On May 10, 4:53*pm, yttiw wrote:
On 2013-05-10 14:15:42 +0000, Weatherlawyer said:





On May 10, 9:32*am, yttiw wrote:
On 2013-05-09 15:12:17 +0000, Weatherlawyer said:

Or does anyone else seeing a reply by Dawlish get a mild depression?
Oh for a nice healthy drought.

No, not petty - just childish and boring as usual.

I pretty well agree witha ll the above sentiment but his name just has
the effect of my not wishing to open a thread.
It's OK when someone else's name repaces his unless Dawlish started
the thread and then I just close the link. But what is it in a name
that has such an affect on a person who will never really be troubled
by it?

Maybe I aught to get back on my meds.

But you started this thread, and I assume that you wanted others to
back you up.

Some folk might get depressed reading long posts which link seismic
activity to the position of low pressure areas over German Bight, but
presumably they don't let that wind them up to such an extent that they
become obsessed with insulting one particular poster.

I have no idea if variations in atmospheric pressure can influence the
occurrence of earthquakes, or vice versa, but it would be a fascinating
discovery if proved correct.

What does intrigue me, is that in videos of many volcanic eruptions
lightning can be seen in the ash plume

What on earth are you doing reading my work?
Have you absolutley no sense at all?

Good grief. It's at times like this, when I'm trapped in a usenet post
with someone who doesn't believe what I tell him but doesn't stop
reading more of what I have to say that I really wish I'd listened to
what my mother told me when I was young.

Weatherlawyer scrive:


What on earth are you doing reading my work? Have you absolutley no
sense at all?

Good grief. It's at times like this, when I'm trapped in a usenet post
with someone who doesn't believe what I tell him but doesn't stop
reading more of what I have to say that I really wish I'd listened to
what my mother told me when I was young.

What was that? Not to take sweets from strange men? That was what mine
said.


--
Gianna
Peterhead, Scotland

On 2013-05-11 12:39:04 +0000, Buchan Meteo said:

Weatherlawyer scrive:


What on earth are you doing reading my work? Have you absolutley no
sense at all?

Good grief. It's at times like this, when I'm trapped in a usenet post
with someone who doesn't believe what I tell him but doesn't stop
reading more of what I have to say that I really wish I'd listened to
what my mother told me when I was young.

What was that? Not to take sweets from strange men? That was what mine
said.

No, I imagine it was more along the lines of "don't do that dear, it
will make you go blind"

On May 11, 6:52*pm, yttiw wrote:
On 2013-05-11 12:39:04 +0000, Buchan Meteo said:

Weatherlawyer scrive:

What on earth are you doing reading my work? Have you absolutley no
sense at all?

Good grief. It's at times like this, when I'm trapped in a usenet post
with someone who doesn't believe what I tell him but doesn't stop
reading more of what I have to say that I really wish I'd listened to
what my mother told me when I was young.

What was that? Not to take sweets from strange men? That was what mine
said.

No, I imagine it was more along the lines of "don't do that dear, it
will make you go blind"

Well we will never know now as she is too dead for me to ask her.
I do have to use glasses but I am not blind. Tell me (since you are so
easily impressed with really stupid ideas about masturbation and such
fairy tales) why are some probablistic reactions to compact isobars
only likely to produce storms in the air?

Or do you suppose (along with the experts at NCAR and whoever the
other dolts are who wrote that crap about the atmosphere in the
Encyclopeadia Britannica) that weather causes weather?

On May 10, 4:53*pm, yttiw wrote:
On 2013-05-10 14:15:42 +0000, Weatherlawyer said:





On May 10, 9:32*am, yttiw wrote:
On 2013-05-09 15:12:17 +0000, Weatherlawyer said:

Or does anyone else seeing a reply by Dawlish get a mild depression?
Oh for a nice healthy drought.

No, not petty - just childish and boring as usual.

I pretty well agree witha ll the above sentiment but his name just has
the effect of my not wishing to open a thread.
It's OK when someone else's name repaces his unless Dawlish started
the thread and then I just close the link. But what is it in a name
that has such an affect on a person who will never really be troubled
by it?

Maybe I aught to get back on my meds.

But you started this thread, and I assume that you wanted others to
back you up.

Some folk might get depressed reading long posts which link seismic
activity to the position of low pressure areas over German Bight, but
presumably they don't let that wind them up to such an extent that they
become obsessed with insulting one particular poster.

I have no idea if variations in atmospheric pressure can influence the
occurrence of earthquakes, or vice versa, but it would be a fascinating
discovery if proved correct.

Following revelations recently about upper atmosphere soundings being
50% or more bull****, I am surprised that I am the only one in the
world who sees compression of isobars at sea level as the firt major
sign of seismic activity.

I also fail to understand that once I point out the defects in model
runs is almost entirely due to seismicity anyone interested in
attempting to perfect computer analysis aka LF Richardson wopuld
perversely maintian ignorance of my suggestions.

Be that as it may it is a good thing FOR seismology that Meteorologist
can maintain such a high level of ignorance. In Japan the government
in its wisdom has combined the seismic and meteorologic agencies. But
I can't speak to them as I am unable to translate my work.

The Chinese combine the sudy of animal behaviour with seismology and
get good results for a great deal less than the japanese do, oddly
enough the Japanese have never succeeded in making a forecast. Someone
there should learn to read Chinese.

