Jim Berkland Earthquake Predictions
Alan
Thursday, January 19, 2006
By Matt King
Morgan Hill - After 32 years as an outcast, Jim Berkland knows the scientific
community will never accept his theories.
Berkland has been laughed out of the U.S. Geological Survey. His public
prediction of the devastating 1989 Loma Prieta quake earned him a two-month
suspension from his job as Santa Clara County geologist. Now 76, Berkland passes
his retirement predicting quakes in his monthly newsletter for a devoted
audience of hundreds, ignored by geophysicists whose work is taken seriously.
"I don't care anymore," Berkland said from his Glen Ellen home. "They're
irrelevant. I know what happens to people who go out of the mainstream. I always
tell people, don't be afraid to challenge the authority because the authority
may be wrong."
And Berkland is definitely out of the mainstream, and after years of trying, he
has found a biographer to tell his story and explain just how the moon can tell
us when an earthquake is coming, and cats and dogs can tip us off to where it's
going to occur.
The author is Cal Orey, a northern California writer with a lifelong fascination
of earthquakes and an affinity for animals. Her "The Man Who Predicts
Earthquakes" is a defense of Berkland's maverick theories and an appreciation of
people and animals so in tune with the Earth they can predict its movements.
In fact, since she first met Berkland in 1982, Orey has come to believe that her
pets know when a temblor is coming, and that she herself can predict quakes as
far away as Japan.
"I've always been an earthquake enthusiast and had phobias and anxieties about
earthquakes," she said in a recent interview. "When I was 16, my woodshop
teacher tagged me Earthquake Annie. I thought the Pacific Ocean was going to
spill over the hills and drown us all."
So far, it hasn't, but even mainstream scientists still fear that "the big one"
could destroy the state's levee system and leave California under water, but the
business of predicting quakes is a lot more art than science.
"The Holy Grail of earthquake seismology is the ability to predict them," said
San Jose State University Geology Professor Jonathan Miller. "And certainly
anyone who has had any kind of success will get noticed. I wouldn't want to bank
on his predictions, but at the same time, there has been some work to see if
there are some less traditional ways we might go about predicting earthquakes."
Berkland's odds are helped by some 5,000 quakes that shake California each year.
People can feel about 200 of those.
Berkland claims to have called three out of every four quakes to hit California
since 1974. He says that full and new moons cause tidal patterns that in turn
cause most earthquakes, and that household pets have an uncanny sense of
impending disruptions in the Earth's crust. Simply counting ads for lost pets in
newspapers is a good way to know if a quake is imminent, he says.
That's how he knew the 7.1 Loma Prieta quake, which killed about 65 people and
caused the Cypress freeway to collapse in the East Bay and a conflagration in
San Francisco's Marina district, was coming sometime during the 1989 Bay Bridge
World Series between the Oakland Athletics and San Francisco Giants. On Oct. 12,
1989, Berkland called The Dispatch to warn people to be ready for it.
"I thought, I have to tell somebody, the [San Jose] Mercury News had gone deadly
silent on earthquakes," he said.
A short item ran in the Oct. 13 Dispatch, and four days later, the quake hit.
Berkland was in his county office at the time.
"For two seconds I was elated - 'I got my quake!' - but then I didn't want any
part of it," he recalled. "I thought the building was going to come down. It was
bouncing and shifting and quaking, all three at once."
In the days following the quake, Berkland was all over the news.
He thought his work was finally going to be accepted by other geologists, but
his public statements worked against him. He was suspended for two months for
scaring people and predicting quakes on county time.
"After 15 years of being laughed at and smeared, I thought this was finally
going to make them pay attention," he said. "I was blown away."
Berkland retired in 1994 and continues to be a voice in the wilderness. Andy
Michael, a geophysicist with the USGS in Menlo Park said his agency has "never
been able to find any support for his claims. "Michael said that Berkland
predicts so many quakes that he's bound to be right on occasion.
"Based on the moon, he makes a prediction of something to happen every month,"
Michael said. "There are studies of lunar tides that show you can find an
extremely small effect, but it's not large enough to be useful. The literature
goes back decades."
As for Berkland's correlation between missing pets and earthquakes, Michael said
it was disproved in a quasi-scientific experiment he conducted with his
10-year-old nephew.
"We picked 10 earthquakes in the Bay Area and counted lost animal ads," Michael
said. "They always looked exactly the same. The number of lost animal ads didn't
change."
Orey called the USGS narrow-minded and unwilling to look at what she and
Berkland see as overwhelming anecdotal evidence.
"With the tsunami, Berkland's theories finally came together," she said,
referring to the Dec. 26, 2004 quake that killed almost 300,000 people in
Southeast Asia. "The quake hit on a full moon. So many animals lived because
they headed for higher ground and so many people died."
Looking back, Orey remembers her own pets sensed the Loma Prieta temblor and she
now says that she's detected her own ability to predict quakes.
"I never knew earthquake sensitivities existed until I did the research," Orey
said. "I am earthquake sensitive. If you really practice, it works. I get left
ear tones and that tells me there will be an earthquake off shore of northern
California. If I have a faint ear tone, there will be an earthquake in Japan or
the underwater area. I had a migraine the day of Loma Prieta."
A Prediction in Writing
This item originally appeared in The Dispatch Oct. 13, 1989:
"While the Bay Area is rumbling with excitement over the first-ever Bay Bridge
World Series, the Earth may be putting on a show. A county geologist is
predicting an earthquake to hit the Bay Area anytime from tomorrow to the 21st
of October. It will be the "World Series Quake," according to Santa Clara County
geologist Jim Berkland. The temblor, he predicts, could be anywhere from
3.5-to-6.0 on the Richter Scale. Berkland is basing his prediction on the
unusual gravitational pull of the Moon and Earth."
More Predictions
Berkland's predicts week-long windows for quakes, based on phases of the moon,
with a given radius of his predicted epicenter. His next window is from Jan. 27
through Feb. 3, with a quake expected within 140 miles of Mt. Diablo, in the
East Bay.
Other quakes predicted by Berkland:
- Coyote Lake quake Aug. 6, 1979
- Livermore quake Jan. 24, 1980
- Morgan Hill quake April 24, 1984
- Hollister quake Feb. 20, 1988
- East Gilroy quake Jan. 15, 1993
- Napa quake Sept. 3, 2000
http://www.gilroydispatch.com/news/contentview.asp?c=177341
It looks like he has a better track record at predictions than Brian.
Please note that I take no responsibility for the content of this article.
I only predict that if things don't change, they will stay as they are.
