On Tuesday, 31 January 2017 12:01:28 UTC, Weatherlawyer wrote:
On Tuesday, 31 January 2017 11:47:41 UTC, Weatherlawyer wrote:
On Tuesday, 31 January 2017 10:25:29 UTC, wrote:
On Tuesday, 31 January 2017 09:25:25 UTC, Weatherlawyer wrote:
On Tuesday, 31 January 2017 07:00:59 UTC, vidcapper wrote:


I think you greatly overestimate day-to-day geological effects on weather.

'You are the only one....' 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂🠘‚😂😂

Oh this just gets better and better. 1/20 shows this 'approach' is soooooo successful, doesn't it?

'But that is of course gobbledegook as far as you are concerned.' and as far as the rest of the scientific community on the planet is concerned too. Because it is. But don't stop; it is truly, truly funny.

A third woman has claimed she was sexually harassed by the former head of the UN climate change panel, Rajendra Pachauri, who is charged with sexually harassing, stalking and intimidating a female employee.

The woman, who cannot be named for legal reasons, said on Thursday she had decided to make a public statement after reading an article in the Observer in which Pachauri denied the allegations against him claiming his email account had been hacked and the claims were a conspiracy to defame him.

Pachauri, 75, former chair of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), was formally charged this month, a year after a 29-year-old former employee filed a police report against him. She had worked at The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI), which was led by Pachauri.

A second female employee has also filed a police report against Pachauri.

Pachauri, stepped down in February last year as head of the IPCC, which was awarded the Nobel peace prize in 2007 under his chairmanship.

The third woman who has now come forward, who is not an Indian national, said she was 19 when she worked at the New Delhi branch of TERI in 2008. In a statement, she said she believed Pachauri’s claim that his computer was hacked was “totally false� and that his counter allegations were “right in line with his character�. She said she had begun feeling uncomfortable around Pachauri as he “would put his hands on my waist repeated times, he would hug me longer than felt comfortable, [and] kissed me on the cheek�.

On one occasion, she said, Pachauri went to her home. “I actually was sick and could not come to the office. He then came to my home with a bouquet of roses. This might sound sweet, but at that time I just felt uncomfortable and scared. He would call me during non-working hours and holidays to ask me to come to his office and when arriving it became evident that he had no specific task for me. Pachauri would indulge in frivolous talk and try to get close to me.�

The breaking point came, she claimed, when Pachauri invited her to his summer home, making it clear they would be alone and that his wife was out of town. “At this point, I felt genuinely scared of what his motives for inviting me over were, and I decided to speak out and set a firm limit,� she said.

I forgot to add the link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SqzcA7SsqSA

Whatever happened to Professor Briffa and the dendolions?
We hear so much about the train and the hockey shtick drivers of this world.

http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/pu...h/research.php

The hockey shtick article is only some 4 thousand words. I will have a go at putting it into simple English for you if there are enough relevant details there.

Bear in mind that in Washington District of the USA this pirate material is highly illegal something or other. So don't try to sneak it into the USA especially if you are a Muslim.

Would you happen to know if Dominatrix Terea May, has gone to Washington DC looking for work in a brothel there for her coming retirement from politics?

Perhaps I should ask Jumper?

What are the names of the three stooges? I am wondering why I only get to slap Dawlish. Perhaps it is because I can only remeber the name of one of them?

Is Dawlish curly haired?

On Tuesday, 31 January 2017 16:40:45 UTC, vidcapper wrote:
On 31/01/2017 09:25, Weatherlawyer wrote:
On Tuesday, 31 January 2017 07:00:59 UTC, vidcapper wrote:


I think you greatly overestimate day-to-day geological effects on
weather.

You are the only one. Everyone knows that the slightest impact of
shade or mass will alter or create a current of air in exactly the
ame way a virtually undetectable rise in the ground will completely
alter the flow of water across it.

I wasn't talking about butterflies...

