|
Flaming June.
Make the most of it.
MAY 27 5 26 Couldn't settle down that one, could it. JUNE 3 23 06 This one aught to be really nice. JUNE 11 18 03 And this one will see the first of the hurricanes or at least a severe tropical storm. JUNE 18 14 08 And this one will be another fine one. JUNE 25 16 05 Whilst this would ordinarily be wet. But there will be a large mag quake or something, somewhere or other, to leave us humble. July looks like it's going to be a wet one. If you know anyone with a harvest due then, you had best warn them: JUNE 25 16 05 JULY 3 16 37 Compare how the time of these two wet spells behave with the spells for the end of May and beginning of June. JULY 11 3 02 Thundery weather. Might be an amazing set of storms, eh? JULY 17 19 13 Wet and windy JULY 25 4 31 An awkward one to finish on. http://aa.usno.navy.mil/data/docs/MoonPhase.html#y2005 |
Flaming June.
Weatherlawyer wrote: Make the most of it. MAY 27 5 26 Couldn't settle down that one, could it. JUNE 3 23 06 This one aught to be really nice. JUNE 11 18 03 And this one will see the first of the hurricanes or at least a severe tropical storm. JUNE 18 14 08 And this one will be another fine one. JUNE 25 16 05 Whilst this would ordinarily be wet. But there will be a large mag quake or something, somewhere or other, to leave us humble. July looks like it's going to be a wet one. If you know anyone with a harvest due then, you had best warn them: JUNE 25 16 05 JULY 3 16 37 Compare how the time of these two wet spells behave with the spells for the end of May and beginning of June. JULY 11 3 02 Thundery weather. Might be an amazing set of storms, eh? JULY 17 19 13 Wet and windy JULY 25 4 31 An awkward one to finish on. http://aa.usno.navy.mil/data/docs/MoonPhase.html#y2005 What is this all about, or is it just me? Steve Richards Swansea |
Flaming June.
Weatherlawyer wrote: wrote: Weatherlawyer wrote: Make the most of it. MAY 27 5 26 Couldn't settle down that one, could it. JUNE 3 23 06 This one aught to be really nice. JUNE 11 18 03 And this one will see the first of the hurricanes or at least a severe tropical storm. JUNE 18 14 08 And this one will be another fine one. JUNE 25 16 05 Whilst this would ordinarily be wet. But there will be a large mag quake or something, somewhere or other, to leave us humble. July looks like it's going to be a wet one. If you know anyone with a harvest due then, you had best warn them: JUNE 25 16 05 JULY 3 16 37 Compare how the time of these two wet spells behave with the spells for the end of May and beginning of June. JULY 11 3 02 Thundery weather. Might be an amazing set of storms, eh? JULY 17 19 13 Wet and windy JULY 25 4 31 An awkward one to finish on. http://aa.usno.navy.mil/data/docs/MoonPhase.html#y2005 What is this all about, or is it just me? There is an error in the prediction for the 18th. See if you can guess what it should be. I gave you a source code the last time you asked. E-mail me if you are still struggling later. Or is it? I have got an attack of brainded. I have been trying to get my computer working all day after stupidly opening a dodgy email yesterday. I knew it wasn't from MSN but opened it anyway despite the obvious fraud. That's my excuse. I'm going for a walk. Buggrit! |
Flaming June.