Alan
http://www.veloceraptor.free-online.co.uk/enigma.html
Petra
You don't know very much about Jim Berklands prediction method, so I
don't think you are qualified to judge Brian's method against anyone
else. Besides, he's only been doing his work for about three months,
hardly comparable to a geologist who has been at it for more than
thirty years.
With the exception of site specific predictions, Jim uses something
close to "cast the net" and see "what comes in" sort of method. He
uses radius' of 140 miles around Seattle, SF and LA for 3.5 or greater
earthquakes. I know him personally and I also have followed his work
very closely. Since Loma Prieta in 1989 he is actually 1/3rd short of
where he was prior to. That's because after Loma Prieta the Bay Area
went totally dead for years and is now on the verge of coming to life
again.
I like Jim very much and I support the work he does if for no other
reason it keeps earthquake prediction in the spotlight so no one
forgets it is still possible. He is a wonderful person, a great
friend, a good family man and so much more.
I don't know Brian that well; but I believe he is honest, hard working,
very interested in science and probably a real fun guy.
Petra
John Krempasky
a crock.
And he demonstrates no particular skill in predicting quakes of any kind. He
has a 1/4th chance of predicting basically any remotely noticeable quake in
California with his monthly week-long windows. His sets of monthly
predictions are set up to produce a 100% chance of a hit for at least one of
them somewhere in the world.
I could care less what kind of person he is. His forecasts are of no value
and he is misleading the public.
It's truly disturbing that the critical thinking skills of the public are so
poor this guy has an enormous, clueless, almost cult-like fan base.
Susan
A quote on would-be earthquake predictors: "A few such persons are
mentally unbalanced; but most of them are sane - at least in the
clinical or legal sense, since they are not dangerous, and are not
running around with bombs or guns. What ails them is exaggerated ego
plus imperfect or ineffective education, so that they have not absorbed
one of the fundamental rules of science - self-criticism. Their wish
for attention distorts their perception of facts, and sometimes leads
them on into actual lying."
This was Charles Richter, speaking 30 years ago in the wake of the
Palmdale Bulge debacle. (Everyone knows the "fools and charlatans"
quote, but this one, from a private memo, is my personal favorite.)
It is amazing--truly uncanny, not to mention depressing--how much his
words from 30+ years ago still rings true to the modern ear.
Susan
Petra
I would like to make a point from what I believe is a learned point of
view; one not biased by being a scientist. And when I say what I'm
about to say, it does not mean at all that I have any lack of respect
for scientists or the work they do.
For six years I have studied the behavioral patterns of scientists and
yes, they do have some. One is quick to understand that it is truly
rare for anyone to write a paper on an original idea. I don't think
I've seen one that does not include borrowing from many others in the
process. So somewhere in there amidst the borrowing is one more
persons point of view. There's plenty more about which I don't care
to elaborate on at this point in time.
If you create a stigma regarding something such is the case of
earthquake prediction it ends up going underground or squelchs the
desire for one to undertake such endeavor for they will be chastised by
their colleagues, labeled and eventually unemployed. I had thoughts
many years ago that this could not be undertaken by anyone who wasn't
retired and pretty much Keilis-Borok is exactly the profile of the
individual I imagined.
Science may seem to be for a changing world, except the part that jumps
up every now and then and kills people who just so happen to live in
buildings near fault lines. My favorite topic in regard to "we don't
predict earthquakes" is when I look at the Parkfield Earthquake
Predicton Experiment. This was supposed to be a place where one
practiced prediction, but that was the least of what happened. It did
not ever live up to what it was designed to do and at one heafty price
as well. It was around $100 Million dollars and where's the results?
An A alert only had a 37% chance of occurring. What's that all about?
If I recall correctly there was only one A alert issued and that was in
1993.
I hate to say this, but the system which governs what we the public
receive may well be responsible for not keeping us alive. That which
does not foster growth and development kills the creativity which could
result in productive end product. This is just not good enough. Not
today or any day.
The only person who seems to have an interest in taking another look is
Tom Jordan of SCEC in his Earthquake Prediction Collaborary and yet I
am not at all certain he wants to see anything truly new. That
remains to be seen.
If cancer researchers were told a hundred thousand times over that they
would never find the cure and their colleagues treated them the way
geoscientists treat each other, millions of people would be dead today
for the lack of a sustained effort. So if survivial in earthquake
country is dependant upon those who should work on earthquake
prediction exclusively, then they should get on with it. We need
results, not excuses and for those who go, they can leave their egos at
the doorstep.
One cold heartless scientist everyone knows and loves went on TV after
the San Simeon quake and said they should have known it was going to
happen because it happens about every 50 years. Two people just died,
no one went there and told them this was going to happen and how many
people were there 50 years ago? This behavior is undeniable unsuitable
for the public and I reminded him of that after I personally saw it on
TV. If I were a family member of one of those ladies who died, he
wouldn't be employed today. There is something seriously wrong with a
person like that. Uncaring is at the top of the list.
We are no further along in predicting earthquakes than primordial man
throwing rocks at the Moon and there are no good excuses.
Petra
Bruce Inkster
"Petra " wrote
>
> ...Science may seem to be for a changing world, except the part that jumps
> up every now and then and kills people who just so happen to live in
There was an excellent program on Discovery Channel, last Thursday
(01-19-06)entitled 'A Sense of Disaster'... definetly science for a changing
world
http://www.exn.ca/channels/civ_schedule.asp
Alan
petr...@hotmail.com (Petra) wrote:
> Alan,
>
> You don't know very much about Jim Berklands prediction method, so I
> don't think you are qualified to judge Brian's method against anyone
> else. Besides, he's only been doing his work for about three months,
> hardly comparable to a geologist who has been at it for more than
> thirty years.
>
> With the exception of site specific predictions, Jim uses something
> close to "cast the net" and see "what comes in" sort of method. He
> uses radius' of 140 miles around Seattle, SF and LA for 3.5 or greater
> earthquakes. I know him personally and I also have followed his work
> very closely. Since Loma Prieta in 1989 he is actually 1/3rd short of
> where he was prior to. That's because after Loma Prieta the Bay Area
> went totally dead for years and is now on the verge of coming to life
> again.
>
> I like Jim very much and I support the work he does if for no other
> reason it keeps earthquake prediction in the spotlight so no one
> forgets it is still possible. He is a wonderful person, a great
> friend, a good family man and so much more.
I wasn't knocking him. All I said was that he appears to have a much better
track record than Brian. If you want more prediction sites, the Edinburgh
University seem to do them too:
http://tsunami.geo.ed.ac.uk/local-bin/quakes/mapscript/prediction.pl
I have had them linked in for ages, but the prediction page doesn't seem to work
for me, so maybe it requires Internet Explorer.
