Is there any method for forecasting these things with lunations?

I have a great deal of difficulty with spells based on the times of
the phases when they are at the times that have been appearing lately.
And this year, 2010 looks full of them. In fact, IIRC, there are only
one or two spells that induce positive North Atlantic pressure
systems.

Difficult though the system may be, there is complete fulfilment of
the weather's dependence on "the next phase" for each stage of the
recent stuff. Even now after a patchy spell of misty stuff that saw
off the recent slush, the weather has brightened according to a change
in the phase:
Lunar phases for 2010:
7th . Jan. . 10:40
15th . Jan. . 07:11
23th . Jan. . 10:53
30th . Jan. . 06:18
5th . Feb. . 23:49
14th . Feb. . 02:51
22th . Feb. . 00:42
28th . Feb. . 16:38

It is the 17th as I write this. According to the almanac, the phase on
the 15th January was at 07:11. Ordinarily this is a wet spell for my
part of Britain. The weather was misty as had been forecast - so no
significant earthquakes in there. Now it has been sunny. What was the
forecast?
More wintry weather?

I'm not sure.
I barely see them on the TV these days. If there is one on when I am
watching the fool-box I usually switch off. (It's a mark of respect.
I'd pee on them if they weren't plugged into the mains and standing on
someone's carpet.)

Let's assume they got caught by the curlies once more and there is
another spell of severe tremors. Maybe a 6.5 or two or three 5.5 going
on 6 Ms. tomorrow. Whilst my being correct would indicate such a
correlation, it's hardly a marked improvement for earthquake
forecasting as compared to just watching contemporary weather-
forecasts for indecision. (But slightly more useful than waiting for
proof of error.)

But then again there is that difficulty in the runs.
Look at the first few this year:
10:40 ??
07:11 Strong wet spell
10:53 Strong dry spell
06:18 Strong wishy-washy or Foggy spell.
23:49 Same as above only more so. Maybe snowy?
02:51 This type brings warm, humid stuff over. Likely to be thundery;
so unsettled even then.
00:42 Wet but on the cusp of something else. Very wet? Flooding in the
south of France/north of Italy? Heavy snow in the southern Alps?

I can't say.
Consider: 16:38.
Anything at 20 past and 20 to the hour is a pain. And this one is
twenty to fine.

Look at all these earthquakes from January 2010:

03. 51.61. 175.28. . 4.0
03. 38.85. 140.66. . 4.1
03. 22.02. W 66.98. . 4.5
03. 31.95. 178.50. . 4.6
03. 56.25. 113.41. . 4.6
03. 41.80. 49.02... . 4.5
03. 34.71. 141.61. . 4.6
03. 37.13. 141.06. . 4.6
03. 22.81. 174.55. . 4.5
03. 25.39. 175.49. . 5.2. Ten
03. 15.59. W 94.59. . 4.0
03. 37.17. 96.79... . 4.0
03. 13.93. W 91.74. . 4.0
03. 10.91. 161.87. . 4.4
03. 23.05. 114.55. . 4.5
03. 35.01. 107.53. . 4.0
03. 2.76. 125.43. . 4.4
03. 1.38. 122.07. . 4.0
03. 42.04. 142.56. . 4.3
03. 36.54. 70.98... . 4.3. Twenty.
03. 57.99. W 25.56. . 4.5
03. S 7.44. 128.46. . 5.4
03. 12.43. 166.74. . 5.4
03. 123.57. 615. . ??
03. 10.02. W 62.04. . 4.1
03. 16.27. 145.70. . 4.2
03. S 4.99. 144.90. . 4.6
03. S 0.21. 133.15. . 4.3
03. S 0.41. 132.88. . 7.7----
03. S 0.55. 133.45. . 4.9. Thirty.
03. S 0.59. 133.36. . 5.6
03. S 0.45. 132.89. . 5.0
03. S 0.41. 132.34. . 4.9
03. S 0.24. 133.33. . 4.8
03. S 0.33. 133.05. . 4.8
03. S 0.64. 133.04. . 4.6
03. S 0.53. 133.01. . 5.0
03. S 0.61. 132.99. . 4.9
03. S 0.39. 132.90. . 4.0
03. S 0.31. 133.00. . 4.4. Fifty.
03. S 0.63. 133.44. . 4.1
03. S 8.16. 119.68. . 5.0
03. S 0.30. 132.58. . 5.1
03. 36.42. 70.74... . 6.6
03. S 0.36. 132.71. . 4.7
03. S 0.39. 132.61. . 5.1
03. S 0.67. 133.29. . 5.0
03. S 0.30. 132.74. . 4.9
03. S 0.67. 133.39. . 4.7
03. S 0.40. 132.88. . 4.7. Sixty.
03. 42.14. 84.83... . 4.2
03. S 0.25. 132.71. . 4.5
03. S 0.37. 132.59. . 4.7
03. S 0.25. 132.82. . 4.3
03. S 0.31. 132.78. . 4.9
03. S 0.28. 132.41. . 4.7
03. S 0.24. 133.10. . 4.4
03. S 0.30. 132.16. . 4.3
03. S 0.29. 132.62. . 4.3
03. S 0.70. 133.57. . 4.6. Seventy.
03. 28.54. W 63.01. . 5.1
03. S 0.52. 133.10. . 5.0
03. S 0.69. 133.45. . 4.7
03. S 7.09. 156.07. . 4.8
03. S 0.32. 132.88. . 5.6
03. S 0.31. 133.04. . 5.2
03. 0.40. 132.51. . 5.0
03. 24.16. 121.75. . 5.0
03. S 0.28. 132.86. . 5.3
03. S 0.50. 132.16. . 4.9. Eighty.
03. S 0.69. 133.30. . 7.4 ----
03. S 0.51. 133.22. . 5.2
03. S 0.58. 133.58. . 4.7
03. S 0.41. 133.83. . 4.7

