http://www.wetterzentrale.de/topkarten/fsfaxsem.html
or
http://www.cuckney.pwp.blueyonder.co...r/Dorridge.htm

Guess who's little spelly-wellie has a Low off northern Scotland and
another crossing Iceland.

Yup, it's that supreme being once more speaking unto all god's
chilluns.

It reminds me of the first words that ever mentioned chaos theory in
regard to fluid mechanisms. Paraphrasing:

"And the world (that is system, thus material universe in its
primordial state) was in chaos despite the rotational forces
operating over it, oscillating in the darkness over the field
encompassing the entire fluid."

But that would be taking liberties with engineering and with theology.

On Aug 2, 11:56 am, Weatherlawyer wrote:

But then I believe half the people in a sophisticated continent voted
for a monkey, so what do I know?

This is what happens when a small low centred over Iceland dissipates
or become ameliorated in the continuum:

4.1 00:53 AEGEAN SEA
5.2 00:39 AEGEAN SEA

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/eqcenter/...uakes_all.html

These quakes occurred in almost identical places according to
preliminary data. They were about 1/4hr apart with no others reported
earthwide falling between.

Whilst it is reasonable to assume this should occur on every such
occasion until one grasps the tenets of fluid mechanics and the
extreme difficulty involved in forecasting the simplest events in it.

Consider the fluid dynamic of a mug of water, an analogy favoured by
Albert Einstein in one famous epigramme.

He pointed out the behaviour of tea leaves in a stirred cup of tea
explained how rivers bend. (Actually it seems more like the behaviour
of salt domes to me. Maybe it's both.)

But consider the heat effect when superheating occurs. Overboil some
water in a mug in a microwave oven and then put a Sweetex pill in the
mug. The bubbles rising will not betray their source.

Actually knowing why they spin away from above the pill will help you
understand why forecasting weather and seismicity is so difficult. Of
course it would be more help to be told that god knows how weather and
seismology occur. Well, god and me, but I am not too clear how the
"three body problem" resolved into an acoustical one.

All the meteorologist does is compare the pressure and temperature
readings from a vast pool of data. I doubt very much if he even
considers why these pressure changes behave the way they do.

It is certainly not the impression they give on uk.sci.weather that
for example the changes to Rossby wave set ups has to have a cause.
Seismologists at least deserve credit for trying to come up with
reasons for their theories -however dull they appear.

(And yes I am well aware of the fact that the main cause of weather is
heat from the sun. Are you aware that all you'd need is a calendar to
forecast it if there wasn't a lot more to it?)

Get real, folks ...

GLOBAL WARMING, aka "Climate Change" Is NOT The Problem In Natural
Disasters!



"Last week, we saw reports of more wildfires in California. Sure as
night follows day, people will lay some of the blame on climate
change. But there's also the minor matter of people building homes in
wildfire-susceptible forests, overgrown with vegetation due to decades
of fire suppression. That's like pitching a tent on the railroad
tracks.

The message that needs to be communicated to these people is: "Your
problem is not global warming. Your problem is that you're nuts."


"Somewhere along the line, global warming became the explanation for
everything. Right-thinking people are not supposed to discuss any
meteorological or geophysical event -- a hurricane, a wildfire, a heat
wave, a drought, a flood, a blizzard, a tornado, a lightning strike,
an unfamiliar breeze, a strange tingling on the neck -- without
immediately invoking the climate crisis. It causes earthquakes,
plagues and backyard gardening disappointments. Weird fungus on your
tomato plants? Classic sign of global warming."


-------------------------------
"Global Warming Did It! Well, Maybe Not."

"We're stuck on the notion that climate change is the culprit every
time a natural disaster strikes. But that's just muddying the waters."

By Joel Achenbach
Sunday, August 3, 2008; B01


We're heading into the heart of hurricane season, and any day now, a
storm will barrel toward the United States, inspiring all the TV
weather reporters to find a beach where they can lash themselves to a
palm tree. We can be certain of two things: First, we'll be told that
the wind is blowing very hard and the surf is up. Second, some expert
will tell us that this storm might be a harbinger of global warming.

