Why is the 540 isopleth significant on a 1000-500 thickness chart?

On Aug 16, 9:41 pm, wrote:

Why is the 540 isopleth significant on a 1000-500 thickness chart?

Something to do with Jet Stream behaviour IIRC. Look up:

Bear in mind that there is only empirical stuff with any reasonings
about it all. (Theories require more theories until logic is defied
and people can no longer suspend their disbeliefs. Or they just take
the money and look like they know what they are doing.)

Weatherlawyer wrote in news:4d6c6522-f1e0-45f3-
:

On Aug 16, 9:41 pm, wrote:

Why is the 540 isopleth significant on a 1000-500 thickness chart?

Something to do with Jet Stream behaviour IIRC. Look up:

Bear in mind that there is only empirical stuff with any reasonings
about it all. (Theories require more theories until logic is defied
and people can no longer suspend their disbeliefs. Or they just take
the money and look like they know what they are doing.)


Baffling them with your bull****, I see.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

On Aug 17, 3:19 am, Skywise wrote:
Weatherlawyer wrote in news:4d6c6522-f1e0-45f3-
:

On Aug 16, 9:41 pm, wrote:

Why is the 540 isopleth significant on a 1000-500 thickness chart?

Something to do with Jet Stream behaviour IIRC. Look up:

Bear in mind that there is only empirical stuff with any reasonings
about it all. (Theories require more theories until logic is defied
and people can no longer suspend their disbeliefs. Or they just take
the money and look like they know what they are doing.)

Baffling them with your bull****, I see.

Hardly.

Planetary wave theory, be it the southern oscillation cods wallop or
the Rossby stuff, is so vague and minuscule that as far as I am
concerned is best left to your ilk.

There is for example nothing in a phenomenon like this that affords
much value to a reasonable man for all his study:
http://www.noc.soton.ac.uk/JRD/SAT/R...ssbyintro.html

I dare say, should the OP prove to have the sort of nit picking
thoroughness you display, he will have much to content himself with.

More decisive argufiers have cautioned their followers to steer clear
of pointless disputes.

In this case the structure of Rossby waves, despite their importance
or alleged importance, are ignored in favour of the more dramatic
behaviour at lower levels. Which is to say that while the 540 mb
levels tend to betray the Rossby waves the argument or weather
discussion is not based on the actual Rossby waves.

Similarly the propensity for El Nino to behave with such and such a
tendency is largely ignored as the temperatures involved are so minute
and so ephemeral.

What is used by some, is that on such and such an occasion when the SO
currents were running in such and such a manner, this or that tendency
came around.

It is an elusive forecaster of events though, for reasons that are
obvious if you care to look.

As for bull****, I fail to see why you should take against my brand of
it except that you appear to be in ignorance of the more scholarly,
academical versions. It's not as if you have anything to replace the
bull **** with, is it?

If it is I have missed your incisive comments to that end.