go amiss
either.
>
> Here is the news for those that care:
You're assuming that anyone does!
>
> (This is the antithesis of BBC weather forecasting, so beware. It's
> like getting on a bigger motorbike or starting up a non-Windows Vista
> computer.)
>
> https://www.fnmoc.navy.mil/efs/dynamic/US058VMET-GIFwxg.EFS.no_atl_ga...
>
> Unless I am mistaken, one can almost see how the thing is going to
> climb into the Davis Strait.
>
> Or if your name is JPG the Met Office Atlantic map has just been
> updated:
> I just started to find you a link but then I thought, you could use
> the mental exercise.
>
> And it will give you something to do while waiting for the next
> instalment.
Well, write up your next installment and get it published in an
appropriate peer-reviewed scientific journal, then people might take
you seriously.
Sorry Michael; harmonics, astrometry (whatever that is), phases of the
moon, earthquakes etc applied to meteorology just sound like
pseudoscience, however hard you try to dress it up with maths.
Martin
Weatherlawyer
The problem seems to be that there are too many closed minds that will
admit no ingress from someone else's brains holding sway in too many
important places in the scientific community to allow the profusion of
sentience that is available.
Having a sense of humour is all very well when humanity is not at risk
and where all creation is not crying out in anguish. I don't believe
you really think I lack a sense of humour.
I think the problem is that you are securely embedded in your culture
and will thank no-one for disabusing you of it.
> > Here is the news for those that care:
>
> You're assuming that anyone does!
No I am not. I should have said, I were not involved, that this writer
shows he expects very little from the scientific community in general.
I wonder what Newton would have said about the way he was ignored for
years, giving lectures to empty halls for 15 of them, all the while
holding the secret things of god in his hands.
Too busy working on it all to be upset I imagine, so long as he was
warm dry and well fed.
> > (This is the antithesis of BBC weather forecasting, so beware. It's
> > like getting on a bigger motorbike or starting up a non-Windows Vista
> > computer.)
> > >https://www.fnmoc.navy.mil/efs/dynamic/US058VMET-GIFwxg.EFS.no_atl_ga...
>
> > Unless I am mistaken, one can almost see how the thing is going to
> > climb into the Davis Strait.
>
> > Or if you prefer low grade tat, the Met Office Atlantic map has just been
> > updated:
>
> Well, write up your next instalment and get it published in an
> appropriate peer-reviewed scientific journal, then people might take
> you seriously.
Or they might think I cared.
I should hate to be considered a scientist if the present crop of
bought and paid for sheeps heads are anything to go by.
> Sorry Michael; harmonics, astrometry (whatever that is), phases of the
> moon, earthquakes etc applied to meteorology just sound like
> pseudo-science, however hard you try to dress it up with maths.
There is no other possible explanation. When the impossible is removed
the rest is capable. Ignoring the obvious could set the standards of
meteorology back by 130 yea...
.. no wait...120..
Oh!
Too late.
Meanwhile if I could ask you to shut up for a few more days and then
come down on me like a ton of bricks if I am wrong, I might be
grateful.
Or not, as the case may be.
Weatherlawyer
No. I am this condescending when they misrepresent things or fail to
do the best for all concerned.
Richard Dixon
> There is no other possible explanation. When the impossible is removed
> the rest is capable. Ignoring the obvious could set the standards of
> meteorology back by 130 yea...
> .. no wait...120..
OK - what's your success rate in your forecasts? That should be a good
hint as to whether your method is even vaguely working or not. I
realise it might a "work in progress" but I assume you've made some
tangible links between, say, a certain weather type and a seismic
event that I leading you to follow on with your work. Please do share.
Richard
Weatherlawyer
I don't mind telling you all over again what I have been telling you
for ages. And I WILL answer your question if you will only answer one
for me first.
"What is keeping that low between 50 and 60 deg lat., 40 and 30W long.
this
week?"
Don't be ashamed of answering. I wasn't when I did.
Despite knowing what was going to be written.
Dawlish
As I've said on another thread; the success of forecasts can ONLY be
judged by their outcome sucess rate over time. That involves keeping
records and making them available. Without that, forecasting is simply
writing forecasts.