Somewhere along the line, global warming became the explanation for
everything. Right-thinking people are not supposed to discuss any
meteorological or geophysical event -- a hurricane, a wildfire, a heat
wave, a drought, a flood, a blizzard, a tornado, a lightning strike,
an unfamiliar breeze, a strange tingling on the neck -- without
immediately invoking the climate crisis. It causes earthquakes,
plagues and backyard gardening disappointments. Weird fungus on your
tomato plants? Classic sign of global warming.

You are permitted to note, as a parenthetical, that no single weather
calamity can be ascribed with absolute certainty (roll your eyes here
to signal the exasperating fussiness of scientists) to what humans are
doing to the atmosphere. But your tone will make it clear that this is
just legalese, like the fine-print warnings on the flip side of a
Lipitor ad.

Some people are impatient with even a token amount of equivocation. A
science writer for Newsweek recently flat-out declared that this
year's floods in the Midwest were the result of climate change, and in
the process, she derided the wishy-washy climatologists who couldn't
quite bring themselves to reach that conclusion (they "trip over
themselves to absolve global warming").

Well, gosh, I dunno. Equivocation isn't a sign of cognitive weakness.
Uncertainty is intrinsic to the scientific process, and sometimes you
have to have the courage to stand up and say, "Maybe."

Seems to me that it's inherently impossible to prove a causal
connection between climate and weather -- they're just two different
things. Moreover, the evidence for man-made climate change is solid
enough that it doesn't need to be bolstered by iffy claims. Rigorous
science is the best weapon for persuading the public that this is a
real problem that requires bold action. "Weather alarmism" gives
ammunition to global-warming deniers. They're happy to fight on that
turf, since they can say that a year with relatively few hurricanes
(or a cold snap when you don't expect it) proves that global warming
is a myth. As science writer John Tierney put it in the New York Times
earlier this year, weather alarmism "leaves climate politics at the
mercy of the weather."

There's an ancillary issue he Global warming threatens to suck all
the oxygen out of any discussion of the environment. We wind up giving
too little attention to habitat destruction, overfishing, invasive
species tagging along with global trade and so on. You don't need a
climate model to detect that big oil spill in the Mississippi. That
"dead zone" in the Gulf of Mexico -- an oxygen-starved region the size
of Massachusetts -- isn't caused by global warming, but by all that
fertilizer spread on Midwest cornfields.

Some folks may actually get the notion that the planet will be safe if
we all just start driving Priuses. But even if we cured ourselves of
our addiction to fossil fuels and stabilized the planet's climate,
we'd still have an environmental crisis on our hands. Our fundamental
problem is that -- now it's my chance to sound hysterical -- humans
are a species out of control. We've been hellbent on wrecking our
environment pretty much since the day we figured out how to make fire.

T his caused that: It would be nice if climate and weather were that
simple.

But "one can only speak rationally about odds," Kerry Emanuel, a
climatologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who has
studied hurricanes and climate change, told me last week. "Global
warming increases the probabilities of floods and strong hurricanes,
and that is all that you can say."

Emanuel's research shows that in the past 25 years, there's been an
uptick in the number of strong storms, though not necessarily in the
number of hurricanes overall. Climate models show that a 1-degree
Celsius rise in sea-surface temperatures should intensify top winds by
about 5 percent, which corresponds to a 15 percent increase in
destructive power. The tropical Atlantic sea surface has warmed by 0.6
degrees Celsius in the past half-century.

At my request, Emanuel ran a computer program to see how much extra
energy Hurricane Katrina had because of increases in sea-surface
temperature. His conclusion: Katrina's winds were about 2 percent
stronger in the Gulf, and not significantly stronger at landfall.
Maybe climate change was a factor in generating such a storm, or in
the amount of moisture it carried, but the catastrophe that Katrina
caused in New Orleans can more plausibly be attributed to civil
engineers who built inadequate levees, city planning that let
neighborhoods materialize below sea level and Bush administration
officials who didn't do such a heckuva job.

