Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
magnitude 7 earthquake strikes New Zealand
62 views
Skip to first unread message
Brian
Jul 3, 2012, 8:10:04 AM7/3/12
to
A magnitude 7 earthquake located between the south and north island hit at
10.36 pm on Tuesday 3rd July. It was 230 km deep and lasted up to 50
seconds. It was felt by most of New Zealand.
--
Regards Brian
10.36 pm on Tuesday 3rd July. It was 230 km deep and lasted up to 50
seconds. It was felt by most of New Zealand.
--
Regards Brian
Message has been deleted
Brian
Jul 3, 2012, 9:45:09 PM7/3/12
to
Zombie Hampster <Z...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 12:10:04 GMT, Brian <bcl...@es.co.nz> wrote:
>
>> A magnitude 7 earthquake
>
> If I've told you ONCE, I've told you a MILLION TIMES..
>
>
> DON'T exaggerate!!
>
> It was only 6.2.
YOU ARE WRONG ZOMBIE.
No it was reported on the news as a magnitute 7 earthquake. This occured on
3rd July 2012 and has nothing to do with past magnitude 6 earthquakes. It
was also reported at geonet as a Magnitude 7 earthquake
--
Regards Brian
> On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 12:10:04 GMT, Brian <bcl...@es.co.nz> wrote:
>
>> A magnitude 7 earthquake
>
> If I've told you ONCE, I've told you a MILLION TIMES..
>
>
> DON'T exaggerate!!
>
> It was only 6.2.
YOU ARE WRONG ZOMBIE.
No it was reported on the news as a magnitute 7 earthquake. This occured on
3rd July 2012 and has nothing to do with past magnitude 6 earthquakes. It
was also reported at geonet as a Magnitude 7 earthquake
--
Regards Brian
Brian
Jul 3, 2012, 9:50:10 PM7/3/12
to
Zombie Hampster <Z...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 12:10:04 GMT, Brian <bcl...@es.co.nz> wrote:
>
>> A magnitude 7 earthquake
>
> If I've told you ONCE, I've told you a MILLION TIMES..
>
>
> DON'T exaggerate!!
>
> It was only 6.2.
If you want proof that is WAS a magnitude 7.0 earthquake then go to this
> On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 12:10:04 GMT, Brian <bcl...@es.co.nz> wrote:
>
>> A magnitude 7 earthquake
>
> If I've told you ONCE, I've told you a MILLION TIMES..
>
>
> DON'T exaggerate!!
>
> It was only 6.2.
site
http://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/quakes/recent_quakes.html
--
Regards Brian
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Skywise
Jul 3, 2012, 11:45:54 PM7/3/12
to
Go easy on the guy. He's relatively new to understanding the
art of seismology, having been unexpectedly thrust (pardon the pun)
into it all by the Christchurch quakes.
Brian, there are two broad ways to report a quake - the intensity
and the magnitude.
Magnitude is the 'richter' or other magnitude scale (usually
moment magnitude on large quakes) that measures the amount of
energy released.
Intensity is a measure of how much the ground shakes during the
quake and is usually reported using the Modified Mercalli Index
in the United States. However, different countries use may use
different intensity scales.
Here's some homework reading for you....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richter_magnitude_scale
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moment_magnitude_scale
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modified_Mercalli_scale
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seismic_scale
Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?
art of seismology, having been unexpectedly thrust (pardon the pun)
into it all by the Christchurch quakes.
Brian, there are two broad ways to report a quake - the intensity
and the magnitude.
Magnitude is the 'richter' or other magnitude scale (usually
moment magnitude on large quakes) that measures the amount of
energy released.
Intensity is a measure of how much the ground shakes during the
quake and is usually reported using the Modified Mercalli Index
in the United States. However, different countries use may use
different intensity scales.
Here's some homework reading for you....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richter_magnitude_scale
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moment_magnitude_scale
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modified_Mercalli_scale
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seismic_scale
Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?
Brian
Jul 4, 2012, 3:57:14 AM7/4/12
to
Zombie Hampster <Z...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
> If you could READ English,
> you'd have read that that page shows INTENSITY, not magnitude!
>
> Intensity 7 (as in HOW it felt), but MAGNITUDE was 6.2!
Well in English this is what the site says.
[View Felt Reports in Google Maps][View event in Google Maps]
Reference Number: 3732830
NZST: Tue, Jul 3 2012 10:36 pm
Magnitude: 7.0
Depth: 230 km
Details: 60 km south of Opunake
Please note that the word (in english) Magnitude appears next to the number
7.0
--
Regards Brian
> you'd have read that that page shows INTENSITY, not magnitude!
>
> Intensity 7 (as in HOW it felt), but MAGNITUDE was 6.2!
Well in English this is what the site says.
[View Felt Reports in Google Maps][View event in Google Maps]
Reference Number: 3732830
NZST: Tue, Jul 3 2012 10:36 pm
Magnitude: 7.0
Depth: 230 km
Details: 60 km south of Opunake
Please note that the word (in english) Magnitude appears next to the number
7.0
--
Regards Brian
Brian
Jul 4, 2012, 3:57:15 AM7/4/12
to
Zombie Hampster <Z...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
> http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/recenteqsww/Quakes/quakes_big.php
>
> There was NO mag 7 quake anywhere near NZ on that date,
> OR any other time recently!
It is common for earthquakes to be upscaled in magnitude from what they
were originally reported and I heard that this is what happened with this
earthquake.
--
Regards Brian
>
> There was NO mag 7 quake anywhere near NZ on that date,
> OR any other time recently!
It is common for earthquakes to be upscaled in magnitude from what they
were originally reported and I heard that this is what happened with this
earthquake.
--
Regards Brian
Brian
Jul 4, 2012, 3:57:16 AM7/4/12
to
Skywise <in...@oblivion.nothing.com> wrote:
> Go easy on the guy. He's relatively new to understanding the
> art of seismology, having been unexpectedly thrust (pardon the pun)
> into it all by the Christchurch quakes.
>
> Brian, there are two broad ways to report a quake - the intensity
> and the magnitude.
>
> Magnitude is the 'richter' or other magnitude scale (usually
> moment magnitude on large quakes) that measures the amount of
> energy released.
>
> Intensity is a measure of how much the ground shakes during the
> quake and is usually reported using the Modified Mercalli Index
> in the United States. However, different countries use may use
> different intensity scales.
>
> Here's some homework reading for you....
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richter_magnitude_scale
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moment_magnitude_scale
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modified_Mercalli_scale
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seismic_scale
>
> Brian
Thanks Skywise.
> Go easy on the guy. He's relatively new to understanding the
> art of seismology, having been unexpectedly thrust (pardon the pun)
> into it all by the Christchurch quakes.
>
> Brian, there are two broad ways to report a quake - the intensity
> and the magnitude.
>
> Magnitude is the 'richter' or other magnitude scale (usually
> moment magnitude on large quakes) that measures the amount of
> energy released.
>
> Intensity is a measure of how much the ground shakes during the
> quake and is usually reported using the Modified Mercalli Index
> in the United States. However, different countries use may use
> different intensity scales.
>
> Here's some homework reading for you....
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richter_magnitude_scale
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moment_magnitude_scale
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modified_Mercalli_scale
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seismic_scale
>
> Brian
In New Zealand it is always reported on the news as a magnitude 7, the word
intensity is never used. Other websites such as the ones setup to report on
canterbury earthquakes always rate their earthquakes in magnitude rather
than intensity. So this is the first time I have heard a earthquake being
rated in Intensity.
The first major earthquake in New Zealand 2010 was rated in Magnitude as a
7.1 so if it did had a intensity rating then I suspect it would be higher
than 7.
--
Regards Brian
Brian
Jul 4, 2012, 4:05:49 AM7/4/12
to
Zombie Hampster <Z...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Jul 2012 01:50:10 GMT, Brian <bcl...@es.co.nz> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 04 Jul 2012 01:50:10 GMT, Brian <bcl...@es.co.nz> wrote:
>
> If you could READ English,
> you'd have read that that page shows INTENSITY, not magnitude!
>
> Intensity 7 (as in HOW it felt), but MAGNITUDE was 6.2!
This is how the quake was reported.
> you'd have read that that page shows INTENSITY, not magnitude!
>
> Intensity 7 (as in HOW it felt), but MAGNITUDE was 6.2!
No serious damage or injuries have been reported after a deep magnitude-7.0
earthquake that shook New Zealand from the Bay of Plenty to Canterbury last
night.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/marlborough-express/news/7216851/Quake-felt-throughout-central-NZ
Once again it does say that its a Magnitude 7 earthquake.