In Britain the government combined Meteorology with Climatology (which
is rather like combinign chalk and cheese and attempting to get gold
out of it. You would think that the scions of one of the greatest
scientific endeavours since Nebuchadnezzar set up a think tank of
Jewish Scientists would have accomplished more that that idiocy with
agencies like the Royal Society, etcetera, etcetera, wouldn't you?

What does intrigue me, is that in videos of many volcanic eruptions
lightning can be seen in the ash plume.

Considering the ability of electricity to void clouds, you wouldn't
imagine that aerosols could last for years in the atmosphere would
you?

What do you make of the idea that earthquakes can occur deeper than 5
miles underground?
Impossible, no?

On May 11, 1:39*pm, Buchan Meteo wrote:
Weatherlawyer scrive:



What on earth are you doing reading my work? Have you absolutley no
sense at all?

Good grief. It's at times like this, when I'm trapped in a usenet post
with someone who doesn't believe what I tell him but doesn't stop
reading more of what I have to say that I really wish I'd listened to
what my mother told me when I was young.

What was that? Not to take sweets from strange men? That was what mine
said.

Do you think we can get any sweets out of him if we ask nicely?

On Thursday, 9 May 2013 16:12:17 UTC+1, Weatherlawyer wrote:
Or does anyone else seeing a reply by Dawlish get a mild depression?
Oh for a nice healthy drought.

I'm sure the person who has single-handedly killed off this newsgroup and riled countless seemingly unrilable people will be delighted that yet another thread is devoted to talking about him.

Richard

Weatherlawyer scrive:

On May 11, 1:39Â*pm, Buchan Meteo wrote:
Weatherlawyer scrive:



What on earth are you doing reading my work? Have you absolutley no
sense at all?

Good grief. It's at times like this, when I'm trapped in a usenet
post with someone who doesn't believe what I tell him but doesn't
stop reading more of what I have to say that I really wish I'd
listened to what my mother told me when I was young.

What was that? Not to take sweets from strange men? That was what mine
said.

Do you think we can get any sweets out of him if we ask nicely?

You can have some of mine. She never said anything about taking them from
strange women.



--
Gianna
Peterhead, Scotland

On Monday, 13 May 2013 17:25:25 UTC+1, Buchan Meteo wrote:
Weatherlawyer scrive:



On May 11, 1:39*pm, Buchan Meteo wrote:

Weatherlawyer scrive:







What on earth are you doing reading my work? Have you absolutley no

sense at all?



Good grief. It's at times like this, when I'm trapped in a usenet

post with someone who doesn't believe what I tell him but doesn't

stop reading more of what I have to say that I really wish I'd

listened to what my mother told me when I was young.



What was that? Not to take sweets from strange men? That was what mine

said.



Do you think we can get any sweets out of him if we ask nicely?



You can have some of mine. She never said anything about taking them from

strange women.







--

Gianna

Peterhead, Scotland

Jimmy Savile was good mates with Peter Sutcliffe who was a cook in Broadmoor.

On 2013-05-13 15:11:29 +0000, Weatherlawyer said:

On May 10, 4:53*pm, yttiw wrote:
On 2013-05-10 14:15:42 +0000, Weatherlawyer said:





On May 10, 9:32*am, yttiw wrote:
On 2013-05-09 15:12:17 +0000, Weatherlawyer said:

Or does anyone else seeing a reply by Dawlish get a mild depression?
Oh for a nice healthy drought.

No, not petty - just childish and boring as usual.

I pretty well agree witha ll the above sentiment but his name just has
the effect of my not wishing to open a thread.
It's OK when someone else's name repaces his unless Dawlish started
the thread and then I just close the link. But what is it in a name
that has such an affect on a person who will never really be troubled
by it?

Maybe I aught to get back on my meds.

But you started this thread, and I assume that you wanted others to
back you up.

Some folk might get depressed reading long posts which link seismic
activity to the position of low pressure areas over German Bight, but
presumably they don't let that wind them up to such an extent that they
become obsessed with insulting one particular poster.

I have no idea if variations in atmospheric pressure can influence the
occurrence of earthquakes, or vice versa, but it would be a fascinating
discovery if proved correct.

Following revelations recently about upper atmosphere soundings being
50% or more bull****, I am surprised that I am the only one in the
world who sees compression of isobars at sea level as the firt major
sign of seismic activity.


I don't understand why you are surprised that you are the only one who
sees that.

I have always seen the compression of isobars at sea level as
indicating a steep pressure gradient between areas of high and low
pressure. Air flows from high to low pressure, in order to try and
restore an equilibrium, and the steeper the pressure gradient, the
faster the air moves.

I would presume that the variations in air pressure over a few hundred
miles do not amount to a significant force when measured against the
gravitational forces exerted by the planet, or indeed the moon.

I was told long ago that the sea level rises 1cm (above the calculated
datum figures) for every millibar that atmospheric pressure falls below
1000. I don't know how true that is in reality, but even a low pressure
centre of 950mb would only cause a 50cm rise in sea levels. Compare
that to the 3-6 metre rises that the moon can manage. Yes, the earth's
crust is far denser than the waters of the ocean, but that does not
mean it is immune to the variations in gravitational force imposed on
it every 24 hours by our neighbouring celestial body.