Let's go back to those Iowa floods. Humans surely contributed to the
calamity: Farmland in the Midwest has been plumbed with drainage
pipes; streams have been straightened; most of the state's wetlands
have been engineered out of existence; land set aside for conservation
is being put back into corn production to meet the demands of the
ethanol boom. This is a landscape that's practically begging to have
500-year floods every decade.

Was climate change a factor in the floods? Maybe. A recent report from
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said that heavier
downpours are more likely in a warming world. Thomas Karl, a NOAA
scientist, says that there has been a measurable increase in water
vapor over parts of the United States and more precipitation in the
Midwest.

But tree-ring data indicate that the state has gone through a cycle of
increasing and decreasing rainfall for hundreds of years. The
downpours this year weren't that unusual, according to Harry J.
Hillaker Jr., the Iowa state meteorologist. "The intensity has not
really been excessive on a short-term scale," he said. "We're not
seeing three-inch-an-hour rainfall amounts."

This will be a wet year (as was last year), but Iowa may not set a
rainfall record. The wettest year on record was 1993. The second
wettest: 1881. The third wettest: 1902.

Iowa is an awkward place to talk about global warming, because the
state has actually been a bit cooler in the summer than it was in the
first half of the 20th century. Hillaker says the widespread shift to
annual plants (corn and soybeans) and away from perennial grasses has
altered the climate. The 10 hottest summers in Iowa have been, in
order, 1936, 1934, 1901, 1988, 1983, 1931, 1921, 1955, 1933 and 1913.
Talk about extreme weather: One day in 1936, Iowa set a state record
with a high temperature of 117 degrees. And no one blamed it on global
warming.

Rest assured, we may find ways to ruin the planet even before the
worst effects of global warming kick in. The thing that gets you in
the end is rarely the thing you're paying attention to.

The basic problem is that there are so many of us now. Four centuries
ago, there were about 500 million people on Earth. Today there are
that many, plus 6 billion. We're rapidly heading toward 9 billion.
Conservatives say that we just need to focus on maintaining free
markets and let everything sort itself out through the miracle of the
invisible hand. But the political tide is turning against unfettered
free markets and toward greater regulation. Climate-change policy is
part of that: Somehow we've got to embed environmental effects into
the cost of energy sources, consumer goods and so on. The market
approach by itself has let us down.

Viewed broadly, it appears that humans are environment-destroying
creatures by nature. The notion of the prelapsarian era in which we
lived in perfect harmony with nature has been effectively shattered by
such scientists as Jared Diamond, the author of "Collapse," and Tim
Flannery, who wrote "The Future Eaters." If everything gets simplified
and reduced to a global-warming narrative, we'll be unable to see the
trees for the forest.

Consider the June issue of Scientific American, where you'll find a
photograph of a parched lake, the mud baked into the kind of
desiccated tiles that scream "drought." The caption says: "Climate
shift to unprecedentedly dry weather, along with diversion of water
for irrigation, has converted this former reservoir in China's Minqin
County into desert."

Um . . . "this former reservoir?" Look closely, and you can see
concrete walls in the background. This is not a natural place: It's a
manufactured landscape. Here's a wild guess: This part of China is an
environmental disaster that has very little to do with climate change
and very much to do with high population and intensifying agriculture.

Last week, we saw reports of more wildfires in California. Sure as
night follows day, people will lay some of the blame on climate
change. But there's also the minor matter of people building homes in
wildfire-susceptible forests, overgrown with vegetation due to decades
of fire suppression. That's like pitching a tent on the railroad
tracks.

The message that needs to be communicated to these people is: "Your
problem is not global warming. Your problem is that you're nuts."

You should definitely worry about global warming. But you don't need
to worry about global warming when your house is on fire.