Weatherlawyer
> On Apr 23, 6:40 pm, Richard Dixon <rdngem...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > On 22 Apr, 14:16, Weatherlawyer <Weatherlaw...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > There is no other possible explanation. When the impossible is removed
> > > the rest is capable. Ignoring the obvious could set the standards of
> > > meteorology back by 130 yea...
> > > .. no wait...120..
>
> > OK - what's your success rate in your forecasts? That should be a good
> > hint as to whether your method is even vaguely working or not. I
> > realise it might a "work in progress" but I assume you've made some
> > tangible links between, say, a certain weather type and a seismic
> > event that I leading you to follow on with your work. Please do share.
>
> records and making them available. Without that, forecasting is simply
> writing forecasts.
Very good.
Now have a go at posto numero oneo.
Weatherlawyer
How common are these things? >http://www.hurricanezone.net/south-
pacific-cyclones/advisories-bulletins.html
>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.talk.weather/tree/browse_frm/thread/7af05f2567fe5778/6f96aeb7faf3f761?rnum=11&_done=%2Fgroup%2Falt.talk.weather%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2F7af05f2567fe5778%2F5e3403ab5de34aa9%3F#doc_3074fa2baeac1b7a
Weatherlawyer
>
>
>
> > What is keeping that low between 50 and 60 deg lat., 40 and 30W long. this
> > week. ?
>
> Astrometry and harmonics.
>
> behaviour: X and Y.
>
> It correlates to the [for example] expected weather with random
> background low value seismic disturbances: E.
>
> example] a modest hurricane [óx] would produce a series of not very
> low Lows instead of a Col of some 1010 mb [óy].
>
> Which, if you wanted to get technical would equate to:
>
> Which is as far as I could push that particular envelope with my
> limited grasp of maths. If you are the sort of turkey that like this
> sort of stuff, there is a lot more on here:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation
>
> Best I can do I am afraid. I can't guarantee a word of the maths.
>
And a bloody massive col in the USA.
N.E Zephyr
and your forecasts are all crap dawlish paul.
1 model, 1 run, +T240 all the way to zonal reality bullshit. period.
Weatherlawyer
Weatherlawyer
>
> > An High off the west coast of North America that reached right to the
> > North Pole, decayed over this spell. Off the east coast in the
> > Atlantic a pronounced Low grew from the low 970's to the 990's before
> > moving up into the Davis strait between Greenland and Canada.
>
> > It eventually crossed Greenland ending up at the mouth of the Baltic
> > at Sweden - Denmark/ North Sea. Meanwhile it was replaced in Greenland
> > by an High that reached 1035 mb.
>
> > That and another in the middle of the North Atlantic at 1036 mb,
> > worked in concert with the Low to produce the snowy weather in Britain
> > that I vaguely remember.
>
> > The series culminated in the Chinese quake: 7.2 M. Xinjiang border region.
> >http://earthquake.usgs.gov/eqcenter/eqinthenews/2008/us2008pvcl/
>
> > IIRC too, the Baltic Low hung around for another spell and lasted
> > until the next large magnitude quake:
> > 2008 04 09 - Loyalty Islands - M 7.3http://earthquake.usgs.gov/eqcenter/eqinthenews/2008/us2008qqa2/
>
>
>
> Unless I am mistaken, one can almost see how the thing is going to
> climb into the Davis Strait.
Well it didn't climb into Greenland a High reaching over the N Pole
kept it out but they did meet half way for a while.
Now there is a Low in Greenland and an High in Scandinavia but this
wheel has almost come home.
Here are a set of charts covering most of the hemisphere:
>https://www.fnmoc.navy.mil/efs/dynamic/US058VMET-GIFwxg.EFS.no_pac_gale_0.gif
>https://www.fnmoc.navy.mil/efs/dynamic/US058VMET-GIFwxg.EFS.no_atl_gale_0.gif
>http://www.westwind.ch/?link=ukmb,http://www2.wetter3.de/Fax/,.gif,bracknell+00,bracknell+24,bracknell+36,bracknell+48,bracknell+60,bracknell+72,bracknell+84,bracknell+96,bracknell+108,bracknell+120,bracknell+132
>http://www.weatheroffice.gc.ca/ensemble/charts_e.html?Hour=0&Day=0&RunTime=00&Type=pnm
>http://www.weatheroffice.gc.ca/data/analysis/947_50.gif
>http://weather.unisys.com/images/sat_sfc_map_loop.html
Russia and China are missing -as usual. Must be of military value to
add to our ignorance. Or maybe it is George and Gordon being thick as
pig-shit -as usual.