--
Regards Brian
data...@yahoo.com
Jul 4, 2012, 5:21:37 AM7/4/12
to
On Tuesday, July 3, 2012 11:40:49 AM UTC-6, Zombie Hampster wrote:
> On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 12:10:04 GMT, Brian <bcl...@es.co.nz> wrote:
>
> >A magnitude 7 earthquake
>
> If I've told you ONCE, I've told you a MILLION TIMES..
>
>
> DON'T exaggerate!!
>
> It was only 6.2.
and NOT on the Alpine Fault ?
> On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 12:10:04 GMT, Brian <bcl...@es.co.nz> wrote:
>
> >A magnitude 7 earthquake
>
> If I've told you ONCE, I've told you a MILLION TIMES..
>
>
> DON'T exaggerate!!
>
> It was only 6.2.
half points...
Don in Hollister
Jul 4, 2012, 6:32:38 AM7/4/12
to
magnitude). The Richter scale starts to saturate around 6.0M and
because of that the upper limit isn't always correct or hard to
determine. The "moment magnitude" has no upper limit, but doesn't do
very good for quakes less then 2.0M.
The moment magnitude scale was introduced in 1979 by Tom Hanks and
Hiroo Kanamori as a successor to the Richter scale and is used by
seismologists to compare the energy released by earthquakes.
Snip:
"The moment magnitude scale (abbreviated as MMS; denoted as MW) is
used by seismologists to measure the size of earthquakes in terms of
the energy released.[1] The magnitude is based on the seismic moment
of the earthquake, which is equal to the rigidity of the Earth
multiplied by the average amount of slip on the fault and the size of
the area that slipped.[2] The scale was developed in the 1970s to
succeed the 1930s-era Richter magnitude scale (ML). Even though the
formulae are different, the new scale retains the familiar continuum
of magnitude values defined by the older one. The MMS is now the scale
used to estimate magnitudes for all modern large earthquakes by the
United States Geological Survey." The MW stands for "mechanical
work."
Both USGS and NEIC have told me many times when ever there is a doubt
about the magnitude of a quake always use the seismic network of the
country the quake occurred in, or the seismic network of a country
closest to the country the quake occurred in. Take Care...Don
Brian
Jul 4, 2012, 9:03:07 AM7/4/12
to
The line of text reads ...a deep magnitude 7.0 and you are saying that it
does not say Magnitude 7.
Both statements can't be right or are you saying everyone is wrong in
reporting it as a magnitude 7 earthquake?
--
Regards Brian
Brian
Jul 4, 2012, 9:03:08 AM7/4/12
to
these things.
--
Regards Brian
Brian
Jul 4, 2012, 9:06:19 AM7/4/12
to
--
Regards Brian
Skywise
Jul 4, 2012, 4:51:21 PM7/4/12
to
Brian <bcl...@es.co.nz> wrote in news:18797523363099392.877543bclark-
es.c...@free.teranews.com:
> No one said it was on the Alpine Fault...i don't know why you are saying
> these things.
A strong clue that it was not on the Alpine fault, besides
being in the wrong location, is the depth. This particular quake
is reported as being 236km/147mi deep. Knowing that the Alpine
is a strike-slip, and knowing that such faults are rarely more
than 15km deep, and certainly NEVER that deep....
Simple deduction, eh?
A little knowledge along with reasoning skills goes a long way.
As far as the quake being report as a magnitude 7, Don has it
right. If your local network is reporting Richter magnitude, it's
'saturated'. But also, it's not uncommon for the initial quick
solution to be way off. Heck, the Great Sumatra quake was initially
report as only in the high 7's, IIRC. It's possible they're still
reporting the initial solution and not a more accurate update.
Keep at it, Brian. We'll make you the New Zealand quake expert yet.
es.c...@free.teranews.com:
> No one said it was on the Alpine Fault...i don't know why you are saying
> these things.
being in the wrong location, is the depth. This particular quake
is reported as being 236km/147mi deep. Knowing that the Alpine
is a strike-slip, and knowing that such faults are rarely more
than 15km deep, and certainly NEVER that deep....
Simple deduction, eh?
A little knowledge along with reasoning skills goes a long way.
As far as the quake being report as a magnitude 7, Don has it
right. If your local network is reporting Richter magnitude, it's
'saturated'. But also, it's not uncommon for the initial quick
solution to be way off. Heck, the Great Sumatra quake was initially
report as only in the high 7's, IIRC. It's possible they're still
reporting the initial solution and not a more accurate update.
Keep at it, Brian. We'll make you the New Zealand quake expert yet.
oriel36
Jul 5, 2012, 4:06:17 PM7/5/12
to
On Jul 4, 10:51 pm, Skywise <i...@oblivion.nothing.com> wrote:
> Brian <bcl...@es.co.nz> wrote in news:18797523363099392.877543bclark-
> es.co...@free.teranews.com:
> Brian <bcl...@es.co.nz> wrote in news:18797523363099392.877543bclark-
>
> > No one said it was on the Alpine Fault...i don't know why you are saying
> > these things.
>
> A strong clue that it was not on the Alpine fault, besides
> being in the wrong location, is the depth. This particular quake
> is reported as being 236km/147mi deep. Knowing that the Alpine
> is a strike-slip, and knowing that such faults are rarely more
> than 15km deep, and certainly NEVER that deep....
>
> Simple deduction, eh?
>
> A little knowledge along with reasoning skills goes a long way.
>
> As far as the quake being report as a magnitude 7, Don has it
> right. If your local network is reporting Richter magnitude, it's
> 'saturated'. But also, it's not uncommon for the initial quick
> solution to be way off. Heck, the Great Sumatra quake was initially
> report as only in the high 7's, IIRC. It's possible they're still
> reporting the initial solution and not a more accurate update.
>
> Keep at it, Brian. We'll make you the New Zealand quake expert yet.
>
> Brian
> --http://www.skywise711.com- Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
> > No one said it was on the Alpine Fault...i don't know why you are saying
> > these things.
>
> A strong clue that it was not on the Alpine fault, besides
> being in the wrong location, is the depth. This particular quake
> is reported as being 236km/147mi deep. Knowing that the Alpine
> is a strike-slip, and knowing that such faults are rarely more
> than 15km deep, and certainly NEVER that deep....
>
> Simple deduction, eh?
>
> A little knowledge along with reasoning skills goes a long way.
>
> As far as the quake being report as a magnitude 7, Don has it
> right. If your local network is reporting Richter magnitude, it's
> 'saturated'. But also, it's not uncommon for the initial quick
> solution to be way off. Heck, the Great Sumatra quake was initially
> report as only in the high 7's, IIRC. It's possible they're still
> reporting the initial solution and not a more accurate update.
>
> Keep at it, Brian. We'll make you the New Zealand quake expert yet.
>
> Brian
> Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?
Geologists indeed !,what I wouldn't give to find a geologist who can
easily state that the 24901 mile circumference of the equator turns at
a rate of 15 degrees/1037.5 miles per hour and until they can do
that,they can forget about earthquake experts or even geology itself.
I see they are doing quite nicely mangling the easily understood
principles of differential rotation and the adjustment of viscosity to
suit the mechanism which links planetary spherical deviation with
crustal evolution/motion.What class there is using petty thievery when
they could simply observe rotating celestial compositions with exposed
viscous compositions and rework the observations into the fluid
interior of the Earth.
Not even the observed viscosity of the interior through every volcano
and crustal boundary seems to alter the attempt to explain crustal
motion using a highly viscous treacle like substance when the
mechanism for crustal evolution demands a viscosity which suits
rotation -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XmNKIr7DG_c
How many dreary people denounced an emerging work 7 years ago and
still have the cheek to talk about 'experts' .When the geological
community can't handle the actual 24901 mile geological feature of
the equator as the region/latitude of maximum rotational speed at
1037.5 miles/15 degrees per hour then there are no geologists - that
is not an insult but an unfortunate fact.
Are none of you embarrassed to the point of dismay ?, geologists who
can't figure out the basic facts of a round and rotating Earth !.Any
other area of human endeavor and they would be charged with fraud or
incompetence and it will remain that way until they can make sense of
this planet's geological dimensions and its rotation -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JxrIMHKobk0
How did it ever get so bad !.
Brian
Jul 5, 2012, 8:59:07 PM7/5/12
to
Experts can only take their best guess based on what they already know.
They have to be careful as if they say something is unlikely to happen and
it does happen then they get themselves in a lot of trouble.