> I don't know Brian that well; but I believe he is honest, hard working,
> very interested in science and probably a real fun guy.
>
> Petra
Yes, but not as much fun as the guys you spent his birthday with, eh? <wg>
Alan
johnk8s...@comcast.net (John Krempasky) wrote:
What? Are you calling Petra a "cult-member"? I'm going to enjoy watching her
tell you to "get stuffed" although I am sure that she will do it much more
politely than I do.
You may, from now on, address me as Lord Cerne Abbas, or I am going to put you
in my kill-file.
Lord Cerne Abbas
Humpty Dumpty Bush fell off the Iraq wall.
Humpty Dumpty Bush had a big fall.
All his spin doctors and all the President's men
couldn't put Humpty Dumpty Bush together again.
http://www.veloceraptor.free-online.co.uk/identity.html
Alan
ho...@gps.caltech.edu (Susan) wrote:
May I say that I do like the way you think. I am in total agreement with you.
Firebird
Never trust anybody who is too sophisticated to own a rubber chicken.
Alan
petr...@hotmail.com (Petra) wrote:
The other factor, that you have to consider was pointed out to me by the woman
whose ambition is also to remain 19, and she is the very best paralegal in the
world. If you make a prediction wrongly and cause a panic, and somebody gets
hurt, then somebody can *sue* your ass for compensation in America.
I do think any Americans making predictions should consider this fact. Of course
Sir J-P lives in the free-world, so he can.
Alan
Inkster) wrote:
Hmmmmm. I must say that "The Most Evil Women in History: Countess Dracula"
sounds interesting. I sometimes think I may have missed out.
Petra
Alan wrote:
> In article <1137807960....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> petr...@hotmail.com (Petra) wrote:
>
> > Alan,
> I wasn't knocking him. All I said was that he appears to have a much better
> track record than Brian. If you want more prediction sites, the Edinburgh
> University seem to do them too:
>
> http://tsunami.geo.ed.ac.uk/local-bin/quakes/mapscript/prediction.pl
>
> I have had them linked in for ages, but the prediction page doesn't seem to work
> for me, so maybe it requires Internet Explorer.
>
> > I don't know Brian that well; but I believe he is honest, hard working,
> > very interested in science and probably a real fun guy.
> >
> > Petra
>
> Yes, but not as much fun as the guys you spent his birthday with, eh? <wg>
>
>
> Alan
Listen Sir Alan Irkingmesir,
Enough is enough! I've had it with you. You're annoying as hell, you
don't contribute but seem to think you can just pop in and decide to
become the irritating monitor, we don't need it. Honestly, we can do
just fine without it. Brian hasn't done a thing to do you and you
just cannot go one single day without bashing him. Frankly, I'm sick
of it. Just knock it off.
Remember that post you made which said TAKE TIME OUT, you need to do
that. And do I expect that by dawns early light you'll be bashing me,
I sure do. Go ahead if it makes you feel more like a man.
Petra
Alan
petr...@hotmail.com (Petra) wrote:
> Listen Sir Alan Irkingmesir,
>
> Enough is enough! I've had it with you. You're annoying as hell, you
> don't contribute but seem to think you can just pop in and decide to
> become the irritating monitor, we don't need it. Honestly, we can do
> just fine without it. Brian hasn't done a thing to do you and you
> just cannot go one single day without bashing him. Frankly, I'm sick
> of it. Just knock it off.
> Remember that post you made which said TAKE TIME OUT, you need to do
> that. And do I expect that by dawns early light you'll be bashing me,
> I sure do. Go ahead if it makes you feel more like a man.
>
> Petra
Aw Petra, you just need a song.
I come from down in the valley
where mister when you're young
They bring you up to do like your daddy done
Me and Mary we met in high school
when she was just seventeen
We'd ride out of that valley down to where the fields were green
We'd go down to the river
And into the river we'd dive
Oh down to the river we'd ride
Then I got Mary pregnant
and man that was all she wrote
And for my nineteenth birthday I got a union card and a wedding coat
We went down to the courthouse
and the judge put it all to rest
No wedding day smiles no walk down the aisle
No flowers no wedding dress
That night we went down to the river
And into the river we'd dive
Oh down to the river we did ride
I got a job working construction for the Johnstown Company
But lately there ain't been much work on account of the economy
Now all them things that seemed so important
Well mister they vanished right into the air
Now I just act like I don't remember
Mary acts like she don't care
But I remember us riding in my brother's car
Her body tan and wet down at the reservoir
At night on them banks I'd lie awake
And pull her close just to feel each breath she'd take
Now those memories come back to haunt me
they haunt me like a curse
Is a dream a lie if it don't come true
Or is it something worse
that sends me down to the river
though I know the river is dry
That sends me down to the river tonight
Down to the river
my baby and I
Bruce Springsteen - The River
Alan
http://lordcerneabbas.blogspot.com/2006/01/iran-calls-for-oil-output-cut.html
http://lordcerneabbastoo.blogspot.com/2006/01/proposed-iranian-oil-bourse.html
Bruce Inkster
"Alan" wrote >
>
> Bruce Springsteen - The River
Those Jersy girls drop it fast
Petra
Petra
song until hell freezes over.
Alan
Inkster) wrote:
I am currently supporting a Jersey Girl:
http://www.takebackthemedia.com/janeane.html
Janeane Garofalo is the best! I first saw her in "The Truth About Cats and
Dogs". I am in support of her. ABC suck for cancelling her program. I highly
recommend that nobody watches ABC ever again. Boycott all their stations; make
your voices heard. Picket all their offices and send them emails telling them
how unjust they are for taking away Janeane's freedom of speech.
Janeane Garofalo for President!
http://kumo.swcp.com/synth/janeane.php
Alan
petr...@hotmail.com (Petra) wrote:
> Stuff it up your music box....
Oh dear, I can see that somebody is feeling very moody today.
Perhaps the proper word is "cross"?
http://www.blastedreality.net/cross.swf
Alan
petr...@hotmail.com (Petra) wrote:
> The post below belongs to you.....the music box one..... you can sing
> song until hell freezes over.
It's funny you should say that. Yesterday I was reading the Moscow Times. It is
apparently so cold there that the hot water pipes are freezing and bursting.
There was also a story of people dying in the USA. I must say that it is a
beaughtiful day here; the sun is shining, the sky is blue and I have the windows
open.
