There a significant chance of a severe (very severe) tornado spell tonight. A deep Low moves between a Greenland High and the Blocking High in the North Atlantic. This appears on both the OPC chart:

http://www.opc.ncep.noaa.gov/Loops/?...select6=Script

and the Met Office North Atlantic one between Noon 29th and Midnight 30th November 2013:

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/..._pressure.html

On Friday, 29 November 2013 20:10:46 UTC, Weatherlawyer wrote:

There is a significant chance of a severe (very severe) tornado spell tonight.
A deep Low moves between a Greenland High and the Blockng High in the North Atlantic.
This appears on both the OPC chart:
http://www.opc.ncep.noaa.gov/Loops/?...select6=Script

and the Met Office North Atlantic one between Noon 29th and Midnight 30th November 2013:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/..._pressure.html

Wrong!

These charts give a signal in advance of the event. So we should be looking at the tornado cell tomorrow. (Always assuming the NCAR or NOAA or whoever have got their act together with the times of their Storm Reports page.)

On Friday, 29 November 2013 20:10:46 UTC, Weatherlawyer wrote:

There a significant chance of a very severe tornado spell tonight.
A deep Low moves between a Greenland High and the Blocking High in
the North Atlantic.

Look at noon 43 December 2013 at the time of writing t+36 on: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/..._pressure.html

Significant volcanic activity arrived with the NE EFS signal (and the storms, though the storms are a little lack-lustre (all one TD of them.))

"The Shiveluch volcano in Kamchatka has spewed ash nine kilometers high in the sky, the Kamchatkan territorial emergency situations department said. No ash fall has been reported from towns nearby. According to disaster management official, Shiveluch volcano in Russia is currently not a threat to local residents. The Kamchatkan volcano Shiveluch has been periodically spewing ash from three to ten kilometers from May 2009."

http://www.disaster-report.com/

On Wednesday, 4 December 2013 13:23:33 UTC, Malcolm wrote:
In article ,
Weatherlawyer writes

Significant volcanic activity arrived with the NE EFS signal (and the
storms, though the storms are a little lack-lustre (all one TD of them.))

"The Shiveluch volcano in Kamchatka has spewed ash nine kilometers high
in the sky, the Kamchatkan territorial emergency situations department
said. No ash fall has been reported from towns nearby. According to
disaster management official, Shiveluch volcano in Russia is currently
not a threat to local residents. The Kamchatkan volcano Shiveluch has
been periodically spewing ash from three to ten kilometers from May 2009.."

http://www.disaster-report.com/

You appear to be linking recent activity by this volcano with weather
events here. Can you please say what the correlation is between the
"periodically spewing" by this volcano since May 2009 and weather events
here in the last 4 and a half years?

Yes, easily enough if you give me the data.
No, (for had you the appropriate data you wouldn't need any more than an ITYS from me.)

It should be fairly obvious, even to you, that volcanic activity of one sort or another is related to wettish weather -not necessarily here but certainly within the purview of this Newsgroup.

It is almost certain that in the season for them, tropical storms of a certain proportion are accompanied one way or another by news-worth VEI and, in appropriate geography, VAA.

And no again.
I am not linking volcanic events with weather here.
I am linking weather forecasts elsewhere with volcanic events in places yet to be determined correctly in appropriate advance. All I have at the moment is appropriate advance. (Probably because I am too lazy to do the job I am not being paid to do, properly.)

If you wish to know more please feel just as free as you did when you had the temerity to post last. I won't bite you harder than you deserve. You may have missed the upshot of my various/previous posts on the subject.

Allow me to reiterate that the thing to look for besides the said forecasts on the Canadian EFS, is the presence of two or three tropical storms (or various appropriate storms elsewhere, out of season) along with the three Lows in a row.

It helps if the storms present themselves as three in a row. (In the present cast the tropical storms didn't arrive. I am still working on plan B. Anyone got satellite graphics of the storms at present aiding and abetting the forecast signal?)

On Thursday, 5 December 2013 17:21:58 UTC, Malcolm wrote:
In article ,

Weatherlawyer writes

On Wednesday, 4 December 2013 13:23:33 UTC, Malcolm wrote:

In article ,

Weatherlawyer writes



Significant volcanic activity arrived with the NE EFS signal (and the

storms, though the storms are a little lack-lustre (all one TD of them.))