--
Regards Brian
Skywise
Jul 6, 2012, 1:13:39 AM7/6/12
to
Still having trouble with the difference between Sidereal and
Solar time?
Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Solar time?
Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
oriel36
Jul 9, 2012, 1:45:16 AM7/9/12
to
On Jul 6, 6:13 am, Skywise <i...@oblivion.nothing.com> wrote:
> Still having trouble with the difference between Sidereal and
> Solar time?
>
> Brian
> --http://www.skywise711.com- Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
> Still having trouble with the difference between Sidereal and
> Solar time?
>
> Brian
> Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?
If there was so much concern for Earthquakes,they would have found it
well worth listening to what I had to say in respect to the underlying
rotational mechanism which creates those short term geological
events,instead they acted like petty thieves and tried to bungle in a
rotation mechanism without any sort of care or attribution.
When you have loved ones living in an Earthquake zone as I have, you
treat these things seriously and
Weatherlawyer
Jul 13, 2012, 3:09:55 AM7/13/12
to
On Jul 4, 8:57 am, Brian <bcl...@es.co.nz> wrote:
It was followed 10 minutes later by a mag ~4.
If that's really a 3 not a 4.6 as given on GeoNet that would put it at
an high 6.5 all tolled.
The various scales are all subject to dispute. Always were and always
will be.
One of the oldest scales was the richter. This dates from the stone
age. These days buildings are commonly reinforced with iron rebar. (Or
as it is called in China "string".)
When a stone building cracks and is shaken. The material breaks up and
falls in the opened joints.
The next jolt will be upon a seriously undermined fabric, never mind
suspect foundations. The result is that a wedge is vibrated deep into
every part of the structure.
But even strong winds will cause a building to vibrate and if the
edifice is large enough a great deal of strain is put on the larger
through-stones that tie a building together.
Infill is usually small stones and sand. It dribbles and trickles down
all the building's life. That is why the death tolls in churches is so
great. The vast empty buildings tend to have no inner bulkheads to
maintain support.
Ordinary housing and workplaces are loaded with cross beams and ties.
Not that modern buildings are safe. The floors rest on brackets welded
or bolted to pillars. These are well known weak spots in their design.
If that's really a 3 not a 4.6 as given on GeoNet that would put it at
an high 6.5 all tolled.
The various scales are all subject to dispute. Always were and always
will be.
One of the oldest scales was the richter. This dates from the stone
age. These days buildings are commonly reinforced with iron rebar. (Or
as it is called in China "string".)
When a stone building cracks and is shaken. The material breaks up and
falls in the opened joints.
The next jolt will be upon a seriously undermined fabric, never mind
suspect foundations. The result is that a wedge is vibrated deep into
every part of the structure.
But even strong winds will cause a building to vibrate and if the
edifice is large enough a great deal of strain is put on the larger
through-stones that tie a building together.
Infill is usually small stones and sand. It dribbles and trickles down
all the building's life. That is why the death tolls in churches is so
great. The vast empty buildings tend to have no inner bulkheads to
maintain support.
Ordinary housing and workplaces are loaded with cross beams and ties.
Not that modern buildings are safe. The floors rest on brackets welded
or bolted to pillars. These are well known weak spots in their design.
Weatherlawyer
Jul 13, 2012, 3:18:16 AM7/13/12
to
On Jul 4, 2:03 pm, Brian <bcl...@es.co.nz> wrote:
> Brian <bcl...@es.co.nz> wrote:
> > Zombie Hampster <Z...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 04 Jul 2012 01:50:10 GMT, Brian <bcl...@es.co.nz> wrote:
>
> >>> Zombie Hampster <Z...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
> >>>> On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 12:10:04 GMT, Brian <bcl...@es.co.nz> wrote:
>
> >>>>> A magnitude 7 earthquake
>
> >>>> If I've told you ONCE, I've told you a MILLION TIMES..
>
> >>>> DON'T exaggerate!!
>
> >>>> It was only 6.2.
>
> >>> If you want proof that is WAS a magnitude 7.0 earthquake then go to this
> >>> site
>
> >>>http://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/quakes/recent_quakes.html
>
> >> If you could READ English,
> >> you'd have read that that page shows INTENSITY, not magnitude!
>
> >> Intensity 7 (as in HOW it felt), but MAGNITUDE was 6.2!
>
> > This is how the quake was reported.
>
> > No serious damage or injuries have been reported after a deep magnitude-7.0
> > earthquake that shook New Zealand from the Bay of Plenty to Canterbury last
> > night.
>
> >http://www.stuff.co.nz/marlborough-express/news/7216851/Quake-felt-th...
> Brian <bcl...@es.co.nz> wrote:
> > Zombie Hampster <Z...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 04 Jul 2012 01:50:10 GMT, Brian <bcl...@es.co.nz> wrote:
>
> >>> Zombie Hampster <Z...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
> >>>> On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 12:10:04 GMT, Brian <bcl...@es.co.nz> wrote:
>
> >>>>> A magnitude 7 earthquake
>
> >>>> If I've told you ONCE, I've told you a MILLION TIMES..
>
> >>>> DON'T exaggerate!!
>
> >>>> It was only 6.2.
>
> >>> If you want proof that is WAS a magnitude 7.0 earthquake then go to this
> >>> site
>
> >>>http://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/quakes/recent_quakes.html
>
> >> If you could READ English,
> >> you'd have read that that page shows INTENSITY, not magnitude!
>
> >> Intensity 7 (as in HOW it felt), but MAGNITUDE was 6.2!
>
> > This is how the quake was reported.
>
> > No serious damage or injuries have been reported after a deep magnitude-7.0
> > earthquake that shook New Zealand from the Bay of Plenty to Canterbury last
> > night.
>
>
> > Once again it does say that its a Magnitude 7 earthquake.
>
> Now you have me confused.
> The line of text reads ...a deep magnitude 7.0 and you are saying that it
> does not say Magnitude 7.
> Both statements can't be right or are you saying everyone is wrong in
> reporting it as a magnitude 7 earthquake?
If all the data for all the quakes in your country are measured on the
> > Once again it does say that its a Magnitude 7 earthquake.
>
> Now you have me confused.
> The line of text reads ...a deep magnitude 7.0 and you are saying that it
> does not say Magnitude 7.
> Both statements can't be right or are you saying everyone is wrong in
> reporting it as a magnitude 7 earthquake?
same scale, it's not up to you to correct foreigners. It is up to them
to make their own corrections.
Everyone on here tends to go by the NEIC fault list. It is a good one
but obviously not the same one. Never take to heart what people on the
internet say to you.
A lot of them just want to be clever. But I'm here now so they have to
make do with bullying newbies. Well done for sticking it out like a
Kiwi.
Brian
Jul 14, 2012, 9:28:52 PM7/14/12
to
--
Regards Brian
Weatherlawyer
Jul 15, 2012, 5:24:25 AM7/15/12
to
On Jul 15, 2:28 am, Brian <bcl...@es.co.nz> wrote:
You don't deserve it but I am trying to be nicer than I used to be.
Skywise
Jul 15, 2012, 2:15:59 PM7/15/12
to
Weatherlawyer <weathe...@gmail.com> wrote in news:061fef16-0d6c-42b8-
95fa-fd9...@n16g2000vbn.googlegroups.com:
My irony meter just broke....
Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
95fa-fd9...@n16g2000vbn.googlegroups.com:
Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Weatherlawyer
Aug 2, 2012, 8:38:35 AM8/2/12
to
On Wednesday, 4 July 2012 02:45:09 UTC+1, Brian wrote:
> Zombie Hampster <Z...@mouse-potato.com> disappeared up his anus:
>
> No it was reported on the news as a magnitude 7 earthquake. This occurred on
Read this tirade:
The New Zealand media have done a remarkably good job of covering the Christchurch earthquake. (Date? Magnitude?)
TV, newspapers and radio have all struck the difficult balance between the country’s desperate need to understand what happened on the 22nd and how people are coping with the right that each victim the quake has to privacy in such a terrible time. (Note how desperate and terrible things are.)
The media have also shown great restraint with respect to one particular story. Ken Ring, the astrological weather forecaster, claims to have predicted the earthquake. (Dates? Magnitude?)
I think Ring, with all his calculations and post-hoc explanations, is the very embodiment of what Richard Feynmann called ’cargo cult science’ – someone who does some of the things scientists do, but fails in the most defining characteristic by not honestly testing his theories against data.
(Cargo cult:
Chindits cleared a patch of forest creating a temporary dropzone.
