*is not jealous of the antipodeans' sub-10-degree-centigrade temperatures at all, oh no...* 20 degrees C here (NW London) at 09.00 this morning, with a high of 32C or 90F expected today. Thank goodness I'm working outside for the next couple of days. I think...

(Dujon) Thanks. Along with penelope I could do with a bit of that. Just popped out to the screen - it's 29°, dewpoint 17°, i.e. sweaty. Almost no wind and the sky is full of heavy cirrus, which should stop it getting any hotter but might stop it cooling down much this evening, alas. Tomorrow's forecast is for all hell to be let loose (thunderstorms). It looks rather tasty, but we'll see. Only 6 mm rain here this month. Good, no gardening needed. Concerning my earlier rant my sources in the Met Office seem to have been reliable; see http://northtonight.grampiantv.co.uk/content/default.asp?page=s1_1_1&newsid=6898 You can get UK Met Office charts but only via the University of Karlsruhe.

[Pen] Bah! Luxury. It has topped 32^oC every day (Except Weds)this week here in the Avon Valley. 19^oC ish at night. I have been sleeping out on the lawn (in my sleeping bag) all week - listening to the hedgehogs fan themselves.

[flerdle] PaulWay must indeed have a sixth sense - good luck to him. Drifting around the east coast or west coast of the U.S. of A. sounds somewhat idyllic - unless there're cyclones or earthquakes.
[Rosie] That does sound a bit, well, short sighted? I can most certainly understand the concerns of local industries - fishing, oil rigs and the like - as I have always felt that local knowledge in these matters is a significant asset. Yesterday Katoomba had a temperature range of -1°C to 3°C. Given my wife's earlier account I thought I'd gird my loins and drive up to bring her home (she often has to walk to the station - a good half hour walk and all up hill). Not having been to her place of employ previously I got flummoxed in the back street up and down dale topography. Enough so as to miss her. I then hurtled up to the railway station and again missed. Most sad. There was, however, a light side to this epic voyage of discovery: Just about everyone I saw in the main street of the town wore a beany, many were wearing fleecy lined jackets (some with Alaskan style fur collars/hoods) whilst little old me was wearing my usual short-sleeved shirt with a cardigan for insurance and no hat. It was most assuredly cold and I would not have liked to wander around for an hour in that garb, but it did make me chuckle.
To make things worth, by the way, thinking that my wife's train was long gone by the time I rediscovered my home territory, I took a cursory glance at the railway station as I passed and, seeing no one of interest, carried on home. I was advised fifteen minutes later - in no uncertain terms - that I'd driven straight past the poor lass. Honestly, you can't win.

s/worth/worse.

[Dujon] I have to say that I think you have the good fortune to live in one of the most beautiful parts of the world that I have ever seen.

[BtD] Sleeping outside? Is your house better or still falling down?

bool- house is fine, just very hot. please excuse the formatting, this is being posted from a mobile.

[CdM] I had gathered you'd been here, but hadn't realised that you had visited the 'mountains'. Though they are not very high there are some majestic parts of them, for sure. I'm pleased that you enjoyed the place.
[All] I hope that everyone else has had some relief from your oppressive weather - I know from experience that it can be quite ennervating, especially the 'getting to sleep' bit. Urrk. As a matter of interest, Bob the dog, if you were escaping the heat then why the sleeping bag? You have me intrigued.

Dujon] Its a summerbag - simply for keeping the dew off - not that there has been much. There is also the discretion factor as I sleep in view of neighbours who are very good friends of ours - but who would probably be offended by the sight of my lack of attire. Come to think of it - a topic of conversation here in the UK recently has been the unusally large moon close to the horizon...

[BtD] So do you hop out the back door in your sleeping bag, sack-race style, or do you tiptoe out once you think they're asleep?

(Btd) The moon, full or otherwise, always looks big when close to the horizon. It's an optical illusion, which nobody can really explain. If you actually measured it you would find it's smaller near the horizon than when high in the sky, other things being equal. This is a simple geometrical effect.

[Rosie] No, I think, surely, you would find that the Moon is the same size in the sky no matter whether it's high or low. After all, it only takes a few hours for it to rise or set - it's not going to change in apparent size as it does so. The apparent growth of the Moon when near the horizon is of course some kind of psychological effect.