[Joel Achenbach is a reporter on The Post's national staff and blogs
at washingtonpost.com/achenblog.]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...d=opinionsbox1

On Sat, 2 Aug 2008 18:42:14 +0100, "ronaldbutton"
wrote:

I was wondering whether the dying back of my aunt Flos purple sprouting
broccolli and the recent tidal wave in Abu Dhabi were connected, the
explanation of other events from the weatherlawyer makes you think donnit

The thing that made me question the premise in the first place was the
example my "stics" prof used:
In this area we get the majority of our rain in months with long
names and an "r" in them, from Novermber to February.
We need the rain for the crops in months with short names and no "r"
in them from April to August.
Therefore, if we just swap the names of those months, we'll get our
rain when we need it

Interesting design concept he
https://www.fnmoc.navy.mil/efs/dynam...pac_gale_0.gif

More interesting stuff:
2.9 NORTHERN CALIFORNIA
2.6 NORTHERN CALIFORNIA

3.1 FOX ISLANDS, ALEUTIAN ISLANDS, ALASKA
2.7 FOX ISLANDS, ALEUTIAN ISLANDS, ALASKA

3.3 SOUTHEASTERN ALASKA
2.5 NORTHERN CALIFORNIA
2.9 FOX ISLANDS, ALEUTIAN ISLANDS, ALASKA
2.8 KODIAK ISLAND REGION, ALASKA
4.6 NEAR THE SOUTH COAST OF PAPUA, INDONESIA
4.1 SOUTHEASTERN ALASKA
2.9 RAT ISLANDS, ALEUTIAN ISLANDS, ALASKA
2.9 NORTHERN ALASKA
2.8 PUERTO RICO REGION
2.6 NORTHERN CALIFORNIA
3 GREATER LOS ANGELES AREA, CALIFORNIA

On Aug 3, 5:52*pm, Weatherlawyer wrote:
Interesting design concept he https://www.fnmoc.navy.mil/efs/dynam....EFS.no_pac_ga...

More interesting stuff:
2.9 * * *NORTHERN CALIFORNIA
2.6 * * *NORTHERN CALIFORNIA

3.1 * * *FOX ISLANDS, ALEUTIAN ISLANDS, ALASKA
2.7 * * *FOX ISLANDS, ALEUTIAN ISLANDS, ALASKA

3.3 * * *SOUTHEASTERN ALASKA
2.5 * * *NORTHERN CALIFORNIA
2.9 * * *FOX ISLANDS, ALEUTIAN ISLANDS, ALASKA
2.8 * * *KODIAK ISLAND REGION, ALASKA
4.6 * * *NEAR THE SOUTH COAST OF PAPUA, INDONESIA
4.1 * * *SOUTHEASTERN ALASKA
2.9 * * *RAT ISLANDS, ALEUTIAN ISLANDS, ALASKA
2.9 * * *NORTHERN ALASKA
2.8 * * *PUERTO RICO REGION
2.6 * * *NORTHERN CALIFORNIA
3 * * * *GREATER LOS ANGELES AREA, CALIFORNIA

6 days to go. The last earthquake of 7.0, or above was on 19th July,
two weeks ago. USGS has an average of 17 earthquakes of 7.0, or above,
each year since 1990, about 1.5 per month. The last earthquake of 7.5
was on 5th July, about a month ago, as a guess, from their frequency
table, I'd say there are about 5/6 earthquakes of 7.5+ per year. I
would would back against a 7.5+ earthquake occurring in the next 6
days and also against a 7.0+, based on that kind of frequency.

You know this W, very well. Your predictions about earthquakes tend to
come when there has not been a large earthquake for a while and
sometimes you'll get lucky, however, you push your luck a little bit
and you are with the likelihood of a major earthquake here.