A remarkable spate. However, half of them (most of the last section)
were from the same region. As were most of these:

04 S 0.69 133.27 5.5
04 S 0.19 132.99 5.2
04 S 0.41 132.75 4.1
04 S 0.36 133.31 4.6
04 S 0.66 133.66 4.6
04 S 0.19 132.86 5.1
04 S 0.73 133.51 4.7
04 S 0.39 132.83 4.5
04 S 0.73 133.55 5.3
04 S 0.54 132.63 4.7
04 4.98 127.40 4.6
04 S 0.69 133.58 4.8
04 S 0.23 132.73 4.8
04 S 0.34 132.52 4.6
04 S 0.64 133.85 4.5
04 S 0.66 133.51 4.9
04 S 0.29 132.71 4.5
04 24.07 122.20 4.4
04 S 0.76 133.14 4.6
04 S 0.28 132.80 4.6
04 S 0.69 133.64 4.5
04 S 0.20 133.24 4.1
04 36.73 22.28 4.3
04 21.58 75.33 4.1
04 S 7.38 128.09 4.5
04 S 0.61 133.40 4.3
04 S 0.67 133.19 5.7
04 S 0.66 134.04 4.9
04 S 0.70 133.71 4.6
04 S 2.68 139.27 4.1
04 S 0.24 132.90 4.8
04 S 0.71 133.17 4.7
04 1.10 121.86 5.0
04 S 0.28 132.68 4.8
04 S 0.40 132.76 5.9
04 17.97 179.81 4.7
04 S 5.80 147.59 4.8
04 S 0.71 133.60 5.0
04 S 0.38 132.90 4.5
04 S 0.73 133.49 5.0
04 S 0.71 133.99 4.1
04 S 0.29 133.10 4.5
04 S 0.44 132.87 4.2
04 S 0.96 131.05 4.1
04 35.10 27.76 4.3
04 S 0.37 133.10 4.0
04 S 0.33 133.06 4.6
04 49.71 125.81 4.5
04 S 0.79 133.22 4.6
04 S 0.26 132.73 4.5
04 S 0.68 133.84 5.1
04 47.11 156.42 4.0
04 S 0.28 132.84 4.1
04 S 0.51 132.98 4.6
04 S 0.31 133.17 4.6
04 S 0.34 132.47 4.7
04 S 0.57 132.73 5.3
04 S 0.22 132.71 4.8
04 10.25 93.94 4.9
04 30.31 177.49 4.8
04 24.07 123.61 4.4

Anyone can see the importance of taking notice of pressure
differentials if they look at the SSPs for early january last year
(2009).

Even me.

Let's try this:
All quakes are related to pressure differentials but the pressure
differentials are not going to be in the same place. Having a set-up
where there are a superabundance of such pressure systems is very
rare. And that is why ....
....errrmmm..
...No, that doesn't work. The degree of pressure differences relates to
the magnitude of the earthquakes. Therefore...

Boy! This is hard going!

Let me try again.
What is causing the pressure systems?

They are manifestations of my imagination?
Or there is a lunar connection.

Ah now I'm cooking gasoline. With naked flames.
OOH!
Naked flames.

