Madness is just a frame of mind.

Originally posted by Isaiah:

The principle men have strayed. Scientists unreasoning, disconcert world leaders. They turn them into stumbling, vomit covered, drunken oafs.

They just haven't got a clue.

The United Nations have become deranged, an organisation for destruction. All the people of earth will vow to do better but will receive a thrashing before they finally do.


The above misquote is from Isaiah chapter 19.

The following 1000 -or so, words are from a recent Usenet science groups thread, -mostly:

Originally posted by Bjørn Sørheim:

On Mar 22, 3:25 pm, "Bjørn Sørheim" <bsoer…@nixspam.online.no> wrote:

Two people were missing after their house was crushed near the town of Balestrand last night. The house, in a valley near a river, was hit by an avalanche of snow and mud following heavy rain.

Some places had over 70 mm in 12 hours.
Balestand is situated in Sogn og Fjordane county (Fylke) where 33 roads were closed. Over 40 roads were closed in the counties of Hordaland, Sogn og Fjordane and M re og Romsdal.

See:http://www.nrk.no/nyheter/distrikt/nrk_sogn_og_fjordane/1.7560446www&#8230;.

Originally posted by Weatherlawyer:

Interesting run of Sea Surface Pressure charts. No doubt you will be getting another earthquake when this anticyclone disperses or moves from over the UK.

Ditto western and or southern Japan.

(Yes I know they have been having a stream of 5M's or so.

And this in fact did occur.
May I point this out, I am looking at all associated geo-phenomena and trying to make sense of them, that is all. These days I know enough to know I don't know enough to make predictions.

The beginning of the year we had snow and anticyclonic weather in Britain. So obviously I was looking at events related to anticyclonic decay.

That was when I must have seen the long list of earthquakes hitting Bonin Islands (some 9 to 12 degrees south of the eventual massive earthquake epicentre.)

The penny slowly slid down, dropped into place and the door opened.

When I see events taking shape that seem to portend notable geo-phenomena I do try some sort of warning but only on my blog and on the relative forums as here (uk.sci.weather and sci.geo.earthquakes) Assuming that I am going to enter some competition with sceptics is foolish. It's not as if anyone can win anything from such people. But even if one could, where would that put you?

You would have impressed the worst possible people imaginable.

If you stooped for idiots like that, you'd end up examining every dog turd in your way and never get to the shops.
> http://www.seismo.ethz.ch/eq/latest/index_EN?list=w)

Advertisements

16 thoughts on “Madness is just a frame of mind.

  1. Reply:Originally posted by Threadnurse:

    He's also completely mad and any cursory monitoring of his prediction accuracy shows him to be a complete charlatan. Looking at 8 of his forecasts in 3 months, he managed a 14% accuracy – and the 14% was a very generous one from me. It's not worth monitoring any more and anyway, W gets upset and childish when I do.Don't be fooled Bjorn. Skywise is absolutely right; this is one very nutty fruitcake. if you see what I mean.

    *******Originally posted by Bjørn Sørheim:

    As said I don't think the basic idea is foolish at all.And taking into account the pay-off; an enormous one, you have to agree:Being able to get away with fewer fatalities and less damage when a quake strikes is worth going into quite a lot of ideas – quirky and mad as the may look at the outset.And I don't monitor his forecasting scores. I don't know where to look. To find someone's post by searching Google Usenet posting is fairly fruitless nowadays, only a fraction show up for some reason.

    *******Reply to message 7Originally posted by Skywise:

    "Bjørn Sørheim" <bsoer…@nixspam.online.no> wrote:> The way you treat him. he has the right to be mad and> hit back at the lot that bully him.Just calling a spade a spade. Sorry if my being blunt about it is offensive. I don't play politically correct games.> … that can effect and set of earthquakes besides> exactly a deep low/hurricane. I can see none.And where is the proof that even that does anything?> Makes you think doesn't it…?Yep. It sure does. It makes me think some people don't understand the weather, either.But in all fairness, this can be tested. All that's needed is a series of quantifiable predictions. Then it's just a matter of simple statistics to determine if the predictions were any better than chance or not.

    *******[I don't think I ever made a "quantifiable prediction".The so called "experts" play a game with new recruits to seismology in order to drill out of their heads that such a thing as "eathquake predicting" is possible.Sceptics demand narrow margins (unethically and unscientifically set up, at their whim) and expect predictions be confined to narrow times and distances for epicentres; whilst at the same time, they demand that their followers believe a theory that is unprovable, dynamically impossible and produces nothing more than verbal diarrhoea.To be honest I doubt a committee has ever been commissioned to set rules for such a contest. I believe the arbitrary standard (whatever it might have been) fell out of the lecture notes to some first year earth-science bod's home-work, one drunken week-end and found its way onto the sci.geo.geology news-grope. They'd swallow anything on that board. Just wrap it in statistics.They are no more than lost sheep that aught to be producing Lamb-burgers in the fertile climes of East Anglia.Weatherlawyer]

  2. I forgot to add that the stuff in blue are comments I took time out to write for this post and don't appear on the original thread which had become so long most people had lost interest in it*******Reply:Originally posted by Skywise:

    It's not a matter of liking or not liking. It's a matter of it being correct or not.I do this for those sitting on the fence between science and pseudo-science. If even one person learns the difference through my efforts, then I have succeeded. I may never know. There are certainly many who read these discussions without participation who are enlightened by the discourse.

    *******Reply:Originally posted by Jim Kewley:

    I'm not a scientist and I sit on the fence on lots of things, trying to determine the difference between scientific fact and fiction (or wishful thinking/political dogma) may well be challenging for a layman like me.Nonetheless I hope I'm correct in believing that I'm not wholly stupid, neither am I naive, though I wouldn't bet on it.I've found this newsgroup with it's plethora of expressed opinion/fact to be invaluable in making sense of, and understanding, in an amateur way, meteorology.The point I'm clumsily trying to make is that all points of view are valid to express, it's up to the reader to decide.It's certainly not for self proclaimed 'experts' to decide that we should only read what suits their specific stance.I could well be wrong but some of your expression and spelling leads me to suspect that you are in the US. If so, you've got a whole nation there of naive and stupid people, why try to impose your opinions here when there're far more idiots at home?