PNG forest dwellers thought:
We'' have a go at this see if the fools make a mistake. We can always plant something for the harvest if not.
Later, according to white supremacists, the idea was considered pathetic cavemanesque imaginings. Austrsalia and New Zealand, the well known haven for white criminals and racists (ie Civilization) seem particularly intent on perpetuating the story of the foolish and the fatuous.)
I’ve had a little fun at his expense before but, really; as much as it makes me sad that we live in a world in which Ken Ring can sell his weather forecasts and appear as an ’expert’ on anything in the media, the worst thing his almanac does is take money from people. (Note the word: "sell". I got his book for nothing. The up-to-date version doesn't cost as much as it costs to self publish a book in Britain.)
In the wake the earthquake, Ken Ring has done something much more serious. While thousands of people are devastated by a natural disaster, and terrified about what might happen next, Ken Ring claims to have predicted the earthquake of the 22nd and that a much worse one is due in March. So, let’s do what Ring fails to and test his methods against reality.
If Ring had really made an isolated and specific prediction that a destructive earthquake would strike Christchurch on February the 22nd then he might be worth listening to. His claim revolves around this post from his website a little more than a week before the event. Here’s the quotes he’d like you to pick out from that post:
"The window of 15-25 February should be potent for all types of tidal action, not only kingtides but cyclone development and ground movement.
Over the next 10 days a 7+ earthquake somewhere is very likely."
Well we have a date and a magnitude. That's a first for NewZealanders. A nation notionally related to a blind, once extinct, flightless, midget, ratite.
All evidence to the contrary... not.
You might quibble that the Christchurch quake, at magnitude 6.3, was about 5 times less powerful than the M7 event he’d predicted – but I don’t think anyone in Christchurch wants to argue about how strong their quake was.
(Well they aught to. Unless they want more than Ken Ring to make them look like dodos. So let's quibble about magnitudes shall we... Oh wait...)
On the face it, it really does look like an amazing coincidence:
Ring predicted a quake and it happened. But there is more to it than that, I’ve been through his site and Ring has also predicted earthquakes for, at least, the 24th of September, the 1st and 7th of October the first week in November, the 20th to the 27th of January, the 1st to the 5th and 19th to the 25th of March and the 17th of April.
(So again we have dates. But no magnitudes.)
In fact, in one post, giving him the +/- one day he needs in order to claim he predicted the February 22nd quake, he paints more than half of the time between the start of January and the end of March as earthquake risk:
And with that we end the first leesen. Lessen sense.
> Zombie Hampster <Z...@mouse-potato.com> disappeared up his anus:
> > On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 12:10:04 GMT, Brian <bcl...@es.co.nz> wrote:
>
> >> A magnitude 7 earthquake
>
> > It was only 6.2.
>
> >> A magnitude 7 earthquake
>
>
> No it was reported on the news as a magnitude 7 earthquake. This occurred on
> 3rd July 2012 and has nothing to do with past magnitude 6 earthquakes. It
> was also reported at Geonet as a Magnitude 7 earthquake
Read this tirade:
The New Zealand media have done a remarkably good job of covering the Christchurch earthquake. (Date? Magnitude?)
TV, newspapers and radio have all struck the difficult balance between the country’s desperate need to understand what happened on the 22nd and how people are coping with the right that each victim the quake has to privacy in such a terrible time. (Note how desperate and terrible things are.)
The media have also shown great restraint with respect to one particular story. Ken Ring, the astrological weather forecaster, claims to have predicted the earthquake. (Dates? Magnitude?)
I think Ring, with all his calculations and post-hoc explanations, is the very embodiment of what Richard Feynmann called ’cargo cult science’ – someone who does some of the things scientists do, but fails in the most defining characteristic by not honestly testing his theories against data.
(Cargo cult:
Chindits cleared a patch of forest creating a temporary dropzone.
PNG forest dwellers thought:
We'' have a go at this see if the fools make a mistake. We can always plant something for the harvest if not.
Later, according to white supremacists, the idea was considered pathetic cavemanesque imaginings. Austrsalia and New Zealand, the well known haven for white criminals and racists (ie Civilization) seem particularly intent on perpetuating the story of the foolish and the fatuous.)
I’ve had a little fun at his expense before but, really; as much as it makes me sad that we live in a world in which Ken Ring can sell his weather forecasts and appear as an ’expert’ on anything in the media, the worst thing his almanac does is take money from people. (Note the word: "sell". I got his book for nothing. The up-to-date version doesn't cost as much as it costs to self publish a book in Britain.)
In the wake the earthquake, Ken Ring has done something much more serious. While thousands of people are devastated by a natural disaster, and terrified about what might happen next, Ken Ring claims to have predicted the earthquake of the 22nd and that a much worse one is due in March. So, let’s do what Ring fails to and test his methods against reality.
If Ring had really made an isolated and specific prediction that a destructive earthquake would strike Christchurch on February the 22nd then he might be worth listening to. His claim revolves around this post from his website a little more than a week before the event. Here’s the quotes he’d like you to pick out from that post:
"The window of 15-25 February should be potent for all types of tidal action, not only kingtides but cyclone development and ground movement.
Over the next 10 days a 7+ earthquake somewhere is very likely."
Well we have a date and a magnitude. That's a first for NewZealanders. A nation notionally related to a blind, once extinct, flightless, midget, ratite.
All evidence to the contrary... not.
You might quibble that the Christchurch quake, at magnitude 6.3, was about 5 times less powerful than the M7 event he’d predicted – but I don’t think anyone in Christchurch wants to argue about how strong their quake was.
(Well they aught to. Unless they want more than Ken Ring to make them look like dodos. So let's quibble about magnitudes shall we... Oh wait...)
On the face it, it really does look like an amazing coincidence:
Ring predicted a quake and it happened. But there is more to it than that, I’ve been through his site and Ring has also predicted earthquakes for, at least, the 24th of September, the 1st and 7th of October the first week in November, the 20th to the 27th of January, the 1st to the 5th and 19th to the 25th of March and the 17th of April.
(So again we have dates. But no magnitudes.)
In fact, in one post, giving him the +/- one day he needs in order to claim he predicted the February 22nd quake, he paints more than half of the time between the start of January and the end of March as earthquake risk:
And with that we end the first leesen. Lessen sense.
Weatherlawyer
Aug 2, 2012, 10:58:03 AM8/2/12
to
On Thursday, 2 August 2012 13:38:35 UTC+1, Weatherlawyer wrote:
>
> And with that we end the first lessen. Lessen sense.
Less'n 2.
