Weather Banter

Weather Banter (https://www.weather-banter.co.uk/)

- alt.talk.weather (General Weather Talk) (https://www.weather-banter.co.uk/alt-talk-weather-general-weather-talk/)

- - 12:18 (https://www.weather-banter.co.uk/alt-talk-weather-general-weather-talk/124286-12-18-a.html)

On May 9, 8:52*pm, Weatherlawyer wrote:
On May 9, 8:41 pm, Weatherlawyer wrote:

It's 21 hours now since the last one:

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/eqcenter/...quakes_big.php

And Rammasun is at hurricane force. It is slated to become a cat. 2.
Coincidence?

Perhaps.
If you care to look, you will find plenty of them.

Pure coincidence. the only way to verify your theories is to use them
to predict and then analyse your predictions.

You don't come back to the predictions you make; you leave them. Thus
you have no statistics to back up your theories. That's why no-one
takes what you say seriously. You may have "perplexed" one or two, but
that's really the best you've done. Produce the goods by using what
you believe in to predict. Show that your doubters and everyone in the
scientific community except yourself and a couple of other left-
fielders are wrong, by using your theory to accurately predict.

If you can't, there is no benefit whatsoever in what you
write.........except to yourself and as entertainment value to us in
the associated abuse..

There's a "major" volcanic eruption about to happen in the next 2 days
according to your theory. If you get that right (and, of course, you
have not defined "major") you will have increased your percentage
forecast accuracy from 0% to 33% since 24th April. If there is no
"major" eruption, you remain on 0%.

In the case of weather forecasting, or any other forecasting, accurate
success statistics are the only judge.

By identifying a link in hindsight, which you do often, by quoting
something and then saying "coincidence?", without any verification by
forecast accuracy means - well, I'll let you figure that one out for
yourself.

On May 10, 12:23 am, Weatherlawyer wrote:

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/eqcenter/...quakes_big.php

And Rammasun is at hurricane force. It is slated to become a cat. 2.
Coincidence?

A 6.7 and smack on time too. 2008/05/09. 21:51. Guam region.

http://www.hurricanezone.net/tcgraphics/wp0308.gif
120 knots. A Cat 4 again.

This gives us an opportunity to play with a little algebra vis a vis
weather patterns. A Lunar Phase near 12 or 6 o'clock should produce a
low overcast relatively cool spell. We have enjoyed an unusually fine
spell instead.

If you accord the times of the phases arbitrary values of 1 through 6
a la Weatherlawyer's Precepts, you derive a value of 5 o'clock for
this spell.

It has been displaced by 5 hours. Or if you advance the clock, 1 hour.

I am presuming the cause to be inertia, therefore I am going to go
with the larger number where I imagine the spell being retarded not
advanced. Ergo:

Spell X = 5
Time X = 6 = 00
Force X = Cat 4

Now we need a base line for the weather in that neck of the woods in
May. This is about the only time that statistics prove useful in
climatology:

DAMN!
Nothing is ever easy is it:
"The Philippines has two very different climate zones.

In the coastal and lowland areas there's a typically tropical marine
climate: hot and humid throughout most of the year. However, most of
the year constant sea breezes temper the climate somewhat except
during the dry summer months from March to the end of May.

The two main seasons are wet and dry; the dry season from mid-November
to mid-May

.... from November to the end of February enjoying cool, ocean breezes
with March to May with being the hottest, up to 38C" Did you write
this Dawlish?

"..and the wet season from June to October being hot and humid.

Every year during the rainy season nearly 20 typhoons, known as
"bagyos" blow across the islands usually lasting 3 or 4 days. Steamy,
sunny days during the wet season are common after the tropical
downpours of heavy rain during the nights and early mornings."
http://www.world66.com/asia/southeas...ppines/climate

Let us presume calm humid overcast is the norm for phases there as
here, where the time of the phase is 12 or 6 o'clock.

So a marked deterioration in the weather of from calm to 125 knots in
the West Pacific is worth a marked change from cool overcast to
anticyclonic in Britain.

And it can be given a value. A Cat 4 = an M 8 to M 9.
And an anticyclone where it should be a col is thus worth C4 or M 8.5.