    *******Reply:Originally posted by Skywise:

    Just to clarify, I'm posting from sci.geo.earthquakes. The only reason we're talking to each other is because 'Weatherlawyer' has cross-posted that group with uk.sci.weather, which I gather is where you are posting from.I don't normally trim cross-posts since I do not know where someone might be watching.Apologies if I come off sounding like a "self claimed expert". I know what I know, and I know that there is much I don't know. I do not claim to be an expert. I only claim that I try to speak only of that which I know I know.Yes, I'm an American. And yes, I think this country is becoming populated with idiots. Sometimes frighteningly so.However, the internet is international. And, as pointed out above we are seeing each other due to cross-posting.Further, unlike most Americans, I do not assume that the world revolves around me. I can easily understand why those in other countries would make that assumption.I'm not offended by your comments as I understand where you are coming from and I also realize that neither of us really know each other. It's human nature to pre-judge, I admit it's all too easy to do and not always easy to recognize.With that in mind, I don't think a discussion of matters such as this are inappropriate across political borders. As far as I know, the physics of both the weather and plate tectonics are the same in Britain as they are in the U.S. of A.If not, then science is in one deep pile of doo-doo!Finally, objectively speaking, I have no issue with the basic idea being put forth that the weather may affect earthquake activity. I only point out that 'Weatherlawyer' has not, to my knowledge, ever demonstrated being able to successful predict earthquakes using his method.And, I do believe he's been trying for many a year.I just fail to comprehend why someone would continue to try pounding square pegs into a round hole. And even though I may be of the opinion that his method is a failure does not mean that I think the weather therefore has no role.His failure only proves that *his* method does not work.

    [Seasoned fans of my ideas will realise at once that I don't have “an idea”.]

  3. Reply:Originally posted by Bjørn Sørheim:

    > > What caused it from you point of view?>>The moon, dopey!Why do you say that? Is there a consensus about that and among whom? I checked my planetary program (SkyMapPro) and it says that at the exact time of the 9.0 earthquake, the Moon was 396,310.1 km from the Earth.The average distance of the Moon is 384 405 km, so its gravitational effect was much less than normal at the time of the quake.

    *******Reply:Originally posted by Weatherlawyer:

    On Mar 24, 7:29 pm, "Bjørn Sørheim" wrote:

    > The average distance of the Moon is 384,405 km, so its gravitational
    > effect was much less than normal at the time of the quake.

    The moon can't possibly raise a tide from a quarter million miles away just by gravity. There is obviously a step or two missing in that algorithm.

    The earth is 81 times heavier and an awful lot nearer the sea than the moon is. The inference being that the moon can't hope to raise a particle of water from the earth with the effect of the earth pulling the other way.It is surprising how few people bother to think of that when they get told that that is exactly what the moon can do.

    The Apollo rockets needed to be about five sevenths of the way to the moon before the moon took over the pull, IIRC.

    Besides which, a lump of lead is far more attractive than a drop of water. Look at Newton's equations again. If the moon was capable of pulling the way it is supposed to, the earth would be a lot more oblate.

    For some reason I don't understand, the time of the phase of the moon sets up a standing wave that calls the Lows and the Highs into existence and controls their motions. It is obviously something to do with acoustics.

    It can't be anything else.

    Believe me, I have tried to make the pieces fit, starting with contemporary misconceptions. In fact if god hadn't had to disabuse me of "modern ideas" I'd have landed on the truth a long time ago.

    When you remove the impossible, what you are left with are very few and very obvious choices.

    I was going to hang on to what I had about the Japanese quake to see about getting it published but now I think I'll just put that on my blog too.

    I really must get that file finished but there's so much on it that it will be about a gigabyte long when I do.

  4. Reply:Originally posted by Skywise:

    I've been happy to leave you to your neurotic theories for quite some time, but since there are newcomers to this group seeking information about the Japan quake, I feel it my duty to point out that 'Weatherlawyer' aka Michael McNeil aka McNut doesn't know his physics.He seems to think he can predict earthquakes around the globe based on the weather in England. Not exactly shining example of the the "bright ol' chap", ya think?I expect to be 'plonked' by him again.

    [Neurotic:Unable to cope with nervous unease. The pathology related to stressful environment.Quite an interesting term for the subject, though I doubt the poster had the intention of joining the dots quite that way.As it happens I find the field enlivening not enervating.Weatherlawyer]*******Originally posted by Bjørn Sørheim:

    The way you treat him. he has the right to be mad and hit back at the lot that bully him…It is incorrect to say that he predicts earthquakes from the weather in England. As far as I know he says that hurricanes (and fronts?) in the North Atlantic, together with tropical hurricanes around the globe can produce earthquakes.Besides astronomical parameters like proximity of solar-system bodies like the Sun, Moon, Jupiter and other planets, what strong and complex variable forces are there at the Earth that can effect and set off earthquakes besides a precise, deep low/hurricane. I can see none.So his ideas are actually natural. Note also the Icelandic Low is placed more or less exactly over a mid-ocean ridge – like no other. So you might ask the very interesting question:Did the Icelandic Low create Iceland?Does the Icelandic Low pump the magma out of the crust and mantle below Iceland to create and expand Iceland, like one rocks a car to get it out of a slippery snow-drift?Actually, I suspect that is so, more and more.And when a deep low pops out the mantle plume, together with the other layers that make up Iceland and the rest of the North Atlantic near the low, the expanded mass must push away at something.And that something is among other objects (plates) the Eurasian plate – that go all the way unimpeded to – the 'Pacific Ring of Fire', like Sumatra, Japan etc.Makes you think doesn't it?