With this list from Wikipedia it is possible to compare what Ken Ring has stated to be true about earthquakes in New Zealand with his methods:
Date Location Region Magnitude (ML) Magnitude (Mw)
The dates are a bit ropey at first but even so they ...well they would only suit a journalist or someone else with his face between his own buttocks and telling everyone else how to live:
1100 Alpine Fault South Island 7.6 - 8.3
1460 Wellington Region Wellington 8 8
1610-20 Alpine Fault South Island 7.6 - 8.3
1717 Alpine Fault South Island 7.6 - 8.3
1815 New Plymouth Taranaki 7
1817 Fiordland South Island 7
1826 Fiordland South Island 8 8
1835 South Auckland Auckland 7
1838 Waitotara Forest Manawatu 7
But these can be compared with the 6000year NASA Moon Phase Catalogue:
http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/phase/phasecat.html
08/07/43 Toaroa Junction Manawatu 7.6 7.6
16/10/48 Blenheim Marlborough 7.4 7.8
23/01/55 Lake Wairarapa Wairarapa 8.2 8.2
19/10/68 Cape Farewell Tasman Region 7.2
05/06/69 Christchurch Canterbury 5.7
31/08/70 Christchurch Canterbury 5.8
18/07/76 Palmerston North Manawatu 6.8
25/06/81 Palmerston North Manawatu 6.7
05/12/81 Castle Hill[16] Canterbury 6
01/09/88 Lewis Pass North Canterbury 7 7.1
23/06/91 Port Waikato Auckland 6.2
11/02/93 Nelson Tasman Bay 6.7
07/12/97 Wanganui Manawatu 6.5
16/11/01 Cheviot North Canterbury 6.8
22/11/14 Tauranga Bay of Plenty 7.3
01/05/17 Raoul Island Kermadec Islands 8
28/06/21 Kaweka Forest Hawke's Bay 7
25/12/22 Motunau North Canterbury 6.4
09/03/29 Arthur's Pass Canterbury 7
17/06/29 Murchison West Coast 7.3 7.8
19/06/29 Murchison Tasman Region 6.3
23/06/29 Murchison Tasman Region 6.5
23/06/29 Murchison Tasman Region 6.4
15/07/29 Murchison Tasman Region 6.3
12/02/30 Porangahau Hawke's Bay 6.2
03/02/31 North of Napier Hawke's Bay 7.4 7.8
13/02/31 East of Napier Hawke's Bay 7.3
05/05/32 East of Napier Hawke's Bay 5.9
15/09/32 Wairoa Hawke's Bay 6.9
05/03/34 Pahiatua Manawatu 7.2
24/05/36 Whakatane Bay of Plenty 6.5
16/12/38 Fiordland Southland 7
24/06/42 Masterton Wairarapa 6.5
01/08/42 Masterton Wairarapa 6.8
02/12/42 Masterton Wairarapa 6
17/02/43 Te Anau Southland 6.5
25/02/43 Wellington Wairarapa 5.8
23/06/46 Lake Hawea Canterbury 5.9
26/06/46 Lake Coleridge Canterbury 6.2
28/06/46 Lake Coleridge Canterbury 5.8
22/05/48 Hanmer Springs North Canterbury 5.9
22/05/48 Hanmer Springs North Canterbury 6.4
22/05/48 Cheviot North Canterbury 6.2
22/05/48 Rotherham North Canterbury 5.7
22/05/48 Hanmer Springs North Canterbury 5.7
22/05/48 Hanmer Springs North Canterbury 5.8
09/02/49 Hawera Taranaki 6.4
10/01/51 Cheviot North Canterbury 5.5
24/06/51 Toaroa Junction Manawatu 6.3
29/09/53 Tauranga Bay of Plenty 7.2
27/02/55 Raoul Island Kermadec Islands 7.8
31/01/58 Waipawa Hawke's Bay 6.1
14/09/59 Raoul Island Kermadec Islands 7.8
10/05/62 Westport West Coast 5.6
18/12/63 Raoul Island Kermadec Islands 7.7
11/04/65 Kaikoura North Canterbury 6.1
04/03/66 Gisborne East Cape 6
24/05/68 Inangahua Junction West Coast 6.7 7.1
24/05/68 Inangahua Junction West Coast 5.7
05/01/73 Taupo Waikato 7
15/01/76 Raoul Island Kermadec Islands 7.8
15/01/76 Raoul Island Kermadec Islands 8.2
24/06/84 Lake Tekapo Canterbury 5.9
21/10/86 Raoul Island Kermadec Islands 8.3
02/03/87 Edgecumbe Bay of Plenty 6.1 6.5
02/03/87 Edgecumbe Bay of Plenty 5.6
24/05/89 Puysegur Trench South of New Zealand 8.2
13/05/90 Weber Manawatu 6.2[19]
19/05/90 Weber Manawatu 5.9[20]
28/01/91 Buller Ranges West Coast 6.1
29/01/91 Buller Ranges West Coast 6.3
15/02/91 Buller Ranges West Coast 6
08/09/91 South Taranaki Bight Manawatu 6.3
27/05/92 Wairau Valley Marlborough 6.8
21/06/92 White Island Bay of Plenty 6.1
10/08/93 Secretary Island Southland 6.7 7
10/08/93 Gisborne East Cape 6.3
11/04/93 Hastings Hawke's Bay 6.1
18/06/94 Arthur's Pass Canterbury 6.7 6.7
19/06/94 Lake Coleridge Canterbury 6.1
24/11/95 Arthur's Pass Canterbury 6.3
06/02/95 NE of New Zealand East Cape 7
10/02/95 NE of New Zealand East Cape 6.6
25/05/97 Raoul Island Kermadec Islands 7.9
25/10/99 Taupo Waikato 7
21/08/01 NE of New Zealand East Cape 7.1 7.1
15/10/01 Hastings Hawke's Bay 5.8
08/12/01 Haast West Coast 6.2
24/02/02 Haast West Coast 5.9
19/08/02 Fiji Islands Greater NZ Region 7.7
22/08/03 Fiordland Southland 7 7.2
22/11/04 Puysegur Trench South of New Zealand 7.1 7
21/01/05 Upper Hutt Wellington 5.6
16/05/06 Raoul Island Kermadec Islands 7.6 7.4
16/05/06 Raoul Island Kermadec Islands 7.1
15/10/07 George Sound Southland 6.7 6.7
09/12/07 Raoul Island Kermadec Islands 7.8
20/12/07 Gisborne East Cape 6.7 6.6
25/08/08 Hastings Hawke's Bay 5.9
15/07/09 Dusky Sound Southland 7.8
04/09/10 Darfield Canterbury 7.1[21] 7.2
04/09/10 Darfield Canterbury 5.9
04/09/10 Darfield Canterbury 5.9
22/02/11 Christchurch Canterbury 6.3 6.2
22/02/11 Christchurch Canterbury 5.8 5.5
22/02/11 Christchurch Canterbury 5.9 5.6
13/06/11 Christchurch Canterbury 5.9 5.3
13/06/11 Christchurch Canterbury 6.4 6
05/07/11 Taupo Waikato 6.5 5.6
07/07/11 Raoul Island Kermadec Islands 7.6
22/10/11 Raoul Island Kermadec Islands 7.4
23/12/11 Christchurch Canterbury 5.9 5.8
23/12/11 Christchurch Canterbury 6 5.9
03/07/12 South Taranaki Bight Taranaki 7.2 6.3
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earthquakes_in_New_Zealand
Now what we need is Mr Ring's methods.
In this article the journalist/blogger whatever doesn't even include the year he's talking about. But it has a postage date in the header (
Monday, February 28, 2011.) And Ken's website:
http://www.predictweather.co.nz/Default.aspx
I wouldn't mind having some of the books he has on offer:
http://www.predictweather.co.nz/ShopProducts.aspx?ID=4
But I never buy stuff online.
If any of the claims are good, I suppose that most of my early years in British schools were as wasted as the rest of them were. Something I remember quite clearly thinking at three years.
But I was a baby and my parents were having none of it. So off I went and never recovered.
Or forgave.
Here are the freebies:
http://www.predictweather.co.nz/ShopProducts.aspx?ID=3
IIRC there isn't much but a bit of bio in the first half of this and the rest of it I never read as my computer sucked and it went sucking well with it.
I suppose I could always start again.
Or let some other bugger have a stab at it.
>
> And with that we end the first lessen. Lessen sense.
Less'n 2.