I don't know anyone on here that I would ask what you were talking about. But thank you for telling me that you were not talking about butterflies. Should I look at what you said to prove it or should I take it as read that butterflies are impertinent to the conversation?

On Tuesday, 31 January 2017 16:40:45 UTC, vidcapper wrote:
On 31/01/2017 09:25, Weatherlawyer wrote:
On Tuesday, 31 January 2017 07:00:59 UTC, vidcapper wrote:


I think you greatly overestimate day-to-day geological effects on
weather.

You are the only one. Everyone knows that the slightest impact of
shade or mass will alter or create a current of air in exactly the
ame way a virtually undetectable rise in the ground will completely
alter the flow of water across it.

I wasn't talking about butterflies...

Funny thing. I was just talking about the three stooges and it occurred to me that you were not talking about them either.

What can you tell me about the Three Stooges and do you happen to know what hair style Dawlish has?

On Tuesday, 31 January 2017 18:15:40 UTC, Weatherlawyer wrote:
On Tuesday, 31 January 2017 16:40:45 UTC, vidcapper wrote:
On 31/01/2017 09:25, Weatherlawyer wrote:
On Tuesday, 31 January 2017 07:00:59 UTC, vidcapper wrote:


I think you greatly overestimate day-to-day geological effects on
weather.

You are the only one. Everyone knows that the slightest impact of
shade or mass will alter or create a current of air in exactly the
ame way a virtually undetectable rise in the ground will completely
alter the flow of water across it.

I wasn't talking about butterflies...

Funny thing. I was just talking about the three stooges and it occurred to me that you were not talking about them either.

What can you tell me about the Three Stooges and do you happen to know what hair style Dawlish has?

And the obsession kicks back in because he's been shown up as an idiot again. 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

On Tuesday, 31 January 2017 19:46:28 UTC, wrote:
On Tuesday, 31 January 2017 18:15:40 UTC, Weatherlawyer wrote:
On Tuesday, 31 January 2017 16:40:45 UTC, vidcapper wrote:
On 31/01/2017 09:25, Weatherlawyer wrote:
On Tuesday, 31 January 2017 07:00:59 UTC, vidcapper wrote:


I think you greatly overestimate day-to-day geological effects on
weather.

You are the only one. Everyone knows that the slightest impact of
shade or mass will alter or create a current of air in exactly the
ame way a virtually undetectable rise in the ground will completely
alter the flow of water across it.

I wasn't talking about butterflies...

Funny thing. I was just talking about the three stooges and it occurred to me that you were not talking about them either.

What can you tell me about the Three Stooges and do you happen to know what hair style Dawlish has?

And the obsession kicks back in because he's been shown up as an idiot again. 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

I can't imagine which of them used a phone to write hahaha with. The really, really stupid one?

On Tuesday, 31 January 2017 11:37:25 UTC, Weatherlawyer wrote:
On Tuesday, 31 January 2017 09:25:25 UTC, Weatherlawyer wrote:
On Tuesday, 31 January 2017 07:00:59 UTC, vidcapper wrote:


I think you greatly overestimate day-to-day geological effects on weather.

You are the only one. Everyone knows that the slightest impact of shade or mass will alter or create a current of air in exactly the ame way a virtually undetectable rise in the ground will completely alter the flow of water across it.

What, to their intense shame, international agencies grossly underestimate is the meteorological effect on geography.

Take for example the charts at:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/public/w...ime=1485777600

The Analysis one at first glance shows you nothing but a pointless composition of fronts in the bottom left of the chart.

A warm and a cold front is all you can tell from it but by t+12 it has become a zig zag of fronts that again indicate nothing all that interesting but to me....

The analysis chart shows a system that could develop into a tornadic signal to development somewhere far from the centre of the Atlantic that is is crossing by noon.

It is in fact a classic case of Graham Easterling's Dangler and it betoken line storms. Why are you plucking your eyes out continually to these things they can not be gobbledegook to anyone not called Col, Dawlish or Richard Dixon.