+++++++
Doh!cember 2008 times of the lunar phases:

19th 10:29
27th 12:23

January 2009:

4th 11:56
11th 03:27
18th 02:46

This is about severe weather, yet "negative" or what are supposed to
be flaccid weather systems.

Obviously the situation with flaccid systems isn't directly connected
to the time of the phase..
Do long hot spells over the "warm pool" area initiate the situation?

If so the back room boys got one right.
(Most unexpected.)

How did that happen?
There is no accounting for idiot savants but the lunar aspect relates
to a staid spell where the air currents above the seas are incapable
of washing the heat away.

Sunshine goes straight into the sea unless there is enough cloud over
the sea to prevent the water absorbing it. Sunlight changes from water
penetrable frequencies to the longer IR waveband as it passes through
the water in the clouds. I'm not sure infra red stuff will go deep
into the water. If not, the surface temperature of the interface
between the sea and the sky is what warms the surface up.

It's done by convection not direct insolation. The water currents wash
through any point at millions of cubic tons and hour.

If the insolation was able to get through and penetrate the sea, the
water would be heated to a depth of hundreds of feet. All this cubic
capacity would spread the heat out, instantly draining it and
temperatures wouldn't vary much between day and night.
But it can collect if only the surface (the absolute immediate surface
alone) is heated.

That 3 to 5 degrees temperature gradient of looked for differential in
the production of hurricanes and typhoons actually depends on
clouds preceding them. It is mere symptomatic of what is going on.
It isn't the "first cause".

Well that got that sorted but it still leaves me trying to answer the
original puzzle.

Anyone can see the importance of taking notice of pressure
differentials if they look at the SSPs for early january last year
(2009).

Even me.

Let's try this:
All quakes are related to pressure differentials but the pressure
differentials are not going to be in the same place. Having a set-up
where there are a superabundance of such pressure systems is very
rare. And that is why ....
....errrmmm..
...No, that doesn't work. The degree of pressure differences relates to
the magnitude of the earthquakes. Therefore...

Boy! This is hard going!

Let me try again.
What is causing the pressure systems?

They are manifestations of my imagination?
Or there is a lunar connection.

Ah now I'm cooking gasoline. With naked flames.
OOH!
Naked flames.

+++++++
Doh!cember 2008 times of the lunar phases:

19th 10:29
27th 12:23

January 2009:

4th 11:56
11th 03:27
18th 02:46

This is about severe weather, yet "negative" or what are supposed to
be flaccid weather systems.

Obviously the situation with flaccid systems isn't directly connected
to the time of the phase..
Do long hot spells over the "warm pool" area initiate the situation?

If so the back room boys got one right.
(Most unexpected.)

How did that happen?
There is no accounting for idiot savants but the lunar aspect relates
to a staid spell where the air currents above the seas are incapable
of washing the heat away.

Sunshine goes straight into the sea unless there is enough cloud over
the sea to prevent the water absorbing it. Sunlight changes from water
penetrable frequencies to the longer IR waveband as it passes through
the water in the clouds. I'm not sure infra red stuff will go deep
into the water. If not, the surface temperature of the interface
between the sea and the sky is what warms the surface up.

It's done by convection not direct insolation. The water currents wash
through any point at millions of cubic tons and hour.

If the insolation was able to get through and penetrate the sea, the
water would be heated to a depth of hundreds of feet. All this cubic
capacity would spread the heat out, instantly draining it and
temperatures wouldn't vary much between day and night.
But it can collect if only the surface (the absolute immediate surface
alone) is heated.

That 3 to 5 degrees temperature gradient of looked for differential in
the production of hurricanes and typhoons actually depends on
clouds preceding them. It is mere symptomatic of what is going on.
It isn't the "first cause".

Well that got that sorted but it still leaves me trying to answer the
original puzzle.

"They are in the same place, they run consecutively and the type often
occur within seconds of each other. Sometimes they are a few hours
apart but either way they are presented consecutively on the NEIC
lists. Something is going on under the planet that stops earthquakes
occurring elsewhere until these little beauties have finished doing
whatever it is they do. And it affects the weather too. And not just
in the North Atlantic.

Why should they be confined to the North Atlantic? They don't occur in
that basin alone. They are a planet wide phenomena."

The demise of storms and the occurrence of earthquakes:

The contours that make up the surface pressure charts are produced by
vibrations from the surface of the earth. It is the same thing you'd
see in a cup of water placed on a machine that is running. The gentle
vibrations will go unnoticed until you think about them. You see the
liquid rippling on its surface and you think:
"Someone forgot to switch the thing off."