Don
Alan wrote:
> In article <H3nAf.103836$6K2.16089@edtnps90>, inston...@hotmail.com (Bruce
> Inkster) wrote:
>
> >
> > "Petra " wrote
> > >
> > > ...Science may seem to be for a changing world, except the part that jumps
> > > up every now and then and kills people who just so happen to live in
> > > buildings near fault lines...
> >
> > There was an excellent program on Discovery Channel, last Thursday
> > (01-19-06)entitled 'A Sense of Disaster'... definetly science for a changing
> > world
> > http://www.exn.ca/channels/civ_schedule.asp
>
> Hmmmmm. I must say that "The Most Evil Women in History: Countess Dracula"
> sounds interesting. I sometimes think I may have missed out.
Yes, Brian was stood up, well sort of, but then I was also stood, well
sort of. Petra and I have been a team for about 6 years now and one
thing we have learned is that when you are giving a chance to meet some
high-powered people you had better take the offer, as it may not be
offered again.
My plane was down for maintenance as I was getting it ready for a trip
on the 18th when the invite came. I couldn't go, as I was already
committed for the other trip so she had to go it alone. Then she
thought of Brian since she was going to be in the area so she offered
the invite to him. He accepted and that was settled. Then things
started going to Hell in a handbasket. Plans were being changed as
fast as they were making them. It seems that other people also had
committed for other meetings so things had to be changed to make it
work.
She asked me what I thought we should do. I told her to cancel the
meeting with Brian, as there will be other times when she may get the
chance to meet him. She might not ever get the chance to meet with
those people again. Don
Bruce Inkster
"Alan" wrote
>
> I am currently supporting a Jersey Girl:
>
> http://www.takebackthemedia.com/janeane.html
>
> Janeane Garofalo is the best! I first saw her in "The Truth About Cats and
Yeah... And I have some theories too:
bin laden tape ..." As for similar operations taking place in America, it's
only
a matter of time. You will see them in the heart of your land as soon as
the planning is complete...."
To me and maybe only me the 'heart of your land' is not f....ing Kansas,
but each and everyone's houshold, and the only time that most everyone is
there...would be the Super-Bowl. Countless millions watching (halftime) not
Denver-Carolina. Detroit....port city, automobile empire, lake border
...ouch
Alan
seismic...@yahoo.com (Don) wrote:
Hey Brian was the one who called me a troll, and I am fully capable of living up
to my reputation, but I really am here because I am interested in earthquakes.
I'd better leave him alone before I upset everybody, but somehow, I just don't
see him admitting he is wrong. Even when I kinda offer him an out; George
continues whining in "Geology" and he doesn't have the sense to shut up, but
I'll back off now because I am upsetting Petra.
Alan
Inkster) wrote:
Do you expect sympathy from me? In 1973, my first wife walked out of the
underground at Euston Station and a burly copper picked her up, ran to the
station entrance and threw her outside. Two minutes later an IRA bomb went off
inside. The IRA had a nasty habit of packing their bombs with nails yaknow. For
30 years we had IRA bombs and bomb scares.
http://irelandsown.net/guerrilla.html
Ireland's OWN: History
Guerrilla Warfare
—by DM Gould
n 1993, the IRA successfully threw air services over London into chaos with
repeated mortar attacks and bomb threats. Heathrow and Gatwick airports were
frequently closed after coded telephoned bomb threats were received.
In 1996, at least 120 people were injured when a truck bomb exploded in central
Manchester. This bomb successfully closed down the commercial district of
Manchester for three days.
he IRA’s most memorable bombing, however, was Canary Wharf. On 9 February 1996,
the IRA bombed London's Canary Wharf office block. Only two people died in that
blast, in which a bomb had been left in an underground garage near the 52-story
Canary Wharf Tower, but the explosion severely damaged an entire block in
London’s financial district.
And do you know the funny thing? Like most other of my fellow countrymen, I can
honestly put my hand on my heart and say that I don't hate the Irish; in fact, I
grew up with, and have many Irish friends, and on Christmas Eve it was always
the thing to do for us all to go down the Catholic Church for midnight mass.
But there are plenty here who hate the people who paid for those bombs, but
since 911, and since Bush stopped people sending money to "terrorist
organisations", this has become such a peaceful country, and that really was a
feeble effort those "terrorists" made in the summer. The IRA would never have
blown themselves up by mistake. How stupid is that?
But do you know the funniest thing of all? Where were those people sending their
money really?
http://irelandsown.net/Che3.html
Ireland's OWN: History
Memories of Che, A Revolutionary son of Ireland
For the daughter of Che Guevara, the visit to Galway on the west coast of
Ireland was something of a homecoming.
If she had chosen to walk on to the footpath outside the front door of the Great
Southern Hotel, where she was holding media interviews and hosting a series of
meetings, Dr Aleida Guevara would almost certainly have met a distant relative.
Can you imagine that? All that time those people were giving their money to the
relatives of Che Guevara, whose real name was Ernesto Guevara Lynch? Did they
not know that Che was of Irish descent? I learned that when I was 16. That
tickles me pink.
They do tell me that what goes around, comes around yaknow. That's why I believe
in Nemesis, the Goddess of Divine Retribution.
Alan
"Can't you see we're still here,
Can't you see we're still here,
Singing loud; Singing clear,
We shall not go under,
We're still here."
Nemesis Peace Centre
http://www.veloceraptor.free-online.co.uk/protector.html
Abuse of Women and Children
http://theoriginalfirebird.blogspot.com/
Nemesis News
http://lordcerneabbas.blogspot.com/
Absolute Anarchy
Alan
> Stuff it up your music box....
Yaknow, I think this is a much better song:
http://irelandsown.net/FieryProphet.html
Let's go,
Fiery prophet of the dawn,
Down winding secret paths.,
To free the green land that you love.
Let's go,
To avenge many wrongs,
Our foreheads full of rebel stars,
Swearing to win or die.
When the first shot is heard and the land wakes up,
Like a girl startled out of sleep,
We'll be there by your side, calm warriors,
We'll be there.
When your voice proclaims to the four winds
Land reform, justice, bread and freedom,
We'll be there to echo your words,
We'll be there.
The day the wild beast is wounded in its side
by our liberating aim,
We'll be with you, hears full of pride,
We'll be there.
Don't think that they can make us tremble,
Armed with gifts and decorations,
We want a rifle, bullets, a stick,
Nothing more.
And if their rifles mow us down,
We only ask for Cuban tears
As winding sheets for fighters
Washed away by the flow of history,
Nothing more.