Therefore a change in the spell from the predictable to the actual of
5 hours is the equivalent of 5 billion tons of TNT per region
affected.
http://www.seismo.unr.edu/ftp/pub/lo...magnitude.html

Hence the need to specify harmonics as per the question that started
this whole fracas off in the first place:
http://groups.google.com/group/uk.sc...48035decef3092

Which Low, as it happens, is still pending at 60 N 30 W:
http://www.wetterzentrale.de/pics/bracka.html

On 10 May, 00:23, Weatherlawyer wrote:
On May 9, 9:26 pm, Weatherlawyer wrote:

On May 9, 8:52 pm, Weatherlawyer wrote:

On May 9, 8:41 pm, Weatherlawyer wrote:

It's 21 hours now since the last one:

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/eqcenter/...quakes_big.php

And Rammasun is at hurricane force. It is slated to become a cat. 2.
Coincidence?

Perhaps.
If you care to look, you will find plenty of them.

When a couple of coincidents point to me being right, does it make you
think?

A 6.7 and smack on time too. You know what?

I am bloody good I am.

No you are not, you just think you are.

There still has not been one over 7 for 3 weeks.

(Last month, the earthquake "quack" said 'This spell runs from April
28th to May 5th. I expect an earthquake in the region of 7.3 to occur
early in it.')

However, like all bogus fortune tellers/horoscope writers there is
always a proviso such as, it may not happen because of........ (insert
pages of internet quotes, links and total bull**** designed to divert
attention from the fact that no prediction has been issued at all).

May I suggest that if you want to command any kind of respect, you
cease the Mystic Meg style of forecasting and actually predict the
precise date that a mag. 7+ earthquake will occur, preferably more
than 24 hours in advance. If you could narrow this down to a
continent, then even better.

And, you are quite welcome to fire the most vicious insults known to
man, in my direction. I dont care.

And remember - mag 6.7 does not count as 'in the region of 7.3' and
May 9th does not count as 'Apr 28th to May 5th'

Accurate forecasting becomes much harder when you are subject to very
close scrutiny and independent verification - doesn't it?

On May 10, 8:56*am, Weatherlawyer wrote:
On May 10, 12:23 am, Weatherlawyer wrote:

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/eqcenter/...quakes_big.php

And Rammasun is at hurricane force. It is slated to become a cat. 2.
Coincidence?

A 6.7 and smack on time too. *2008/05/09. 21:51. Guam region.

http://www.hurricanezone.net/tcgraphics/wp0308.gif
120 knots. A Cat 4 again.

This gives us an opportunity to play with a little algebra vis a vis
weather patterns. A Lunar Phase near 12 or 6 o'clock should produce a
low overcast relatively cool spell. We have enjoyed an unusually fine
spell instead.

If you accord the times of the phases arbitrary values of 1 through 6
a la Weatherlawyer's Precepts, you derive a value of 5 o'clock for
this spell.

It has been displaced by 5 hours. Or if you advance the clock, 1 hour.

I am presuming the cause to be inertia, therefore I am going to go
with the larger number where I imagine the spell being retarded not
advanced. Ergo:

Spell X = 5
Time X = 6 = 00
Force X = Cat 4

Now we need a base line for the weather in that neck of the woods in
May. This is about the only time that statistics prove useful in
climatology:

DAMN!
Nothing is ever easy is it:
"The Philippines has two very different climate zones.

*In the coastal and lowland areas there's a typically tropical marine
climate: hot and humid throughout most of the year. However, most of
the year constant sea breezes temper the climate somewhat except
during the dry summer months from March to the end of May.

The two main seasons are wet and dry; the dry season from mid-November
to mid-May

... from November to the end of February enjoying cool, ocean breezes
with March to May with being the hottest, up to 38C" Did you write
this Dawlish?

"..and the wet season from June to October being hot and humid.

Every year during the rainy season nearly 20 typhoons, known as
"bagyos" blow across the islands usually lasting 3 or 4 days. Steamy,
sunny days during the wet season are common after the tropical
downpours of heavy rain during the nights and early mornings."http://www.world66.com/asia/southeastasia/philippines/climate

Let us presume calm humid overcast is the norm for phases there as
here, where the time of the phase is 12 or 6 o'clock.