Weatherlawyer
So we wait.
Just because I am wrong it doesn't necessarily follow you have
anything to contribute? Is that it?
Meanwhile I have to hold my hand up:
http://205.85.40.22/jtwc/warnings/io0108.gif
I still expect a large quake out of it somewhere though.
Weatherlawyer
> > hint as to whether your method is even vaguely working or not. I
> > realise it might a "work in progress" but I assume you've made some
> > tangible links between, say, a certain weather type and a seismic
> > event that I leading you to follow on with your work. Please do share.
>
> I don't mind telling you all over again what I have been telling you
> for ages. And I WILL answer your question if you will only answer one
> for me first.
>
> "What is keeping that low between 50 and 60 deg lat., 40 and 30W long.
> this week?"
Your deafening silence speaks volumes.
> > > On Sat, 3 May 2008 03:32:17 -0700 (PDT), Dawlish <pjg...@hotmail.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > Wait a little while though Alan, or suggest that his ideas
> > may not be the "only explanation" for what he sees, then you may feel
> > a little put out in the way that Weatherlawyer replies to people and
> > gets his ideas across.
>
> I'm awfully sorry.
>
> Is it something I said?
> Yes, it was.
> Your theories are simply atrocious science. They do not make
scientific sense and you are no scientist.
I am sentient enough to realise that science in geo-physics has been
at a dead end for fifty and an hundred years.
> You make up much of what you say and you cannot provide any evidence to
> back up your, often, idiotic utterences.
>
> No wonder; there is no connection whatsoever between the things that you
> suggest. I have read what you have posted and I have no qualms whatsoever
> in saying that you are a complete charlatan.
>
> If you are not, prove it by showing quantitative evidence of your forecasts.
> Your forecast of 24/4 proved ridiculously wrong. There was no major earthquake.
> You have not returned to this and explained.
>
> If you do not, I will take you to pieces. That is a promise.
You are a fool but not a very carefool.
That Low has not expired yet. And there are few days more to this
spell. We have had a Cat 4 tropical storm instead of the promissed
quake and there was a lot of tornadic activity around that date too:
>http://www.google.co.uk/search?num=100&hl=en&newwindow=1&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-GB%3Aofficial&hs=9TO&q=tornado+24+April&btnG=Search&meta=lr%3Dlang_en%7Clang_ru
Not that uncommon I admit as there are nearly 2000 per annum in the
USA. Still, it's something you might care to look up concerning the
things you say you have read about me.
Meanwhile the residents of a town in Chile are being rehoused due to
an exceptionally powerful eruption:
>http://news.google.co.uk/news?num=100&hl=en&newwindow=1&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&hs=c9i&q=volcano&lr=lang_en%7Clang_ru&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=X&oi=news_result&resnum=1&ct=title
I am more interested in working out how to predict these things than
tallying how many predictions I get right. There is so much to know
and if I am the only one doing it, I must please myself how and where
I do it.
You may grow to understand these things if you mature. Don't worry if
you fail, you won't be the first fool to die young and stupid.
Alan LeHun
7da261...@y38g2000hsy.googlegroups.com>, Weathe...@hotmail.com
says...
> I am more interested in working out how to predict these things than
> tallying how many predictions I get right.
I fail to see how the former is possible, without doing the latter.
--
Alan LeHun
Weatherlawyer
> In article <965e0a6f-057c-4d1f-ab1a-
> 7da2616ae...@y38g2000hsy.googlegroups.com>, Weatherlaw...@hotmail.com
> says...
>
> > I am more interested in working out how to predict these things than
> > tallying how many predictions I get right.
>
> I fail to see how the former is possible, without doing the latter.
In my case it is a matter of jumping to conclusions.
Dawlish
>
> Not that uncommon I admit as there are nearly 2000 per annum in the
> USA. Still, it's something you might care to look up concerning the
> things you say you have read about me.
