Flaming June.
 

Joe Egginton wrote:

What has predicting the weather from the moon and the sun, got to do
with witchery.

Nothing as far as I know. Why do you ask?

And why use a French word when a good English one like "Magician" will suffice?

What's wrong with French words? The French use them all the time. They
had a good one for that imbecile Bush: "Non." They used it to good
effect on us at one time too.

Perhaps they were jealous that Tory B Liar got a bigger bribe or
perhaps they were more aware of the ability of their army to cope with
a war than our side was.

But if I was: "One whose formidable skill or art seems to be magical" I
doubt there would be many quibbling over my use of a word here or there
as: "One who performs magic for entertainment or diversion."

Perhaps they were jealous that Tory B Liar got a bigger bribe, or
perhaps they were more aware of the ability of their army to cope with
a war than our side was.

As it happens (as you know, if you were following me earlier this year)
I was stymied by some as yet unexplained force that seemed to coincide
with an half learned geophysical property of the planet.

Funny thing I had it happen to me a few times coincidentally during
snowy freezing weather too if you want to follow that up; anyone with
records that is. I can't even remember the dates.

And I wouldn't know how to go about finding the dates for the various
wabbles that there might be. As far as I am concerned: "The proof of
the pudding is in the eating." (What need for scientific papers when a
truth is self evident?)

Flaming June.
 

Weatherlawyer wrote:
Joe Egginton wrote:


What has predicting the weather from the moon and the sun, got to do
with witchery.


Nothing as far as I know. Why do you ask?

You claim in your message posted 3.6.06 @ 23.31 that you were a
thaumaturges, in other words a magician or sorcerer. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thaumaturgy


And why use a French word when a good English one like "Magician" will suffice?


What's wrong with French words? The French use them all the time. They
had a good one for that imbecile Bush: "Non." They used it to good
effect on us at one time too.

Perhaps they were jealous that Tory B Liar got a bigger bribe or
perhaps they were more aware of the ability of their army to cope with
a war than our side was.

But if I was: "One whose formidable skill or art seems to be magical" I
doubt there would be many quibbling over my use of a word here or there
as: "One who performs magic for entertainment or diversion."

That is true, you certainly entertain, but is there truth in what you
advocate, with the moon effecting the weather.


Perhaps they were jealous that Tory B Liar got a bigger bribe, or
perhaps they were more aware of the ability of their army to cope with
a war than our side was.

As it happens (as you know, if you were following me earlier this year)
I was stymied by some as yet unexplained force that seemed to coincide
with an half learned geophysical property of the planet.

Funny thing I had it happen to me a few times coincidentally during
snowy freezing weather too if you want to follow that up; anyone with
records that is. I can't even remember the dates.

And I wouldn't know how to go about finding the dates for the various
wabbles that there might be. As far as I am concerned: "The proof of
the pudding is in the eating." (What need for scientific papers when a
truth is self evident?)

Flaming June.
 

Adrian D. Shaw wrote:
Felly sgrifennodd Paul Herber :

If there were anything in it, statistical models would have surely picked
it up by now. Any decent multivariate analysis method will indicate which
variables were most important in producing the model (e.g. for PCA, the
Principal Components Factors or for ANNs the weighting on the nodes).
Provided the sun and moon positions are in the models, they'd tell you if
they were relevant.

Did I understand rightly what he's doing?

Why don't you ask him yourself you pillock, he posts here often enough.

Since (AFAIK) no such observation has been made, I conclude that either:

a) no-one ever tried putting sun and moon data into statistical models
(which seems unlikely), or
b) it's a load of rubbish.

How can you possibly treat the method statistically without
understanding it? As it happens it doesn't lend itself to statistical
analysis easily.

What you could do is render the times of the phases in divisions of
three and/or of six instead of the hours of the day. But the answer is
much the same. It would make identifying consecutive spells easy
though. So it has some things to commend it.

The drudgery comes in cross referencing the alternative results. If
there is a massive quake perhaps or a super typhoon or whatever:
http://www.metoffice.com/sec2/sec2cy...005/march.html
http://www.ncedc.org/anss/catalog-search.html

Here is an example of an arsehole doing it his way after ignoring my
advice: http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html

What upset me with the little fool is that he had me killfiled until
the thread where he averred that I never explained my ideas. Do then I
explained it all patiently to the little turd and he went and wrote his
own ephemeris. (Quite impressive really.)