Fiery Prophet of the Dawn
A Song Written by Che Guevara, for Fidel Castro.
http://irelandsown.net/FieryProphet.html
Bruce Inkster
"Alan" wrote
>> > http://www.takebackthemedia.com/janeane.html
>> >
> Do you expect sympathy from me?
Hell no . I grew up in the Nixon era and Ford (rest his soul) was there too.
Bruce Inkster
"Don" wrote:
"... giving a chance to meet some
high-powered people you had better take the offer, as it may not be
offered again..."
high-powered people?? Isn't that an oxymoron?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxymoron
Susan
better than thoughtful ones, but I do have a couple of short answers
for you:
>For six years I have studied the behavioral patterns of scientists and
>yes, they do have some. One is quick to understand that it is truly
>rare for anyone to write a paper on an original idea. I don't think
Couldn't agree more.
>If you create a stigma regarding something such is the case of
>earthquake prediction it ends up going underground or squelchs the
>desire for one to undertake such endeavor for they will be chastised by
>their colleagues, labeled and eventually unemployed. I had thoughts
Ditto.
>Parkfield Earthquake
>Predicton Experiment. This was supposed to be a place where one
>practiced prediction, but that was the least of what happened. It did
>not ever live up to what it was designed to do and at one heafty price
>as well. It was around $100 Million dollars and where's the results?
Scientists have learned a lot at Parkfield: maybe the biggest lesson is
that we know quite a bit about where earthquakes will occur over the
long run ("gap theory," essentially) but not very much about where they
will strike in the short term.
>The only person who seems to have an interest in taking another look is
>Tom Jordan of SCEC in his Earthquake Prediction Collaborary and yet I
>am not at all certain he wants to see anything truly new. That
Jordan is trying to establish a framework from which prediction
research can move forward--and this means with support--on a firm
footing.
>If cancer researchers were told a hundred thousand times over that they
>would never find the cure and their colleagues treated them the way
>geoscientists treat each other,
If you think biomedical researchers are a fundamentally different breed
from geoscientists, you need to talk to my husband.
But that's beside the point. The point is that you misconstrue the
implications of the Richter quote. I think you will, as I have, come
to like Charlie once you get to know him. He was one of the most
ardent critics of prediction efforts that he saw as misguided; he was
also an incredibly insightful and open-minded scientist, even late in
life. Late in his life an interviewer asked him if prediction would
ever be possible: he said that he didn't know...that nothing is as
unpredictable as the development of an active field of research. This
is a very far cry from statements that other "chaos-afficiandos" have
made more recently, that earthquakes will never be predictable.
Richter's scorn wasn't aimed at earthquake prediction, it was aimed at
fools and charlatans.
>We are no further along in predicting earthquakes than primordial man
>throwing rocks at the Moon and there are no good excuses.
Maybe 5-10 years ago I read that, for all the advances in breast cancer
treatment, death rates had not changed at all, which suggests that
early detection and aggressive treatment only serve to prolong the time
period that women are cancer patients. The situation might have
changed by now, I sure hope so, but what does one conclude about all of
the cancer research done prior to 1995?
Susan
Petra
Thank you for your thoughtful responses.
In 2005 I lost a friend of 25 years to cancer because her doctor told
her for years she was fat instead of doing medical tests. Her
existence during the past five years was anything but a picnic. The
other Golden Girl refused to accept the opinion of two doctors
regarding a lump on her breast as being nothing to worry about and has
had treatment which no doubt will prolong her life.
It is hard to believe after so much emphasis on early detection that
today we are still faced with medical doctors who can't seem to make a
proper medical diagnosis. Friend #2 had the most deadly form of
cancer.
I think we have some problems with medical doctors who misdiagnose and
patients who accept "it's nothing to worry about" and don't go the
additional mileage to confirm that is the case.
And in the end we have to ask, "Who do you trust?" I don't know.
Petra
Don
> continues whining in "Geology" and he doesn't have the sense to shut up, but
> I'll back off now because I am upsetting Petra.
>
>
> Alan
Hi Alan. Please accept my apologies for calling you a jerk. I was out
of line. Don
Alan
seismic...@yahoo.com (Don) wrote:
Hey, that's O.K.
They now have Aiden with them in "geology" complaining cos I slipped out of his
kill-file, so I amused myself with a slight change to my email address. LOL The
only time I ever kill-filed anybody, I made sure that I didn't let them know,
which is why I think they are daft. Anybody knows how to defeat a kill-file.
John
People have been trying to predict earthquakes for 100 years. The
intensity of the research waxes and wanes, but there are always
knowledgeable and on-target people looking at the latest data. The
lack of progress so far reflects the absence of reliable precursors in
the data being recorded, not blindness in the scientists. Parkfield is
front and center is revealing the lack of short-term precursory
activity many had been hoping would reveal itself.
Jim Berkland does not fall in the class of knowledgeable people, if
only for the reason that he has failed repeatedly to EVER apply the
most rudimentary statistics to show whether any of his claims beat
random chance.
It is amazing to watch an apparently literate and inquisitive person
like him issue predictions every month for decades, but never do the
simple tests whether the predictions are meaningful. When pressed, he
becomes shrill, gives anecdotal evidence, and cites the conspiracy of
"High Science" for his lack of credibility.
We all hope earthquakes turn out to be predictable, and Tom's new SCEC
CSEP effort will follow such leads as appear, and complaints about the
course of the investigation appear to be arising from wishful thinking.
Petra
John,
What kind of leads might those be? Will they investigate if people
complain of water well changes, streams running that don't normally or
in the reverse, as in drying up when normally having regular output of
water? What about earthquake lights? Geomagnetic changes? Spikes in
ULF activity? Or is it more of the same in using statistical models
and other programs which deal exclusively with intermediate to long
range earthquake probabilities? I was already told by one scientist
who saw something similar before that when these issues arise they will
shred any items that don't fall within their normal scope and end with
a report that they found nothing. I certainly hope that is not
Jordan's approach. He seems to be a very astute person and is now at
the wheel which could drive us into the future with something more on
the table than what we have seen in the past.
And while we are speaking of prediction, can you explain to me why
scientists say it is easier to predict earthquakes in Iceland because
they can see the fractures in the earth easier than other places which
have ground cover? Frankly, I cannot understand that kind of thinking.
Parkfield has little ground cover and about two years before the 6.0
earthquake there was a fracture running near Little Middle Mountain
that was about 160 yards long, but no one made much of it. I don't
know if it was important or not, but it was fresh as could be when I
saw it. It ran parallel to the faultline. I would like your feedback
on this issue.
