On Friday, 17 February 2017 09:54:54 UTC, Weatherlawyer wrote:
On Monday, 13 February 2017 08:42:15 UTC, Crusader wrote:
Looking at the T+72 chart issued in the early hours of today and seeing the occluded front going apparently backwards across Scandinavia, makes me wonder how low the knowledge has to get before the MO do some decent training.

Add to that the incessant use of occluded fronts on the BBC forecast with the warm bumps and cold triangles drawn the wrong way around....I think that standards are definitely not important any more.

I wonder if these standards reflect the quality of other aspects, such as the observations and models as these new forecasters go up the chain over the past few years?
Certainly the apparent quality and accuracy of output that is given as public service forecasts has dropped significantly.

I fear for the future of MO forecasting.

It was possibly something to do with this one it has been erupting since then I think:
http://siberiantimes.com/other/other...-in-kamchatka/

The obvious problem is one of polemics:

No, no, you've got it all wrong!. Paul outed him, and we should be thankful to him because none of the rest of us had noticed that WL was posting nonsense.
Alan LeHun

I rather think they had but were too polite to send me to Coventry at first.. Or didn't know how to. I would appear to the experts on here as "posting nonsense" either because they are stupid foolish or brainwashed.

Something of the same thing goes the rounds from time to time hitting the world stage with things like the American elections recently. Some quite accomplished people having been smitten by their own success yet couldn't understand what they were doing wrong.

But it goes back to beyond reasonable behaviour as we now have no laissez-faire these days not just on here.

What I believe to be the direct result of the action of volcanoes is completely unbelievable but the problem is that the ones doing the damage are mountains that are in constant eruption as for instance this one that has been erupting since 2005:

It was possibly something to do with this one it has been erupting since then I think:
http://siberiantimes.com/other/other...-in-kamchatka/

The problem being that they erupt so regularly they are not newsworthy. It doesn't mean I am wrong. I can see the weather charts change in the mood that leads up to them erupting.

And then as the North Atlantic appears starred with dots of cyclonic and anticyclonic centres along with short, lost warm-fronts.

To me they represent residual warmth trapped under immense sheets of ice-cloud put up by the volcanoes. I would be delighted to have a better explanation.

The timing of these things also fits so well as the moisture freezes as if along a gunpowder trail taking slightly longer than seismic time periods and slightly less than those involved in storm development.

Whatever the case I am not going to stop because an ill natured child or a dirty old fool with severe retard mode stuck full-on is getting a devious thrill at my expense.

The internet attracts the most obviously retarded, consider Paul's ability to reason. Someone whose best insult is "hahaha" and spelling a name wrong. He is still in a playground.

But as for the other experts they don't seem to be capable of realising that when ice piles up as in a storm it is going to present a smaller picture to a satellite.

OK so they won't be told by me but at least I actually read some of the links they think they have learned from -are in agreement with.

Personally I believe they have got into some brain-wipe cult like the Clinton rioters and the Jonestown murderers.

It happens all the time how else could the death of some old fart, plunge the whole world into a war with a very sad ending. And then after suffering a total epidemic follow it with another madness like something out of Revelation.

Then do it again big time.

As for Dawlish it HAS to be completely obvious that he is mentally retarded or has been injured in some way. Which doesn't excuse the people who think the warm weather (so called warm weather) has shrunk the amount of Arctic ice.

Nor does it excuse my behaviour, I know to turn the other cheek and chose not to. I have always been stupid like that. And foul mouthed too, sorry Tudor. I should feel bad about it but don't. Again I'm sorry about that.

On Friday, 17 February 2017 18:08:52 UTC, Weatherlawyer wrote:

'Dawlish'

Continued obsession AND the usual abuse when it is pointed out that his ridiculous theories simply don't stand up to any level of scrutiny. 👻 👻 👻 👻

On Friday, 17 February 2017 04:24:17 UTC, Tudor Hughes wrote:
On Thursday, 16 February 2017 14:38:54 UTC, wrote:
On Wednesday, 15 February 2017 18:03:20 UTC, Col wrote:
On 15/02/2017 06:23, wrote:
On Tuesday, 14 February 2017 23:21:26 UTC, Weatherlawyer wrote:

'dawlish'

Back on the obsession.

You are are just as obsessed as he is by commenting on it every time.

--
Col

Bolton, Lancashire
160m asl
Snow videos:
http://www.youtube.com/channel/UC3QvmL4UWBmHFMKWiwYm_gg

And I always will. 😂😂😂 Every single time the idiot refers to me in a post.

Most of us rather like Weatherlawyer despite his various eccentricities, and tend to leave him alone. You failed to pick this up when you joined even when it was gently pointed out to you. It's obvious to most of us but too subtle for you. You just got him completely wrong and eventually he became uncharacteristically aggressive. You managed to bring out the worst in both him and many others, including me. I'd say you've got a social IQ of about -6 and will never achieve anything where you are on an equal footing with others.