  5. Reply to 17Originally posted by Dave Cornwell:

    I agree with Bjorn's view that Mike is sometimes bullied. However, he is at times rude and nasty to some people on here so perhaps they retaliate. Sometimes his posts make little sense from a scientific point of view as does his use of the English language.I decided some time ago not to join in this criticism of him because there were some possible signs of mental health issues and the use of terms such as "mad" are wrong.As you say, he is entitled to his opinions and people can make their own judgement as to their validity.

    *******Reply:Originally posted by Col:

    I don't think there is any scientific basis to his views but as you say he is perfectly entitled to air them and after all as a general point where would science be if new ideas weren't encouraged, even if they initially sounded ridiculous.I think his main problem is his presentation skills and rambling manner, if there was something interesting in there, you'd never be able to tell.

    *******21Originally posted by Weatherlawyer:

    > > I agree with Bjorn's view that Mike is sometimes bullied.> > However, he is at times rude and nasty to some people on here> > so perhaps they retaliate.Where have I read that before on this thread?Was it something that I said?> > Sometimes his posts make little sense from a Scientific point of viewA bit like that bloke who can forecast severe storms from sunspots as he so ably demonstrated according to what was posted in uk.sci.weather about the October forecast a few years back, do you mean?> > Sometimes his use of the English languages little sense> > from a scientific point of view.I'm getting treatment for that. but it's not working> > I decided some time ago not to join in this criticism of him> > because there were some possible signs of mental> > health issues and the use of terms such as "mad" are wrong.Possible signs not withstanding the prognosis and or the description?> > As you say, he is entitled to his opinions and people can make> > their own judgement as to their validity.Or not, as the case appears.> I don't think there is any scientific basis to his views but as> you say he is perfectly entitled to air them and after all as a> general point where would science be if new ideas weren't> encouraged, even if they initially sounded ridiculous.More faint praise. Lead on.It is to a better place?Will there be accurate 5 day weather forecasts?Will they include anything from the 60 years and more of seismic data so far so useless without me?> I think his main problem is his presentation skills and rambling manner,> if there was something interesting in there, you'd never be able to tell.My problem is that it all falls out of heaven, straight through my head and out onto the page. There are reams of it, just like the message in the film:Contact.At times I just don't know where to start. I can't really blame god for that though, after all I did ask for it.Anybody want a job?Oh hang on; nobody can make any sense of Newton's Principia either.Ah well, god moves in mysterious waysWand-wielders to deform.And when I am dead and in my graveMy ears will still be warm.

  6. Reply:Originally posted by Bjørn Sørheim:

    So where have you been lately?I mean, do you have any comment on the mag. 9.0 quake in Japan?What caused it from you point of view?

    *******Reply:Originally posted by Weatherlawyer:

    On Mar 23, 11:23 pm, "Bjørn Sørheim" <bsoer…@nixspam.online.no>
    wrote:

    > So where have you been lately?
    > I mean, do you have any comment on the mag. 9.0 quake in Japan?

    I can't be bothered trying to educate a people who don't want to know.

    If I could speak Japanese I might look for a site in that language to post to.

    The Chinese are the most promising but as the country is run by gangsters who will bulldoze their grannies, there is a hell of a problem getting any feed-back from them on earthquakes because they use string for concrete reinforcing and kill all the children they are not allowed to have.

    In Japan they built their schools with a completely different ethos and all the children are now orphans.

    Funny old world isn't it?
    Maybe the Chinese and the Japanese aught to get together?

    In my first ever forecast (one autumn, a couple of decades ago), I wrote to someone in Japan –I forget who. Some time later I read they were doing an earthquake drill for the time I gave. But then I found out they do them anyway in September.

    Just a coincidence and I think I was wrong in any case.

    > What caused it from you point of view?

    The moon, dopey!
    Don't you read my posts too, neither?

    > Interesting run of SSPs. No doubt you will be getting another
    > earthquake when this anticyclone disperses or moves from over the UK.
    > Ditto western and or southern Japan.

    Keep an eye on the North Atlantic chart. That High over the UK is doing an odd dance.

    I'm working on a rather long file on this stuff. I will have to get it sorted out.

    Originally I just wanted to compare the North Atlantic SSP with the Der Sed / NEIC earthquake lists leading up to the main 'quake but things just took over. Now I'm trying to corroborrate all the other geo-phenomena with it.

    When I first started uncovering these anomalies I wondered if they might be used to date stuff like historic storms such as the one that destroyed the invasion fleet of the Chinese Empire off Japan, several centuries ago -around Tudor times I think.

    But then I realised that the North Atlantic Cycle was too upsetting to the lunar theory I had. Now I think that I have cracked the code that flummoxed the best of them; Newton and Thomson even Doogeson, -though tides still elude me.

    But who needs more than tidal constants anyway?

    Do I post "Weatherlawyer's Theory of Everything" and give away the secrets to Unified Field Theory? Or do I hang on to it and try to get it published?

    It's the thirty pieces of silver routine. Only it's 30 pieces per man. Women cost 20 and children proportionately less.But still, there were loads of them.I don't want to have to face god with the next one on my conscience.But who would take me seriously?This spell runs to the 26th and the following one is almost identical:Mar 19 @ 18:10 = Mar 26 @ 12:07http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/phase/phase2001gmt.htmlThus the T+60 -even to T+84 stands a very good chance of holding, bearing in mind it should be us suffering fogs and etc., not you.http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/uk/surface_pressure.html(T + 60 means 2 ½ days following the latest forecast time, that is:in 60 hours Time.)The High is anomalous in more ways than one and when it breaks there will be the devil to pay.As every baddie knows.Originally posted by Jesus:

    When you see something standing where it shouldn't be standing, then flee for your life.