Petra
John
hydraulic response to various stimuli, including Manga, Brodsky,
Rojstaczer and Silver. Paul Silver has been monitoring the level in
water wells many place for quite a while now. They have been searching
fruitlessly for hydraulic precursors for decades.
The punch line of research is to have a model. Many of us figure that
if no precursory deformation is be enough to even be detectable, and no
foreshocks down to negative magnitudes are visible in a case like
Parkfield in the hours before the quake, the chances of it lighting the
sky, cracking the Earth's surface, or overpowering the Earth's local
magnetic field are slim to none.
It is insulting to say scientists shred data, and I hope you would lose
your confidence in anyone who would say that. I've never seen data
shredded, we love anomalies, and Parkfield has been a hotbed of
anomalies publicized that did not check out, and some that remain
puzzling.
The deformation in Iceland is rapid and shallow. Experience has shown
that deformation DOES accelerate before some of their earthquakes, and
groundwater moves with the deformation. Earthquakes on ridges also
sometimes show accelerating deformation signaling increased rates of
earthquakes, as described by a paper Tom is co-author published in
Nature recently. The ground responds in different ways in different
places, which is not surprising.
Petra
Thanks to your post I remembered something I wanted to ask Silver a
long time ago and I totally forgot. But I did send him an e-mail to
ask. I remembered that if one were to use the geyser as a predictive
tool then it has to perform in a certain way for it to be useful. Olga
Kolbek who owns it said that it changed its eruptive schedule prior to
these quakes 5.9 Oroville, 5.4 near Gilroy and 6.9 Loma Prieta. For
Loma Prieta the time interval changes for the eruptions changed from
10 minutes to 2.5 hours. But I don't know what the changes were prior
to the other earthquakes. If it were to be used as a predictive tool,
one would have to know that the geyser has a certain fluctuation change
prior to certain magnitude earthquakes and at a given distance. IE: a
20 minutes interval change would equal X magnitude earthquake at X
number of miles away in a more perfect world. I don't know if
anything happened before the 2002 Napa 5.2 quake, but there should have
been a change. If there was I am most curious to know what it might
have been and how many hours or days before it happened. If it did
not, then one has to think on that.
Petra
Petra
Bob Officer wrote:
> On 23 Jan 2006 13:45:24 -0800, in sci.geo.earthquakes, "Petra"
> variations in timing of the geyser sequnces/schedual that didn't result in
> a quake?
Bob,
I agree. Olga Kolbek who owns the Calistoga Geyser kept daily logs for
25 years and then handed them over to Paul Silver in the 1990's, after
Loma Prieta. I don't know specifically if he computerized her reports
to gleam data from those years. And since this has been outside of the
public eye and Olga is now to old to attend to guests visiting her
backyard buddy, I have been mostly in the dark about what has
happened. I like to see details, lots of them and papers don't always
afford those details. It just appears as though it doesn't look all
that promising. But if you don't have many earthquakes then the
experience is very limited and that's what we have had, a period of
quiet. Too much quiet. Though there have been I believe possibly 3
qualifing events from which to draw as to whether or not there was any
fluctuation change. So better three, than none I suppose.
The greatest problem though is that the geyser is running out of water
for steam. Thirty or so years ago it was huge. You had to stand back
or you would be soaking wet, but today it is but something slightly
larger than a spray. Only if the wind is blowing would you chance
becoming sprayed by it. So, maybe in two years it will be gone. Or if
there is a local shift perhaps it could come back and be as vigorous as
it once was.
Only the forces of nature will determine its life or death.
Petra
Susan
>It is amazing to watch an apparently literate and inquisitive person
>like him issue predictions every month for decades, but never do the
>simple tests whether the predictions are meaningful. When pressed, he
>becomes shrill, gives anecdotal evidence, and cites the conspiracy of
>"High Science" for his lack of credibility
(Hi John.) There is another case, less famous but I know some here
have been aware of it, of an individual claiming remarkable success
with prediction-related research. This individual had the wherewithal
to enter a PhD program--in itself highly laudible--and pursue his ideas
with better training. He gave a number of talks at meetings: on the
surface, the results were intriguing, and I know for a fact that a
number of serious scientists approached this guy expressing
interest--even offering to help with--the papers that would
present/flesh out the results. To my knowledge, the guy never took
anyone up on any of those offers. He scraped through the degree
program but, if anything resembling a decent paper was ever put
together, I haven't seen it. As soon as he lost the support he'd had
as a student he was back to predicting earthquakes (for profit) outside
the mainstream, also spouting claims of persecution by the big, bad
establishment. This is one of two stories about which I have direct
knowledge -- sounds like Berkland is a 3rd.
To paraphrase the Piano Man, conspiracy is so much fun...black and
white for everyone to see. But when you really dig into stories like
these, you start to understand where the "establishment's" irritation
comes from.
Susan
John
Sounds a bit like GeoForecasters. I ordered the PhD thesis of one of
those guys. Fascinating ideas, but no single result was proven.
Surprised they gave him a degree, with reputable people signing the
thesis. It is odd, because if one really thought one was right, there
is much to be gained by proving what is real and what could just be
chance.
John
Petra
My goodness, I am surprised. Which GeoForecaster might you be
referencing? There is more than one as we all know. I hope you are
not speaking ill of my good friend again. It pleases me to no end
that you have never seen his work. And I can mourn for the people who
will never receive the most perfect prediction because a few decided
they wanted to stand in the way. Heaven help you.
I sent a note to Ragnar to bring me up to date on his situation. I'd
like to know from the man himself which way his earth is moving and
whether he can see it with his own two eyes, a microscope or a
seismometer. Or maybe he feels it.
Petra
John
last year after the GeoForecasters web site opened.
I find this summary accurate:
http://geology.about.com/library/weekly/aa032303b.htm
Not sure what you are saying I have never seen. Nor what perfect
predictions you're referring to, either.
Petra
John wrote:
> I meant Lowell Whiteside. Fascinating 578-page thesis. I ordered it
> last year after the GeoForecasters web site opened.
>
> I find this summary accurate:
> http://geology.about.com/library/weekly/aa032303b.htm
>
> Not sure what you are saying I have never seen. Nor what perfect
> predictions you're referring to, either.
>
I am unsure of what you are attempting to do. I am often confused when
I see or hear scientists demean others of their own profession. This
is not done in mine, so it is unfamiliar territory. We do indeed work
as a team and to the end, outside of our workplace we don't speak ill
of our co-workers. It is bad company policy to do so.
So I reflected greatly last night on what I was hearing. In some
respects it reminded me much of a political campaign where one side
attempts to bury the other. But in that I also recall that opponents
had the opportunity to debate and thus for a short while the listeners
got to hear something besides gorilla noises that belong in the forest
of life.