You see these isobars like map contours and you think:
"Boy those scientists must know what they are doing."

I wish.

Large earthquakes tend to occur at the start of or the end of a phase.
I may be wrong so don't rush next door to tell anyone what I found.
Why do the larger quakes in a series of tremors occur as fore-shocks?
Or put it another way, is there a reason why aftershocks are smaller?

When a series of pressure gradients form, they are not likely to stay
in the same place for long. They have to reach (I presume) a certain
capacity to set the quake off. This I imagine is the difference
between background noise and criticality. (The point where an airflow
is even across a wing for example and where it suddenly channels into
streams.)

So the first instance drops all the energy as a channel forms. After
that the rest of the energy can flow through that channel with less
potential difference. The barrier is gone and there is less chance for
the power to build up. For the same reason you only break the sound
barrier once. The sonic boom is a very short lived affair.

With a clear channel, the energy is drained. Once the Lows and the
Highs become more flaccid, the rest of the fluid (the atmosphere) will
then take on new behaviour patterns. Which is why the weather changes
dramatically after a storm.

It's still the same spell, the time of the phase that installed it
hasn't changed. It's the way the atmosphere behaves under it that is
now altered. It's as simple as that. Those pressure differences are
the key.

Which offers a clue how earthquakes might be allowed for in weather
models. 10 to 1 the Canadians come up with the first or the best new
model that incorporates this idea. And I'll tell you why:
They are watching both sides of the northern waters. They produce
charts that incorporate all the pressure systems of the northern part
of the northern hemisphere.

And that's where all the weather is.

So what was I doing all this time?

I was convinced it had something to do with those thicker lines that
occur when the quakes break out: Occluded Fronts. I was obsessed with
those cartoon-like mice running over the charts. They were my first
insight and I never looked further.

And yet I had seen that the acoustics of the planet were causing
standing waves in the air above. So I deserve a slap for all that too.
But then I wasn't wrong, just missing the other effects. Which begs
the next question.

3969 words. Where next?

Time to look at cycles:

Why did the link between large lake water levels and the 11 year solar
cycle disappear?
["22 year drought cycle" "Lake Victoria water levels"]

What happened to the relationship with aurorae and ocean pressure
oscillations in the 1970's.
[Alaska + aurora + "Walter Orr Roberts"]

Initial ideas:

Water level rises are linked with a planet in harmony with its weather
systems. Once a region becomes over taxed, "hunted out" the balance
isn't easily restored. By the 1920's elephants were under pressure
from hunters it was the era of the big game hunter. By this time too,
plantation owners were making serious inroads into the water table and
for the mass extinction of the African migratory herds.

In the mid 1960's the era of jetting to the sun arrived. By the early
1970's routes loaded with paraffin droplets in the upper atmosphere
were well established. Also in the 1950's the "Clean air act" was
introduced to Britain. The idea spread to the rest of Europe and by
the 1970's eco groups were becoming a political force.

Air pollution trends changed, though the outputs were more or less the
same. The impetus initially was just to use taller chimneys.

In the 1960's farming in the west became heavily dependent on agri-
chemicals. the way that soil behaved was fundamentally changed. It was
now possible to strip the earth of its natural micro-organisms and
still produce heavy crops. The effect on insect life was massive and
the effect on the insects was dreadful for birds and the rest of the
smaller animals that depended on them.

(To this day carrots are sprayed with chemicals so often that to me
they taste of the solvent for the preservatives used against the
land.)

+++++++

But as with my distraction with occluded fronts in my search for the
first cause of earthquakes; the problem of introducing good ideas to
work on can be counter-productive. Be like Newton:

Propose no hypotheses.

On Jan 18, 3:34*pm, Weatherlawyer wrote:
So what was I doing all this time?

I was convinced it had something to do with those thicker lines that
occur when the quakes break out: Occluded Fronts. I was obsessed with
those cartoon-like mice running over the charts. They were my first
insight and I never looked further.

And yet I had seen that the acoustics of the planet were causing
standing waves in the air above. So I deserve a slap for all that too.
But then I wasn't wrong, just missing the other effects. Which begs
the next question.

3969 words. Where next?

Time to look at cycles:

Why did the link between large lake water levels and the 11 year solar
cycle disappear?
["22 year drought cycle" "Lake Victoria water levels"]

What happened to the relationship with aurorae and ocean pressure
oscillations in the 1970's.
[Alaska + aurora + "Walter Orr Roberts"]

Initial ideas:

Water level rises are linked with a planet in harmony with its weather
systems. Once a region becomes over taxed, "hunted out" the balance
isn't easily restored. By the 1920's elephants were under pressure
from hunters it was the era of the big game hunter. By this time too,
plantation owners were making serious inroads into the water table and
for the mass extinction of the African migratory herds.