With this list from Wikipedia it is possible to compare what Ken Ring has stated to be true about earthquakes in New Zealand with his methods:
Date Location Region Magnitude (ML) Magnitude (Mw)
The dates are a bit ropey at first but even so they ...well they would only suit a journalist or someone else with his face between his own buttocks and telling everyone else how to live:
1100 Alpine Fault South Island 7.6 - 8.3
1460 Wellington Region Wellington 8 8
1610-20 Alpine Fault South Island 7.6 - 8.3
1717 Alpine Fault South Island 7.6 - 8.3
1815 New Plymouth Taranaki 7
1817 Fiordland South Island 7
1826 Fiordland South Island 8 8
1835 South Auckland Auckland 7
1838 Waitotara Forest Manawatu 7
But these can be compared with the 6000year NASA Moon Phase Catalogue:
http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/phase/phasecat.html
08/07/43 Toaroa Junction Manawatu 7.6 7.6
16/10/48 Blenheim Marlborough 7.4 7.8
23/01/55 Lake Wairarapa Wairarapa 8.2 8.2
19/10/68 Cape Farewell Tasman Region 7.2
05/06/69 Christchurch Canterbury 5.7
31/08/70 Christchurch Canterbury 5.8
18/07/76 Palmerston North Manawatu 6.8
25/06/81 Palmerston North Manawatu 6.7
05/12/81 Castle Hill[16] Canterbury 6
01/09/88 Lewis Pass North Canterbury 7 7.1
23/06/91 Port Waikato Auckland 6.2
11/02/93 Nelson Tasman Bay 6.7
07/12/97 Wanganui Manawatu 6.5
16/11/01 Cheviot North Canterbury 6.8
22/11/14 Tauranga Bay of Plenty 7.3
01/05/17 Raoul Island Kermadec Islands 8
28/06/21 Kaweka Forest Hawke's Bay 7
25/12/22 Motunau North Canterbury 6.4
09/03/29 Arthur's Pass Canterbury 7
17/06/29 Murchison West Coast 7.3 7.8
19/06/29 Murchison Tasman Region 6.3
23/06/29 Murchison Tasman Region 6.5
23/06/29 Murchison Tasman Region 6.4
15/07/29 Murchison Tasman Region 6.3
12/02/30 Porangahau Hawke's Bay 6.2
03/02/31 North of Napier Hawke's Bay 7.4 7.8
13/02/31 East of Napier Hawke's Bay 7.3
05/05/32 East of Napier Hawke's Bay 5.9
15/09/32 Wairoa Hawke's Bay 6.9
05/03/34 Pahiatua Manawatu 7.2
24/05/36 Whakatane Bay of Plenty 6.5
16/12/38 Fiordland Southland 7
24/06/42 Masterton Wairarapa 6.5
01/08/42 Masterton Wairarapa 6.8
02/12/42 Masterton Wairarapa 6
17/02/43 Te Anau Southland 6.5
25/02/43 Wellington Wairarapa 5.8
23/06/46 Lake Hawea Canterbury 5.9
26/06/46 Lake Coleridge Canterbury 6.2
28/06/46 Lake Coleridge Canterbury 5.8
22/05/48 Hanmer Springs North Canterbury 5.9
22/05/48 Hanmer Springs North Canterbury 6.4
22/05/48 Cheviot North Canterbury 6.2
22/05/48 Rotherham North Canterbury 5.7
22/05/48 Hanmer Springs North Canterbury 5.7
22/05/48 Hanmer Springs North Canterbury 5.8
09/02/49 Hawera Taranaki 6.4
10/01/51 Cheviot North Canterbury 5.5
24/06/51 Toaroa Junction Manawatu 6.3
29/09/53 Tauranga Bay of Plenty 7.2
27/02/55 Raoul Island Kermadec Islands 7.8
31/01/58 Waipawa Hawke's Bay 6.1
14/09/59 Raoul Island Kermadec Islands 7.8
10/05/62 Westport West Coast 5.6
18/12/63 Raoul Island Kermadec Islands 7.7
11/04/65 Kaikoura North Canterbury 6.1
04/03/66 Gisborne East Cape 6
24/05/68 Inangahua Junction West Coast 6.7 7.1
24/05/68 Inangahua Junction West Coast 5.7
05/01/73 Taupo Waikato 7
15/01/76 Raoul Island Kermadec Islands 7.8
15/01/76 Raoul Island Kermadec Islands 8.2
24/06/84 Lake Tekapo Canterbury 5.9
21/10/86 Raoul Island Kermadec Islands 8.3
02/03/87 Edgecumbe Bay of Plenty 6.1 6.5
02/03/87 Edgecumbe Bay of Plenty 5.6
24/05/89 Puysegur Trench South of New Zealand 8.2
13/05/90 Weber Manawatu 6.2[19]
19/05/90 Weber Manawatu 5.9[20]
28/01/91 Buller Ranges West Coast 6.1
29/01/91 Buller Ranges West Coast 6.3
15/02/91 Buller Ranges West Coast 6
08/09/91 South Taranaki Bight Manawatu 6.3
27/05/92 Wairau Valley Marlborough 6.8
21/06/92 White Island Bay of Plenty 6.1
10/08/93 Secretary Island Southland 6.7 7
10/08/93 Gisborne East Cape 6.3
11/04/93 Hastings Hawke's Bay 6.1
18/06/94 Arthur's Pass Canterbury 6.7 6.7
19/06/94 Lake Coleridge Canterbury 6.1
24/11/95 Arthur's Pass Canterbury 6.3
06/02/95 NE of New Zealand East Cape 7
10/02/95 NE of New Zealand East Cape 6.6
25/05/97 Raoul Island Kermadec Islands 7.9
25/10/99 Taupo Waikato 7
21/08/01 NE of New Zealand East Cape 7.1 7.1
15/10/01 Hastings Hawke's Bay 5.8
08/12/01 Haast West Coast 6.2
24/02/02 Haast West Coast 5.9
19/08/02 Fiji Islands Greater NZ Region 7.7
22/08/03 Fiordland Southland 7 7.2
22/11/04 Puysegur Trench South of New Zealand 7.1 7
21/01/05 Upper Hutt Wellington 5.6
16/05/06 Raoul Island Kermadec Islands 7.6 7.4
16/05/06 Raoul Island Kermadec Islands 7.1
15/10/07 George Sound Southland 6.7 6.7
09/12/07 Raoul Island Kermadec Islands 7.8
20/12/07 Gisborne East Cape 6.7 6.6
25/08/08 Hastings Hawke's Bay 5.9
15/07/09 Dusky Sound Southland 7.8
04/09/10 Darfield Canterbury 7.1[21] 7.2
04/09/10 Darfield Canterbury 5.9
04/09/10 Darfield Canterbury 5.9
22/02/11 Christchurch Canterbury 6.3 6.2
22/02/11 Christchurch Canterbury 5.8 5.5
22/02/11 Christchurch Canterbury 5.9 5.6
13/06/11 Christchurch Canterbury 5.9 5.3
13/06/11 Christchurch Canterbury 6.4 6
05/07/11 Taupo Waikato 6.5 5.6
07/07/11 Raoul Island Kermadec Islands 7.6
22/10/11 Raoul Island Kermadec Islands 7.4
23/12/11 Christchurch Canterbury 5.9 5.8
23/12/11 Christchurch Canterbury 6 5.9
03/07/12 South Taranaki Bight Taranaki 7.2 6.3
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earthquakes_in_New_Zealand
Now what we need is Mr Ring's methods.
In this article the journalist/blogger whatever doesn't even include the year he's talking about. But it has a postage date in the header (
Monday, February 28, 2011.) And Ken's website:
http://www.predictweather.co.nz/Default.aspx
I wouldn't mind having some of the books he has on offer:
http://www.predictweather.co.nz/ShopProducts.aspx?ID=4
But I never buy stuff online.
If any of the claims are good, I suppose that most of my early years in British schools were as wasted as the rest of them were. Something I remember quite clearly thinking at three years.
But I was a baby and my parents were having none of it. So off I went and never recovered.
Or forgave.
Here are the freebies:
http://www.predictweather.co.nz/ShopProducts.aspx?ID=3
IIRC there isn't much but a bit of bio in the first half of this and the rest of it I never read as my computer sucked and it went sucking well with it.
I suppose I could always start again.
Or let some other bugger have a stab at it.
Weatherlawyer
Aug 2, 2012, 11:29:59 AM8/2/12
to
Another diatribe aimed at ken Ring comes from :
http://sciblogs.co.nz/code-for-life/2011/03/07/ken-rings-predictions-what-happens-on-march-20th-doesnt-matter/
This author insists that Ken reinterprets his predictions after the fact.
What those predictions were I can't tell they are the sort of genera that I publish as often as not.
And I have only ever predicted a couple or three times.
I get the impression that Ken's efforts have more to do with overturning patent misconceptions housed in places of authority and that he is merely pointing out an obvious connection between heaven and earth.
The biggest problem in my efforts is that astronomy isn't ready yet to detail the differences between aerial waves and seismic ones. We still need weather computations for that.
All that being so, what does the author fail to do?
You guessed it.
He fails to distinguish what he means by magnitude.
In all fairness it is a problem quite a few accepted seismologists have difficulty with.
I remember Petra Challus berating Roger Musson of the British Geological Survey about it and getting only tardy and grudging respect for her efforts.
(I vaguely remember him writing to her, telling her the results he found from the study were worthy of further research. That upset her but I thought it sounded like a good result.
What did she want?
Respect?
From "THEM"?
Really?
It would be bad enough if the "experts" were just ordinary people wallowing in a bucket of shit with their heads up their arses proclaiming situation normal.
But they are cynics to boot.)
http://sciblogs.co.nz/code-for-life/2011/03/07/ken-rings-predictions-what-happens-on-march-20th-doesnt-matter/
This author insists that Ken reinterprets his predictions after the fact.
What those predictions were I can't tell they are the sort of genera that I publish as often as not.
And I have only ever predicted a couple or three times.
I get the impression that Ken's efforts have more to do with overturning patent misconceptions housed in places of authority and that he is merely pointing out an obvious connection between heaven and earth.
The biggest problem in my efforts is that astronomy isn't ready yet to detail the differences between aerial waves and seismic ones. We still need weather computations for that.
All that being so, what does the author fail to do?
You guessed it.
He fails to distinguish what he means by magnitude.
In all fairness it is a problem quite a few accepted seismologists have difficulty with.
I remember Petra Challus berating Roger Musson of the British Geological Survey about it and getting only tardy and grudging respect for her efforts.
