On Oct 24, 3:51 am, Weatherlawyer wrote:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten...1/5382/1476/F1
The front and back versions look remarkably similar.

"Several processes have been proposed to explain the formation and
support mechanism of lunar mascons"

But why the hell there is a rush to explain and thus coat with ****
any further research on the reasons for their existence is beyond me.
Is it a sop to the likes of (for example -no particular merit in them
justifies the ad hominem attack) George and Skywise (mere palls of a
nebula who would I am sure, otherwise find this stuff interesting and
might get involved, if only it could be put to good use.)

The article I read leading to the above, notes that:

"Although mascons also exist on Mars, none have been found on Venus or
Earth; those two larger planets, however, have had an active tectonic
(geological) past that has drawn their crusts down into their
interiors several times in the past few billion years, homogenizing
the distribution of mass."

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2...v_loworbit.htm

Cobblers written before Grace and Iris got off the ground perhaps? The
paper was written some 10 years ago.

The mascon that stretches from Britain and Norway to just off the
coast of Florida might not have such a large field in comparison to
the anomalies on the moon but they do serve their purpose.

Coupled with the negative vibes given off by the east Canadian shield
(one wonders if the magnetic poles are involved) their effect on the
planet's weather is very much in evidence to this thaumaturge.

And then there is this:

"Corbyn's conviction that the sun's behavior is the driving force
behind earthly weather patterns is linked to another deeply held
belief: The sun and radiation from outer space play a far more
important role than the burning of fossil fuels in any global warming
that might be taking place. The purveyors of the principal theory of
global warming, he says, have sold the world a bill of goods.

"If you **** in a lake, the level will go up," says Corbyn. "But it
wouldn't be an important factor. [Human contribution to carbon dioxide
levels] is not as minuscule as that, but it's not important."

Eventually, Corbyn hopes that his work will lead to the rise of a new
meteorology, combining old-fashioned supercomputing with newfangled
solar factors.

He believes his techniques for forecasting will prove as influential
in the 21st century as Lewis Fry Richardson's numerical methods have
proved in the 20th.

Consider that Richardson devised his theories using pencil and paper
in a freezing barn on the battlefields of France and that they now
form the basis of a multibillion-dollar industry. Suddenly the idea of
another revolutionary weather-forecasting technique emerging from
Piers Corbyn's shambolic south London office doesn't seem so
ridiculous after all."

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/7.02/weather_pr.html

I liked the comparison of Richardson's method with The world's fifth
most powerful computer at Bracknell, England, a Silicon Graphics/Cray
T3E900, with 880 DEC Alpha microprocessors, running at 450 MHz:

"But after World War II, nearly a quarter century after Richardson
outlined the wild scheme in his 1922 volume Weather Prediction by
Numerical Process, something curious happened. Computing pioneer John
von Neumann saw that the first digital computers, built to simulate
the physics of nuclear weapons, could also be used to model the
weather.

By the time Richardson died in 1953, just short of his 72nd birthday,
the University of Pennsylvania's ENIAC had run his equations - and
they worked.

Today, weather forecasts are produced using pretty much the method
Richardson described. The world's fifth most powerful forecasting
computer, a Silicon Graphics/Cray T3E900, resides in Bracknell,
England, in a meteorological office building named for Richardson.

Its 880 DEC Alpha microprocessors, running at 450 MHz, work together
much the same way Richardson imagined his 64,000 human weather
computers would. Richardson might have blown his first forecast, but
his long-range outlook on the future of the science was dead on."