"The Shiveluch volcano in Kamchatka has spewed ash nine kilometers high

in the sky, the Kamchatkan territorial emergency situations department

said. No ash fall has been reported from towns nearby. According to

disaster management official, Shiveluch volcano in Russia is currently

not a threat to local residents. The Kamchatkan volcano Shiveluch has

been periodically spewing ash from three to ten kilometers from May 2009."



http://www.disaster-report.com/



You appear to be linking recent activity by this volcano with weather

events here. Can you please say what the correlation is between the

"periodically spewing" by this volcano since May 2009 and weather events

here in the last 4 and a half years?



Yes, easily enough if you give me the data.

No, (for had you the appropriate data you wouldn't need any more than

an ITYS from me.)



You're the forecaster who apparently uses volcanic activity in his

forecast, not me. Therefore you should have the data and have been

making the correlations. I note that you haven't and yet are proposing

that the recent spurt by this particular volcano is important. So what

about all the ones since 2009? Either they were important or they

weren't?



It should be fairly obvious, even to you, that volcanic activity of one

sort or another is related to wettish weather



No. Eyjafjallaj�kull erupted in spring 2010, and this was one of the

driest years in western Scotland in the last decade.



-not necessarily here but certainly within the purview of this

Newsgroup.



Oh, so do you mean that some "wettish weather" anywhere can be linked to

Eyjafjallaj�kull?



It is almost certain that in the season for them, tropical storms of a

certain proportion are accompanied one way or another by news-worth VEI

and, in appropriate geography, VAA.



Yes, you've said this and I've asked for a correlation with the last

four years of activity of a volcano you've just linked to a very recent

storm.



And no again.



Yes or no seem to be causing you problems!



I am not linking volcanic events with weather here.

I am linking weather forecasts elsewhere



So where were you referring to when you wrote: "There a significant

chance of a severe (very severe) tornado spell tonight." which you

linked to the Shiveluch volcano?



with volcanic events in places yet to be determined correctly in

appropriate advance. All I have at the moment is appropriate advance.

(Probably because I am too lazy to do the job I am not being paid to

do, properly.)



If you wish to know more please feel just as free as you did when you

had the temerity to post last.

I won't bite you harder than you deserve.



I don't patronise easily, so I suggest you don't try.



You may have missed the upshot of my various/previous posts on the

subject.



No, I have read many of your posts and have yet to see you properly

explain the linkage you make between volcanos and storms, and also with

"wettish weather".



Allow me to reiterate that the thing to look for besides the said

forecasts on the Canadian EFS, is the presence of two or three tropical

storms (or various appropriate storms elsewhere, out of season) along

with the three Lows in a row.



And what has this to do with volcanic activity?



It helps if the storms present themselves as three in a row. (In the

present cast the tropical storms didn't arrive. I am still working on

plan B. Anyone got satellite graphics of the storms at present aiding

and abetting the forecast signal?)



And what has this to do with volcanic activity?



--

Dawlish

The British Meteorological Office's North Atlantic chart gives warning of imminent activity in the Norwegian Sea. The signal is a cyclonic mass with several black arc "fronts" intermingled with in the isobars:

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/..._pressure.html
T+) at midnight on 5 December 2013.

Comparative analysis may be made from the charts on:

http://www.woksat.info/wwp7.html

On Thursday, 5 December 2013 21:25:57 UTC, Dawkish wrote:

Thank you.
Now, what has all that got to do with volcanic activity in Kamchatka?

Dawlish

If I tell you can someone kill you?

NA efs, 6 December 2013.
The run of lows signalling the heightened volcanic activity world-wide ends on the 9th.

No doubt this will be replaced by an influx of magnitude 6 earthquakes. (There having been a dearth of large medium quakes for several days.)

I used to say that after a storm we always had an earthquake or two, this was before I had access to Unisys and even the Met Office charts were new to me.

Imagine what I could have accomplished had I been taught properly.

Yes that's right: Feck-all!
But I am number blind, so I could never have been capable of following the stuff fed to fools.

Not that I was capable of working it out myself. I am not that clever.

On Saturday, 7 December 2013 07:14:36 UTC, Malcolm wrote:
In article ,

Weatherlawyer writes

NA efs, 6 December 2013.

The run of lows signalling the heightened volcanic activity world-wide

ends on the 9th.



No doubt this will be replaced by an influx of magnitude 6 earthquakes.

(There having been a dearth of large medium quakes for several days.)



I used to say that after a storm we always had an earthquake or two,

this was before I had access to Unisys and even the Met Office charts

were new to me.



Imagine what I could have accomplished had I been taught properly.



Yes that's right: Feck-all!

But I am number blind, so I could never have been capable of following

the stuff fed to fools.



Not that I was capable of working it out myself. I am not that clever.



And you haven't yet explained to me the link between North Atlantic lows

and volcanic activity in Kamchatka.



