Heavy snow from midday, including the biggest snowflakes I have ever
seen in my life - easily 4cm across. We ended up with a 2cm slushy
covering in no time at all. More heavy snow - and looking like it was
getting colder and we might be in trouble.

Now raining hard. What a typically British mess.

--
Chris
Swaffham, Norfolk

"Chris Smith" wrote in message
...
Heavy snow from midday, including the biggest snowflakes I have ever seen
in my life - easily 4cm across. We ended up with a 2cm slushy covering in
no time at all. More heavy snow - and looking like it was getting colder
and we might be in trouble.

Now raining hard. What a typically British mess.


You try forecasting it Chris!?

Just tried to write my normal weekly forecast for Dartmoor next week -
sheesh, talk about low confidence :-)

Will
--

On 18 Feb, 22:33, "Will Hand" wrote:

You try forecasting it Chris!?

Just tried to write my normal weekly forecast for Dartmoor next week -
sheesh, talk about low confidence :-)

Once more with feeling this time children, what does error, fear,
uncertainty and doubt mean?

It's not beyond the bounds of hackerdom to insert the relevant factors
into the mesh is it?

Extent of FUD = magnitude of earthquake = input from equivalent
hurricane forces = easier long range forecasting.

Now ****ing well stop moaning and get the job done.

On Feb 19, 10:57*am, Weatherlawyer wrote:

snip

Now ****ing well stop moaning and get the job done.

Yuk. Do we have to read this?

And if I didn't post here, W, who would remind you that your theories
are a complete and utter waste of time becasue you cannot use them for
any kind of even reasonable prediction?

14% success rate over 8 forecasts in a 4 month period in 2009. No
outcome prediction success; no use............and I know how much that
particular statistic hurts through the level of gall in your posts.
*))

Dawlish wrote in news:90ffac62-4280-49bc-acbc-
:

And if I didn't post here, W, who would remind you that your theories
are a complete and utter waste of time becasue you cannot use them for
any kind of even reasonable prediction?

I would.

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 19 Feb, 10:57, Weatherlawyer wrote:
On 18 Feb, 22:33, "Will Hand" wrote:



You try forecasting it Chris!?

Just tried to write my normal weekly forecast for Dartmoor next week -
sheesh, talk about low confidence :-)

Once more with feeling this time children, what does error, fear,
uncertainty and doubt mean?

It's not beyond the bounds of hackerdom to insert the relevant factors
into the mesh is it?

Extent of FUD = magnitude of earthquake = input from equivalent
hurricane forces = easier long range forecasting.

Now stop moaning and get the job done.

Hmmm... I think I need to find a value for singularities.

IMPORTANT: Remember that many of the below were developed mainly using
data for the latter half of the 19th, and first half of the 20th
centuries. The climate has undoubtedly changed, whatever the reason!
Use these with much caution.

[The term 'singularity' was apparently coined (according to HH Lamb)
by A. Schmauss in Berlin in 1938. In an article entitled "Synoptische
Singularitäten", Schmauss demonstrated that the curves (in graphical
terms) of meteorological elements (such as temperature), show singular
points in the mathematical sense (dy/dx=0), and apparently the name
came quickly into use for this reason.]

http://weatherfaqs.org.uk/node/179

On 20 Feb, 17:49, Weatherlawyer wrote:

Hmmm... I think I need to find a value for singularities.

[The term 'singularity' was apparently coined (according to HH Lamb)
by A. Schmauss in Berlin in 1938.

In an article entitled "Synoptische
Singularitäten", Schmauss demonstrated that the curves (in graphical
terms) of meteorological elements (such as temperature), show singular
points in the mathematical sense (dy/dx=0), and apparently the name
came quickly into use for this reason.]

http://weatherfaqs.org.uk/node/179

I wonder if the maths works out dissimilar to anything Schauss
demonstrated, the value will be called McNeil number. I'll settle for
Mac number.

The value has to be more or less the same as for Tropical storms and
Large magnitude earthquakes.

All you have to do is assign every storm and earthquake extant at any
point of the continuum and the equation is the value missing from the
finished number.

Seems pretty straightforward to me.

Except for landslides ardent nuee and hmmmm....
Not so easy...

I'll get back to you.

What sort of power do gravity wavess and storms and the like have?

