On Wednesday, 1 February 2017 02:52:19 UTC, Weatherlawyer wrote:
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.

Pretty interesting doughnought shape on the sparkling upto date no nonsense Auntie metO@t+12.

What can one say?
I doubt even vidcapper will be able to call that stuff butter flying.

53 views. What addlepack is menacing this hound of truth I wonder?
A sock drawer fool of stupid, perhaps?

I just gave someone advice about switching from Windows to Linux. I should have made her get hold of a Solid State Drive because they are the only ones fast enough to cope with the stray emf punted by the mountain-load in such spells.

She is having problems with her video editing software and of course any slow macjine will be being crippled by modern operating systems that are capable of writing too fast for them.

What happens is the stuff goes through to the buffer (whatever that is) before the old spinner can catch up and by the time the wheel gets into position stray emf has corrupted the channel flow.

This sort of stuff is crippling Google at the moment and their senior staff are completely at a loss to explain it.

If you are having problems with your ISP connection (I am on cable with Virgin BB and I am getting it) you would do best to close the machine down more often than you are doing and let it get its breath back or get a SSB SATA drive fitted and upgrade your RAM while you are at it.

Don't go for a new multigigabyte magnetic disk drive as that is too slow to cope. Putting terabites of data at risk is not a solution. You are better off with a smaller hard drive that is so much faster.

Such drives are ideal back-up when the weather is saf to make back-ups in.

On 01/02/2017 19:04, 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.

You really don't seem to like having your ideas questioned, do you?


--

Paul Hyett, Cheltenham

On Thursday, 2 February 2017 07:39:53 UTC, vidcapper wrote:
On 01/02/2017 19:04, 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.

You really don't seem to like having your ideas questioned, do you?

It has been such an unusual experience since I killed all those geologist in the other other plaice.

I am sorry that I never learned to be nice. But I just wanted to find out how the weather works and decided to ask god. I bet he isn't pleased with me.. Which begs the question of whom he might be pleased with.

The thing with god is that he can please his ****ing self who he chooses to tell things to and there is **** all anyone can do about it.

Would you like to know what he has in store for tomorrow?

More separation of fronts as the volcano effect continues to push into the Arctic, much to the consternation of the Magic Practising Priests in the CC thread I just slapped.

I don't ****ing care who I am straight with nor what language I have to be straight with the *******s in. If people are dying because of their corruption and not just because of their ineptitude then they are murdering *******s that are best got the **** out of my ****ing way.

**** them.

Sorry about that. What will be happening is the water in the Arctic will sink to some point probably just a few hundred feet below the surface and become a lens distorting more than NASA has oversight of. (Nor cares about.)

This is all probably going to come back up when no one is looking, because it will be colder by then. And that will produce a record ice cap and make the most stupid people in meteorology very happy once they get over how stupid they are. Preferably they will be gone by then. Not that I want this place to myself.

Not that it would make a lot of difference.
The alternative is that we can recolonise Greenland again for a few hundred years.

Why do I suspect that the experts don't think that would be a good thing?
Because they love being wrong and that is why god is giving them everything they want.

Unless you can think of some other reason.
I can't!

On Thursday, 2 February 2017 07:39:53 UTC, vidcapper wrote:
On 01/02/2017 19:04, 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.

You really don't seem to like having your ideas questioned, do you?

Allow me to rephrase that and try to answer you question properly.

It may seem that I really don't to like having my ideas questioned.

I don't like being wrong. That is all. (And I am not a very nice person and don't care enough to change. I know that that is a pity but I have got used to it.)

I question my ideas all the time. When I make a forecast and it fails to materialise I am onto it straight away I consider myself far more intelligent than a lot of people here. Not just stoopid, for example.

I am not bragging, I accept that I am one of life's losers and that for me the glittering prizes are vapourware. it just doesn't matter to me.

I don't like being wrong and I found out how to find out how to be right. That if you ask god about stuff, he will tell you about stuff. All sorts of stuff... like that bloke Carter in the tomb of Tutankhamun. I am impatient to see everything.

Maybe I should ask him how to be patient with liars and murderers?
What do you think?

On Wednesday, 1 February 2017 19:04:37 UTC, Weatherlawyer wrote:

Dawlish no longer fascinates me...

😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂🠘‚😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂🠘‚

Oh! Please. It's too much!

On Sunday, 29 January 2017 17:44:39 UTC, Weatherlawyer wrote:

http://www.bom.gov.au/australia/char...Refresh+ View

04 Sa 04:19 First Quarter

https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SKYCAL/SKYCAL.html
An huge connurbation appears in the North Atlantic on Tuesday. I the timing of these things 4:20 is a very unstable singularity.