So a marked deterioration in the weather of *from calm to 125 knots in
the West Pacific is worth a marked change from cool overcast to
anticyclonic in Britain.

And it can be given a value. A Cat 4 = an M 8 to M 9.
And an anticyclone where it should be a col is thus worth C4 or M 8.5.

Therefore a change in the spell from the predictable to the actual of
5 hours is the equivalent of 5 billion tons of TNT per region
affected.

http://www.seismo.unr.edu/ftp/pub/lo...magnitude.html

Hence the need to specify harmonics as per the question that started
this whole fracas off in the first place:

http://groups.google.com/group/uk.sc...m/thread/e447e...

Which Low, as it happens, is still pending at 60 N 30 W:

http://www.wetterzentrale.de/pics/bracka.html- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

A prediction of a 7.5 Earthquake is now justified by you, by the
ocurrence of a 6.7 earthquake, which is over 8x weaker?? That's
"bloody good". Nah. That's guessing the probabilities completely
wrong. You went for far too big an eathquake. As has been pointed out
to you, on average, there are between 15 and 20 Earthquakes of 7.0
per year. 7.5 would probably be around 5. You can't cope with odds of
over 70/1 against.

An earthquake of 6 occurs around 150 times a year, 1 every 2 to 3
days on average. Just think how "bloody good" you could have been if
you'd just guessed your number a little differently?

Waiting for the "major eruption" over the next 2 days to increase your
success stats to 33% (and also for you to define what you mean by a
"major" eruption, though I know it benefits you a great deal to have
such obfuscation in your success criteria, even though the obfuscation
is painfully obvious.

No reasonable success percentage in predictions; no use.

On May 10, 8:56 am, Weatherlawyer wrote:

Therefore a change in the spell from the predictable to the actual of
5 hours is the equivalent of 5 billion tons of TNT per region
affected.

http://www.seismo.unr.edu/ftp/pub/lo...magnitude.html

Hence the need to specify harmonics as per the question that started
this whole fracas off in the first place:

http://groups.google.com/group/uk.sc...m/thread/e447e...

Which Low, as it happens, is still pending at 60 N 30 W:

http://www.wetterzentrale.de/pics/bracka.html

Furthermore the two North Atlantic cells are of the same order of
magnitude. The High focussed at Oslo/Gothenburg and the Low at 55 N 35
W are both about 1 hour wide.

OK, they cover some 20 or 40 degrees but the actual diameter is
Gothenburg to Edinburgh, isn't that far off 15 degrees on a great
circle.

I like that coincidence. 15 degrees suits me.

On May 10, 12:43*pm, Weatherlawyer wrote:
On May 10, 8:56 am, Weatherlawyer wrote:

Therefore a change in the spell from the predictable to the actual of
5 hours is the equivalent of 5 billion tons of TNT per region
affected.

http://www.seismo.unr.edu/ftp/pub/lo...magnitude.html

Hence the need to specify harmonics as per the question that started
this whole fracas off in the first place:

http://groups.google.com/group/uk.sc...m/thread/e447e....

Which Low, as it happens, is still pending at 60 N 30 W:

http://www.wetterzentrale.de/pics/bracka.html

Furthermore the two North Atlantic cells are of the same order of
magnitude. The High focussed at Oslo/Gothenburg and the Low at 55 N 35
W are both about 1 hour wide.

OK, they cover some 20 or 40 degrees but the actual diameter is
Gothenburg to Edinburgh, *isn't that far off 15 degrees on a great
circle.

I like that coincidence. 15 degrees suits me.

I'm afraid it's a case of "whatever" here. You can write about all the
imaginary links you want, but without any success in using it to
predict, you are simply writing made-up nonsense; however much you
wish it to be true.

Looking forward to you defining "major" volcanic eruption then it
actually occurring by noon on Monday; otherwise, your prediction
accuracy over the last few weeks, stands at zero. I think you are
desperately wanting this one to be correct and 33% looks a lot better
than zero.

