k19
-
Posts
461 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Events
Learn About Weather and Meteorology
Community guides
Posts posted by k19
-
-
The fuss is it is pounding Cumbria mate, the rain is really heavy here at the moment but does ease of at times.
That may be the case but the Met office has given my area a warning too, and it suggests it should be raining somewhat more than it is. I'm not complaining, its a good thing if anything, but I just don't see what the met office thought was going to happen.
-
I don't see what the fuss is about. We've had rain but i would hardly describe it as heavy. Maybe we are on the edge of the heavy stuff.
-
Not a jot.
However, I have to admit that it seems that I am going to have to admit defeat, here.
If you are stoutly defending any attempts to produce a working validation and verification exercise and continue not to divulge your "method" and still claim that the test should verify 100% then there is little that any rationality can do to help you. Of course, a better test is to get you to forecast for every calendar day in February so we can catch your methods success of forecasting the normal, not much happening, weather. Perhaps too much to ask.
Nice to see confirmation bias ahead of the event though with people peering over outliers in FI.
Somehow the last two paragraphs can be melded together ...
If it was confirmation bias it certainly isnt anymore. Although now the charts look like a mish mash of different outcomes, there are a significant amount of outliers going for low pressure around that time.
-
A very interesting outlier in FI
EDIT: Even the Operational is suggesting a drop in pressure
-
Hello MuruceBoy, can you just clear up the following post for me from UKWW that seems to contradict the statement above please? Cheers!
I think he is confusing the idea of DNA with the idea of effects?
-
I'd just like him contributing to the forum. It would make the whole experience a lot more interesting to have a famous face actually answering questions/making observations. Same for Michael Fish
-
Indeed...Certainly signs of a storm (coming with -15 uppers in places if I remember correctly from when I looked earlier) seems to be appearing in deep FI on the charts, and in a similar location to where MB suggests; few hundred miles out at the moment but it's not expected to be bang on yet. Long time to go of course, but this could be very good to watch
(Sorry, I don't know how to add a thumbnail...)
Nice to hear someone mention the uppers. Since the airflow around low pressure is anti clockwise, could this potentially give a notherly, and therefore, a very snowy storm?
-
i remember someone saying if you add them up and they make less than 0, precipitation will fall as snow.
No, generally <0 is needed for snow, but many other factors determine the likelihood os snow.
As a General rule you need:
-At most 528 DAM line ( This can be flexible in heavy precipitation, but any lasting snow at low levels really generally needs this)
-At most -5c 850's ( Also flexible, but for anything decent at lower levels, this is a must)
- The Zero Degree Isothern must be low enough. I believe its something like 300m for lower levels to see snow
-
New user here , Now I dont post on here i just observe as I have next to no knowledge of weather forcasting
One thing i dont understand is why MB bothered to put out his forcast.
if this is the response I thought i would recieve whith trying to share something I wouldnt
why cant you just let whatever method MB uses prove or disprove itself befor the dissection
Its not that we are trying to dissect the theory, MB should keep doing forecasts in my opinion- especially if this one comes off, however if no information is given out, and perhaps, at his own admission, his relatively new knowledge of how the weather works may cause an upset here and there, thus altering the forecast, possibly causing it to be wrong. If some minor details were given out then people like roger and BFTP might be able to help refine the method before it's dismissed. It would be a huge loss to our understanding if he gets this forecast wrong, and then gives up when it may be that a few slight details- which could be provided by people here- were missing.
-
I posted the Feb 2011 forecast on here because I was asked by AF #46 and Snooz #45 to offer more forecasts.
OK if your view is the wider feeling on here, that is my last forecast that I will post. I don't want to risk being suspended from another forum.
All the best
Do not assume that his view is shared by all. If you get this one right then your forecasts will be much anticipated
-
I do find the idea that only a book would give Method X the thorough explanation it deserves quite puzzling in this day and age unless it is seen as an hommage to the great elders who had no need for such modern tools as the internet where entire lives are published nevermind books...
Anyhow, this is beginning to sound more and more like some strange excercise in hooking an audience then coming up with the most arcane utterings you can think of thus keeping everyone on tenderhooks as to what is behind it. The very precise forecast, 100% accurate or thereabouts according to the man himself, could prove to be a red herring, if not too far from reality, enough will believe there is something rather than just a bit of clever statistical gambling.
Anyhow, we shall see...
Using cycles and past days with the same factors coming in to play suggests that it's already statistical gambling ha!
But yes even if MB shed some light on why the method is using only 3 basic factors but requires 200 pages, i'm by no means saying he should reveal all, I just think its strange to 'test' this method when in fact, if he gave out minor pieces of information then others could help refine the system. Great inventions/discoveries are rarely the sole work of one person, and usually take years to develop, but today with the internet that could be sped up so much!