Messers Cook, Hall and the others can send what messages they like to one another about what used to be called Global Warming or Climate Change as they prefer to call it but when a singularity makes itself know that is just the climate being the weather, for a change.

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

http://www.weatherfaqs.org.uk/

Singularity (mathematics)
n general, a singularity is a point at which an equation, surface, etc., blows up or becomes degenerate. Singularities are often also called singular points. In weather models some write them off as butterfly effect but what actually happens is that surface air pressure reaches speeds that elastic media can not channel, so it Changes jump state and rephases.

Singularities are extremely important in complex analysis, where they characterize the possible behaviors of analytic functions. Complex singularities are points z_0 in the domain of a function f where f fails; when that happens the chain breaks.

The wings fall off the plane if it goes too fast; the vortex falls off the wings before that -as if god is giving fools more time.

If you are finding this to be gobbledegook ask god to help you understand me. It really is obvious stuff. You have no excuse if you have more sense than a wet sheep.

Get on with it.

On Thursday, 2 February 2017 18:03:37 UTC, Weatherlawyer wrote:


I don't like being wrong and I found out how to find out how to be right. That if you ask god about stuff, he will tell you about stuff. All sorts of stuff... like that bloke Carter in the tomb of Tutankhamun. I am impatient to see everything.

Take for example the warm weather running along the Arctic Ocean at the moment:

http://www.bom.gov.au/australia/char...Refresh+V iew

When it comes into the continent of North America via the Mackenzie river it is in a new jump state. I am obviously in no position to gauge what sort of state it is in, it is just one step closer to the geo-physical change that will become a suitable earthquake.

There is nothing unusual in any of this, it is what the angels have been responsible for for thousands of years.

It is just the process of creation that feeds the fishes and the vineyards. The bees don't seem to like it but that is just the season to swarm and there again it is nothing unusual.

And idiots like me get upset; maybe I should apologise. I really don't feel like doing so. Now all we need to do is keep an eye on the pressure system over Greenland.

I think the Icelandic Low has one more go-around before the next large 'quake. You will see it in the above link.
(Even Dawlish.)

(Or not, as the case may be!)

I am annoyed that the development of a tropical storm is thwarted but I realise why. And that it most likely isn't enemy action.

On Friday, 3 February 2017 03:09:32 UTC, Weatherlawyer wrote:
On Thursday, 2 February 2017 18:03:37 UTC, Weatherlawyer wrote:


I don't like being wrong and I found out how to find out how to be right. That if you ask god about stuff, he will tell you about stuff. All sorts of stuff... like that bloke Carter in the tomb of Tutankhamun. I am impatient to see everything.

Take for example the warm weather running along the Arctic Ocean at the moment:

http://www.bom.gov.au/australia/char...Refresh+V iew

When it comes into the continent of North America via the Mackenzie river it is in a new jump state. I am obviously in no position to gauge what sort of state it is in, it is just one step closer to the geo-physical change that will become a suitable earthquake.

There is nothing unusual in any of this, it is what the angels have been responsible for for thousands of years.

It is just the process of creation that feeds the fishes and the vineyards. The bees don't seem to like it but that is just the season to swarm and there again it is nothing unusual.

And idiots like me get upset; maybe I should apologise. I really don't feel like doing so. Now all we need to do is keep an eye on the pressure system over Greenland.

I think the Icelandic Low has one more go-around before the next large 'quake. You will see it in the above link.
(Even Dawlish.)

t+96 looks interesting a short lived deep Low 937mb.
I believe it is caused by the venturi effect of all that Arctic air coming round again. On Greenland the system is accorded the status of an Anticyclone for the duration.

Since there is no real high in situ, I am not calling a large earthquake for it.

I hope I am right. it could be very nasty otherwise. Look to regions some 80 degrees from the storm eye. But I imagine it will split into a multi-centre and become volcanic, I'm pretty sure that is a derecho.

It could be both!

On Thursday, 2 February 2017 18:42:48 UTC, wrote:
On Wednesday, 1 February 2017 19:04:37 UTC, Weatherlawyer wrote:

Dawlish no longer fascinates me...

😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂🠘‚😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂🠘‚

Oh! Please. It's too much!

And today...

(Even Dawlish.)

😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂🠘‚😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

On Friday, 3 February 2017 04:11:39 UTC, Weatherlawyer wrote:


Since there is no real high in situ, I am not calling a large earthquake for it.

That delta from earlier in the spell has got into the Med., it looks like the successor will too, just in time for the next spell -a volcanically active one (as opposed to the other volcanically active one.)

I don't suppose I could distract anyone with some Vanuatuan gobbledegook could I?
http://earthquaketrack.com/p/vanuatu/recent

Dawlish?