wrote: What is this all about, or is it just me? Sorry about the delay. My computer is still not stable. But that's according to Microsoft so I can't be sure that's a bad thing. 27th MAY 05:26. Couldn't settle down that one, could it? 3rd JUNE 23:06. This one aught to be really nice. 11th JUNE 18:03. And this one will see the first of the hurricanes or at least a severe tropical storm. 18th JUNE 14:08. And this one will be another fine one. 25th JUNE 16:05. Whilst this would ordinarily be wet. But there will be a large mag quake or something, somewhere or other, to leave us humble. July looks like it's going to be a wet one. If you know anyone with a harvest due then, you had best warn them: 25th JUNE 16:05 & 3rd JULY 16:37. Compare how the time of these two wet spells behave with the spells for the end of May and beginning of June. 11th JULY 03:02. Thundery weather. Might be an amazing set of storms, eh? 17th JULY 19:13. Wet and windy 25th JULY 04:31. An awkward one to finish on. http://aa.usno.navy.mil/data/docs/MoonPhase.html#y2005 As a rule of thumb for the UK -or at least, the parts of it with which I am familiar, YMMV, this is what the times of the phases of the moon indicate about the weather: If the time of the phase is on or near 5 O'clock am or pm; the weather will be dominated by an anticyclone. If the time of the phase is on or near 7 O'clock am or pm; the weather will be dominated by a cyclone. If the time of the phase is on or near 6 O'clock am or pm; the weather will not be dominated by either a cyclone or an anticyclone. This weather spell will be a col or have ridges and troughs. Lunar phases that fall on the 3rd or 9th hour invariably provide a thunderstorm or two. The weather is certainly going to be sultry, winter or summer. As the number of minutes approach the quarter hour so the tendency increases for winds at ground level. I have no idea what happens aloft for any spell. At about both 20 or 40 minutes past the hour the spell becomes extremely unstable. At half past the hour the spell is half way between spells but other factors might give the system a bias. Other factors are hurricanes and large magnitude earthquakes. I believe the wabble of the earth's spin affects the energy of the planet's weather and seismicity. And any large power drain seems to have an affect on the British weather. And that operates along these lines: If the weather forecaster is a little diffident about his forecast and the trend he gives runs against the above code, the tendency is for an earthquake. (Perhaps this is because the met offices around the world are missing the power input to their models that a large mag quake would give? Search the records and see- Were the forecasts given a day or so in advance of a large earthquake accurate?) If the weather forecaster is way out and the code is way out, then a very large quake is to be expected. If the forecaster is pretty accurate overall and the code is way out then the likely source of the discrepancy is an extra tropical storm. (The world weather stations will have added that much power to their models.) From the foregoing it is easy to see how it might be possible to adjust weather models to account for the power drained from a model by the seismicity of the spell. As a rule of thumb, the Earthquake Magnitude scale and the Beaufort scale are similar if out by 2 numbers. Or not as the case may be. From the above codes (5, 6 & 7) you can interpolate the way the other hours behave. (And what I do when forecasting, is) draw 3 eight-pointed stars and assign the 8 "fine" hours to one of them, the 8 wet to the next and the 8 awkward buggers the third: Midnight, 3; 6; 9; 12; 15; 18; 21 and back to midnight again. 01:00; 04:00; 07:00 etc., and 02:00; 05:00; 08:00 etc.. |
Flaming June.
Have you posted this before or have I missed it? Apologies if you have. How does this work and what evidence is there that the moon has this effect? New to me. I can't recall it ever being mentioned in a broadcast forecast. (Mind you weather hardly gets a mention either, just motherly advice about umberellas, and wooly hats etc.) Regards, Steve Richards Swansea |
Flaming June.
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. -- Regards, Paul Herber, Sandrila Ltd. http://www.pherber.com/ Electronics for Visio http://www.electronics.sandrila.co.uk/ |
Flaming June.
wrote: Have you posted this before or have I missed it? Apologies if you have. How does this work and what evidence is there that the moon has this effect? New to me. I can't recall it ever being mentioned in a broadcast forecast. (Mind you weather hardly gets a mention either, just motherly advice about umberellas, and wooly hats etc.) I have posted this stuff in times past. Yes. How it works I don't really wish to even offer a guess, as I am the only one of the half dozen or so thaumaturges that I know of, who is looking at the right answer. I should hate to set a theory in motion as they are the bane of scientific understanding. It has to be something to do with the time lag and inertia of the Three Body Problem. http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/phys...dyProblem.html I would rather have an honest skeptic examine my ideas than a dozen ingenuous disciples any day. For evidence you only have to do the same as I am doing with respect to the weather in your area and you will soon get a feel for it. |
Flaming June.
Oh, right.
It's an assertion Ok. Cheers, Steve Richards Swansea |
Flaming June.
