Something missing this way comes …
This chap has done a great deal of work on educating his fellow man. The material is massive and effusive. The site has won awards and his CV is as long as your arm.
What do I say to him? How do I go up against stuff like that?
Well first of all I am not at war with him or anyone else. I do get tired of banalities when my efforts are spurned. And it just happens I don't have the right answer.
I came across his site researching for a post on a similar effect to Ardent Nuee- volcanic fierball clouds: http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci.geo.earthquakes/browse_frm/thread/9dab4039a52c0541/e58116a5f5f3c4ba#e58116a5f5f3c4ba
This is what I was thinking earlier in the month:
Looks interesting on the North Atlantic chart at the moment:
967 going to 970+ for tornadic stuff especially with a Greenland high.
Note the mice.
I hadn't a clue what was going to happen but I knew that even if there was a no show, it would be something to learn from.
I forgot to mention the thing could go towards earthquakes if it deepens. And of course the south-eastern High looks woolly. Too far to the north I think.
I was still thinking in terms of tornadoes or earthquakes. Actually a couple of double 6's in the NEIC list would have been a hit for me.
It went thisaway:
"About 200 residents have been evacuated from their homes after a landslide split a hillside apart in the southern Italian town of Maierato.
The landslide, which caused power failure, could have been caused by heavy rains in the region, initial reports say."
We've had some rain in this part of the world. We don't get many landslips though and when I saw from a search that there had been a number of them world wide this month I started piecing it.
I don't know where I was going with this post. I knew the stuff I have isn't worth repeating. But I have to start somewhere.
Lots of land slides this spell and a major eruptive event a soufrier I think. That's the problem with dirty data.
If I can't get it you can't have it.
I'm tired of dim wits still using the basic models initiated by Richardson and Bjerknes. They played their part but today the reliance on computing an absolutley nothing else has cemented Meteorology and ths eartyh science into its own dead end.
SOUFRIERE HILLS Montserrat 16.72°N, 62.18°W; summit elev. 915 m
MVO reported that during 5-12 February activity from the Soufrière Hills lava dome increased significantly. Activity was concentrated on the W side of the lava dome during the first part of the week then shifted to the N side on 9 February.
The Smithsonian merely collates news about volcanoes once a week and archives the reports. It isn't data in the strict sense as vulcanology isn't really a science. The material is updated Wednesday night my time (Wednesday evening theirs.)
On 11 February part of the lava dome collapsed leaving a large collapse scar on the NE flank. Pyroclastic flows traveled NE and then, along with pyroclastic surges, across the sea at several places on the E side of Montserrat.
Pyroclastic flow deposits covered several hundred meters of the coastline near the old Bramble airport, about 5 km NE. Pyroclastic flows also traveled NW into Tyers Ghaut and down the Belham valley as far a Cork Hill, 4 km NW.
An ash plume rose to 50,000 ft and drifted E and then SE. Ashfall occurred in NE Montserrat, SW Antigua (50 km NW), Guadeloupe (65 km SE), and Dominica (145 km SE). According to news articles, flights in and out of the region were temporarily suspended due to the ash plumes.
Pyroclastic flows are airborne lava flows. There is no current explanation for them several attempts have been made to explain the phenomenon. It defies logic. But I hadn't seen the Smithsonian stuff until a day or so after seeing the reports and videos of landslides.
I'd time to think. Or refrain from thought?
I started to draw my own comclusions about the way that land slides. There is a phenomenon called the Gravity Wave that I think is much the same sort of thing. It turns out that I'm not the only one with that idea:
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In fluid dynamics, a gravity current is a primarily horizontal flow in a gravitational field that is driven by a density difference. Typically, the density difference is small enough for the Boussinesq approximation [no idea what that is] bto be valid.[/b] [And it seems I have no reason to let it upset me.]
Gravity currents are typically of very low aspect ratio (that is, height over typical horizontal lengthscale). [In other words they are thin, flat clouds.] The pressure distribution is thus approximately hydrostatic, [He means pneumostatic? And there is no such a thing. Statics is the behaviour of fixed columns or reservoirs.] apart from near the leading edge (this may be seen using dimensional analysis). Thus gravity currents may be simulated by the shallow water equations, with special dispensation for the leading edge which behaves as a discontinuity.
"Density difference" of course, is where I came in with this stuff but I had no idea it might lead to a correlation between ardent nuee and landslides -if it does.
And I rather think it does:
"Gravity currents occur at a variety of scales throughout nature. Examples include oceanic fronts, avalanches, seafloor turbidity currents, lahars, pyroclastic flows, and lava flows.
There are also gravity currents with large density variations -the so-called low Mach number compressible flows. An example of such a gravity current is the heavy gas dispersion in the atmosphere with initial ratio of gas density to density of atmosphere about 1.5-5."
I have no idea what all that stuff about mach number means. I know that when fluid flows reach silly velocities such unreal numbers crop up. They are of the Navier Stokes type and refer to the change from buffeting to streamlined wind. When they reach a certain point the stresses tip over.
A while back I read the stuff the Encyclopaedia Britannica had on the atmosphere. I thought it was absolut rubbish. I might have to rethink my dismissal of the article. Menatime:
Silly me. I soon forget the obvious.
Well at least I got it before the bloke from NCAR did. Or at least he failed to mention the acoustics of the theory if he did think of it.
I suppose I have to go and read the damned article again. I'm pretty sure he just fobbed us off with something along the line of world-spin.
He had explained the behaviour of the Hadley and Ferrel Cells as some sort of effect due to the rotation of the planet. (I switched off at that point. I still read it but my brain was in auto pilot. I can't remember anything else in the article.)
But the point of all the above is that there is a more likely explanation for the behaviour of mountains. And the explanation should be presented as supposition until the facts are verified.
All the knowledge at the moment is nothing more than opinion. It shouldn't be presented as fact.