>
> Meanwhile the residents of a town in Chile are being rehoused due to
> an exceptionally powerful eruption:
>
>
> I am more interested in working out how to predict these things than
> tallying how many predictions I get right. There is so much to know
> and if I am the only one doing it, I must please myself how and where
> I do it.
>
> You may grow to understand these things if you mature. Don't worry if
> you fail, you won't be the first fool to die young and stupid.
So strange: you must have me confused with someone else as I never
wrote any of that here.
If I died now, I would not be young. All you do is jump to conclusions
and you make up what you post to try to cack your ridiculous theory
that only crackpots would subscribe to. There is no empirical basis
for your beliefs and you are behaving more like a religious
fundamentalist, with an idea that is correct; no matter that you can
demonstrate no proof whatsoever to back your beliefs, it is still
correct.
You are no scientist, but of course, you would not like to join the
"present bunch" of "sheep". That low is stuck there because the
Atlantic has been blocked for several weeks. It is not stuck there for
any spurious reason that you would like us to believe. I suppose you
predicted the vaolcanic eruption in Chile? I can't seem to find that
in your posts, though now you would like to offer it as evidence for
your silliness. Science has not moved on for 100 (or 150) years? You
have no marbles left.
Weatherlawyer; you are a charlatan.
Paul
Weatherlawyer
Just someone who has not proven the value of time in education.
> All I do is jump to conclusion and make up stuff to try to cack your ridiculous
> theory that only crackpots would subscribe to. For example:
>
> There is no empirical basis for your beliefs and you are behaving more like a
> religious fundamentalist, with an idea that is correct; no matter that you can
> demonstrate no proof whatsoever to back your beliefs, it is still correct.
I have posted Weatherlawyer's axioms or precepts. That is enough for
you. Fool.
> You are no scientist but of course, you would not like to join the
> "present bunch" of "sheep".
I wouldn't mind regular wages or even civil servant status. Perhaps I
could be a black sheep? With time off when I feel like it?
> That low is stuck there because the Atlantic has been blocked for several weeks
>. It is not stuck there for any spurious reason that you would like us to believe.
You are not Richard Dixon perchance?
> I suppose you predicted the volcanic eruption in Chile? I can't seem to find that
> in your posts, though now you would like to offer it as evidence for your silliness.
Your suppositions are as usual, in error. However if you care to look
I have mentioned their relationship vis a vis earthquakes and
meteorology.
Don't strain yourself. Oaf!
> Science has not moved on for 100 (or 150) years? You have no marbles left.
Yes I have, two or three sauerkraut jars full, last time I looked.
> Weatherlawyer; I am a ijut.
And you are not advancing the subject one iota. If you have anything
sensible to say about the original topic, don't hold back on my
account.
Dawlish
I have nothing sensible to say about the original topic because almost
the only person that feels there is.....is you. I have no intention of
"advancing" the original topic, as there is no sensible topic to
advance. I have every intention of showing that your pronouncements
are not the advancement of science that you appear to think that they
are. At the same time, I will continue to discuss other aspects of
meteorology with others in a rational and friendly manner. It's a pity
you don't.
Nearly everyone with any kind of scientific background would simply
smile at the whole idea and know that it is extremely likley that you
are talking baloney, as there is an extremely low probability that
there is any connection between the things you propose. Not because
their minds are closed to the possibility, but because they have
plenty enough sense to see the lack of connection.
Now, as I have answered your "numero uno" question of why that low is
there, to the best of my ability (of course I may be entirely wrong
and it may be intimately linked with tectonics, but most intelligent
people would think not), show us some success statistics which
indicate that there is anything whatsoever in your beliefs. You could,
of course ask another question in return, but your avoidance of that
issue would continue to speak volumes.
Weatherlawyer
> On Apr 22, 11:08 am, Weatherlawyer <Weatherlaw...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 21, 5:41 pm, Weatherlawyer <Weatherlaw...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 21, 1:52 pm, JPG <j_peasemold_gruntfutt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Apr 21, 11:30 am, Weatherlawyer <Weatherlaw...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Apr 21, 8:10 am, "N_Cook" <dive...@tcp.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > > > > What is keeping that low between 50 and 60 deg lat., 40 and 30W long
> > > > > >. this week. ?