Weatherlawyer wrote:
wrote: Have you posted this before or have I missed it? Apologies if you have. How does this work and what evidence is there that the moon has this effect? New to me. I can't recall it ever being mentioned in a broadcast forecast. (Mind you weather hardly gets a mention either, just motherly advice about umberellas, and wooly hats etc.) I have posted this stuff in times past. Yes. How it works I don't really wish to even offer a guess, as I am the only one of the half dozen or so thaumaturges that I know of, who is looking at the right answer. I should hate to set a theory in motion as they are the bane of scientific understanding. What has predicting the weather from the moon and the sun, got to do with witchery. And why use a French word when a good English one like "Magician" will suffice? It has to be something to do with the time lag and inertia of the Three Body Problem. http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/phys...dyProblem.html I would rather have an honest skeptic examine my ideas than a dozen ingenuous disciples any day. For evidence you only have to do the same as I am doing with respect to the weather in your area and you will soon get a feel for it. |
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 |
Flaming June.
Adrian D. Shaw wrote: 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. Show me how to set this thing up then and I will be rich and let you borrow the occasional fiver. I can't for the life of me see how telling people the same thing I have already told them one way will make me rich if I tell them another. What would make me rich is if someone takes notice and it saves their life. And the richest man of all time if it stops fools suggesting that it is god's fault they built houses in silly places and paid no attention to the things around them. For that's the real reason I got involved in all this in the first place. The main one at least. |
Flaming June.
Felly sgrifennodd Weatherlawyer :
Show me how to set this thing up then and I will be rich and let you borrow the occasional fiver. I can't for the life of me see how telling people the same thing I have already told them one way will make me rich if I tell them another. It would make a difference if you got your method peer-reviewed and published in an appropriate journal. The reason people don't accept your methods now is because you haven't done that, and they can't see that it works from the evidence you have given. But it's not quite so straightforward to set up, unfortunately. It would take some weeks of time for a competent programmer. And unfortunately I do not have that time to spare. If you could get someone with a weather prediction system already in operation, using the methods I described, to take you seriously, it would take far less time, but that is not likely to happen, I think. And the richest man of all time if it stops fools suggesting that it is god's fault they built houses in silly places and paid no attention to the things around them. I'm not sure anything would stop people doing that! 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 : It would make a difference if you got your method peer-reviewed and published in an appropriate journal. The reason people don't accept your methods now is because you haven't done that, and they can't see that it works from the evidence you have given. Maybe. But you are wong about the financial remunerations to be gained in this line of work. Lanchester made it by inventing and selling stuff like his cars for instance. How much did Col Robert Miller make for inventing the weathermodel to forecast tornadoes? That was clever stuff. |
Flaming June.
Felly sgrifennodd Weatherlawyer :
Maybe. But you are wong about the financial remunerations to be gained in this line of work. Lanchester made it by inventing and selling stuff like his cars for instance. How much did Col Robert Miller make for inventing the weathermodel to forecast tornadoes? Just submit it as a patent instead of to a journal; that should do it! Adrian -- Adrian Shaw ais@ Adran Cyfrifiadureg, Prifysgol Cymru, aber. Aberystwyth, Ceredigion, Cymru ac. http://users.aber.ac.uk/ais/weather/ uk |
Flaming June.
"Weatherlawyer" wrote in message oups.com... 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. Keep me out of this. |
Phased in.
wrote: Oh, right.It's an assertion Aren't they all? What do you think of this: MAY 27th 05:26: Check out the weather for the 14th of March and compare it to this one. Lots of ridges of course. But going where I can not say. MAR 14th 23:35. A bloody awkward one again. I have a feeling there is going to be a lot of nasty seismic activity this year.* This spell looks like it might be full of ridges of high pressure, running as it does so close on to the one before. http://groups.google.co.uk/group/alt...f992965c35f5f0 *That's true but there haven't been an especially large number of high mag quakes this year. There never are though are there? Maybe that was because there was a real flat spot at the start of the year. |
Flaming June, threw a looking glass, darkly.