In the mid 1960's the era of jetting to the sun arrived. By the early
1970's routes loaded with paraffin droplets in the upper atmosphere
were well established. Also in the 1950's the "Clean air act" was
introduced to Britain. The idea spread to the rest of Europe and by
the 1970's eco groups were becoming a political force.

Air pollution trends changed, though the outputs were more or less the
same. The impetus initially was just to use taller chimneys.

In the 1960's farming in the west became heavily dependent on agri-
chemicals. the way that soil behaved was fundamentally changed. It was
now possible to strip the earth of its natural micro-organisms and
still produce heavy crops. The effect on insect life was massive and
the effect on the insects was dreadful for birds and the rest of the
smaller animals that depended on them.

(To this day carrots are sprayed with chemicals so often that to me
they taste of the solvent for the preservatives used against the
land.)

+++++++

But as with my distraction with occluded fronts in my search for the
first cause of earthquakes; the problem of introducing good ideas to
work on can be counter-productive. Be like Newton:

Propose no hypotheses.

Or: produce no outcome success percentages from the ones you do
predict and hope people will have short memories.

2008. An analysis of 7 Weatherlawyer predictions on uk.sci.weather of
earthquakes or volcanic eruptions, over about 4 months, based on his
odd ideas - ideas a bit like the gobbledygook that he's linked to in
all those posts above. Bet very few bothered to read them all.

Success? 1 correct forecast out of 7. 14%.

Conclusion? These ideas are guesswork, dressed up as science. No
outcome prediction success. No use. Sorry.

Dawlish wrote:
On Jan 18, 2:54 pm, Weatherlawyer wrote:
On Jan 16, 11:38 pm, Hatunen wrote:

On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 07:35:10 -0800 (PST), Weatherlawyer

wrote:

The relationship with large magnitude earthquakes seems to be a
compression of millibars at sea level between the east coast of
greenland and a point just to the north of Lapland, somehwere
between Svarlbad and Western Norway.

What the hell does "compression of millibars " mean?

Earthquakes,.in this case.

Can't resist - as you unwisely brought it up:

go on W. Predict one.

I'm never quite sure if it's the weather that causes the earthquakes
or the earthquakes that cause the weather.

Did he predict Haiti?
That was something of a biggie....
--
Col

Bolton, Lancashire
160m asl

On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 18:36:15 -0000, "Col"
wrote:

Dawlish wrote:
On Jan 18, 2:54 pm, Weatherlawyer wrote:
On Jan 16, 11:38 pm, Hatunen wrote:

On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 07:35:10 -0800 (PST), Weatherlawyer

wrote:

The relationship with large magnitude earthquakes seems to be a
compression of millibars at sea level between the east coast of
greenland and a point just to the north of Lapland, somehwere
between Svarlbad and Western Norway.

What the hell does "compression of millibars " mean?

Earthquakes,.in this case.

Can't resist - as you unwisely brought it up:

go on W. Predict one.

I'm never quite sure if it's the weather that causes the earthquakes
or the earthquakes that cause the weather.

Did he predict Haiti?
That was something of a biggie....

Thus far, at least as far as I can tell, no one in this newsgroup
has ever made a proper prediction of any significant earthquake,
save for post facto.

--
************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

On Jan 18, 6:39*pm, Hatunen wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 18:36:15 -0000, "Col"





wrote:
Dawlish wrote:
On Jan 18, 2:54 pm, Weatherlawyer wrote:
On Jan 16, 11:38 pm, Hatunen wrote:

On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 07:35:10 -0800 (PST), Weatherlawyer

wrote:

The relationship with large magnitude earthquakes seems to be a
compression of millibars at sea level between the east coast of
greenland and a point just to the north of Lapland, somehwere
between Svarlbad and Western Norway.

What the hell does "compression of millibars " mean?

Earthquakes,.in this case.

Can't resist - as you unwisely brought it up:

go on W. Predict one.

I'm never quite sure if it's the weather that causes the earthquakes
or the earthquakes that cause the weather.

Did he predict Haiti?
That was something of a biggie....

Thus far, at least as far as I can tell, no one in this newsgroup
has ever made a proper prediction of any significant earthquake,
save for post facto.

Define "Proper".

I don't think that even god has made one of those, IIGC.