(I vaguely remember him writing to her, telling her the results he found from the study were worthy of further research. That upset her but I thought it sounded like a good result.
What did she want?
Respect?
From "THEM"?
Really?
It would be bad enough if the "experts" were just ordinary people wallowing in a bucket of shit with their heads up their arses proclaiming situation normal.
But they are cynics to boot.)
Brian
Aug 3, 2012, 10:19:31 PM8/3/12
to
was very much against him and did not give him much chance to explain about
how he claims to predict the date of earthquakes (it might still be on
YouTube...it was on the Campbell Live TV program). Many people believed his
March 2011 prediction and travelled away from Christchurch over the
predicted period but were angry at Ken when no major earthquake occurred.
With the many earthquakes in canterbury, New Zealand where Christchurch is
located little is said about Ken's predictions. There use to be a lot of
people keen on knowing what Ken's predictions were was it seemed to be the
only way to find out when a major earthquake might happen and many people
don't like being in the dark and not knowing.
I use to look up Ken's predictions as I was curious to find out if a strong
earthquake did occur when he said it would but have since lost interest.
Also if you make on the calendar all the date ranges for his earthquake
then there are not many days that the earthquake would not occur on.
If Ken had predicted a major earthquake not in March but in February then
it might have become more famous. I have a feeling that Ken is hoping to
say "I told you so" and be recognized as an expert on earthquakes. However
he does better on his weather predictions and according to New Zealand
farmers he has been accurate in his weather predictions.
--
Regards Brian
Brian
Aug 3, 2012, 10:45:35 PM8/3/12
to
They say that the strongest earthquake felt in Christchurch was the
February earthquake but the June earthquake was felt more stronger in my
personal option. The ground moved at a much faster acceleration. The June
earthquake would have done as much damage as the February and maybe more if
February earthquake had not occurred.
--
Regards Brian
Weatherlawyer
Aug 5, 2012, 8:39:28 AM8/5/12
to
On Aug 4, 3:19 am, Brian <bcl...@es.co.nz> wrote:
>
> Ken Ring was interviewed on New Zealand. In the interview the interviewer
> was very much against him and did not give him much chance to explain about
> how he claims to predict the date of earthquakes (it might still be on
> YouTube...it was on the Campbell Live TV program).
It is not that much different from the average standard of journalism
>
> Ken Ring was interviewed on New Zealand. In the interview the interviewer
> was very much against him and did not give him much chance to explain about
> how he claims to predict the date of earthquakes (it might still be on
> YouTube...it was on the Campbell Live TV program).
these days. It all goes into the same cake overall, oscillating
between PR and Content Farms. Usually the best of the best journalism
is a slight step higher than that produced by the average shit that
works for Rupert Murdoch.
> Many people believed his
> March 2011 prediction and travelled away from Christchurch over the
> predicted period but were angry at Ken when no major earthquake occurred.
> With the many earthquakes in Canterbury, New Zealand where Christchurch is
> located, little is said about Ken's predictions. There use to be a lot of
> people keen on knowing what Ken's predictions were, as it seemed to be the
> only way to find out when a major earthquake might happen and many people
> don't like being in the dark and not knowing.
The problem that besets most astro-meteorology is that uncertainties
> don't like being in the dark and not knowing.
creep in due to distance and the best records in the world are lacking
in all the other forms of geo-physics data, so it is easy to miss out
on important prompts.
There is no data to go with meteorological records that define even
other meteorological data in other areas. What you get -even from
reanalysis is local meso-scale and synoptic charts.
What is going on in China and Mexico or the South Pacific is not
described when researching something like the NorthAtlantic. This used
to be a problem for me and it is still a major drain on my time. But a
lot of weather forecastas are made from consulting previous records.
But a failure to allow for the seismic state of the earth or for where
and when tropical storms are or were...
That would leave them only one step better off that FitzRoy. (Two if
you count what we now know about rotating storms.)
How can anyone base a forecast from the solar system's line-up on data
like that?
> I use to look up Ken's predictions as I was curious to find out if a strong
> earthquake did occur when he said it would but have since lost interest.
> then there are not many days that the earthquake would not occur on.
But what super storms WERE active? Earthquakes occur all the time but
the activity is very focussed on that type of storm both just before
and after according to the category and in between the rate of increas
and of decay seems to have a ratio with magnitudes on the list for
that day. And of course they reound to the Fijian Triangle.
I just realised; this set of islands is the gravitational centre of
the arc of influence for ENSO oscillations.
When the pennies drop they shower out of heaven don't they?
> If Ken had predicted a major earthquake not in March but in February then
> it might have become more famous. I have a feeling that Ken is hoping to
> say "I told you so" and be recognized as an expert on earthquakes.
of the circuit most of us grow and die in. Some sort of an hippy, he
lived in a bus and taught his children himself. Let them be his
judges. I don't think he is into self glory at all. (People like that
would soon find a new line of work once failure kicks their arses.
I've met that sort, they are duds IMO, as far as human nature goes.)
> However he does better on his weather predictions and according to
> New Zealand farmers he has been accurate in his weather predictions.
season for farming, tourism and etc., is built up of a range of events
that DO take into account (sometimes without knowing it) such things
as storms and quakes.
The fact is that there is a hell of a lot to his lunar theory. I base
my stuff on the time of the phases. He uses perigee and apogee a lot
IIRC. But you have to ask yourself:
"Why and How does the moon behave the way it does" to get the next
clue. Because (as we can see) there is a stage or two missing in the
algorithm.
Then you start wondering that the astrologers of old knew all about
the moon, why didn't they make predictions like that?
Of course without modern data they couldn't. But they would have
noticed something. Something for growing crops and making war (an
early form of tourism.)
Which explains the use of standing stones and the structure of Minoan
and Phoenecian temples. Apparently the one belonging to the
Philistines that Sampson wanted to explore was made with a twin
central pillar that was used as a sighting agent for astronomers of
the day (which made the idea of a blind man using it so comical to his
captors.)
To this day a lot of centres of worship are oriented to sunrise. Which
also means star and moonrise. (Though the first stars to be seen from
higher latitudes are the circumpolar navigables, which are generally
already well up by sunset.)
It would be worth your visiting his site again. Next time go better
armed. Use something like the NEIC lists and a daily storm list such
as this one to make your own allowances for what he says:
>
http://www.tropicalstormrisk.com/
Brian
Aug 6, 2012, 5:55:01 AM8/6/12
to
changed it a few times.
One thing I was pleased was that he added me to his e-mailing list when I
asked him a question. I got a news update by e-mail from him a while ago
but have not heard from him since then.
--
Regards Brian
Weatherlawyer
Aug 6, 2012, 12:25:40 PM8/6/12
to
On 6 Aug, 10:55, Brian <bcl...@es.co.nz> wrote:
http://www.predictweather.co.nz/
Here is something from the birth of Meteorology at CalTech in the
1930's:
By the end of 1940, knowing the military implications of what was
being learned in CalTech's meteorology division under Krick direction,
Millikan and von Karman invited General Arnold-1 was now a general and
head of the Air Force-to drop in next time his flying missions around
the country brought him to the Pasadena area.
Arriving in December, Arnold walked into Krick's laboratory just as
Krick read a telegram from a Christmas tree company in Newfoundland
that had wanted to know how much time was left to get a cutting of
trees out of the woods before they were buried under a fresh snowfall.
"Your forecast's right on the nose," the grateful client wired, going
on to say that they had gotten the last trees out just as the first
flakes began falling.
Krick handed the wire to General Arnold. "Gee, how do you do that?"
asked Arnold, who knew that because of German submarine prowling" the
Atlantic, Newfoundland was blacked out to weather reports. "How can
you forecast the weather in a place where you're not getting any
observations?"
"With our weather types we can get by without many observa- tions,"
Krick answered. "We can go into an area downwind from our types and
develop a fairly good forecast without them." Arnold thought a moment,
then broke into the grin that made him known as "Hap." He said, "I
want that for the military. Would you set up a special course in long-
range forecasting for some of my guys you've trained? Select any four
that you want, and I'll grab them from wherever they are and send them
to you."
Krick chose four of his most promising former students from the Army
Air Corps and gave them a special course in what had been learned
since they graduated, including how to forecast for a blacked out
region such as Newfoundland. There would be many of those for the
United States if war came.
In October, 1941, at the request of General Arnold, who was anxious to
make the Weather Bureau more familiar with Ktrck's work as it was
being developed for the Air Force, Krick went to Washington and gave a
series of lectures to the government fore- casters. He won no converts
to his ideas.