Tudor Hughes

I always enjoyed banter that tended to go OTT but that was because it usually tended to get seriously funny. I got lost in dealing with Dawlish's trolling because I didn't realies that not ony had he no imagination but he wasa a compulsivestalker. When you come across an Alex Jones type who just can't help himself for anyone's good you can take it or leave it.

If something is on the ball sooner or later it will become well accepted even if it remain alternative unlit it is too late to stop it and the point is mooted in history.

I came to this group wit certain undeveloped apostate ideas about tidal theory. I could see where everyone had been mislead by the shorthanded explanations. And how they had eagerly handed the problem over to experts who were doing nothing about it.

I tried reading Newton knowing that to find out where a branch of belief system had gone wrong one would have to analyse where the error came from. Not understanding maths I immediately dropped onto his least squares idea as the root of the problem in that you can't square a circle.

The modern concept would be the butterfly effect of floating points (e.g. getting 2x2 to equal five in a computer.) I had already developed the singularities chronology before I got here ad was merely looking for a way to improve it.

Also in my research I had noticed two things that always seemed to occur with tragedies. The problems were exacerbated by the weather. And there is always a blocking Low before a disastrous earthquake.Something no expert on here has ever willingly conceded.

I learned rapidly that the warm front unwrapped and disappeared from the model runs with each large quake and thus began to make forecasts about them to the annoyance of everyone here i just couldn't get off that horse.

From Wikipedia:

Control theory is an engineering method that deals with the behavior of dynamical systems with inputs, and how their behavior is modified by feedback.

The usual objective of control theory is to control a system, often called the plant, so its output follows a desired control signal, called the reference, which may be a fixed or changing value.

To do this a controller is designed, which monitors the output and compares it with the reference.

The difference between actual and desired output, called the error signal, is applied as feedback to the input of the system, to bring the actual output closer to the reference.

Some topics studied in control theory are stability (whether the output will converge to the reference value or oscillate about it), controllability and observability.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_theory

I had latched onto where weather models go wrong; in effect their butterfly/floating point problem. Because I had an intimate grasp of lunar theory's place in this, I could see where it was likely to go wrong and often they did but not necessarily the way I felt they should.

My main problem is that I was a spiteful aggressive. I just lumped all criticism as dawlish in intent. Mostly because it has been, more or less. I had had no idea how important Globalls had become to the non dissenting.

Apparently it had completely taken over terrestrial physics regardless of anything the so called experts on here (didn't) say about it. I don't have any time for monkeys. Personally I was glad when they were all led off to the new plaice and it only annoyed me that some old stalwarts stayed to paper their **** on the walls.

Endlessly pasting ****e will not improve model theory. Nor will it bring world peace.

On Saturday, 18 February 2017 03:34:21 UTC, Weatherlawyer wrote:

'Dawlish' - as always.

Oh and w and hughes have decided to hop into bed together. That's nice. 😂😂😂😂 (Cue abuse)

In article ,
says...

'Dawlish' - as always.


Considering that you are the topic, it would be rather amiss of him
/not/ to mention you.



--
Alan LeHun

On Saturday, February 18, 2017 at 6:55:35 AM UTC, wrote:
On Saturday, 18 February 2017 03:34:21 UTC, Weatherlawyer wrote:

'Dawlish' - as always.

Oh and w and hughes have decided to hop into bed together. That's nice. 😂😂😂😂 (Cue abuse)

Yes, it's a pretty eclectic mix of people you've managed to bring together in their condemnation of yourself. You manage to abuse people from across the spectrum. The only ones missing are the people that never read your posts.

Poor old Crusader, I bet he didn't expect this.

I did recommend, in a stupid & arrogant reply you gave to one of my posts, that you **** off and go back to Weather & Climate. Perhaps you could please, and we could get back to discussing the weather.

Graham
Penzance

On Saturday, 18 February 2017 09:27:24 UTC, Graham Easterling wrote:
On Saturday, February 18, 2017 at 6:55:35 AM UTC, wrote:
On Saturday, 18 February 2017 03:34:21 UTC, Weatherlawyer wrote:

'Dawlish' - as always.

Oh and w and hughes have decided to hop into bed together. That's nice. 😂😂😂😂 (Cue abuse)

Yes, it's a pretty eclectic mix of people you've managed to bring together in their condemnation of yourself. You manage to abuse people from across the spectrum. The only ones missing are the people that never read your posts.

Poor old Crusader, I bet he didn't expect this.

I did recommend, in a stupid & arrogant reply you gave to one of my posts, that you **** off and go back to Weather & Climate. Perhaps you could please, and we could get back to discussing the weather.

Graham
Penzance

Yes, After your foul mouthed outburst, 'poor old Crusader' eh?

I stick up for the MetO against people like this who feel they have a right to feel they are somehow better. They are not. That was the point of my original post. There are some who really detest the MetO and use this newsgroup to say so at every opportunity. That is their right and I don't tell them to 'please f*** off' to another newsgroup. I argue, strongly, but without abuse and foul language, that they are wrong. May I not do this?

Usually these people used to work at the MetO and have become very distant after leaving/retirement, bacause the MetO no longer has to listen to them and they can't believe the organisation is functioning so well without them.. These people are critical of almost anything the MetO does. Will is an obvious example, but there are others too.