Very well said, I see that MB wants to write a book (makes a lot of money!), if there is anything in his fourth dimensional theories but like you I can't understand why he can't at least enter into reasoned debate with us. After all both Roger and Fred have shared their methodology with us and have therefore gained certainly my respect and that of many others on this forum with their reasoned and well thought out methods.
Just one thought I had though. If weather was able to be forecasted every day on every spot on the planet for the next 100 years just think of the impact that would have on everyday life. We'd all want the same 2 weeks off work, same wedding days etc etc and it would certainly (for me anyway) rather take the edge of things if I knew that on the 24th July 2021 it would be hot and sunny! There'd be nothing left to look forward to and certainly no model watching or weather forums.
Yes I see what you mean its a real dilemma. If everything natural/human on earth can be predicted in advance, and the world knows this then countless would be saved, but also countless lost, as the world turned to mush- if economy's could be predicted the world wouldn't function. Although I think that at this stage it seems that only 'extreme' weather events can be forecasted by this. I.e MB is predicting a sever weather event in 25 days, and the low pressure of November 12th was relatively severe by normal standards. It seems the system didn't work for a relatively 'average' day ( As far as last december goes!) with the christmas forecast.
-
Well one forecast (or three) a method does not make. I will be most disappointed if it turns out elves at the bottom of your garden helped you. I mean it. Roger and BFTP have a huge advantage in credibility since their methods are (mainly) public and they consistently forecast well, despite a huge amount of resistance.
You have a lot of work to do to even match them.
Yes I agree.MB, You can say you want to try and test it all you want, but how do you expect people to help you along without disclosing your ideas? If you are not serious enough to use the wealth of knowledge on this forum to help iron out any issues in your theory then i struggle to understand why you post predictions at all. If you tell us what these 3 'variables' are- just the names- then others may pay attention to this system, after all, surely disclosing these variables can cause no problems. I really cannot fathom why you can't tell us these- you don't even need to explain them if you don't want.
-
Hi MB - I notice you"ve used the term "the fourth dimension" quite a lot in your posts. Would you mind telling us what you personally consider to be the fourth dimension? Are you referring to the view of space-time, adding a dimension of time to the universe (Euclidian Space) or are you referring to a hypothetical fourth spatial dimension, added on to our normal three dimensions. This fourth spatial dimension being the higher plane very few human beings manage to attain?
Yes good point. I also wonder if he uses the idea of string theory i.e. the 'variables' are on the other string
-
If MB has a database of patterns from 1 billion years ago, or from Jupiter, it wouldn't predict anything.
The method doesn't have to suggest the cause of the weather is also the cause of geological activity. The historical patterns in MB's database obviously depend on the current configuration of the continents.
The method hasn't been tested after major volcanic activity so we don't know whether the prediction is unaffected. The factors biasing one particular outcome are obviously unaffected.
We all are skeptical. Nobody accepts unconditionally without evidence. That's what testing is for. MB should be encouraged, even by skeptics. It would be cool if he has discovered something.
On the thread on Piston Heads he mentions the same method can be used to predict earthquakes, and in reply to one of my questions he suggested anything can be predicted on the earth, and so for that reason the variables he's using are not on this planet.
-
Just to point something out which I believe about this whole theory. I touched on the issue earlier.
If as MB says in many posts that everything on earth is cyclic in nature, and as he mentions on other forums the sharp spikes ( Such as on a graph for pressure or even stock exchange prices) which would 'appear' to have an obvious, but unpredictable cause, are in fact predictable by looking at the underlying cause, then the three "variables" he mentions must be the same in ALL scenarios. If the weather can be altered by say, a volcanic eruption, and the prediction made before said eruption comes good anyway, then the determining factors must have taken into account this event. Since the event ( a volcanic eruption) cannot be CAUSED by the weather, but can have an effect on the weather, there is no way any weather models could take this into account before hand. But if this new method hypothetically could, it suggests that it uses the same method to predict the Volcanic eruption as well as the weather.
In summary I have to say I'm still skeptical about the idea, but come February 5th, I think I will have made up my mind to a high degree. The only way I can put what I have written differently is this (Sorry but I'm going to do this in terms of markets with reference to weather instead of the other way round:
- All conventional methods are predicting a steady increase in share prices for a year.
-New system predicts a sharp drop in prices after 6 months.
- 6 months later there is a huge hurricane which causes much destruction
-Shares drop dramatically because of this
- The new system was correct in this instance, but there is no way anything we normally relate to stocks could have predicted this. The fact is that the new system predicted the weather, not the stock prices, so it wasn't that the weather was the cause, there was a series of things which changed the weather which then caused a drop in shares.
.... therefore the same 3 factors must be used when determining the result of anything on earth...
again, im still a skeptic.
-
K.1000 (#69 and #77): well, I am impressed that you have looked into my other threads. In answer to your questions, everything that happens within the Earth’s atmosphere (ie: weather, lottery numbers, the financial markets, wars, the twists and turns of one’s life) is wholly predictable; nothing is chaotic.