    (He was referring to politics, not “standing waves” -mind you, he also gave a pretty good forecast about earthquakes for the same time period.)I then took a look at the Atlantic chart for that day:I wonder if there is another super-storm building for the antipodes. (I have cracked the code but I have yet to check it on a run.) There looks like something is stirring on the left of the chart:T+24 with a bullet but only a minor storm I think. A "Tropical Storm", if that.(24 hours from the time I was looking on the chart, there was a Low behaving in a suspiciously anomalous manner up the side of Eastern Canada. You can still see it on the archives at WetterZentrale. But you will have to check out the date from the original posting on uk.sci.weather.)I'll have to get the Canadian charts to look at your neck of the woods, Lapland just drops off the end of my world.I keep losing the link and the Canadian government's home page is a bugger to navigate to the SSPs with…

  7. Reply:Originally posted by Bjørn Sørheim:

    No, you are right it is absolutely not proven as I see it at the moment. But it is an interesting idea. And with the enormous forces deep hurricanes produces it definitely applies forces (force vectors) to the plate(s) where it is situated or moves over.The big question is:Are those forces great enough to move a plate given the friction that opposes such movement?I don't know, I don't have any quantitative numbers here, and haven't gone into the physics and matter to come up with them.This was not my idea in the first place… And I'm not sure if I have the time to do it, but I hope someone will go into this matter in a precise way.

    *******Reply to 7, too.Originally posted by Jim Kewley:

    I'm with you Bjorn, I enjoy Weatherlawyer's postings. Why should an alternative point of view cause so much concern?Crack on Mr Weatherlawyer.

    *******Reply:Originally posted by Skywise:

    It is true that I can not force another to accept a particular point of view. People have freedom of choice. If they should choose to ignore reality, there's not much I can do about it.

    [Please bear that last line in mind if you read further.Weatherlawyer]

    However, I will continue to present the facts of reality so that those who have not yet made a choice will be afforded the opportunity to make an informed choice rather than one made out of ignorance.

    *******14Originally posted by Threadnurse:

    Me too. I did monitor W's predictions and it showed he was a complete charlatan. Sorry if that offends, but his ideas are ridiculous and with a short period of monitoring, it was very easy to show that.

    *******Reply to 13Originally posted by Jim Kewley:

    I didn't say I believe Mr W, in fact most of the time I can make neither head nor tail of what he's saying. It's purely that, in so far as I can tell, he does no harm to anybody and he's not seeking to make personal gain.There is no reason to seek to shut him simply because you don't like what he writes.

    Not always my fault. Look at the stuff I have had to plough through to get where I am now:

    This from a PDF produced by the United States on Blocking Highs:

    The major synoptic features of the weather over the North Atlantic are often described in terms of their close connection with either the Icelandic Low or the Azores High.

    An essential attribute of the dominance of these systems is the concept of a broad band of "prevailing westerlies" separating the two.

    At the outset of this discussion it is important to recognize that such features displayed on simplified mean charts that in day-to-clay weather maps is considerably more complex, particularly by their presence in the region where the prevailing westerlies are normally located.

    These surface Highs, can thus be considered as impeding the usual westerly flow and as forming a "block" around which other pressure systems such as troughs and cyclones must detour.

    http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/081/mwr-081-03-0067.pdf

    As far as it goes, the above is a fairly simple explanation in relatively good English. So how can I be blamed if the subject matter is itself difficult to digest?

    But I could try harder. I don't claim to be a good writer and working to the time constraints imposed by the internet and its immediacy has its own penalties.

  8. Reply to 15Originally posted by Weatherlawyer:

    > >The way you treat him. He has the right to be mad and> >hit back at the lot that bully him…>> I'm with you Bjorn, I enjoy Weatherlawyer's postings.> Why should an alternative point of view cause so much concern?It is surprisingly easy to avoid idiots online in the same way that you would avoid them in the street. You don't need computer macros to do it.You just blank them.I have to admit that I asked for it from Brian but I saw where he was going to go, before he went there -so I hit him back first.> It is incorrect to say that he predicts earthquakes from> the weather in England.Quite, I use the Atlantic sea level pressure charts from the Met Office. I'd like to use the Canadian ones for most of the northern hemisphere but I can't find archives. You can find the Atlantic chart on WetterZentrale's servers just search for: "Bracka + Fax + archiv."> As far as I know he says that hurricanes and fronts in the North> Atlantic, together with tropical hurricanes around the globe can> produce earthquakes.Yes, when they hit shallow waters they behave like shipwrecks and the power disperses from the atmosphere. It is called Cyclosis. Elsewhere it is known under the broader term Divergence.Basically, the hit comes some 80 degrees from a Low and 80 degrees from an High and the two are close together the day before and the isobars between them are highly compressed for large magnitude quakes. <<<<< [The secret of the god, fire out of heaven. >>>>>The overall distance is thus 90 degrees from the "resultant" and can be given a very accurate window by anyone who cares to use his noodle.> Besides astronomical parameters like proximity of solar-system bodies,> what strong and complex variable forces are there at the Earth that can> affect it and set off earthquakes besides a deep low/hurricane.> I can see none.> Note also the Icelandic low is placed more or less> exactly over a mid-ocean ridge.>> So you might ask:> Did the Icelandic Low make Iceland?Good question.Take a look at the submarine earth surface from Iceland to Newfoundland, strangely parallel ridges. The Raykenes Ridge.> Like one has to rock a car to get it out of a> slippery snow drift; does the Icelandic low pumps> the magma out of the crust and mantle below Iceland> to create and expand Iceland?You are getting there.> And when a deep low pops out the mantle plume together> the other layers that make up Iceland and the rest of the> North Atlantic near the low, the expanded mass must> push away at something. And that something is among> other objects (plates) the Eurasian plate – that go all the> way unimpeded to – the 'Pacific Ring of Fire', like> Sumatra, Japan etc.Your getting cool.Try again.Get hold of a copy of Professor Thomas Gold's theories on The Deep Hot Biosphere.> Take into account the pay-off, you would have to agree> it is worth going into a lot of ideas – quirky and mad> as they may look at the outset.You mean the contemporary ideas about tides is sane?> And I don't monitor his forecasting scores. I don't know where to look.> To find someone's post by searching Google Usenet posting> is fairly fruitless nowadays, only a fraction show up for some reason.Use a different engine to Google's. That one gets biased for a variety of reasons. I sometimes post via my hotmail account and sometime ago, just used my real name.And it doesn't help that I like to use crazy titles to my posts.I don't keep score either as I am doing research, not insurance claim adjustment. Here is something to feed the masses whilst working on my operus magnamamous:

  9. Reply:Originally posted by Weatherlawyer:

    You'd have to start a few days prior to the Tropical Storm reports:> http://www.woksat.info/etcra17/indexra17.html is prettyThe index could use some short-cuts to the year required.>http://www.woksat.info/wwp.htmlI'll have to work out what the URL codes run as. I tried messing with the URL for the Canadian Northern Hemisphere SSPs about an hour ago.Now I need a brain wipe.> http://www.weatheroffice.gc.ca/data/analysis/947_100.gifMy problem is that if I can't get something to work the way it should, I'll break it before I realise it just won't go.Not a good research tool but useful for guessing the right answers less than half the time. It was almost no use to me at school but I wouldn't be seen dead without a brain like mine these daze.

    That ended the thread, though I did allude to it on subsequent other threads. I tried not to nurse it and often only came back to it as it was crying out for more.The spell of weather here broke yesterday with the new phase of the moon today things aught to have eased up for Japan and Svalbard/N. Scandinavia by now.Will Hand, a prominent meteorologist at the Met Office posted about a long range forecast that promised more Blocking Highs.Two things lead me to believe he is right.1. The times of the phases indicate that there are some severe storms due in the North Atlantic this year and2. Following the Boxing Day Disaster of 2004, the 2005 tropical storm season was in every way a record breaker.*******And that concludes the argument.But there is more to the discussion and I am going to put that an the next blog post. It needs its own thread and this one is lonng enough.

  10. Reply to 15 tooOriginally posted by Will Hand:

    Jim Kewley wrote:> Why should an alternative point of view cause so much concern?Well said Jim. I too am with Bjorn. The world would be a very dull place if everyone was a critical objective scientist. Right brain thinkers are to be celebrated and don't forget many great scientists in the past were thought nuts at some stage in their careers.

    *******25Originally posted by Skywise:

    >You really don't know what 'science' is, do you?There is nothing wrong with new ideas, even crazy sounding ones.Scientists come up with them all the time.The difference is that scientists use critical thinking skills and rationality to determine if their crazy idea is actually correct or not. Science is as much about what is not right as well as finding what is right.And you fell into a well known fallacy, the one of heresy. Just because some 'free thinkers' that were laughed at turned out to be correct does not mean everyone who is laughed at is correct.It's related to the fallacy of sweeping generalization.Here's something to feed your noodle:http://www.skywise711.com/Skeptic/WPBWT/index.html

    *******Reply Originally posted by Will Hand:

    I certainly hope so by now Mr Skywise as I have been a published scientist for the past 30 years!> There is nothing wrong with new ideas, even crazy sounding ones.> Scientists come up with them all the time.> The difference is that scientists use critical thinking skills> and rationality to determine if their crazy idea is actually> correct or not. Science is as much about what is not right as> well as finding what is right.I know that. But how do you "know" Weatherlawyer is wrong?He is simply "not proven" in my book. Why is his idea "crazy"?Because it does not fit your particular belief system?John Logi Baird was considered "crazy", the Wright brothers were considered "crazy".> And you fell into a well known fallacy, the one of heresy. Just> because some 'free thinkers' that were laughed at turned out to> be correct does not mean everyone who is laughed at is correct.I do know that, and?> It's related to the fallacy of sweeping generalization.Pot, kettle, black?

  11. Reply to12Originally posted by Weatherlawyer:

    Do you remember the discussion about an odd anomaly in the North Atlantic over a year ago?The Low filled the Met Office SSP chart.What was more, it stayed the course almost as if it were a blocking Low. The system then rotated west anticlockwise about Iceland, very strange.This was happening at the time but it was only since this thread started that I followed it up:Madagascar swept by two tropical cyclones: hundreds homelessSource: Deutsche Presse Agentur (DPA)Date: 20 Jan 2009Antananarivo_(dpa) _The Indian Ocean island of Madagascar was being attacked by two tropical cyclones arriving from opposite directions Tuesday.Tropical cyclone Eric made landfall on Monday in the eastern Fenerive-Est region of the world's fourth-largest island at wind speeds of around 100 kilometres per hour, local media reported Tuesday.Government buildings, schools and shops in the area remained closed Monday and power supplies were deliberately suspended for safety reasons until the storm had passed.There were no reports yet of major damage or injuries.At the same time, the west was bracing for the arrival of tropical cyclone Fanele. Heavy rains had already begun to fall over the north as the cyclone moved southwards, causing widespread flooding that left close to 250 people homeless in the Sofia region.The national meteorological institute said the cyclone, which brought wind gusts of up to 130 km/h on Monday was gaining in strength.Cyclones, a feature of the summer rainy season in south-east Africa, killed 110 people in Madagascar, one of the world's poorest countries, in 2008 and left around half a million people homeless.Copyright (c) dpa Deutsche Presse-Agentur GmbH> http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/rwb.nsf/db900sid/MYAI-7NH47C?OpenDocument…The point is that all anomalous events show up on the portion of the North Atlantic the Met Office deigns to show us. Makes you wonder what they do with Global Forecast Models, …all one of them.I hate to sound like an ingrate but I can see why FitzRoy cut his throat.I have the run at 6 hour intervals for a few days. About 15 charts in all.How would I put that on You Tube?

