swebby

The likely hood of being hit by a small meteorite is one thing but to be hit by a small meteor is just outlandish....... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26891782

On the basis of today would you say pre shocks JP?

Story on the BBC about the appearance of lightning/atmospheric glow during earthquakes. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-26462348 http://meetings.aps.org/Meeting/MAR14/Event/214444

BBC Story on it - did not notice anything down here in Exeter but apparently it was felt in Exmouth. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-26277432

Full moon (and new moon) means the sun earth and moon are in alignment thus synchronising the pull on the oceans hence higher tides. http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/earth/oceanography/tide-table1.htm

Morning, First time I've been on the site since last week and the pop ups on the charts and data pages are no longer there. A much better navigating experience. Many thanks. S

Hi Paul, I've noticed the weather updates bar at the top of threads over the past week and have no real issue with it. However................ The "recommended for you" pop up that now appears automatically on all the model/chart pages is an entirely different kettle of fish. It can not be dismissed in IE ! (ver #11.0.9600), so you are stuck with it regardless. It can be dismissed in goggle chrome but the fact it automatically reappears every time you navigate to a new chart page makes it exceptionally irritating. I think it is even more intrusive than the recommend/share/link banner that has been appearing on the bottom of these pages for the past few months and that has been bugging the hell out of me. I understand why this pop up would be a desirable thing on the home "Weather Charts & Data" page and other section home pages but it really, really, really does not need to continually appear on every sub section page you then navigate to? Cheers S Edit - just to add - this is the element I'm talking about <div class="at4-whatsnext ats-transparent animated slideInUp" id="at4-whatsnext" role="region" aria-labelledby="at4-whatsnext-label

Looks like someone read the nature article and then forgot to transpose the word "no" from the nature articles headline.

Link to article in nature http://www.nature.com/news/earth-mass-exoplanet-is-no-earth-twin-1.14477

When writing my post the Italian geologists actually crossed my mind. They are a very good example of why a weather forecast, produced by either an individual or a commercial or governmental organisation must not be challenged in a court of law (no matter how laughable it is) providing the following can be shown:- 1) That the forecast was produced using a scientific method. 2) If it was not produced using scientific method then there is a clear statement that it is a piece of speculation. 3) The forecast is produced in good faith, i.e not an intentional bunch of lies, designed to actively mislead. What that scientific method is, be it classical meteorology or non classical is neither here nor there. If a method can be shown that allows the results to be tested/challenged by observation then it is valid, be it the use of satellite observations or seaweed observations. What is required is a better level of scientific literacy in the general population so when utter codswallop is put into print it is treated in the manner it deserves. Unfortunately, if the headline reads Weather type X to batter UK then joe blogs is likely to look further (eg buy the paper) because it may actually be true. Unfortunately the ethics of our popular press leave a lot to be desired.

Not sure it would be possible to take the papers to task on this if the story has been accurately sourced from a meteorological organisation? The meteorological organisation that is source may however be open to trade description issues if it could be shown that the forecast is an utter fabrication but again that would be exceptionally difficult to prove. A carefully worded forecast that borders on the sensational can then be selectively quoted to provide a ridiculous headline but in this process nothing has actually occurred that would be regarded as breaking the law.

Images for the above post (editor is not letting me paste directly for some reason?)

Both 00z ECM and 6z GFS going for something inclement next Thursday. Long way off but the October 28th storm was picked up this far out. Edit - images a couple of post below.

A couple more links on this http://www.sci-news.com/geology/science-supervolcanoes-utah-nevada-01612.html http://phys.org/news/2013-12-utah-supervolcanoes.html The latter has links to abstracts of the two papers the story is taken from.

The etna video looks more like a special effect out of a movie like lord of the rings than a real life eruption. Spectacular indeed!

Think you are referring to Brinicles?

From looking at the thread you posted the link to at the top of the page - It will appear as a comet for a few days even if the nucleus has disintegrated. The failure to brighten any further and the lack certain emission lines in it's spectra is what appears to have some observers worried.

Hi CH - as well as the fumarole that opened up near the airport another vent also opened up underwater just off the coast during the summer. Fortunately for the local populace, the last thoughts I saw about these two vents is that they are not actually volcanic in nature. Both vents have formed in the delta of the river Tiber and the thinking is that the decomposition of a build up of rubbish over the years (rome has a long history) has led to heating allowing these vents to form.

Just found this interactive exoplanet catalog via a bbc news story http://exoplanet.eu/ and for any doomsday junkies - an impact link that is kinda in line with Tim B's nuke link in the above post. http://impact.ese.ic.ac.uk/ImpactEffects/

I watched a documentary a few months back about this creature and there are theories that this may indeed be the case. It also linked this creature with being the basis of the many seafaring myths of other types of sea monsters (sea serpents) and also of the far eastern legends of dragons.

Found it? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24551407 S

Not sure why the presence of a hunters tunic means that there must have been thriving communities? Not sure why the presence of thriving communities means that it must have been warmer? The inuit cultures seem to have been doing fine in the polar/sub polar regions for thousands of years. I'm fairly neutral about the reality or not of AGW but the assumptions you have just made are somewhat sweeping in nature?

Hi Mike, it is exactly these type of objects the researchers were looking for. For more see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_dwarf In this case I suspect it is a very low mass (failed) star but I would imagine there must be planets wandering about out there that have been ejected from the orbit of their original parent star.

A report of a very low mass brown dwarf that has characteristics of a gas giant planet. Question is - is it a planet wandering about without a companion star or just a very low mass brown dwarf? http://www.scienceworldreport.com/articles/10084/20131010/astronomers-discovere-lonely-planet-without-astar.htm http://arxiv.org/abs/1310.0457 S

BBC radio 5 just reported it as a 7.2 quake.