On Thursday, 16 February 2017 14:13:05 UTC, Weatherlawyer wrote:


The timing of the previous spells had a repetitive value. (28th January 00:07 New Moon.)

I can't imagine that the effect of the moon passing through the Ascending Node on the 11th at 19:49, substantively the same time as that of the Last Quarter will be discernible. But that is because I have no idea what an ascending node means.

A last quarter at half past seven means rain for Britain. Quite a lot for most of a spell not broken by anything else in its aegis. 21:14 is a proneness to thundery weather which if previous recent events still hold are largely eruptive.

And a southern declinations generally means cold weather with it. If other planets follow suit they add impact to the events.

18 Last Quarter 19:33
18 Moon Apogee: 404400 km 21:14
21 Moon South Declination: 18.8° S 20:50

Thus along with everything else, the Arctic Icecap thickens. I suppose it will be nice to get it back.
Will it?

26 Moon Descending Node 06:28
26 Annular Solar Eclipse 14:54
26 New Moon 14:58

01/03/17 Venus: 32.5° E
2 Neptune Conjunction 02:22
3 Moon Perigee: 369100 km 07:24
5 First Quarter 11:32

https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SKYCAL/SKYCAL.html

On Thursday, 16 February 2017 14:40:43 UTC,

Please go away.

On Thursday, 16 February 2017 16:07:47 UTC, Weatherlawyer wrote:
On Thursday, 16 February 2017 14:40:43 UTC,

Please go away.

Nah. Much more fun monitoring your forecasts and exposing your obsession with little old me. 😂😂😂

PS 1/20. Oh dear.

On Thursday, 16 February 2017 19:32:27 UTC, wrote:
On Thursday, 16 February 2017 16:07:47 UTC, Weatherlawyer wrote:
On Thursday, 16 February 2017 14:40:43 UTC,

Please go away.

Nah. Much more fun monitoring your forecasts and exposing your obsession with little old me. 😂😂😂

PS 1/20. Oh dear.

Very well but since this stuff is going to involve Froude numbers, can you please clarify for my judges and panel of your peers the difference between area and weight.

And that you are up to date with the chronology of suitable earthquakes for the implications involved.

On Thursday, 16 February 2017 20:22:25 UTC, Weatherlawyer wrote:
On Thursday, 16 February 2017 19:32:27 UTC, wrote:
On Thursday, 16 February 2017 16:07:47 UTC, Weatherlawyer wrote:
On Thursday, 16 February 2017 14:40:43 UTC,

Please go away.

Nah. Much more fun monitoring your forecasts and exposing your obsession with little old me. 😂😂😂

PS 1/20. Oh dear.

Very well but since this stuff is going to involve Froude numbers, can you please clarify for my judges and panel of your peers the difference between area and weight.

And that you are up to date with the chronology of suitable earthquakes for the implications involved.

1/20, w. 😂😂😂 It doesn't work. Give it up.

On Thursday, 16 February 2017 21:00:35 UTC, wrote:
On Thursday, 16 February 2017 20:22:25 UTC, Weatherlawyer wrote:
On Thursday, 16 February 2017 19:32:27 UTC, wrote:
On Thursday, 16 February 2017 16:07:47 UTC, Weatherlawyer wrote:
On Thursday, 16 February 2017 14:40:43 UTC,

Please go away.

Nah. Much more fun monitoring your forecasts and exposing your obsession with little old me. 😂😂😂

PS 1/20. Oh dear.

Very well but since this stuff is going to involve Froude numbers, can you please clarify for my judges and panel of your peers the difference between area and weight.

And that you are up to date with the chronology of suitable earthquakes for the implications involved.

1/20, w. 😂😂😂 It doesn't work. Give it up..

Very sporting of you. Does your customer know of your inability with mathematics? I only ask because I have been led to believe that you work for people who teach exactly the sort of thing I was asking about.

As far as I can make out the winds are at most 19 1/2 knot westerlies over Greenland. The centre line for Greenland runs up the 22.5 longitude. At near gale, the term moderate can only be a matter of opinion, in my case that is the only one that counts.

The pressure is said to be 1027 Mb and in the Davies Straight 1029. You can see from this morning's chart there has been a recent eruption affecting the Western Approaches this has a masking effect with the Greenland High so it is possible that there is not severe earthquake in coming. However I am pretty sure there is one en route from the Bering Sea, that should fill the bill.