Weatherlawyer wrote in news:0606ccbd-d27f-463f-
:

I wonder if the maths works out dissimilar to anything Schauss
demonstrated, the value will be called McNeil number. I'll settle for
Mac number.

One way to know you don't know know frak is when you start
expecting people to name things after you.

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 20 Feb, 20:43, Weatherlawyer wrote:
terms) of meteorological elements (such as temperature), show singular
points in the mathematical sense (dy/dx=0), and apparently the name
came quickly into use for this reason.]

http://weatherfaqs.org.uk/node/179

I wonder if the maths works out dissimilar to anything Schauss
demonstrated.

The value has to be more or less the same as for Tropical storms and
Large magnitude earthquakes.

All you have to do is assign every storm and earthquake extant at any
point of the continuum and the equation is the value missing from the
finished number.

Seems pretty straightforward to me.

Except for landslides ardent nuee and hmmmm....
Not so easy...

I'll get back to you.

Right. Havinfg slept on it I think it should be simple enough.
Obviously it will be ropey at first. But I bet it could be refined by
someone with the required smarts.

Not me I confess.

Let's look at the North Atlantic as a microcosm of the rest of the
continuum.

It obviously answers to events that occur to the west of it -prior to
such events. Other losers have intimated that there is a bridge of
some sort acting as a liaison for the Pacific and Atlantic.

Soo...

These floods and landslides equate to any other disaster. We know I
assume the magnitude of hurricanes. We assume the magnitudes of
earthquakes. And they do correspond.

Further more the fact that they show up consecutively is proof of a
sort that they have one and the same generator.

Which brings us to an overall value. We know that a realtively small
earthquake at Rat or whatever the other one is called (Fox?) islands
equate to the weather leaving Virginia and the Carolinas.

We have ready access to records of the North Atlantic and stuff
covering the USA and Canada. Pity it isn't given as a cohesive lump
but we can't expect social niceties in science where los of lucre are
involved can we children.

Suppose we assign a value a nminal value to every cyclone and
anticyclone portrayed on the US, Canadian and North Atlantic charts at
any particular moment.

That will give us a datum to make a compilation from. Every subsequent
chart set ias the equivalent of a model run is it not?

As a 3 Mag. in Rat Island is equal to a 980 mb off Cape Hatteras
(provisionally that is I'm going from an hunch and not even memeory
serves me at the moment.)

And a Mag 7 earthquake is the equivalent of a what? super-cyclone. F 2
say; that gives us the range.

How much extra/inter~polation would it take I wonder?

Christ, I am depressed enough without all this.

Good job I gave up shaving years ago.

2.8 M. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
4.5 M. CHINA-RUSSIA-NORTH KOREA BORDER REGION
2.5 M. OKLAHOMA
4.6 M. NEAR ISLANDS, ALEUTIAN ISLANDS, ALASKA
4.6 M. NORTHERN COLOMBIA
4.8 M. VANUATU
4.6 M. TONGA
5.0 M. NEAR THE EAST COAST OF HONSHU, JAPAN
4.9 M. NORTH OF HONDURAS
3.0 M. SOUTHERN ALASKA

4.7 M. MYANMAR
3.1 M. NORTHERN YUKON TERRITORY, CANADA
3.2 M. ALASKA PENINSULA
4.7 M. GUAM REGION
3.6 M. SOUTHERN ALASKA
5.4 M. VANUATU
2.7 M. PUERTO RICO REGION
5.1 M. KURIL ISLANDS
4.9 M. BATAN ISLANDS REGION, PHILIPPINES
4.4 M. IZU ISLANDS, JAPAN REGION
3.3 M. STRAIT OF JUAN DE FUCA, WASHINGTON
2.8 M. KODIAK ISLAND REGION, ALASKA
4.9 M. RYUKYU ISLANDS, JAPAN
4.9 M. JAVA, INDONESIA
2.7 M. GREATER LOS ANGELES AREA, CALIFORNIA
2.7 M. GREATER LOS ANGELES AREA, CALIFORNIA
4.9 M. WESTERN INDIAN-ANTARCTIC RIDGE
3.0 M. GREATER LOS ANGELES AREA, CALIFORNIA
4.4 M. ANDREANOF ISLANDS, ALEUTIAN IS., ALASKA
2.8 M. MONA PASSAGE, PUERTO RICO
2.7 M. PUERTO RICO REGION
2.8 M. PUERTO RICO REGION