>
> > > > > Astrometry and harmonics.
>
> > > > Ley-lines and pyramid power.
> > > > (might as well join in!).
>
> > (This is the antithesis of BBC weather forecasting, so beware.)
>
> >https://www.fnmoc.navy.mil/efs/dynamic/US058VMET-GIFwxg.EFS.no_atl_ga...
>
> Sorry Michael; harmonics, astrometry (whatever that is), phases of the
> moon, earthquakes etc applied to meteorology just sound like
> pseudoscience, however hard you try to dress it up with maths.
Astrometry is a branch of astronomy that concerns the science
forecasting heavenly bodies.
In the normal course of events even a singularity of the order of the
one originally under discussion would make its way to Scotland and
then to Northern Germany, Denmark or Poland via the North Sea, or it
will go to Norway somewhere along the middle of the coast.
That perception is not one of mine but the normal weekly agenda in the
North Atlantic.
Exceptions to the rule are when there is a negative oscillation
(Weatherlawyer Rules) where the Lows are high and the Highs are low.
In such circumstances the lows present themselves from lower climes
and for reasons yet to be explained if my hypothesis is not good
enough (I await Richard Dixon's alternative with glee -as dare I say,
do we all?) usually following the longitude near enough and enter the
Arctic from the Denmark Strait or Norwegian Sea
In which case the consequent phenomenon that ends the anomaly is
usually large volcanic eruption.
What makes the present case so unusual is that we have had the gamut
of geo-phenomena from tornadoes:
>http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jW-BndswWuhgPAPXOK4Q6TCQsANQD90EIGI80 through tropical storms:
>http://www.wunderground.com/tropical/tracking/wp200889.html?MR=1 to volcanic eruptions:
http://www.volcano.si.edu/reports/usgs/index.cfm?content=archive (not
updated until wednesday nights.)
And as interesting, if not more so; the Low diminished and after
centring over the UK moved back 10 to 20 degrees west, where it
deepened. 978 mb is a respectable Low and quite capable of pointing
toward a 7.5 M. earthquake.
Seeing as this is the last day of this particular spell, it is not
unlikely to expect one in the next few hours or at most 2 or 3 days.
However since there is a new storm present at Japan, it might be an
idea to predict that the one will replace the other. And this can be
forecast from contemporary Met forecasts as they make use of
international data which will include data of tropical storms.
And as I have said in one of Weatherlawyer's precepts the storms
change the weather. (That is they appear to the cause being one and
the same.)
Thus we have a number of conditions that could be used to forecast the
event.
All of them based on harmonics and astrometry.
Nice day, innit?
Dawlish
>
> - Show quoted text -
Quite capable of producing a 7.5 earthquake? It is not unlikely to
expect one? So if it does you were right and if it doesn't - well it
usually doesn't so that's OK too! There is no indication of location,
so that earthquake could occur anywhere.
There are, on average, about 10-15 major earthquakes per year, 1 per
month, so the odds on one happening "over the next 2-3 days" is not
that high. This varies widely from year to year. The fact that the
last 7.5+ earthquake happened about a month ago means you are probably
applying a law of averages to the next 2-3days ie, one is becoming a
little overdue (always a very poor way of gambling) that another may
happen soon. It possibly will, but you won't have predicted it; though
you will, almost certainly, add it to your personal list of;
"earthquakes I predicted".
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/learning/faq.php?categoryID=11&faqID=69
There is no "normal" in the weather of the North Atlantic ocean, only
more, or less common synoptic patterns.
Must be me, but I missed the statistical justification of your
forecast accuracy that I asked for in my last post. I must have missed
it in your complete obfuscation. Your "forecast" of 24th April
produced nothing and you have not referred to it again, as is your
normal way, though I note that you are trying to sneak a "large
volcanic eruption" (in hindsight, of course) into your analysis.
Show us the evidence of your forecast accuracy, then forecast the
location of a series of 25 earthquakes, based on your method and see
how many times you are correct. Get 66% and I will begin to change my
mind. Get 80%, then do it another 25 times and I will become seriously
interested, as would many others. Get 80% over 100 earthquakes and you
will have solved a problem that all seismologists feel is presently
impossible: you will be able to predict earthquakes, with good
accuracy and your system works! You would be the next Lorentz and the
scientific world would venerate your name.