Maybe I should check on the other weather charts.

On Thursday, 16 February 2017 23:57:18 UTC, Weatherlawyer wrote:
As far as I can make out the winds are at most 19 1/2 knot westerlies over Greenland. The centre line for Greenland runs up the 22.5 longitude. At near gale, the term moderate can only be a matter of opinion, in my case that is the only one that counts.

The pressure is said to be 1027 Mb and in the Davies Straight 1029. You can see from this morning's chart there has been a recent eruption affecting the Western Approaches this has a masking effect with the Greenland High so it is possible that there is not severe earthquake in coming. However I am pretty sure there is one en route from the Bering Sea, that should fill the bill.

Maybe I should check on the other weather charts.

The difference between actual and desired output, called the error signal, is applied as feedback to the input of the system, to bring the actual output closer to the reference.

Some topics studied in control theory are stability (whether the output will converge to the reference value or oscillate about it), controllability and observability.

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

The concept I had when I first came here still stands:
1. When the charts are wrong the forecaster is uncertain and it shows.

Not something i catch much these days as i don't watch tv or even listen to radio. I pick up stuff on here now and again but i am usually ahead of the game by then these days.

2. Lunar theory is quite good but the method only catches the same sort of out put conventional wisdom was already doing.

Since then despite not wanting to believe it it has become obvious that other interference patterns come in from the planets. Something I think makes it a lot more complex than is worth learning.

But it just happens that I have learned to signals given off by the various charts I use so I don't need to rely on singularities these days.

I forget about the rest as it is old hat now. Whatever old hat means. I don't think I ever threw an old hat away.

On Saturday, 18 February 2017 03:51:55 UTC, Weatherlawyer wrote:
...can only be a matter of opinion, in my case that is the only one that counts.
..from this morning's chart there has been a recent eruption

Maybe I should check on the other weather charts.

The difference between actual and desired output, called the error signal, is applied as feedback to the input of the system, to bring the actual output closer to the reference.

Some topics studied in control theory are stability

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

1. When the charts are wrong the forecaster is uncertain and it shows.

Not something i catch much these days as i don't watch tv or even listen to radio. I pick up stuff on here now and again but i am usually ahead of the game by then these days.

Since then despite not wanting to believe it it has become obvious that other interference patterns come in from the planets. Something I think makes it a lot more complex than is worth learning.

Since learning what to look for in the various charts that are the product of volcanic activity I have begun to see how complex the other stuff is and it has begun to grow tiresome. I find it more and more of a drag having to load the weather charts twice a day. I am just not the sort of meteorologist to tend to something for long enough to run a station.

My problem is that once you miss a forecast there is no way to get it back and I get the biggest kick backs from the runs. Analysis charts just don't have any immediacy. And they are very difficult to get hold of anyway. A problem compounded by the fact I so seldom use them and when I do nobody ever reads my stuff.

It doesn't help that they will one day.

But it just happens that I have learned the signals given off by the various charts I use, so I don't need to rely on singularities these days.

The output of the volcanoes has a marked effect on the local weather here. I don't know how long a volcanic episode lasts for but it could be a 10 to 12 year cycle. Or it might just be the peaks we notice. So that we thing episodic events are transitory hiccoughs no man can master.

Since the largest eruptions are marked by solar flare output it is easy to enough follow such episodic events, even though the art of monitoring volcanoes is still in the dark ages.

On Saturday, 18 February 2017 04:21:12 UTC, Weatherlawyer wrote:


My problem is that once you miss a forecast there is no way to get it back and I get the biggest kick backs from the runs. Analysis charts just don't have any immediacy. And even they are very difficult to get hold of anyway. A problem compounded by the fact I so seldom use them and when I do nobody ever reads my stuff.

It doesn't help that they will one day.

So I am plodding along feeling cold tired and dejected and then Sunday's chart pops up and suddenly I am glad i got up. I don't get the kicks I used to out of learning something new. That used to be mind blowing but at least I can sleep now.

I know I have to sleep on it I have 24 hours to come to some decision. At the moment it looks like the large quake I am expecting has sunk beneath the waves. If it does it will be a mass of minor quakes nobody will want to know about.
Is it just another NEI-4 or so? Possibly. Most likely that as well as a nearly quake.

Fortunately large medium quakes don't seem to have the disastrous effects they used to. I presume all the dangerous old buildings have already fallen and nobody builds stupid any more, except the Chinese.
And Britain.