3.4 M. DOMINICAN REPUBLIC REGION
2.6 M. CENTRAL CALIFORNIA
3.1 M. PUERTO RICO REGION
4.4 M. NORTH SEA
2.5 M. GREATER LOS ANGELES AREA, CALIFORNIA
2.5 M. GREATER LOS ANGELES AREA, CALIFORNIA
3.6 M. GREATER LOS ANGELES AREA, CALIFORNIA
3.2 M. GREATER LOS ANGELES AREA, CALIFORNIA
3.4 M. GREATER LOS ANGELES AREA, CALIFORNIA
2.8 M. ISLAND OF HAWAII, HAWAII
3.2 M. DOMINICAN REPUBLIC
3.2 M. VIRGIN ISLANDS REGION
2.9 M. OKLAHOMA
2.5 M. OKLAHOMA
3.1 M. SOUTHERN ALASKA
3.4 M. VIRGIN ISLANDS REGION
5.0 M. TONGA
4.7 M. ECUADOR
5.4 M. TONGA
2.5 M. CENTRAL ALASKA
2.6 M. ALBERTA, CANADA
4.6 M. NORTHERN ALASKA
4.2 M. NORTHERN ALASKA
4.0 M. SOUTH OF ALASKA
2.7 M. PUERTO RICO REGION
2.7 M. PUERTO RICO REGION
2.5 M. ISLAND OF HAWAII, HAWAII
4.8 M. ANDAMAN ISLANDS, INDIA REGION
2.7 M. BAJA CALIFORNIA, MEXICO
3.7 M. SOUTH OF ALASKA
3.6 M. SOUTH OF ALASKA

5.2 M. KURIL ISLANDS
3.3 M. RAT ISLANDS, ALEUTIAN ISLANDS, ALASKA
3.4 M. DOMINICAN REPUBLIC REGION
3.2 M. PUERTO RICO REGION
4.8 M. SOUTHERN IRAN
5.3 M. ANTOFAGASTA, CHILE
2.5 M. GREATER LOS ANGELES AREA, CALIFORNIA
2.8 M. GREATER LOS ANGELES AREA, CALIFORNIA
2.5 M. NORTHERN CALIFORNIA
2.7 M. KENAI PENINSULA, ALASKA
3.5 M. FOX ISLANDS, ALEUTIAN ISLANDS, ALASKA
3.2 M. PUERTO RICO REGION
2.7 M. PUERTO RICO REGION
2.6 M. SOUTHERN ALASKA
2.6 M. SOUTHERN ALASKA
2.9 M. SOUTHEASTERN ALASKA
3.4 M. HAWAII REGION, HAWAII
2.8 M. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
2.7 M. NEW YORK
2.6 M. SOUTHERN ALASKA
2.5 M. ARKANSAS
2.8 M. PUERTO RICO REGION
6.9 M. CHINA-RUSSIA-NORTH KOREA BORDER REGION
3.0 M. CENTRAL ALASKA
2.5 M. SOUTHERN ALASKA

4.1 M. ANDREANOF ISLANDS, ALEUTIAN IS., ALASKA
2.6 M. GREATER LOS ANGELES AREA, CALIFORNIA
2.5 M. PUERTO RICO REGION
3.3 M. GREATER LOS ANGELES AREA, CALIFORNIA
5.9 M. KERMADEC ISLANDS, NEW ZEALAND
2.8 M. PUERTO RICO REGION
3.1 M. SOUTHERN ALASKA
4.6 M. KURIL ISLANDS
2.8 M. OFF THE COAST OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA
2.5 M. ANDREANOF ISLANDS, ALEUTIAN IS., ALASKA
4.6 M. BONIN ISLANDS, JAPAN REGION
2.8 M. GREATER LOS ANGELES AREA, CALIFORNIA
2.5 M. GREATER LOS ANGELES AREA, CALIFORNIA
4.7 M. POTOSI, BOLIVIA
2.5 M. FOX ISLANDS, ALEUTIAN ISLANDS, ALASKA
3.0 M. PUERTO RICO REGION
3.2 M. ALASKA PENINSULA
4.9 M. FIJI REGION
2.5 M. ALASKA PENINSULA
3.1 M. GREATER LOS ANGELES AREA, CALIFORNIA
2.5 M. OFFSHORE NORTHERN CALIFORNIA
5.1 M. IZU ISLANDS, JAPAN REGION
2.5 M. ANDREANOF ISLANDS, ALEUTIAN IS., ALASKA
2.9 M. ANDREANOF ISLANDS, ALEUTIAN IS., ALASKA