In this case Lowell cannot debate you, nor would he ever reduce himself
to saying any of the kinds of things you have said of him. He has very
strong morals and this is not anything he would ever even consider. He
always take the high road and I suppose that is why he is easy to
respect and also a good person to learn from.
California residents need earthquake warnings, even if they aren't
perfect. But you wish to stand in their way by any means you chose and
this is rather sad. A time may occur in the future when people like
GeoForecasters might have been able to issue that life saving warning,
but you have created a situation where they never can. To that end I
suppose one could say that you have held up progress and I won't say
what the results willl be because you already know. But you have to
had made a decision sometime ago that this is what you thought was
right by what you know. If that is a firm and good decision, then I
have to accept that you feel confident that you will live with whatever
results follow.
In the near future something will come out in a publication about me.
Now that I have seen the dark of night I believe I can firmly say that
I fully expect that you will look for your tar and feathers and wish to
dress me in them as well. I'm not sure how I should look in tar and
feathers, but perhaps with the right makeup I'll look great anyway.
One can never be to sure.
Petra
Susan
>perfect. But you wish to stand in their way by any means you chose and
>this is rather sad. A time may occur in the future when people like
>GeoForecasters might have been able to issue that life saving warning,
>but you have created a situation where they never can.
John is a terrific scientist and an influential guy, but I think you
overestimate the limits of his powers. If anyone, inside or outside
the scientific establishment, starts to demonstrate success with a
series of specific predictions with meaningful time/magnitude/space
windows, scientists will pay attention, believe me. Scientists already
have paid attention long enough to evaluate any number of proposed
schemes and supposed successful track records: not one of them has
stood up to rigorous scrutiny.
Susan
John
claims in his thesis were not random chance results. And I pointed to
an entirely factual summary of the problems with the geoForecasters
method.
You, in contrast, claimed I've never seen Whiteside's work, and that
perfect earthquake prediction would have been delivered, except that "a
few" are standing in the way, presumably scum like me, and people are
"mourning" because of it.
I won't draw any conclusions.
Petra
I was speaking of the future in California, not the past. We haven't
had a serious need yet. Thank goodness for that.
Do we recall the ripple in the pond effect? We can all be that one
little pebble which shifts the pond and the waters go out from there
and influence sometimes millions. But is it for the good of many or
not? That's what we have to decide before we send out the wave. I
wouldn't ever classify you in the term you described because you have
much to offer in the years ahead. You're a go getter and you'll make
your fair share of good contributions as the years pass by. Of that I
am positive.
Petra
John
I guess it sounds blunt, scientists often argue that one approach or
another is more or less on target. It takes concentration and mutual
advice, often corrective and not always flattering, to keep us all
working in a constructive direction.
Sorry if it came across as insulting Lowell. I'm still far from
certain that earthquakes can be reliably predicted, but we're
definitely learning more about them every year.
John
Petra
John,
Are you aware of any directive about the appropriateness of scientists
answering public e-mail?
I'm 1 for 5 this week and it is annoying.
Petra
John
are (1) not crystal clear in communicating with the public and (2) do
not possess unique knowledge that the public needs to have. Also,
scientists do not necessarily have deep thoughts about public policy
and hazard mitigation.
If the public understood someone's work well enough to comment on it,
and had done complementary work of value to extend the work, then the
scientist might pay as much attention to the public's email as they do
to other scientists.
Not many in the public understand my own work on correlating
earthquakes and tides that well, for example. The facts that tides
fluctuate both in phase twice a day and amplitude twice a month, that
stress is a tensor, and the role of focal mechanisms in stress
interactions, for example, are critical to studies of earthquake
triggering, but many people who look at tides simplistically fail to
appreciate this (like Jim Berkland), so making arguments with them of
questionable value.
So I'm saying answering email is not scientists' job, but their hobby.
Petra
I can really appreciate your comments, but if you are asking someone
about their own work, then you aren't asking for an endorsement of your
own.
Sometimes you don't get the correct answers either. I wanted to
collect the casualty and property loss information for the expected 7.4
earthquake at Catalina Island and I was told that to get the report you
had to work for the government. That's not true. I got it from FEMA
in the form of a program called HAZUS (Hazard United States) and it
came with the GIS software to run it. All totally free. They are
running out of the GIS software so I was lucky they had some left.
It's $95 or you can download it from another web site.
Sometimes I ask questions and within the group of questions I already
know the answer to one or more of them. It helps me to determine if
the person is being honest and forthcoming with the information I
requested. Of course that requires that I either know someone who gave
me the information or I had to do my research before I wrote my
request.
One should always be polite and answer e-mail even if they don't answer
your questions. They can say, I'm sorry but I am really busy right now
and I don't have the time. I'm out of the office and perhaps when I
return I may be able to attend to it then or something along those
lines.
Petra
Petra
John,
I'm writing this really slow so that the points I make along the way
hopefully will be accepted by USENET because I hate this system. I
wrote this earlier and the equipment took a coffee break. It said, "be
back in 30." It must be on overload from to much Nespresso Coffee.
I think I'll do this backwards. Regarding the tidal thing, honestly I
don't know much about it except what other scientists have told me and
that would be it is not significant. As for your opinion vs JOB's
well, I have to go with yours. I don't have an opinion. But I do have
an opinion about how he takes 140 miles and says somewhere in there a
3.5 will show up in two weeks in the primary window or two weeks in his
secondary window. If he can't figure out a place specifically that
will have a 3.5, then give up. It's not worth the time to be bothered
with it. And for the global thing, hey all of the planet should go on
alert for two weeks every month, right? A 7 is as good in Kamchatka as
in LA as far as he is concerned. Again, why bother.
Ok, everyone should have deep thoughts about public policy, after all
we are the public. By and for the people (public). If we don't pay
attention pretty soon there won't be any public left, we'll all be
numbers. Now I know you like numbers, but honestly I'm not planning on
wearing any kind of numbered bracelet soon or a chip under the skin
either. Oh, before we forget it's the public who needs earthquake
warnings, not the scientists, they already know. Except for my least
favorite who thinks everyone knows when they don't.
Back to the e-mail issue. Today e-mail is an acceptable method of
communication in most instances, except when writing people who have
legislative or congressional status, the president and some CEO's. I
would not e-mail Sir Bill Gates these days either or even Martha
Stewart. Those people need something in writing. But there are
others who are important and it would be unfortunate for some if they
wrote and no one replied. Sometimes they ask an aide to write messages
for them so you aren't really aware of the sender behind the message.