Weatherlawyer wrote: Make the most of it. MAY 27 5 26 Couldn't settle down that one, could it. JUNE 3 23 06 This one aught to be really nice. JUNE 11 18 03 And this one will see the first of the hurricanes or at least a severe tropical storm. JUNE 18 14 08 And this one will be another fine one. This last one if I am not being a little previous with it, seems to pull them all together. If you look at the first one I gave (the phases for 27th May) the timing was half an hour off for the really good stuff (for lovers of good stuff that is) so that the weather was a little on the damp side, with an High just off to the west. If as it seems to me now at last, the time of the phase for the wettest weather (that is the centre of a Low to be over the UK) is at half past: one, three or six o'clock and the centre of an High is over the UK at five or eleven -on the hour: The centre of an High is not going to be over the UK at four or eight o'clock but will be (more likely) to throw a wet spell out into the Atlantic by half an hour. The pressure system involved is one that is related to a Low that would have developed over the UK, had the time of the phase been half an our earlier. In this case, not a humid one. Lows in the Atlantic can bring fine weather and it is remarkable how much this depends on the declination of the moon with this type of spell. If the Low is far to the north, anywhere near the fishing banks: SE Iceland to Hebrides especially (YMWV oc) it will provide sunny-ish weather -for the most part, for my region. If the Low comes down to Shannon (or Malin even (though that would be over the UK as Malin is the mouth of the Irish Sea from the Hebrides to Western Irelad in) ...it will bring more rain. Should it come lower the lows will tend to cross the UK in heavy burss but tend to last only a short while. It used to be thought that Low Pressure Areas in temperate zones were short lived compared to anticyclones. Such is not the case. |
Flaming June, threw a looking glass, wabbly.
Weatherlawyer wrote: JUNE 18 14 08 And this one will be another fine one. This last one if I am not being a little previous with it, seems to pull them all together. If you look at the first one I gave (the phases for 27th May) the timing was half an hour off for the really good stuff (for lovers of good stuff that is) so that the weather was a little on the damp side, with an High just off to the west. If as it seems to me now at last, the time of the phase for the wettest weather (that is the centre of a Low to be over the UK) is at half past: one, three or six o'clock and the centre of an High is over the UK at five or eleven -on the hour: The centre of an High is not going to be over the UK at four or eight o'clock but will be (more likely) to throw a wet spell out into the Atlantic by half an hour. The pressure system involved is one that is related to a Low that would have developed over the UK, had the time of the phase been half an our earlier. In this case, not a humid one. What a sad spell. Disaterous in Java and pretty dire in Texas. Not too bad here. No wonder I was so easily mistaken. 25th Jun 16:05 This aught to be a wet one but I wouldn't be surprised if the spell was rather similar to the last. I won't be stunned if something interesting turns up. Quite a revealing sequence all in all. 3rd Jul 16:37 And curiouser and curiouser. 11th Jul 03:02 But this HAS got to be a thundery one. Thunderstorms will tend to recur some 6 hours after the first one. And it will be humid all week. 17th Jul 19:13 And a classic wet spell. A good year for drupes and berries a bad year for the cereal crop farmers. One for the birds then. And talking about recurrences: 25th Jul 04:31. The question is, is this one like the spells for the 25th and the 3rd? Is it like the one for 27th of May -only placing the High somewhere to the east of the UK instead of the west. I love this stuff. |
Is it or isn't it?
Weatherlawyer wrote: JUNE 18 14 08 And this one will be another fine one. This last one if I am not being a little previous with it, seems to pull them all together. It's confounding me. Was it not a wet spell? The pressure system involved [was] related to a Low that would have developed over the UK, had the time of the phase been half an our earlier. In this case, not a humid one. What a sad spell. Disasterous in Java and pretty dire in Texas. Not too bad here. No wonder I was so easily mistaken. 25th Jun 16:05 This aught to be a wet one but I wouldn't be surprised if the spell was rather similar to the last. I won't be stunned if something interesting turns up. Quite a revealing sequence, all in all. Well it is certainly interesting but I'm damned if I can fathom it. I love this stuff. But it's still too much like guesswork to be accepted. 2 hours good 4 hours baaad. (Unless you like hot sticky sunny weather where it's difficult to sleep and just waiting for a bus in the late morning is hard work.) |
Is it or isn't it?
JUNE 25 16 05 JULY 3 16 37
Rain for the start of Wimbledon and cool overcast and one or two drops (literally) here. That was the 26th. 2nd of July after a run of increasingly more humid, sunny weather; a thunderstorm that killed a woman locally. (I wonder if I recognised that strike it was an odd one that started with a swish before but connected to the crack then a long loud peal after a short pause.) The thunder went on for about 2 hours. Some of the thunder seemed to blend into the sound of airliners to go on forever. (It is about the same frequency, after all!) So what happens next? The met office are warning of dangerous heat waves in the south. It isn't quite the same bad weather as is being experienced on continental land masses. The thing is we are not prepared for hot weather on this island. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 03:24 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 WeatherBanter.co.uk