Who are you again?
Vidcapper?
The name means nothing to me except that I am familiar with it. Do you ever raise waves on here?
Remind me.

Let me tell you some more about that signal that everyone on here but I (you included) has thrown away as unremarkable:

At midnight on Wednesday the system will develop into a delta pattern that is joined to the Icelandic Low by way of Lapland. And if you look over Asia you can tell that Russia is under a pall of drizzle exactly like we in Stoke on Trent are enjoying in the precursor to tomorrows eruption only theirs is the aftermath of the last one.

It is in fact a series of broken warm fronts of the type that develop under thick ice cloud following the impact of the sonic boom that crystalises it all.

You may even be expecting the development of anticyclonic wether from news of it from the Met office website for all I know. But there it is for you to already speculate on.

Or you can hang on and post a comment when someone from NASA posts about a solar wind coming our way, never for a moment able to connect the dots for yourself.

On t+36 a cyclone 961 in the middle of the North Atlantic just coincidentally over the Mid Atlantic Ridge will develop a set of three fronts. Two cold ones and one warm one. They once again betoken tornadic signals for some unwary soul.

And at t+48 they will be helping to adjust the geograph by means of swarms of low magnitude earthquakes possibly in Indonesia or Fiji but just as likely some 80 degrees east and/or west of the epicentre which is just off Britain at the time.

But that is of course gobbledegook as far as you are concerned. However if you care to look at the left hand corner of the chart you may notice that exactly the same point of the continuum fist pointed out by Weatherlawyer is beginning again,

again.

Good luck with that.

Now I am wondering if I should file an Amicus Brief against Michael Mann:

https://youtu.be/6bARjABDqok?t=1367

An exceptionally wet day equates to a very active volcano. This one induced something I imagine akin to casement sickness. I recall having had a worse eruptive experience but that doesn't make this one pleasant.

I have been suffering for at least the last 3 hours:

Super-hot LAVA WATERFALL gushes into the sea in spectacular volcano footage:
http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/late...explosion-bang

It helps me endure it knowing that if it doesn't kill me first, it will go away eventually. I imagine the incidence of stroke and heart-attack is extremely high at the moment.

There is no position one can take to get comfortable. Every synovial joint buffer in my thorax is jangling all thway down past my elbows.

It is pleasant when it is just a dull ache.

On 31/01/2017 18:13, Weatherlawyer wrote:
On Tuesday, 31 January 2017 16:40:45 UTC, vidcapper wrote:
On 31/01/2017 09:25, Weatherlawyer wrote:
On Tuesday, 31 January 2017 07:00:59 UTC, vidcapper wrote:


I think you greatly overestimate day-to-day geological effects on
weather.

You are the only one. Everyone knows that the slightest impact of
shade or mass will alter or create a current of air in exactly the
ame way a virtually undetectable rise in the ground will completely
alter the flow of water across it.

I wasn't talking about butterflies...

I don't know anyone on here that I would ask what you were talking about. But thank you for telling me that you were not talking about butterflies. Should I look at what you said to prove it or should I take it as read that butterflies are impertinent to the conversation?


Oh come on - you're seriously pretending not to have heard about the
Butterfly Effect', when that is precisely what you were citing in your
above paragraph.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_effect

However, I was referring to obvious effects, i.e. volcanoes. However, I
have seen no credible evidence that other geological events, such as
earthquakes, have any effect on the weather.



--

Paul Hyett, Cheltenham

On Wednesday, 1 February 2017 07:52:19 UTC, vidcapper wrote:
On 31/01/2017 18:13, Weatherlawyer wrote:
On Tuesday, 31 January 2017 16:40:45 UTC, vidcapper wrote:
On 31/01/2017 09:25, Weatherlawyer wrote:
On Tuesday, 31 January 2017 07:00:59 UTC, vidcapper wrote:


I think you greatly overestimate day-to-day
geological effects on weather.