It's just he was brainwashed and insists on brainwashing others. I have
no objections to fools speaking foolishly. They won't lead others far
with logic. But to change the rules to suit themselves is a bit thick.

Anyway, the alternative to finding the heat source of the weather and
the seismological stuff is where exactly?

Non existent outside alternative tech as far as earthquakes and
volcanic eruptions are concerned, climatology is a joke and meteorology
is only good for a week at the most I am promoting nothing that can't
be used along side that white art.

What would it cost for any of the weather fans here to run the idea
alongside their records? An extra five minutes at the computer once a
week or so. It takes me about an hour to make a forecast for the year.

I can mess around on the computer with it all day of course but if I
learned some macros I dare say I could do it in less than 30 minutes
maybe 30 seconds (Not counting booting up and loading times of course.)

It's just a bit of fun.

And works more often than not.

Flaming June.
 

Felly sgrifennodd Weatherlawyer :
Why don't you ask him yourself you pillock
[snip]
What upset me with the little fool is that he had me killfiled

And you wonder why?

Adrian
--
Adrian Shaw ais@
Adran Cyfrifiadureg, Prifysgol Cymru, aber.
Aberystwyth, Ceredigion, Cymru ac.
http://users.aber.ac.uk/ais/weather/ uk

Flaming June.
 

Joe Egginton wrote:

Is there truth in what you advocate, with the moon effecting the weather.

I'd be a bloody fool to post something on it every day and not believe
in it. Whether others want to ignore it or not is of no concern to me
as long as they leave me alone.

I don't mind a little ribbing but it is my precious baby and I'm afraid
I can get ****ed off with skeptics who just don't do their homework
before mouthing off at me. I don't mind skepticism at all if it is
honest comment.

George Airey an astronomer and mathematician of note around 100 years
ago took a look at the phases and came up with much the same as a
governor of St Kitts did some 50 years earlier.

But what both failed to do was take into account the time of the day
the phases fell on. And not knowing how important that extra step was,
they couldn't arrive at the conclusion about the effects that lead on
from there when two or more similarly timed phases combine.

As it happens the governor noted from his barometer records that there
was a slight blip on them brought about by the time of day.

He noticed that the overall change though negligible did exist for the
readings taken at morning noon and night. A wave of some sort unknown
then seemed to pass over the island. Nothing further was made of his
findings.

Airey examined the weather records and compared them for the different
phases and found there was no more likelihood that the weather would be
wetter or dryer during any phase. As you would expect when you look at
averages without knowing what you are doing.

Take for example the fact that most men are born between January the
lst and December the 31st.

On average, you could say: men are born on June 15th?

*******
Whilst I seem to have your attention at long last:

Here is something else. There are good archives available online at:
http://www.metoffice.com/sec2/sec2cy...005/march.html
(The search isn't worth a damn but you can get any month by fiddling
with the URL.)

Is there a similar archive for misty weather in the UK?

Why did they move to Devon where they are even more difficult to get to
than they were at Brackers:
* The National Meteorological Archive is based at Great Moor House,
Sowton Industrial Estate, Exeter, Devon.
* The opening hours are 1000 to 1800, weekdays only.

Flaming June.
 

Felly sgrifennodd Weatherlawyer :
But what both failed to do was take into account the time of the day
the phases fell on. And not knowing how important that extra step was,
they couldn't arrive at the conclusion about the effects that lead on
from there when two or more similarly timed phases combine.

If that is the basis for your statement elsewhere that the method is not
easily statistically verifiable, then to a certain extent I agree. However,
with more recent techniques such as genetic algorithms and genetic programming,
it is possible to take two (or more) apparently independent variables and come
to a conclusion. It may well be that such a method has not been used in
weather modelling with the data you are advocating. I am sure, however,
that someone is using GPs or GAs to model the weather, and it should, for them,
be relatively easy to plug in the variables your method requires.

It is of course quite possible that someone already has done this, as the
overhead for using extra variables in these techniques is minimal compared
to other statistical and AI methods (irrelevant variables just get discarded
by the model).

Adrian
--
Adrian Shaw ais@
Adran Cyfrifiadureg, Prifysgol Cymru, aber.
Aberystwyth, Ceredigion, Cymru ac.
http://users.aber.ac.uk/ais/weather/ uk

Flaming June.
 