    *******Reply:Originally posted by Weatherlawyer:

    When will the aftershocks stop?

    "With an event like this, aftershocks can continue for years — maybe decades," says Sevilgen.

    The frequency of the aftershocks usually decreases over time. You might see dozens of large aftershocks in the first few hours after the main shock, but one month later, notable earthquakes only occur every few days. But this doesn't mean they are getting smaller.

    It is still possible to have a 7.0 magnitude aftershock years after the main event.

    > http://www.npr.org/2011/04/07/135220914/why-more-shaking-is-in-japans

    [The above is an attempt to explain away the behaviour of eartthquakes. How it would otherwise be so unlikely for plumes rising hundreds of miles to hit virtually the same epicentre time after time.The reasons why weather patterns repeat are quite obvious and thus explaining why epicentres are constantly hit again and again is also easily done.

    As soon as a cyclone reaches maximum low pressure, apparently, it starts to fill. It follows that as the filling process occurs, pre-quakes occur. Since the cyclone will still have a long way to go before it diminishes, there quakes will not be on the same tract of land as the main quake will occur in.

    I have yet to learn anything about anticyclones and their decay. Since cyclone decay is a relatively new science and has only been studied by climatologists.

    Climatologists are the “accounts department” of meteorology and should be treated with respect (aka cluebyfour.)

    Which leaves the field open to us weatherlawyers.
    (Silly me waiting around for meteorologists to do something.)

    I wonder if that nice Mr Burton has got any mare's tails on his site for that date.

    When a super cyclone is about to occur or gain the status of a super-storm in the tropical North Atlantic, there will appear mare's tails as the sunny weather turns dirty mid-spell.Weatherlawyer

  12. 27Originally posted by Skywise:

    You may call me Brian. "Skywise" is just a nym I continue to use simply because it is established. I've been using that handle online for close to 20 years now.BTW, what's your area of expertise? What is your level of degree and in what? Where did you earn it? List some publication references.If you're going to flaunt around "I'm a published research scientist" as if it means a damn, are you prepared to back it up?You see, there is a chap elsewhere I banter with who claims to have various degrees (never says in what), claims to have worked in certain fields (never says where, only what), claims to be able to accomplish certain goals (never revealing methods or data), claims to be in constant contact with other research scientists (never says who), and also won't even tell us their name.So please forgive me for being overly skeptical of "published scientist" claims. Apologies in advance if this offends you. I am aware that I often come across quite bluntly to most folks.> But how do you "know" Weatherlawyer is wrong? He is> simply "not proven" in my book. Why is his idea "crazy"?> Because it does not fit your particular belief system?I may not have proven him wrong, but Mike has yet to prove himself right. As a scientist I'm sure you are familiar with the concept of the burden of proof?>> It's related to the fallacy of sweeping generalization.>> Pot, kettle, black?What sweeping generalization are you implying that I am making? Please enlighten me.

    *******ReplyOriginally posted by Will Hand:

    Well I am not a charlatan, here is the evidence FWIW http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/people/will-handAlso I have been posting here on uk.sci.weather since the group started in 1996 so am well known.Who are you anyway?I've never seen you before on here?

    *******ReplyOriginally posted by Skywise:

    I post from sci.geo.earthquakes. You are seeing me because Mike cross-posts to this and your group.

    *******Reply to 28Originally posted by Weatherlawyer:

    Skywise is one of the denizens of sci.geo.earthquakes.I killed off a lot of the others. This one escaped by putting me on a kill file before I could eat him.I've calmed down a lot since the good old days.

    *******Originally posted by Alan LeHun:

    >Weatherlawyer said:> Yet there were more meteorological sites in WW 2 than ever before.> There were also, I imagine, as many military aircraft interested in> reporting weather patterns as there have ever been before or since.I would also imagine, though I might be wrong, that much of that record may have been destroyed, (or more likely safely filed away somewhere now long forgotten), in the immediate post war scourge of any document of military origin or use. You know, in preparation for Nuremberg et al.

  13. I do really have a problem writing cohesive articles. New things occur to me all the time and I also discover old things online that cover or change what I say.I joined a couple of writing circles to see if I could get input on my style.My stuff just doesn't go with that though. So I am still struggling with a passion, -with a passionPrecursors:Scotland is about 80° from the north of Japan (Hokkaido to Honshu north of Tokyo) 80° is an interesting distance geomorphologically. (London to Tokyo is about 85°, London to Los Angeles is 80°; to Cape St Lucas, Baja, Mexico is 85°)Jan Mayen Island is central between Iceland, Svalbard, Greenland and Northern Scandinavia. It is some 80° to Bonin / Volcano Islands (which are some 9° to 12° not quite due south of Tokyo.)The ridge the Bonin/Volcano Islands sits on runs due south from Sakhalin Island to Guam, where it meets the transverse ridge of the Carolinas before continuing to New Guinea.Continue that line north through Siberia and it passes between the Verkhoyanskiy and Cherskogo Ranges to Cape Unpronounceable to the New Siberia Islands.The line crosses the North Pole under the Arctic Ocean as it follows the Lomonson/Harris Ridge to Greenland.It goes on through Greenland to Cape Farve, where it delves to the depths of the western North Atlantic Basin.The Mid Atlantic Ridge twists and turns from the Reykanes Ridge off Iceland and continues north through the Arctic along a string of islands from Svalbard to the Verkhoyanskiy Range.It is this dichotomy that gives us the various oscillations of the northern oceans. And it is down the Mid Atlantic Ridge that the occlusions run before a major earthquake occurs.And they do this when the planet is so upset it produces Blocking Highs.[/quote]God told Moses to inform Israel that if they kept his commands, they would live but if they did any of the following things in a list written in the “Law”, then:Originally posted by Jehovah:

    “When you become defiled, the land will become defiled. And when the land becomes defiled it will vomit you out of it…”“The land will vomit you out of it, the way it vomited those who were in it before you…”

    Leviticus chapter 19, verses 25 and 28. (And 20: 22)See also the words of saint Peter:Originally posted by 2 Peter:

    Dry fountains. Storm driven., Unproductive low cloud. In the dark, self exalting misleaders, heading back to the dark-ages like dogs to vomit and pigs to shit.