You probably think that we should already.
P.
PS Here's a forecast for you about this May's temperatures in the UK,
based upon your own language:
After a warm first 4 days, it would not be unusual if the May CET
ended up above average. May is quite capable of producing a CET 2.5C
above average and after the warmth of the first 4 days, combined with
the predicted warmth over the next week, it would not be unlikely if
that happened.
If I was right, it would mean nothing in terms of forecasting May's
weather. If you were right, it would mean nothing in terms of
forecasting an earthquake.
Weatherlawyer
> On Apr 22, 12:38 pm, JPG <j_peasemold_gruntfutt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > What is keeping that low between 50 and 60 deg lat., 40 and 30W long
> > > > > > >. this week. ?
>
>
> > > > > Ley-lines and pyramid power. (might as well join in!).
>
>
> > > > IIRC too, the Baltic Low hung around for another spell and lasted
> > > > until the next large magnitude quake:
>
> > > > If I am wrong; THEN laugh at me.
>
> and where all creation is not crying out in anguish.
>
> and will thank no-one for disabusing you of it.
>
> > > climb into the Davis Strait.
>
> > peer-reviewed scientific journal, then people might take you seriously.
It seems to me that contemporary science has an habit of sweeping
under the carpet things we had once taken for granted and now need
disabusing of.
Consider the threads on here where it is openly discussed that
satellite data is routinely binned as more expert hands massage the
data.
Nobody has stopped to consider that the data is collected by
sophisticated instruments and might conceivably made use of somehow.
But it is as you say:
> > Harmonics,astrometry, phases of the moon, earthquakes etc applied to
> > meteorology just sound like pseudo-science, however hard you try to
> > dress it up with maths.
I wasn't trying to dress it up as anything, I was merely applying what
little I understood of a link someone elsewhere had pointed out to me
concerning a problem I had with Open Office.
It seemed appropriate for this thread at the time. Waste of time with
the dolts here of course but one can hope.
> Shut up for a few more days and then come down on me like a ton of
> bricks if I am wrong, I might be grateful.
>
> Or not, as the case may be.
Not.
Ah well. Sad that I was proven correct so dramatically, the Low just
went off the map. And unremarked except for a barking loon and an
empty vessel.
Things are not going to change much.
Dawlish
>
> - Show quoted text -
Very true. Your tectonic prediction stats have remained fixed on 0%
over the past 3 weeks.
In this time, you haven't managed to predict anything correctly apart
from your own monitoring of a completely innocuous low, which
"dramatically" "went off the map", the ramifications of which added up
to precisely nothing. No-one was watching it, as it had no impact on
anything, or anybody, but you. In the meantime, your pseudoscience (an
accurate term to describe what you do) missed predicting the biggest
eathquake and the biggest volcanic eruption of the year, causing you
to focus on a dying Atlantic low.
Why? What went wrong, W? Have you learned from it?
Alan LeHun
@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, pjg...@hotmail.com says...
> In this time, you haven't managed to predict anything correctly apart
> from your own monitoring of a completely innocuous low, which
> "dramatically" "went off the map", the ramifications of which added up
> to precisely nothing. No-one was watching it, as it had no impact on
> anything, or anybody, but you.
I did go through some of his older posts that I missed when he was in
the KF and was quite surprised at the complete lack of responses there
were to posts of his on this topic. One thread had 15 posts from WL and
one from Dave R., pointing out that no-one else seemed interested.
> In the meantime, your pseudoscience (an
> accurate term to describe what you do) missed predicting the biggest
> eathquake and the biggest volcanic eruption of the year, causing you
> to focus on a dying Atlantic low.
>
tbf, using a method to predict future events does not mean that method
would predict all such events, nor does relying on a selected group of
indicators. Not all heart attack victims have HBP. I'm afraid you can't
use that "failure" against him. (unless he's claimed otherwise, of
course).
Anyway, he's back in the KF now.
--
Alan LeHun
Dawlish
Hi Alan,
I know and I'm not using them for that reason. The 0% only includes
the 3 tectonic events that W has actually predicted since April 24th.
