On Sunday, 16 October 2016 22:34:23 UTC+1, Weatherlawyer wrote:

I am not interested in forecasts and if I was I wouldn't be interested in making them for him. I don't have the focus that the meteorologists on here have. If I bothered getting a Vantage Pro, it would be largely unused after remaining in its box for months or longer.

I just don't have any concentration and thus is a pointless task, keeping up with what the NA-EFS and other charts I collect actually say.

Once I have discovered how something works, I move on to the next puzzle and that by the definition of research is an all consuming hobby.

I can't go to sleep at night without thinking about it last thing and I don't usually get out of the toilet first thing in the morning without planning how I am going to make a post describing what I am thinking.

When I was working, I was thinking about how the weather looked and how much I needed to earn before I could stop working, so that I could get on with my first love. Largely, that became a matter of how bad my health was towards the end.

But I would work until I had a couple of thousand in the bank then take a break until I was down to a few hundred.

Is there anyone on here that imagines I exist just to teach a wet sheep how to behave?

Back to the point:
Today's morning run from Canada lacks a chart from its run. In my experience when that happens it is because the ensemble can not be deciphered from the spaghetti produced by the different model runs that make it.

The first lore of thaumaturgy is that when the professional forecasts are uncertain, the rule of thumb points towards big geo-phenomena.

We don't normally get such problems from other charts because the composites for the NA-EFS come from Mexico, USA and Canada. A vast area with all sorts of hamstrung problems from comparatives.

Their ground stations are sited in places that climatologists have Clintoned to serve climategate but so far as I know, the balloon and satellite data is still good.

Mexico and Canada (Canada is full of environmentalists but...) has not suffered politically as much as the USA has. So how much is super-quake and how much is volcano and how much is derecho/hurricanes or how much is skewed US data spoiling the model runs, remains to be seen.

The evening run should be available by now if you wish to look:

Still missing the last chart.

https://weather.gc.ca/ensemble/naefs/cartes_e.html
I use the "Pressure at sea level" charts and the hour selection is 00 or 12; you want 12.

Another thing is that as the proximity of large magnitude earthquake pulls in, my spelling falls apart. And my thinking power refuses me a chance to relax and go over it.

What a magnitude 6+ looks like is a pair of adjacent cyclones or anticylones (whichever so long as they are twins) which disappear from the next day on the run. There is no point looking past 5 days as such a set up will generate a ridge or trough, breaking the sequence.

All the more so if there are three in a straight line as is available at the bottom of the chart for the first one in the 14 given in the noon UTC run..

If there are three adjacent similar air masses in a straight line over two or three consecutive days there will be volcanic eruptions. This will be in the North American hemisphere from Kamchatka to Europe and you can tell by the angle from equatorial where this is likely to be.
It seems to work like a pendulum suspended from the North Pole.

Similarly, with a line of Anticylones the eruption will be mainly on the other side of the planet; say from Fiji to Eastern Europe.

If the sequence pulls in a block that reduces the geophysics to a magnitude 6 earthquake; three in a line become a larger earthquake instead of volcanic in nature.

For some reason I have not quite grasped, tropical storms are dampened down by a coming large quake and for a super-quake are entirely absent.