The reason the Moon has been looking even bigger than usual near the horizon this week is that full moon has coincided (almost) with midsummer. The Moon is full when it is opposite the sun in the sky. The sun is at its highest at midsummer. Therefore, if the Moon is full at midsummer, it will be as close to the horizon as it ever gets whilst being full. Therefore the "Mendex" or Moon Illusion is at its strongest.

When I say that the Moon doesn't change in apparent size while rising or setting, I mean that the area of sky that it covers surely doesn't change. Obviously its apparent size does change because it looks bigger closer to the horizon, but it extends over the same arc of the sky (and indeed of the retina).

The moon should appear to be smaller when on the horizon than when at the zenith. Reason? It is further away when viewed at a tangent to the Earth's surface than from a perpendicular. This slight change is measurable though unlikely to be noticed by a casual observer.
Why we generally perceive a full moon to be larger on its rising as opposed to when it is high in the sky has often been said to be as a result of it being in proximity to our more normally observed everyday horizon (trees, buildings, horizon line) than when it's clear of such. In other words the sense of scale becomes more evident.

(Breadmaster) Dujon has explained what I meant by the "geometrical effect". The moon is measurably about 1.7% larger in apparent diameter when overhead than when on the horizon, other things being equal. We're simply closer to it when it's overhead. The same applies to the sun, strictly speaking, but as the distance of the sun is 23500 earth radii the effect is barely measurable even with instruments.

reference is made to: http://petergreenaway.co.uk/games.htm

Many of the films of Peter Greenaway, at least the feature films that I have seen, have the structure of games. The best example is probably Drowning by Numbers. I have only recently discovered MC and I find the similarity to Hangman's Cricket to be striking. Does anyone know whether Greenaway has played MC?

[Rosie] Sorry to steal your thunder, old son, but Breadmaster's comment had been sitting for quite a few hours without response.
[Effable] Hello. I cannot answer your question but, on the law of averages, my guess would be 'yes'. The reason for that is that I believe I'm the only person on Earth who hasn't played a serious game of M.C..

(Duj) No problem, mate. I've never played MC, either live or on these sites. It is essentially a performance in which the audience and panel enter into a mutual conspiracy about the complexity of the rules. Very few people I know have ever heard of it, which is rather disappointing. You could go up to anyone over the age of about 40 in this country and say "Bal-ham", and the almost instantaneous response would be "Gateway to the South", but say "Mornington Crescent" and you'd get mostly blank looks.

[Breadmaster] I just re-read your earlier post vis-à-vis (sorry!) full moon and the midsummer situation. This is not true. On average there are thirteen full moons per year. As viewed from Earth (the Sun always 'sees' a full moon) such an event can only be seen from one point on Earth and will happen at a specific time. To be technically correct a proper full moon will only occur during a total lunar eclipse, which is when the Sun, Earth and Moon are truly aligned - even then it can only be termed a 'full moon' by a person standing/sitting/lying on the direct line between the Sun, Earth and Moon at the time that this occurs.

Ooh Arr, hello Rosie. Simulpost.
I trust you agree with my little piece on celestial mechanics? Or have I mislead myself?

[Rosie] Well, I'm very nearly fifty and I only learned of the existence of MC a few days ago. Now I'm hooked. It is as though it had been out there waiting for me to discover it, seems so right, so well suited to my motley talents. It doesn't bother me that it is so obscure. That is part of the appeal. And I am confident that many people have played MC without knowing what it is called. The pattern is a common one in many circles with intellectual pretensions.

[Effable]

"... The pattern is a common one in many circles with intellectual pretensions."

Your research, Sir or Madam, is exemplary. Welcome to the world of wannabees, couldavebeens and mightwellbees. I suspect that you will fit quite well into this society of misfits and miscreants. As a relative newcomer to the M.C. world myself, I'm quite sure that you will understand the deep and meaningful discussions, the amazing word play and generally unintelligible literary references which pepper this and other M.C. sites. Should I be correct then maybe you could help me out when I get stuck?

[Dujon] Yes, of course technically you're correct about the full moon - I was using the term in the slightly vernacular sense, meaning the moon when it is as full as it is getting this month, as it were.

Living in Norfolk and often driving through the fens, I have frequently seen "full" moons on the horizion and they never look any bigger than when it is up in the sky. The moon does look huge however when it is a very fine crescent rising just before or setting just after the sun on a red sky.