You are right, not many seem interested and I can't blame them. I'll
keep up the monitoring until I feel he's either making progress, or it
is pretty obvious that it really is baloney, then I'll find something
better to do. Meanwhile, it keeps me off the streets.
...and what's the KF?
Paul
Weatherlawyer
You lift me up where I belong, where the eagles fly
Wisdom is better than acclaim; yet the wisdom of the outsider is
despised, and his words are not listened to.
The words of the wise in quietness are more to be heard than the
experts in their fields
"Baaah!"
Dawlish
So what about those predictions you made that just didn't come true?
Alan LeHun
56g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>, pjg...@hotmail.com says...
> ...and what's the KF?
>
Kill file, bozo bin, call it what you like.
I see he's put a bit of bait in front of you elsewhere though Paul, and
he's hooked you. Make that 16 by WL, 1 by Dave R., and 1 by yourself. :)
He may well turn out to be one of the better trolls out there. I was
almost impressed with that.
--
Alan LeHun
Weatherlawyer
>
> What is keeping that low between 50 and 60 deg lat., 40 and 30W long. this
I haven't done the charts for this, mostly because I only have some of them, so don't quote me but...
As Northridge, a fairly small potatoes but none the less a large medium sized quake, occurred about 20 years ago. And since we are due a fairly large earthquake tomorrow or thereabouts...
The answer to this question is that there had been a fairly active spell of volcanicity leading up to the appearance of the Low concerned. The High that left the North American mainland disappeared overnight. I only have 24 hour charts to work with and I only just breezed through that so I am not too sure.
And of course I haven't looked up data about what happened yet. But I am expecting we had a severe earthquake though from the thread quoted, it was volcanic activity that carried the day along with some tornadic stuff.
Back later with some goods. Maybe not THE GOODS.
But it goes some way to improve on the dawlish explanation that appeared to be settled on by the oafs on uk.sci.weather how many years ago?
5 1/2 years ago?
Weatherlawyer
> On Monday, 21 April 2008 08:10:44 UTC+1, N_Cook wrote:
>
> >
>
> > What is keeping that low between 50 and 60 deg lat., 40 and 30W long. this
You duffers!
> Back later with The goods.
Obviously you have all lost interest.
It's stuff I have told you about of course so you already know.
Doesn't anyone have an apple for the teacher?
OK; I'm off to the car-boot now, when I come back I shall tell you (again.)
Weatherlawyer
>
> > > What is keeping that low between 50 and 60 deg lat., 40 and 30W long. this
knots pressure at Latitude Longitude
Tropical Depression
15 1010 04/13/00Z 8.10 127.00
15 1007 04/13/06Z 8.70 125.90
15 1010 04/13/12Z 9.20 124.70
20 1005 04/13/18Z 9.50 123.30
30 1000 04/14/00Z 9.50 121.70
Tropical Storm
35 996 04/14/06Z 9.00 120.20
35 996 04/14/12Z 9.40 119.00
35 996 04/14/18Z 9.90 117.80
40 993 04/15/00Z 10.50 116.90
40 993 04/15/06Z 11.20 116.10
45 989 04/15/12Z 12.00 115.20
50 985 04/15/18Z 12.90 114.10
Category 1 Typhoon
65 974 04/16/00Z 13.30 113.00
70 970 04/16/06Z 13.30 112.50
75 967 04/16/12Z 13.90 112.50
80 963 04/16/18Z 14.60 112.40
Category 2 Typhoon
85 959 04/17/00Z 15.30 112.10
90 956 04/17/06Z 15.90 111.90
90 956 04/17/12Z 16.50 111.90
Category 3 Typhoon
100 948 04/17/18Z 17.10 111.70
Category 3 Typhoon
95 952 04/18/00Z 17.80 111.40
95 952 04/18/06Z 18.60 111.40
90 956 04/18/12Z 19.40 111.60
Category 1 Typhoon
75 967 04/18/18Z 20.20 111.30
Tropical Storm
60 978 04/19/00Z 20.90 111.60
50 985 04/19/06Z 21.70 112.10
40 993 04/19/12Z 22.60 113.10
35 996 04/19/18Z 23.30 114.80
OK not really the answer but the real cause of weather is still out there.
It's just unfortunate that the rest of you losers are more interested in debating climate rather than weather.
Pity that.