    Chapter 2 verses 17-on.Piquant, the major symptom of nuclear accidents or incidents is vomiting. Soft tissue is seared and digestion stops as does the rest of the victim's plumbing.But the fact remains that along with wars and other turmoil, earthquakes and bad weather went hand in hand with the struggles the invading Israelis had.Originally posted by Weatherlawyer:

    The major earthquakes of the so called Ring of Fire starts off in the not so called ring of rains. (I get the impression that earthquakes for any given spell occur on a spiral around the world; of different sets for different spells.)

    There is very little difference in the times of phases that produce fogs and those producing frosts in Britain.

    The code I developed has a useful glitch when Greenland hosts an High.
    It's called the North Atlantic Oscillation.

    When the NOA is negative, the weather doesn't follow the same code as for a positive cycle. It can be knocked back by as much as five hours.

    I say: “back by five hours” rather than: “forwards one”, because according to the intensity of the difference; it can go back 1, 2, or 3 and 4 hours. Each difference directly related to the degree of intensity of the natural phenomenon that develops as the spell relaxes.

    I leave proof of this in the capable hands of the diligent students of Weatherlawyer.

    We know the exact precursors of the spells that produce tornadic Super-Cells. <Insert link to explanation here.>
    ************************************************************
    Meanwhile here is something I wrote about a month back:

    <And another link here.>I'll have to come back to this with the necessary links. Sorry.

    “…..The sunset on Thursday was glorious. Thin red striped clouds on a fading blue background and the clouds turned purple.Typical for the weather on spells of this time: 23:30-ish.So why is it raining?Obviously a storm is building somewhere. Britain is a massive barometer of that sort of thing. Whether it is underground or over sea I don't know……”

    Almost every earthquake occurs alongside a man made disaster. Usually it is a mining collapse or a plane falling out the sky. We had a ship-wreck during the early stage of this disaster but with events in Africa and Japan, the news media have been otherwise occupied.

    But who could have missed reports from Fukushima about 6 nuclear reactors (one a plutonium pile) bringing an end to the nuclear furnace industry?

  14. Reply:Originally posted by Weatherlawyer:

    All mass has inertia.
    How could I have meant that?
    How could I have not meant that?

    When you place water in a container and rotate the container, the water remains inert for the most part. Molasses OTOH will turn with the container, for the most part.

    We were discussing tides.
    You can't translate my foibles as per context.
    I can't make allowances for you.

    Sorry.

    To save a lot of time why not go and play in the other threads? I don't see any point in my trying to help you.

    For everybody else:
    Weatherlawyer sayeth thus and so:

    The tide on the opposite side of the earth [high tide 2] being left in situ by the effect of the moon attracting all the other water to the tide under the moon [high tide 1].

    The idiopaths then go on to describe how the tides lag behind the lunar zenith because of friction.

    Water is relatively friction free. Even a relatively viscous fluid would fail to meet the moon's ability half way though. Think about it.

    Water is regarded as a “perfect fluid”. It takes the shape of its container as fast as a perfect fluid can and it will not attach itself to its container the way a "sticky" fluid does.

    There is a correct word for the phenomena that escapes me but the physics is true enough to be going on with. Perhaps you have more abilities than other(s)? Perhaps you can actually try to play with this idea:

    "The tide on the opposite side of the earth being left in situ by the effect of the moon attracting all the other water to the tide under the moon."

    Isn't that just ridiculous?
    If the sea was a mixture of molasses and sand, it could possibly do that if the moon was willing to wait a few decades.

    But how on earth has anyone believed the idea till now?

    But that isn't the half of it.
    The upper surface of the sea reacts to something called amphidromic points. There are what appear as whirlpools in the ocean charts where all the co-tidal lines meet.

    Co-tidal lines are places where the tides are the same. They correspond to isobars on a weather chart. All the dots of the same number when joined up can be interpolated or extrapolated out to lines crossing the world.

    Anyway, these co-tidal lines cross each other in Britain where Hull and Bristol have the same tidal values and totally different ranges. And Dover with Liverpool and Dublin.

    Britain has a three phase pulse that seems to travel around the island rather than around the world and certainly not with the moon or sun.

    They run:John O'Groat's High waterHull Low waterDover High waterBristol Low waterLiverpool High waterAlong the narrow channel between Ireland and Scotland, the tides all come at once.

    Fiji's tides (such as they are) seem to follow the sun. Its period is 12 or 24 hours. 24 I think.

    But Britain has a high or low tide every 6.3 hours.
    6.3 x2= 12.6; about the average speed the moon travels -or slightly slower than for the sun. But the reality is six hours and twenty minutes or so. And it moves along the coast not from out to sea and back.

    Averages only work for scientists who don't have the answers -and Skywise when he wants to be right. The length of a lunar/tidal day varies with the calendar but not with the clock.

    Explain that.

    [The time the moon takes to pass the same longitude successively is called the “tidal” day and over the year the average works out to about 55 minutes longer than a solar day.A diurnal tide takes place every 12 hours and 40 minutes between high waters; or six hours and twenty minutes from high to low, day and night, week in week out.But the real time the moon takes to “go around the earth” varies with the earth's orbit to the sun. In winter, the earth is nearer to the sun than in summer and the effects of gravity alter the relative speeds of the earth and moon.At certain times of the year a lunar phase only takes place once every 9 days and on some times of the year it occurs in about 6 days. It is only a 29 ½ day month on average.]

