From:
http://www.usno.navy.mil/USNO/astron...es/phases-moon

31st May @ 03:22 just ended.
this one the 7th June @ 18:12 has just started and will end
15th June or thereabout, with the phase @ 22:15

Now the thing is, if there was a strong positive in the North Atlantic
there would be a hurricane in it for this phase. With the oscillation
positive in the North Pacific there is more likely going to be
convergence in that ocean. Maybe off Mexico.

Maybe more strong earthquakes near the Isthmus of Panama.

I don't know if it is going to be a positive or negative oscillation
here but at least the Australian Bureau of Meteorology have realised
these things can be set up in a matter of days:
http://news.softpedia.com/news/El-Ni...s-113540.shtml

The last spell should have been thundery but the thing turned into a
real sunny one at first, going downhill on Saturday as the next spell
came along.

So here we are once again with a pattern that should be cool, dull,
overcast and not particularly wet.

It has rained continually, isn't that cold and has been completely
overcast. And the spell has hardly started yet. This could be fun.

Looks pretty negative in the North Atlantic to me with low Highs and
high Lows:
http://www.wetterzentrale.de/topkarten/fsfaxsem.html

That's a seismic convergence then IIRC.

On Jun 7, 10:31*pm, Weatherlawyer wrote:
From: http://www.usno.navy.mil/USNO/astron.../data-services...

31st May @ 03:22 just ended.
this one the 7th June @ 18:12 has just started and will end
15th June or thereabout, with the phase @ 22:15

Now the thing is, if there was a strong positive in the North Atlantic
there would be a hurricane in it for this phase. With the oscillation
positive in the North Pacific there is more likely going to be
convergence in that ocean. Maybe off Mexico.

Maybe more strong earthquakes near the Isthmus of Panama.

Is that actually a forecast of strong earthquakes in an area? If so,
what's the timespan in which they are likely to occur, define "near"
and what do you mean by "strong".

The last spell should have been thundery but the thing turned into a
real sunny one at first, going downhill on Saturday as the next spell
came along.

Why wasn't it thundery? Where wasn't it thundery? This was obviously a
wrong forecast. and it certainly looks like a forecast from your
initial post in 03:22, base on this; "It's a thundery spell with knobs
on"


So here we are once again with a pattern that should be cool, dull,
overcast and not particularly wet.

Is that some kind of forecast??

It has rained continually, isn't that cold and has been completely
overcast. And the spell has hardly started yet. This could be fun.

Where has it rained continually?? Was your initial forecast wrong
then?

Looks pretty negative in the North Atlantic to me with low Highs and
high Lows:

What on earth are the definitions of low highs and high lows?

That's a "seismic convergence" then.

You've made that phrase up, haven't you? it's just two words sat next
to each other that doesn't actually mean anything isn't it?

Can you see how many regard this as gobbledygook? There could be
another two incorrect forecasts in there, but it is almost impossible
to determine when you've actually forecast anything - unless of
course you come back to tell us that somewhere in the midst of one of
your impenetrable posts you actually did forecast it. Come on W. Be
clear about the forecasting. Indeed, be honest about it. Analyse your
successes AND mistakes and give reasons for each; finally, produce
some kind of verification stats. Then you'd have a lot more people
taking you seriously.

On Jun 8, 11:04*am, Dawlish wrote:

You've made that phrase up, haven't you? it's just two words sat next
to each other that doesn't actually mean anything isn't it?

You are a clot. Only the clotted effygialism you are decomposing of
isn't for strawberries.

Can you see how many regard this

No. How many?

Don't tell me; let me guess.

On Jun 8, 8:16*pm, Weatherlawyer wrote:
On Jun 8, 11:04*am, Dawlish wrote:



You've made that phrase up, haven't you? it's just two words sat next
to each other that doesn't actually mean anything isn't it?

You are a clot. Only the clotted effygialism you are decomposing of
isn't for strawberries.

Can you see how many regard this

No. How many?

Don't tell me; let me guess.

Well there's a reasonable reply to a request for clarity. Is there any
wonder nobody in their right mind takes your ideas seriously when you
wont produce any clear forecasts, explanations, or verification data
to back your ideas?

On Jun 8, 8:56*pm, Dawlish wrote:

Is there any wonder nobody in their right mind takes your ideas seriously

Not as much as there would be if nobody in their wrong mind took my
ideas seriously, no.

What was the question?

Is there any wonder, no body.

Nobody. Wondered off?

If a tree falls in a forest and there was nobody to see it, who else
wood. Suppose they all leaf?

What is nobody doing in the forest in the first place. Is nobody
responsible for the tree falling? What if nobody is crushed?

Who cant ell?
There was no body...
gorned.

"Dawlish" wrote in message
...
On Jun 8, 8:16 pm, Weatherlawyer wrote:
On Jun 8, 11:04 am, Dawlish wrote:



You've made that phrase up, haven't you? it's just two words sat next
to each other that doesn't actually mean anything isn't it?

You are a clot. Only the clotted effygialism you are decomposing of
isn't for strawberries.

Can you see how many regard this

No. How many?

Don't tell me; let me guess.

Well there's a reasonable reply to a request for clarity. Is there any
wonder nobody in their right mind takes your ideas seriously when you
wont produce any clear forecasts, explanations, or verification data
to back your ideas?

Another dropped apostrophe?

On Jun 8, 11:18*pm, Weatherlawyer wrote:
On Jun 8, 8:56*pm, Dawlish wrote:



Is there any wonder nobody in their right mind takes your ideas seriously

Not as much as there would be if nobody in their wrong mind took my
ideas seriously, no.

What was the question?

Is there any wonder, no body.

Nobody. *Wondered off?

If a tree falls in a forest and there was nobody to see it, who else
wood. Suppose they all leaf?

What is nobody doing in the forest in the first place. Is nobody
responsible for the tree falling? What if nobody is crushed?

Who cant ell?
There was no body...
gorned.

Nobody, W. Just nobody.

PS Sorry Lawrence. I'll write out "must do better" a few hundred
times.

On Jun 9, 12:30*am, "Lawrence Jenkins" wrote:

Well there's a reasonable reply to a request for clarity. Is there any
wonder nobody in their right mind takes your ideas seriously when you
wont produce any clear forecasts, explanations, or verification data
to back your ideas?

Another dropped apostrophe?

Such is his wont.

On Jun 9, 9:06*am, Weatherlawyer wrote:
On Jun 9, 12:30*am, "Lawrence Jenkins" wrote:



Well there's a reasonable reply to a request for clarity. Is there any
wonder nobody in their right mind takes your ideas seriously when you
wont produce any clear forecasts, explanations, or verification data
to back your ideas?

Another dropped apostrophe?

Such is his wont.

So; how about clarity with your forecasts, your theories, the
interpretation of your forecasts and especially the verification of
those forecasts. Lawrence's daft aside won't deflect the questions, W
and they need answers if anyone is to ever take you seriously.

PS Sorry Lawrence. I'll write out "must do better" a few hundred
times.

Don't you mean you will write out "I won't do it again"?

And shouldn't that be 'one hundred times'? Clarity, dear fellow,
that's what scientific forecasting is all about :-)

Cheers, Alastair.