And now you are forecasting "an influx of magnitude 6 earthquakes". Are
you going to be monitoring for these and report back?

Why the hell should I?

Anyone enjoying my stuff will be following the full thrust of them on sci.geo.earthquakes.

I am only posting here to offer advice to the staid and static quod. There is something very dawlish in your mannerisms and your lack of manners. How would I know you are not another one of his fake addresses.

Most of my previous posts have amply explained much of what I had posted to date in this thread. If you genuinely want to find out more, damn well look.

TWIMC:
When a pair of lows appears on that Canadian site it is generally a signal for Mag 6 earthquakes. Three in a row is a larger quake if on a single chart. Such a chart will of course be followed by a chart showing a marked change in the weather.

A run of such triples generally means volcanic activity is strong with VAAC and only takes place with concomitant storms of a quality typical of that we have just seen.

Search and see if that is not true.

On Sunday, 8 December 2013 08:25:08 UTC, Malcolm wrote:
In article ,

And now you are forecasting "an influx of magnitude 6 earthquakes".
Are you going to be monitoring for these and report back?

You are a very strange man. You have made connections between the
weather and volcanoes and earthquakes, and I, not really understanding
how you link them, have asked you a couple of questions.

Your last comment was that you were expecting "an influx of magnitude 6
earthquakes". I regarded that as a forecast and thought it reasonable
to assume that you would follow up your forecast by monitoring what
actually happened.

It is only a forecast if it fails to come true occasionally. I have never known it to fail.
That is not to say it can't fail so much as I have never seen it do so.

Three cyclonic systems on the border of Canada and the USA means large earthquakes and or volcanic activity and two cyclones mean large medium sized quakes.
The only time the three in a row failed (not counting the one time before I realised the signal for volcanics) there was a really bad tornado event in the USA. The signal for tornadoes did not show up on the Met Office North Atlantic chart but did do so on the US OPC chart. I never looked closely enough at that to spot it.

Your response "Why the hell should I?" suggests either a lack of confidence
or an unwarranted intemperance.

Not unwarranted I assure you. The sci.geo.earthquakes group was alive once with dick heads like nobodies business. But nice guys finish last. Now tat I am the last one left I am starting to change. But it is difficult.

And I really am not cut out to be nice.
It's just not me.
Sorry.

Anyone enjoying my stuff will be following the full thrust of them on
sci.geo.earthquakes.

Thank you

Having just glanced at the last 100 posts to that ng, I see that you are
a prolific poster there, and that you and one other poster accounted for
over 90% of them, while you have also stated that you regard it as your
blog! I also note that you appear to monitor earthquakes, which makes
your initial response, above, even stranger.

And to be patronising, it seems.

For a lifetime the Meteorologicast industry has been following the teachings of Richardson. It is locked into failure due to the butterfly effect of partial solutions.

I have dropped on the reason that computers err in their calculations. It is a technique which if enlarged to encompass the solar system will restore Newton's place in physics usurped by that fool Einstein.

It is a technique which if applied to other systems will answer much in the other end of the spectrum too -though I have not looked at that in any detail.

So no, I don't lack confidence. Just charm.

There is something very dawlish in your mannerisms and your lack of
manners.
How would I know you are not another one of his fake addresses?

It really isn't difficult to check that my e-mail address has not been
faked.

But if you fail the Turin test, why bother?

More intemperance. Perhaps a few deep breaths or counting to 10 before
responding would help. So also would politeness and some respect for an
enquiring scientist wanting to understand the science behind your claims
and forecasts.

I was pretty convinced by your earlier post that you were the person who mindlessly ploughs on trying to right the wrongs of someone who believes he is right. After that I didn't pay much attention to you. Arguing with a fool makes me look even more foolish than arguing that earthquakes can be forecast.

What is the name for that compulsive psychosis he has?
It's so bloody annoying I can't be bothered with people who respond to his posts.

Concerning earthquakes and plate technology:
It is impossible for material more than 5 miles deep to behave in any acceptable manner that fits with such a theory.

You say you are a scientist. Presumably you are an earth-scientist?

If so you really ought to know that much. You should also have no difficulty realising that antinoise and interference patterns provide a far better explanation for the Mohorivicic Discontinuities called shadow zones, that as far as I know remain unexplained in any other way.

The remainder of my arguments are that the sea level pressure forecast charts for any large enough area will give you ample warning of tornadic activity, earthquake likelihood and the state of volcanic activity world wide generally.

They are also useful for forecasting the weather.

On Friday, 29 November 2013 20:12:13 UTC, Weatherlawyer wrote:

There a significant chance of a severe (very severe) tornado spell tonight.