Without going too much off in a tangent, the validity of this assertion can never be accepted/understood if one observes Nature from the point of view of the third dimension; one needs to raise one’s level of consciousness to see the unravelling of Nature from a higher dimension, such as the fourth. It’s a bit like a garden 10ft high hedge maze, it’s easier to find your way out if you could see it from a live real time camera giving you a bird’s eye view from above.
Sorry, but I think you missed something I wrote. I asked if the 3 'variables' that determine the weather and the DOW were in fact the same thing?
-
The actual crux of the forecasting of this event took about half an hour, as I wanted to undertake certain checks. Writing up the narrative, compiling the charts and the video took about 18 hours!
Part of me wants this forecast to be totally wrong.
I could be proved wrong, but I cannot see how this forecast will not come to pass. If this forecast is not closely fulfilled, I shall spend an awful long time probably trying to work out where it all went wrong!
If my level of expectation of the 12 Nov ’10 prediction was say 75% positive; my expectation for this forecast is considerably higher.
So here it is folks, the Great North Sea Storm of 2011 that should (if it happens) go down in history:
After having read through as much of your piston heads discussion ( 78 pages, I believe im on page 30) I have to say i am more interested than ever. I understand you believe cycles in nature repeat themselves i.e. Earthquakes do, but you also believe human driven things such as the DOW are cyclic. And for every cycle you speak of you say you can count the 'driving' factors on one hand. This makes me wonder if some, possibly even All the factors are the same in each circumstance. After reading through the discussion on piston heads you often give 'clues' but unfortunately they come in the form of links which are broken or require subscriptions
.Also I'm interested to see if you believe things such as the lottery are random. Is there a cycle in which numbers come out? Surely there are no external, or for that matter accessible, driving factors to this.
-
Nothing that I will write will be new. It has been known for aeons; how do I know that? Well there are clues everywhere. For example, every time I look at my watch I am reminded. Only someone who had an intimate knowledge of how nature works would divide the day into 24 equal divisions, why didn’t they choose 22 or 20? They chose 24 for a specific reason. Also, why does the watch face only have 12 divisions, why not 24? One can come up with theories all day long, but there is only one right answer and that answer can only be provided by those that have an intimate understanding of how Nature unravels. Please don’t get me wrong, I am still learning and not speaking from any lofty position.
hmmm very philosophical. I will be watching this closely to see if in fact there is a storm, and if there is, then that is one incredible prediction. Also I like your logic, but can you explain to me how 'Nature unravels' is related to 12 divisions on a clock? Is this merely a musing?
Thanks
-
Thanks for the great help everyone, I have bought one of the books John recommended, but I might buy more. Once again thanks for all the great reccomendations
-
I find the netweather guides very usedul and appreciate the effort that has gone into them, but I would like a book of some sort ( at a relatively basic level). I was wondering if anybody knows of good books for beginner meteorology?
Thanks
-
I heard thunder on Saturday morning as well, but don't recall anything on Friday night. I do know that the lights were flickering quite a bit on Friday night, this seemed strange to me as the severe gales were the night before! Whether that has anything to do with it I don't know.
EDIT, just found this on the Lancashire Evening Post website, from the comments section:
You've just made me wish I was at the docks on Friday night now. Sparks must have looked amazing.
-
I may be completely wrong here but here's my theory on the whole thing.
First of all I'd like to pitch the idea that BP aren't to blame but that's another story.
Okay Global Warming is supposedly melting the ice caps and they say that the salinity difference in fresh water and seawater is what is causing the gulf to slow down (as it 'evidently' has been for years). This according to many of the videos posted, combined with the solar minimum and other factors such as volcanic eruptions should in theory cool the earth down. Now correct me if i'm wrong but I am envisioning a loop here. Global warming warms the earth. The gulf stream and other factors caused by global warming then cool the earth. Surely this will be a cycle and a natural thermostat will keep us within boundaries?
-
Hi I live near Preston and can tell you that I saw nothing on Friday, and only heard of a power cut on Thursday night. However the real storm was on Saturday morning. I went out to clean the car of the dust that had been blown on it (from the storm on thursday) and heard the loudest crack of thunder ever, and the odd hailstone shower hitting me. On my way to work i pass through a village and it looked as though they had bore the brunt of that storm. About 30 minutes after the storm had gone past my house ( I should mention that this 'village' is about 2 miles away) there was a thick layer of large hailstones covering the ground. It was surreal, that suddenly the ground was covered in ice.
-
Can we see a shot of what it looked like at the height of winter last year?
Your Favourite Snow Event?
in Spring Weather Discussion
Posted
Has to be the one we experienced last year- It started snowing at about 6pm on Friday the 17th and didn't stop until about 6am on the 18th. It wasn't always massively heavy, but was never light, and by the morning it had left about 10 inches of snow. It took a week to get this down to about 6 inches ( Only on heat conducting surfaces though) and then that remainder had gone in a day with the extremely heavy rain. Would love for that to be a regular thing but it's such a rare event.