You are the only one. Everyone knows that the
slightest impact of shade or mass will alter or
create a current of air in exactly the same way
a virtually undetectable rise in the ground will
completely alter the flow of water across it.

I wasn't talking about butterflies...

I don't know anyone on here that I would ask what
you were talking about. But thank you for telling me
that you were not talking about butterflies. Should
I look at what you said to prove it or should I take
it as read that butterflies are impertinent to the
conversation?


Oh come on - you're seriously pretending not to have
heard about the Butterfly Effect', when that is
precisely what you were citing in your above paragraph.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_effect

However, I was referring to obvious effects, i.e.
volcanoes. However, I have seen no credible evidence
that other geological events, such as earthquakes,
have any effect on the weather.

How dare you pretend I have not written extensively on the subject of model errors!

I am not in this game of slapping idiots anymore. Dawlish no longer fascinates me. Since the great expositions of the US presidential election I have been trying to reconsider my part in all of this.

Here is the comment immediately below mine in the Mark Steyn interview The comment is from someone who has done some peer review work on laboratory data:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7wQp0Ir5Vc

"Anyone who tells you climate change is not happening, or that if it is, humans are definitely not to blame, is selling you something.

Anyone who tells you that climate change is real, and that humans are definitely to blame, and here's how it's going to go down, and here's how we can stop it... they're selling you something, too."

Here is my comment there in full:

"What would the legal department of a country do if it could be shown that weather charts could be proved useful for forecasting earthquakes and volcanic eruptions and that the denaturing of climate models has led to the obscuring of accurate data used for the GFS?"

I wasn't going to post it on here because the litany of nitwittery is too long and complex; it would take a son of god to judge the mettle of every one of the posters here.

As it happens one of the sons of god is going to judge between the sheep and the goats on here as in every other plaice. (See them hiding from an hiding then!)

Whilst I am likely to be reproved for my irreverent language, I think that perhaps he may be tempted to use his badge of office as a cudgel on the *******s himself.

Unfortunately his remit seems to be the recovery of lost sheep... So I doubt the spectacular nature of the machinery likely involved. From the unravelling of repeated history as with the case of Donal Trump and a Samaritan King called Jehu for example:

https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/679239

It would appear that there is no need for god to drastically change the MO of present world governments. In which case climate change and the Four Horsemen may need total rethinkage

I have come to the conclusion that the model-run used by the Australian Bureau of Meteorology has recently denatured its model to incorporate what I suspect might be from over-promoted climatologists. (Possibly a Flowerpot from the University in Queensland.)

Manned up; as it were.

Since I have no idea how to recompose accurate charts from the original data and ensure that the modern satellite telemetry is not faked for false modelling, there is no way for me to either prove it or set out improved data of my own.

One way or the other, whatever happens to me and you, god is not having the work of his sons spoiled by politicians for much longer.

Can you imagine what value in heaven the footstool of The Creator must have to the spiritual universe?

On Tuesday, 31 January 2017 23:29:50 UTC, Weatherlawyer wrote:
On Tuesday, 31 January 2017 19:46:28 UTC, wrote:
On Tuesday, 31 January 2017 18:15:40 UTC, Weatherlawyer wrote:
On Tuesday, 31 January 2017 16:40:45 UTC, vidcapper wrote:
On 31/01/2017 09:25, Weatherlawyer wrote:
On Tuesday, 31 January 2017 07:00:59 UTC, vidcapper wrote:


I think you greatly overestimate day-to-day geological effects on
weather.

You are the only one. Everyone knows that the slightest impact of
shade or mass will alter or create a current of air in exactly the
ame way a virtually undetectable rise in the ground will completely
alter the flow of water across it.

I wasn't talking about butterflies...

Funny thing. I was just talking about the three stooges and it occurred to me that you were not talking about them either.

What can you tell me about the Three Stooges and do you happen to know what hair style Dawlish has?

And the obsession kicks back in because he's been shown up as an idiot again. 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

I can't imagine which of them used a phone to write hahaha with. The really, really stupid one?