PS I'll go where I like, dear boy, and not be dictated to by one such as yourself. You like to post, but not to have someone disagree with you and you feel people are 'arrogant and stupid' for doing so. In that, you are not alone and you have little idea how to cope with disagreement, same as them. That's not my fault, but expect a robust reply if you descend into abuse and become foul-mouthed to me, won't you? 😀😀

On Saturday, 18 February 2017 10:16:32 UTC, wrote:
On Saturday, 18 February 2017 09:27:24 UTC, Graham Easterling wrote:
On Saturday, February 18, 2017 at 6:55:35 AM UTC, wrote:
On Saturday, 18 February 2017 03:34:21 UTC, Weatherlawyer wrote:

'Dawlish' - as always.

Oh and w and hughes have decided to hop into bed together. That's nice. 😂😂😂😂 (Cue abuse)

Yes, it's a pretty eclectic mix of people you've managed to bring together in their condemnation of yourself. You manage to abuse people from across the spectrum. The only ones missing are the people that never read your posts.

Poor old Crusader, I bet he didn't expect this.

I did recommend, in a stupid & arrogant reply you gave to one of my posts, that you **** off and go back to Weather & Climate. Perhaps you could please, and we could get back to discussing the weather.

Graham
Penzance

Yes, After your foul mouthed outburst, 'poor old Crusader' eh?

I stick up for the MetO against people like this who feel they have a right to feel they are somehow better. They are not. That was the point of my original post. There are some who really detest the MetO and use this newsgroup to say so at every opportunity. That is their right and I don't tell them to 'please f*** off' to another newsgroup. I argue, strongly, but without abuse and foul language, that they are wrong. May I not do this?

Usually these people used to work at the MetO and have become very distant after leaving/retirement, bacause the MetO no longer has to listen to them and they can't believe the organisation is functioning so well without them. These people are critical of almost anything the MetO does. Will is an obvious example, but there are others too.


Crusader was very critical of the MetO but you said nothing until Will endorsed his view. You then used this to have a go at Will under the guise of supporting the MetO and you're still at it but very unconvincingly. You don't give tuppence about the MetO one way or the other but simply use it as a means of having a go at others as you do with a number of other topics. You can see what members think of that attitude.

In any interaction with other members nothing you say can be taken at face value - there is always an ad hominem factor. You are a walking compendium of falsehood and hypocrisy.

Tudor Hughes

On Saturday, 18 February 2017 16:59:12 UTC, Tudor Hughes wrote:
On Saturday, 18 February 2017 10:16:32 UTC, wrote:
On Saturday, 18 February 2017 09:27:24 UTC, Graham Easterling wrote:
On Saturday, February 18, 2017 at 6:55:35 AM UTC, wrote:
On Saturday, 18 February 2017 03:34:21 UTC, Weatherlawyer wrote:

'Dawlish' - as always.

Oh and w and hughes have decided to hop into bed together. That's nice. 😂😂😂😂 (Cue abuse)

Yes, it's a pretty eclectic mix of people you've managed to bring together in their condemnation of yourself. You manage to abuse people from across the spectrum. The only ones missing are the people that never read your posts.

Poor old Crusader, I bet he didn't expect this.

I did recommend, in a stupid & arrogant reply you gave to one of my posts, that you **** off and go back to Weather & Climate. Perhaps you could please, and we could get back to discussing the weather.

Graham
Penzance

Yes, After your foul mouthed outburst, 'poor old Crusader' eh?

I stick up for the MetO against people like this who feel they have a right to feel they are somehow better. They are not. That was the point of my original post. There are some who really detest the MetO and use this newsgroup to say so at every opportunity. That is their right and I don't tell them to 'please f*** off' to another newsgroup. I argue, strongly, but without abuse and foul language, that they are wrong. May I not do this?

Usually these people used to work at the MetO and have become very distant after leaving/retirement, bacause the MetO no longer has to listen to them and they can't believe the organisation is functioning so well without them. These people are critical of almost anything the MetO does. Will is an obvious example, but there are others too.


Crusader was very critical of the MetO but you said nothing until Will endorsed his view. You then used this to have a go at Will under the guise of supporting the MetO and you're still at it but very unconvincingly. You don't give tuppence about the MetO one way or the other but simply use it as a means of having a go at others as you do with a number of other topics.. You can see what members think of that attitude.

In any interaction with other members nothing you say can be taken at face value - there is always an ad hominem factor. You are a walking compendium of falsehood and hypocrisy.

Tudor Hughes

The world according to hughes. 😂 😂 😂 😂

Oh hilarious. Do post again, won't you?

I've supported the MetO since my very first posts on UKSW and will continue to do so against foul-mouthed abusive curmudgeons like you who take every opportunity to have a pop at them - and of course, try your luck, always unsuccessfully, with me. 😂

TH wrote:

You don't give tuppence about the MetO one way or the other but simply use it
as a means of having a go at others as you do with a number of other topics.


Yes that is true. Remember all those jibes about the "tea boy" writing the
forecast!

Will
--