Adrian D. Shaw wrote:
Felly sgrifennodd Weatherlawyer :
But what both failed to do was take into account the time of the day
the phases fell on. And not knowing how important that extra step was,
they couldn't arrive at the conclusion about the effects that lead on
from there when two or more similarly timed phases combine.

If that is the basis for your statement elsewhere that the method is not
easily statistically verifiable, then to a certain extent I agree. However,
with more recent techniques such as genetic algorithms and genetic programming,
it is possible to take two (or more) apparently independent variables and come
to a conclusion. It may well be that such a method has not been used in
weather modeling with the data you are advocating. I am sure, however,
that someone is using GPs or GAs to model the weather, and it should, for them,
be relatively easy to plug in the variables your method requires.

Well look, you seem to know what you are talking about. Perhaps one day
someone will explain it to me. In the mean, time since you are so good
at maths, can you tell me how long 1.2 years is in real life?

And does it take the last cold spell back to the beginning of March
last year?

It is of course quite possible that someone already has done this, as the
overhead for using extra variables in these techniques is minimal compared
to other statistical and AI methods (irrelevant variables just get discarded
by the model).

I'm not sure I understand what a statistical approach is needed for.

Either it works or it doesn't. You can compile a forecast for an year
in minutes. You can do it in seconds per century with a few simple
office macros.

Choose a method for copying:
http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclips...ases-1999.html to a word
processor.

Invent a method to convert the columns to segregate the hours and round
them up or down to account for the quarter and half hours.
Divide same by three and add the minutes.
Assign each result a spell as per code.

Then you need to introduce a column for large mag earthquakes, super
cyclones and volcanic eruptions. It is onerous work doing that my way.
Where are you going to find a site that has archives of foggy weather,
tornadoes and super cells?

It's hard enough scouring for them when they occur. Of course it helps
knowing they are due:~))

It's just a process of elimination: The NEIC list is updated hourly,
the Yanks do a great tornado warning* and there are a couple of good
sites that monitor extratropicals. Then you plug into the news sites.
Supercells are a bit nebulous as that above cloud lightning is a fairly
recent phenomenon to be studied.

That just leaves misty weather. Apart from accident reports, the
chances of catching them are rare. You can understand why science has
stayed in the Victorian mind-set so long, can't you?

No chance of a site archiving Noctilucent Cloud is there?

*One wonders how long this situation will remain if the Bush
administration goes on sensoring anything to do with climate.

Flaming June.
 

On 4 Jun 2006 10:41:45 +0100, (Adrian D. Shaw) wrote:

Felly sgrifennodd Paul Herber :
On 2 Jun 2006 12:46:17 -0700, "
wrote:
What is this all about, or is it just me?

If you ever find out, write a paper and send it to a learned society.
There could be a Nobel Prize in for you.

If there were anything in it,

Whether there is anything in it, I know not.
Decoding of the weatherlawyer babblings would rank on the same scale
as decoding the human genome.


--
Regards, Paul Herber, Sandrila Ltd. http://www.pherber.com/
Electronics for Visio http://www.electronics.sandrila.co.uk/

Flaming June.
 

Paul Herber wrote:
Whether there is anything in it, I know not.
Decoding of the weatherlawyer babblings would rank on the same scale
as decoding the human genome.

You are Lawrence Jenkins and I claim my five pounds.

Flaming June.
 

Felly sgrifennodd Weatherlawyer :
I'm not sure I understand what a statistical approach is needed for.

Because:

a) a method such as I outlined earlier could be used to show that your
methods work, scientifically, without question, or to show that it
doesn't (as the case may be), and
b) if a) proves it works, then it would form a model which could be used
to make a forecast.

If a) did show it worked, you'd have the makings of a paper which could be
published, with hard evidence, and you could then come back here and
say "I told you so". Few then wouldn't accept your methods, and those that
didn't would be those that didn't believe in science - there can't be
many of those in here. You could also potentially become quite rich, with
such a breakthrough.

But I'm afraid that, until you can do this, you won't have a lot of takers.

Adrian
--
Adrian Shaw ais@
Adran Cyfrifiadureg, Prifysgol Cymru, aber.
Aberystwyth, Ceredigion, Cymru ac.
http://users.aber.ac.uk/ais/weather/ uk