    But going back to the tidal pull… if it had the slump factor of concrete, the tide would remain 30 or so feet high until the next mix was poured and in a few centuries it would reach the moon.

    The more ridiculous you think it, the more ridiculous it becomes.

    Try working the same mystique on the atmosphere and not only would it not be regarded as nonsense but it would be produced again and again in encyclopaedias as Atmospheric Science. The only difference is that the sun is the force and as heat not gravity.

    But the idea is just as inane.

    Air more than water is a perfect fluid. It can not impress on itself in linear motion and it can't be forced forwards in a linear projection by any other means. Any force moving it has to disperse in a pyramid, so that one atom loses its force to at least four atoms.

    If you can begin to see that, you are on the threshold of understanding.
    Which brings us back to the OP.

    What is the force and why is it not directly the moon and why has meteorology so far not been able to help?

    Idiopathologic?

    Idiopathy:
    Arising spontaneously with no apparent external cause.

    Any force moving air has to disperse it in a pyramid (the inverse square law) so that one atom loses its force to at least four atoms.

    Solar heat lifting the air causes a current which is replaced with cool air from the northern and southern hemisphere.
    That's logical.
    Until you look at the detail.

  15. ReplyOriginally posted by Weatherlawyer:

    No.
    WetterZentrale has reworked the data and it can be found online.

    The British worked on the weather codes from Germany all the time. These were available to the Allies as data but yes, following WW 2 that fat, drunken fool Churchill had a lot of stuff needlessly destroyed.

    *******

    Reply to 25

    Originally posted by Skywise:

    True about the "free thinkers" bit. Science progresses with careful research on the whole; with people who are not attention-seekers but who are careful, methodical scientists?Most scientists have never been "considered nuts", or "crazy" but have built lifetime reputations through science and published works, advancing the cause of science by small increments and inspiring others around them to do the same.I'm sure that, if it were possible to calculate the number of "crazy ideas" that turned out to be good science and the number of "crazy ideas" that became, well, crazy ideas that ended up in the waste bin, the latter would *hugely* outweigh the former. I'm also sure that any scientist would agree with that.

    *******

    Reply

    Originally posted by Skywise:

    The balance of good to waste-bin ideas is the same in 'normal' science. There are probably far more ideas that end up in the round file than those that pass muster. But that is how science works.There is a story (I haven't verified if it is true, but even so it illustrates the point) that Edison was asked why he continued to work on the light bulb after failing a thousand times. Edison replied that he did not see it as a thousand failures. Instead, he explained, now he knows a thousand things that don't work.In science, failure is as important as success. When an idea fails you move on to the next idea.In pseudo-science, failure is justified. When the idea fails, you make up reasons why it really didn't fail and keep trying to pound the square peg into the round hole.

    *******

    Reply

    Originally posted by Weatherlawyer:

    > In science, failure is as important as success.> When an idea fails you move on to the next idea.It's a matter of overcoming the depression first and then when you get into it, the depression of finding your work completed. Fortunately I find that there is, after all, always something else to look at, so I can get over the slack quite quickly these days.> In pseudo-science, failure is justified. When the idea fails, you> make up reasons why it really didn't fail and keep trying to pound> the square peg into the round hole.This is why the moon is said to raise two tides on opposite sides of the earth despite all -repeat ALL- evidence to the contrary.Some of the greatest minds in Britain struggled with that one and each of them continued to ignore the obvious.That is pitiful. But if you really want a laugh take a look at what the grandisimos from NCAR had to say about the atmosphere in the Encyclopaedia Britannica.I was going to pull that particular junk science apart but I just couldn't find the time -or when I had it, the will.Perhaps you would care to do the honours if I succeed in waking you up. You seem to have little else to do with your time on here. Perhaps you just need to find your raison d'etre.I imagine you will have the spit to pull the house down once you get wound up.

  16. ReplyOriginally posted by Skywise:

    > This is why the moon is said to raise two tides on opposite sides of> the earth despite all -repeat ALL- evidence to the contrary.Mind extrapolating on this claim?What evidence?

    *******ReplyOriginally posted by Weatherlawyer:

    The basic tenet almost all explanations of lunar tides start with the notion that the moon raises two tides daily.The one on the opposite side of the earth being left in situ by the effect of the moon attracting all the other water to the tide under the moon.The idiopaths then go on to describe how the tides lag behind the lunar zenith because of friction.Water is relatively friction free. Even a relatively viscous fluid would fail to meet the moon's ability half way though.Think about it.Newton showed that the mass at one end of the equation of gravitational attraction matters as much as the mass at the other end.Therefore the mass of the small particles will have exponentially more attraction as their relative densities increase.You DO know that I am sure.So how does a tide on the opposite side of the world to the new moon get to be so big? Why is there no discrepancy with the tides for Full and New? For that matter why isn't the quarter phase more powerful as the tide lags?Or dispensing with the problem of lag as is the wont of contemporary text, why is the quarter moon less attractive than the full?At full the sun and moon are cancelling each other out. At quarter moon they act independently.But all that can be put in a small cap and thrown out the ring compared to the biggie:The moon's effect at 1/4 million miles away is as nothing to that of the earth, 81 times heavier and quite a bit nearer.Some of the finest minds in Britain -therefore of the world, have grappled with the tidal theory. They can solve the three body problem, even the ten body one. But for some reason their brains just blink out when it comes to logilack cognisense.Ah well twas ever thus.

    *******Reply:> On Mar 30, 8:08 pm, Skywise <i…@oblivion.nothing.com> wrote:>Originally posted by Skywise:

    > Water is relatively friction free.Relatively friction free compared to what? Molasses?Water has plenty of friction. You cannot disregard it.Actually, I rather think you mean inertia.Since the rest of your prose derives from this misconception, the rest of your prose is irrelevant.

    [Here I refer you to a much earlier post where I asked you to bear this fool's mind-set in mind for later.This is later!Weatherlawyer]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s