With the country now at war, the Air Force in February, 1942, ordered
the lectures published for distribution to its weather officers
throughout the world. But the man charged with their distribution, Dr.
Harry Wexler, a former Weather Bureau employee commis- sioned for
service in the Air Force, locked the documents away, never to be seen.
Far from getting the Weather Bureau's ear, Krick presently found
himself on the receiving end of a lecture himself from the bureau's
chief, F. W. Reichelderfer. Krick thus was hoist with his own petard,
incidentally, for it was he who had recommended Reich- elderfer, a one-
time Navy weatherman, for his post, acting through Dr. Millikan,
former chairman of President Roosevelt's Advisory Committee on the
Weather Bureau. Reichelderfer had been upset by "recent press notices
in which you [Krick] were credited with new discoveries in methods of
long- range forecasting making it possible to forecast with a high
degree of accuracy for periods up to ten years."
In the wake of these stories, Reichelderfer continued with a note of
distress, the bureau had received a flood of questions from newsmen
and government departments wanting to know where the Weather Bureau
stood on long-range forecasting and its use by the military.
"You know that our purpose is to aid and encourage progress in this
extremely important phase of weather forecasting," Reich- elderfer
wrote on December 5, 1941, two days before Pearl Harbor. "Headlines
claiming great accuracy in long-range forecasting arouse controversy
and are not conducive to real progress."
Reichelderfer recalled impatiently that he had spoken to Krick about
this matter twice before, the first time on a visit to CalTech during
the summer, and again no longer ago than September. "I emphasize that
I would not like to see you count too much upon your present methods,"
he wrote. He stressed that Krick's methods were "still experimental."
Caution was the watchword. "If you are on the verge of an en- during
technique we shall be very glad, but if it does not turn out as you
expect you will suffer and so will the profession." Reichelderfer
advised that "for your own protection you ought to get someone to make
a thorough statistical check of your latest method." And the agent to
do that, Reichelderfer indicated, was the United States Weather
Bureau.
Reichelderfer enclosed a copy of the reply he had prepared for all
those who wanted to know about long-range forecasting after reading in
the newspapers about Krick's work. In the statement Reichelderfer
dismissed long-range forecasting as a military tool. He conceded that
"defense needs have multiplied several-fold the importance of extended
weather forecasts," adding in passing that this had been "a subject of
intense human interest since time immemorial," and he told what the
Weather Bureau was doing to foretell the weather further in advance,
but said it hadn't made much headway-just as no one else had, either.
"Long-range weather forecasts for periods greatly in excess of those
issued by official meteorological organizations," the state- ment
continued, "are somewhat like anticipations of stock market
fluctuations-they should be carefully checked for a few months at
least before one puts much money in them."
The long-range forecasting claims by the German military, pub- lished
in the United States shortly before Hitler invaded Poland and set off
World War II, had been carefully studied by our own weathermen, both
government and private, and had been found to be nothing to get
excited about.
http://weathersage.com/texts/boesen/chapter3.htm
A potted history here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irving_P._Krick
Shit happens!
The book is very readable, if slightly propagandist.
Since the man apparently used what was to become standard practice in
meteorological circles, it only has a bearing on the thread due to the
fact that nay-sayers tend to get in the way of progress. These days
looking for older weather records is standard practice. One would like
to think the more esoteric principles have not been abandoned and that
I am not still the only one on here looking for a first cause.
Here is something from the birth of Meteorology at CalTech in the
1930's:
By the end of 1940, knowing the military implications of what was
being learned in CalTech's meteorology division under Krick direction,
Millikan and von Karman invited General Arnold-1 was now a general and
head of the Air Force-to drop in next time his flying missions around
the country brought him to the Pasadena area.
Arriving in December, Arnold walked into Krick's laboratory just as
Krick read a telegram from a Christmas tree company in Newfoundland
that had wanted to know how much time was left to get a cutting of
trees out of the woods before they were buried under a fresh snowfall.
"Your forecast's right on the nose," the grateful client wired, going
on to say that they had gotten the last trees out just as the first
flakes began falling.
Krick handed the wire to General Arnold. "Gee, how do you do that?"
asked Arnold, who knew that because of German submarine prowling" the
Atlantic, Newfoundland was blacked out to weather reports. "How can
you forecast the weather in a place where you're not getting any
observations?"
"With our weather types we can get by without many observa- tions,"
Krick answered. "We can go into an area downwind from our types and
develop a fairly good forecast without them." Arnold thought a moment,
then broke into the grin that made him known as "Hap." He said, "I
want that for the military. Would you set up a special course in long-
range forecasting for some of my guys you've trained? Select any four
that you want, and I'll grab them from wherever they are and send them
to you."
Krick chose four of his most promising former students from the Army
Air Corps and gave them a special course in what had been learned
since they graduated, including how to forecast for a blacked out
region such as Newfoundland. There would be many of those for the
United States if war came.
In October, 1941, at the request of General Arnold, who was anxious to
make the Weather Bureau more familiar with Ktrck's work as it was
being developed for the Air Force, Krick went to Washington and gave a
series of lectures to the government fore- casters. He won no converts
to his ideas.
With the country now at war, the Air Force in February, 1942, ordered
the lectures published for distribution to its weather officers
throughout the world. But the man charged with their distribution, Dr.
Harry Wexler, a former Weather Bureau employee commis- sioned for
service in the Air Force, locked the documents away, never to be seen.
Far from getting the Weather Bureau's ear, Krick presently found
himself on the receiving end of a lecture himself from the bureau's
chief, F. W. Reichelderfer. Krick thus was hoist with his own petard,
incidentally, for it was he who had recommended Reich- elderfer, a one-
time Navy weatherman, for his post, acting through Dr. Millikan,
former chairman of President Roosevelt's Advisory Committee on the
Weather Bureau. Reichelderfer had been upset by "recent press notices
in which you [Krick] were credited with new discoveries in methods of
long- range forecasting making it possible to forecast with a high
degree of accuracy for periods up to ten years."
In the wake of these stories, Reichelderfer continued with a note of
distress, the bureau had received a flood of questions from newsmen
and government departments wanting to know where the Weather Bureau
stood on long-range forecasting and its use by the military.
"You know that our purpose is to aid and encourage progress in this
extremely important phase of weather forecasting," Reich- elderfer
wrote on December 5, 1941, two days before Pearl Harbor. "Headlines
claiming great accuracy in long-range forecasting arouse controversy
and are not conducive to real progress."
Reichelderfer recalled impatiently that he had spoken to Krick about
this matter twice before, the first time on a visit to CalTech during
the summer, and again no longer ago than September. "I emphasize that
I would not like to see you count too much upon your present methods,"
he wrote. He stressed that Krick's methods were "still experimental."
Caution was the watchword. "If you are on the verge of an en- during
technique we shall be very glad, but if it does not turn out as you
expect you will suffer and so will the profession." Reichelderfer
advised that "for your own protection you ought to get someone to make
a thorough statistical check of your latest method." And the agent to
do that, Reichelderfer indicated, was the United States Weather
Bureau.
Reichelderfer enclosed a copy of the reply he had prepared for all
those who wanted to know about long-range forecasting after reading in
the newspapers about Krick's work. In the statement Reichelderfer
dismissed long-range forecasting as a military tool. He conceded that
"defense needs have multiplied several-fold the importance of extended
weather forecasts," adding in passing that this had been "a subject of
intense human interest since time immemorial," and he told what the
Weather Bureau was doing to foretell the weather further in advance,
but said it hadn't made much headway-just as no one else had, either.
"Long-range weather forecasts for periods greatly in excess of those
issued by official meteorological organizations," the state- ment
continued, "are somewhat like anticipations of stock market
fluctuations-they should be carefully checked for a few months at
least before one puts much money in them."
The long-range forecasting claims by the German military, pub- lished
in the United States shortly before Hitler invaded Poland and set off
World War II, had been carefully studied by our own weathermen, both
government and private, and had been found to be nothing to get
excited about.
http://weathersage.com/texts/boesen/chapter3.htm
A potted history here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irving_P._Krick
Shit happens!
The book is very readable, if slightly propagandist.
Since the man apparently used what was to become standard practice in
meteorological circles, it only has a bearing on the thread due to the
fact that nay-sayers tend to get in the way of progress. These days
looking for older weather records is standard practice. One would like
to think the more esoteric principles have not been abandoned and that
I am not still the only one on here looking for a first cause.
0 new messages