4.9 M. KOMANDORSKIYE OSTROVA, RUSSIA REGION
2.7 M. BAJA CALIFORNIA, MEXICO
2.7 M. NORTHERN CALIFORNIA
5.0 M. NEAR THE SOUTH COAST OF HONSHU, JAPAN
5.1 M. OFF THE WEST COAST OF NORTHERN SUMATRA
2.6 M. GREATER LOS ANGELES AREA, CALIFORNIA
2.9 M. GREATER LOS ANGELES AREA, CALIFORNIA
3.6 M. ANDREANOF ISLANDS, ALEUTIAN IS., ALASKA
3.3 M. ANDREANOF ISLANDS, ALEUTIAN IS., ALASKA
2.7 M. FOX ISLANDS, ALEUTIAN ISLANDS, ALASKA
2.7 M. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
2.6 M. SOUTHERN ALASKA
2.6 M. GREATER LOS ANGELES AREA, CALIFORNIA
5.1 M. BABUYAN ISLANDS REGION, PHILIPPINES
2.9 M. CENTRAL CALIFORNIA
5.3 M. OFF THE EAST COAST OF HONSHU, JAPAN
2.8 M. ISLAND OF HAWAII, HAWAII

6.2 M. KEPULAUAN BARAT DAYA, INDONESIA
4.5 M. ANTOFAGASTA, CHILE
3.2 M. FOX ISLANDS, ALEUTIAN ISLANDS, ALASKA
4.7 M. HALMAHERA, INDONESIA
4.6 M. SOUTHEASTERN ALASKA
2.5 M. ANDREANOF ISLANDS, ALEUTIAN IS., ALASKA
3.6 M. DOMINICAN REPUBLIC REGION
2.8 M. ISLAND OF HAWAII, HAWAII
4.5 M. BANDA SEA
3.5 M. RAT ISLANDS, ALEUTIAN ISLANDS, ALASKA
2.5 M. MONA PASSAGE, PUERTO RICO
4.8 M. KURIL ISLANDS
5.4 M. MINDANAO, PHILIPPINES
3.1 M. VIRGIN ISLANDS REGION
4.9 M. FIJI REGION
3.2 M. VIRGIN ISLANDS REGION
2.8 M. OKLAHOMA
3.3 M. CENTRAL CALIFORNIA
4.7 M. JUJUY, ARGENTINA
2.5 M. NEVADA
2.6 M. PUERTO RICO
2.6 M. CENTRAL CALIFORNIA
4.1 M. CENTRAL CALIFORNIA

4.9 M. SOUTH OF THE MARIANA ISLANDS
2.6 M. BAJA CALIFORNIA, MEXICO
4.8 M. OFF THE WEST COAST OF NORTHERN SUMATRA
3.0 M. BAJA CALIFORNIA, MEXICO
4.5 M. BAJA CALIFORNIA, MEXICO
3.3 M. BAJA CALIFORNIA, MEXICO
5.0 M. MINDANAO, PHILIPPINES
3.3 M. OFF THE COAST OF OREGON
3.2 M. ALASKA PENINSULA
2.7 M. SOUTHERN ALASKA
2.7 M. FOX ISLANDS, ALEUTIAN ISLANDS, ALASKA
4.9 M. SOUTH OF JAVA, INDONESIA
2.6 M. MONA PASSAGE, PUERTO RICO
2.9 M. PUERTO RICO REGION
2.5 M. FOX ISLANDS, ALEUTIAN ISLANDS, ALASKA
2.6 M. NEVADA

You can see that there is some sort of incremental rectification that
takes place with the increase in magnitude of an earthquake. That 6.9
on the China Korean border is a perfect case in point with the 6.2 at
Indonesia, below it, serving as a control.

When a large magnitude quake occurs the background is not many
earthquakes anywhere else and those that are reported are
significantly tenuous. It doesn't help that the NEIC stick a pile of
local stuff in there like a lump of dog **** in a chip supper.

Still beggars can't be choosers.