Or the one that liked getting slapped?
I was never a fan of stoopid so I couldn't bear to watch their rubbish but there must have been something of the sado-masochism about them.

The abuse of souls is and always has been rife in Hollywood. If you look at old fashioned westerns for example, most of the stunts involved crippling horses with trip wires.

On Wednesday, 1 February 2017 19:04:37 UTC, Weatherlawyer wrote:
On Wednesday, 1 February 2017 07:52:19 UTC, vidcapper wrote:
On 31/01/2017 18:13, Weatherlawyer wrote:
On Tuesday, 31 January 2017 16:40:45 UTC, vidcapper wrote:
On 31/01/2017 09:25, Weatherlawyer wrote:
On Tuesday, 31 January 2017 07:00:59 UTC, vidcapper wrote:


I think you greatly overestimate day-to-day
geological effects on weather.

You are the only one. Everyone knows that the
slightest impact of shade or mass will alter or
create a current of air in exactly the same way
a virtually undetectable rise in the ground will
completely alter the flow of water across it.

I wasn't talking about butterflies...

I don't know anyone on here that I would ask what
you were talking about. But thank you for telling me
that you were not talking about butterflies. Should
I look at what you said to prove it or should I take
it as read that butterflies are impertinent to the
conversation?


Oh come on - you're seriously pretending not to have
heard about the Butterfly Effect', when that is
precisely what you were citing in your above paragraph.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_effect

However, I was referring to obvious effects, i.e.
volcanoes. However, I have seen no credible evidence
that other geological events, such as earthquakes,
have any effect on the weather.

How dare you pretend I have not written extensively on the subject of model errors!

I am not in this game of slapping idiots anymore. Dawlish no longer fascinates me. Since the great expositions of the US presidential election I have been trying to reconsider my part in all of this.

Here is the comment immediately below mine in the Mark Steyn interview The comment is from someone who has done some peer review work on laboratory data:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7wQp0Ir5Vc

"Anyone who tells you climate change is not happening, or that if it is, humans are definitely not to blame, is selling you something.

Anyone who tells you that climate change is real, and that humans are definitely to blame, and here's how it's going to go down, and here's how we can stop it... they're selling you something, too."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=csiivqjGbMw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Id3G5UOl9lg

last night I had a really bad bout of something I can only assume was indigestion. It felt more like an heart attack at the time but I don't appear to be suffering ill effects.

There was a four hour long spectacle that happened to start about an hour before it hit me that relates to volcanic activity and my illnesses chronologically.

I doubt very much the NHS will ever grant researchers financial privileges for my ideas during my lifetime. Nor do I suppose anyone more sensible than yourself will ever read my stuff. I certainly don't imaging that you have the goodwill to continue where I leave off even had you the ability.

I dare say there are some on here that might have the ability but I will never know. Pity, that.

Just in case you find having to deal with col and dawlish off-putting: You only have to ask them one question about their maths and they will shut down on you until they think you have forgotten.

So don't let anyone put you off; even Michael Mann. He is not capable of refuting aspersions about his maths for example.

Here is my comment there in full:

"What would the legal department of a country do if it could be shown that weather charts could be proved useful for forecasting earthquakes and volcanic eruptions and that the denaturing of climate models has led to the obscuring of accurate data used for the GFS?"

I used to be able to use the Southern Hemisphere charts from BoM to forecast earthquakes. Since the recent surge in volcanic activity that method has ended.

I am able to fall back on less reliable sources but that was a particularly useful prop while it lasted. I rather suspect that the University of Queensland has had an hand in things. They have a reputation very similar to the University of East Anglia.

Google seems intent on confining my searches for world rankings of universities to the UK. Which is very nice of them but not exactly what I am searching for.

Just off to play with free search engines. Back later.

https://www.topuniversities.com/univ...mental-studies

https://www.whatuni.com/university-p...glia-uea/5637/

https://www.timeshighereducation.com...dataset/128776