Get it right once and people will say it's pure coincidence (sorry,
but your record does not inpire confidence; they may well say nothing
at all, too). Get it right twice running and people will take notice,
including me. Get the prediction of a major earthquake right three
times and you're onto something that the whole seismological community
would have to take notice of. Raise that percentage rate to, say, 50%,
over time and - wow! Have a success rate of 17% (1 in 6, in just over
3 months) and don't be surprised if people don't take your ideas
seriously. You have to be able to use your theories to gain a
reasonable forecast outcome percentage rate, or your ideas are
worthless. Your theories have to have application. Your fingers must
be crossed for a major earthquake occurring in the next 6 days. That
would raise your success rate to 2 in 7, or 29%, in almost 3.5 months.
You need a straight run of 4 correct forecasts to raise that
percentage rate to 5 in 10, or 50%.

Tough, this prediction game, when it is monitored, isn't it? You'd get
much more kudos if you monitored it yourself and explained your
faliures and your odd success against chance, instead of simply
focusing on connections which hardly anyone else in the whole
scientific community acknowledges and your own forecasting success
rates are suggesting, very strongly, are spurious.

Forgive me for not reading your stuff Dawlish but you seem to find me
somewhat offensive. re you not missing out on one of the key factors
in the use of this medium; you can easily ignore me if you wish.

I would like to help you but I just wouldn't know where to start.
Perhaps you might look at posts of people much like yourself who see
Usenet as the tool you see it as.

They seem to get locked into frustrating posts with others of similar
tastes and ultimately accomplish little in the way of anything
beneficial for either protagonist.

They do tend to monoplise long threads of hurled abuse which is
tiresome to say the least. Not that that stands in much contrast with
most of my threads except that my threads tend to contain half the
arguments and half the number of posters to it.

Do yourself a favour lad, before you have a seisure and do us all a
favour.

There's a good boy.

On Aug 3, 9:11*pm, Weatherlawyer wrote:
Forgive me for not reading your stuff Dawlish but you seem to find me
somewhat offensive. re you not missing out on one of the key factors
in the use of this medium; you can easily ignore me if you wish.

I would like to help you but I just wouldn't know where to start.
Perhaps you might look at posts of people much like yourself who see
Usenet as the tool you see it as.

They seem to get locked into frustrating posts with others of similar
tastes and ultimately accomplish little in the way of anything
beneficial for either protagonist.

They do tend to monoplise long threads of hurled abuse which is
tiresome to say the least. Not that that stands in much contrast with
most of my threads except that my threads tend to contain half the
arguments and half the number of posters to it.

Do yourself a favour lad, before you have a seisure and do us all a
favour.

There's a good boy.

6 days. Fingers crossed eh? You'll need them to be.

On Aug 3, 5:52 pm, Weatherlawyer wrote:
Interesting design concept he https://www.fnmoc.navy.mil/efs/dynam....EFS.no_pac_ga...

More interesting stuff:
2.9 NORTHERN CALIFORNIA
2.6 NORTHERN CALIFORNIA

3.1 FOX ISLANDS, ALEUTIAN ISLANDS, ALASKA
2.7 FOX ISLANDS, ALEUTIAN ISLANDS, ALASKA

3.3 SOUTHEASTERN ALASKA
2.5 NORTHERN CALIFORNIA
2.9 FOX ISLANDS, ALEUTIAN ISLANDS, ALASKA
2.8 KODIAK ISLAND REGION, ALASKA
4.6 NEAR THE SOUTH COAST OF PAPUA, INDONESIA
4.1 SOUTHEASTERN ALASKA
2.9 RAT ISLANDS, ALEUTIAN ISLANDS, ALASKA
2.9 NORTHERN ALASKA
2.8 PUERTO RICO REGION
2.6 NORTHERN CALIFORNIA
3 GREATER LOS ANGELES AREA, CALIFORNIA

In article
,
Weatherlawyer wrote:

They do tend to monoplise long threads of hurled abuse which is
tiresome to say the least.

And you never ever hurl abuse at people.

There's a good boy.

See? That was merely condescending.

--
Timberwoof me at timberwoof dot com http://www.timberwoof.com
"When you post sewage, don't blame others for
emptying chamber pots in your direction." ‹Chris L.