On May 10, 12:43 pm, Weatherlawyer wrote:
On May 10, 8:56 am, Weatherlawyer wrote:

Therefore a change in the spell from the predictable to the actual of
5 hours is the equivalent of 5 billion tons of TNT per region
affected.

http://www.seismo.unr.edu/ftp/pub/lo...magnitude.html

Hence the need to specify harmonics as per the question that started
this whole fracas off in the first place:

http://groups.google.com/group/uk.sc...m/thread/e447e...

Which Low, as it happens, is still pending at 60 N 30 W:

http://www.wetterzentrale.de/pics/bracka.html

Furthermore the two North Atlantic cells are of the same order of
magnitude. The High focussed at Oslo/Gothenburg and the Low at 55 N 35
W are both about 1 hour wide.

OK, they cover some 20 or 40 degrees but the actual diameter is
Gothenburg to Edinburgh, isn't that far off 15 degrees on a great
circle.

I like that coincidence. 15 degrees suits me.

That should have read radius from Gothenburg to Edinburgh. The
diameter is more like 15 degrees as if from Edinburgh to Helsinki.

Anyway, the last quake was nearly 18 hours back so we might be getting
another storm.

On May 10, 3:48 pm, Weatherlawyer wrote:
On May 10, 12:43 pm, Weatherlawyer wrote:

On May 10, 8:56 am, Weatherlawyer wrote:

Therefore a change in the spell from the predictable to the actual of
5 hours is the equivalent of 5 billion tons of TNT per region
affected.

http://www.seismo.unr.edu/ftp/pub/lo...magnitude.html

Hence the need to specify harmonics as per the question that started
this whole fracas off in the first place:

http://groups.google.com/group/uk.sc...m/thread/e447e...

Which Low, as it happens, is still pending at 60 N 30 W:

http://www.wetterzentrale.de/pics/bracka.html

Furthermore the two North Atlantic cells are of the same order of
magnitude. The High focussed at Oslo/Gothenburg and the Low at 55 N 35
W are both about 1 hour wide.

OK, they cover some 20 or 40 degrees but the actual diameter is
Gothenburg to Edinburgh, isn't that far off 15 degrees on a great
circle.

I like that coincidence. 15 degrees suits me.

That should have read radius from Gothenburg to Edinburgh. The
diameter is more like 15 degrees as if from Edinburgh to Helsinki.

Anyway, the last quake was nearly 18 hours back so we might be getting
another storm.

Ah well they upgraded that Japanese quake after downgrading it
earlier. So that was a 15/16 hour break. And severe winds in the New
England region. Hardly hurricane force but then what you gonna do
boudit?

Winter weather warnings on there too:
http://www.weather.gov/

Pretty is as pretty does.
These may not be giving the information they are supposed to be doing
but if they are giving neat computer output from direct digital data
feeds, they are giving us notice of something else.

This first one for instance:
https://www.fnmoc.navy.mil/efs/dynam...pac_gale_0.gif
is obviously advising us of the Cat 2 in the Pacific.

Apparently this one needs correcting:
https://www.fnmoc.navy.mil/efs/dynam...atl_gale_0.gif

Without the corrections -which amount to erasure I imagine, it might
help us understand what data the system holds that might be being
overlooked.

No offence to anybody in particular but it seems to be a given for
satellite data.
Not that it makes all that much difference to weather forecasting but
who cares about weather forecasts? They are inaccurate over 5 days
either way.

On May 10, 8:21*pm, Weatherlawyer wrote:
Pretty is as pretty does.
These may not be giving the information they are supposed to be doing
but if they are giving neat computer output from direct digital data
feeds, they are giving us notice of something else.

This first one for instance:https://www.fnmoc.navy.mil/efs/dynam....EFS.no_pac_ga...

is obviously advising us of the Cat 2 in the Pacific.

Apparently this one needs correcting:

https://www.fnmoc.navy.mil/efs/dynam....EFS.no_atl_ga...

Without the corrections -which amount to erasure I imagine, it might
help us understand what data the system holds that might be being
overlooked.

No offence to anybody in particular but it seems to be a given for
satellite data.
Not that it makes all that much difference to weather forecasting but
who cares about weather forecasts? They are inaccurate over 5 days
either way.

Perhaps, with your record since 24th June, the weather forecasts are
FAR more accurate.

Still waiting for you to back your proposed links up with forecast
accuracy data.

You're struggling aren't you..........and this won't go away.