It is much like getting your tail caught in a trap. Not great, so you
have to use some caution in who you fail to reply to. Ah, to each his
own, but I like to be polite and if someone takes the time to write me,
I respond.
Well, I think I covered everything,
Petra
John
interested if Berkland's predictions worked, even if they were of no
practical use. Except they don't.
John
Susan
>
>If the public understood someone's work well enough to comment on it,
>and had done complementary work of value to extend the work, then the
>scientist might pay as much attention to the public's email as they do
>to other scientists.
And in my case, sometimes even that doesn't get answered, or at least,
not right away. I get an enormous volume of email in my capacity as
journal editor, plus all of the other sorts of correspondence,
including email from my employer that demands an immediate response for
me to be in compliance with rules. Ergo, triage: first priority is to
keep myself from getting fired, second is to keep SRL afloat, third is
to meet my other professional responsibilites with committees, etc.
Research-related email is all the way down at 4; outreach-related
email, which I do care about, comes after that.
It's been interesting to read Richter's correspondence with the public.
For many years he was the only seismologist that members of the public
had ever heard of, and they wrote to him in droves. Nowadays, the
public can find scientists' email addresses in the blink of an eye and
send of email without as much as ponying up the cost of a postage
stamp. Lucy recently told me she gets 10-50 messages/queries (from the
public) a week; John and I probably don't get that many, but we get
enough.
The USGS does offer a service, "Ask a Geologist," that does try to find
the answer to email queries from the public. I don't know the URL
offhand but I'm sure google can find it. Also, my sense is that one or
more scientists usually respond to most of the serious questions posted
here, especially if the question demonstrates that the questioner has
1) done their own homework, and 2) respects scientists' time.
Susan
Petra
Here's a suggestion for when you are under a time constraint:
Dear E-Mail Writer,
I wish to acknowledge receipt of your recent e-mail. I am currently
involved in a project with a deadline and cannot respond to your
inquiry at this time. I will do so as soon as time permits.
Sincerely,
June/Jack The Scientist
This return e-mail took less than thirty seconds to write. But is says
so much. It lets the person know that they are not being ignored and
at some future date, which is unspecified, they will receive a
response. Under those conditions no one will be irritated. If one
wishes to they can save this time saver and do a copy and paste as
needed and that may only take ten seconds or less. I would suggest
changing it a bit perhaps at least every quarter so you don't send it
out to the same person to often.
Every single person who calls and leaves me a telephone message or
sends me an e-mail must have a response on the day I receive it. If it
is a busy day and our computer system is up that night, I will work
remotely and reply to everyone by telephone or e-mail. Even if I
cannot deliver what they wanted, I will promise them I will do it the
next day and I do always deliver on my promises.
I don't want to lose any of my clients because it is twice as much work
to get a new one. So if I can't give them better service than the guy
down the street, they'll go and see him. I try hard never to give them
a reason to want to.
Thank you for your time in responding. I do appreciate it.
Petra
John
answer is quickly.
The message would read, if honest, "I'm too busy to answer your
question, I filed it, and there is a [10-50]% chance you will hear back
from me later."
There is no limit to the number of chores we have to choose from -
check on the grad students, work on a course we're preparing, do all
those backed-up reviews of papers and proposals, let alone start some
new research, write some more proposals, upgrade some computers.
Answering unnecessary emails is a hobby.
Susan
>I wish to acknowledge receipt of your recent e-mail. I am currently
>involved in a project with a deadline and cannot respond to your
>inquiry at this time. I will do so as soon as time permits.
Problem is, if you don't have time to keep up with email in real time,
you'll never catch up if you start promising to respond to messages
later. (Same principle explains why I have videotaped maybe 2
television shows in the last 10 years.)
>This return e-mail took less than thirty seconds to write. But is says
>so much. It lets the person know that they are not being ignored and
>at some future date, which is unspecified, they will receive a
>response. Under those conditions no one will be irritated.
My experience is that they'll be more irritated, because of the
implicit promise to continue a dialog.
>I don't want to lose any of my clients
>because it is twice as much work
>to get a new one. So if I can't give them better service than the guy
>down the street, they'll go and see him. I try hard never to give them
But it's an entirely different kind of business. If anything, the USGS
brass is (are?) uneasy at best about scientists making unreviewed
statements in public or private that could be misconstrued as policy
statements. Which reminds me, I've been forgetting to add the
disclaimer that makes this type of communication kosher -- see below.
Again, the USGS has a resource to respond to questions from the public:
Ask-a-Geologist.
Susan, speaking for myself, not the USGS
Skywise
@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
> Susan,
>
> Here's a suggestion for when you are under a time constraint:
>
> Dear E-Mail Writer,
>
> I wish to acknowledge receipt of your recent e-mail. I am currently
> involved in a project with a deadline and cannot respond to your
> inquiry at this time. I will do so as soon as time permits.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> June/Jack The Scientist
<Snipola>
Or, like what I got from someone about a month ago. I won't
mention names.
"Sorry, Brian...
We just don't have the time to answer everyone's
email in detail right now."
Subsequent emails have gone unanswered. But that's ok. I knew
it would end eventually. :)
Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?
Petra
Skywise wrote:
> "Petra" <petr...@hotmail.com> wrote in news:1139194457.413069.156000
> @o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
>
> > Susan,
> >
> > Here's a suggestion for when you are under a time constraint:
> >
> > Dear E-Mail Writer,
> >
> > I wish to acknowledge receipt of your recent e-mail. I am currently
> > involved in a project with a deadline and cannot respond to your
> > inquiry at this time. I will do so as soon as time permits.
> >
> > Sincerely,
> >
> > June/Jack The Scientist
> <Snipola>
>
> Or, like what I got from someone about a month ago. I won't
> mention names.
>
> "Sorry, Brian...
> We just don't have the time to answer everyone's
> email in detail right now."
>
> Subsequent emails have gone unanswered. But that's ok. I knew
> it would end eventually. :)
>
> Brian
Brian,
It's due to budget cuts. Fewer employees means less time to do
something they might have been able to do previously. It's happening
in many places aside science operations. It also has a way of taking
the joy out of coming to work everyday too and what one might have
found enjoyable via e-mail has to be set aside so they can hopefully
get some good solid work done.
For people who work in the field setting up and maintaining instruments
it causes some not to be repaired and no hope for new one's in places
where they are needed, like my area. They had hoped for a PBO at the
bottom of the RCF, but it isn't going to happen. So they have to just
make due with what they have.
Sometimes there are no easy answers. That's why amateur astronomers
are welcomed because they haven't enough funding for full time efforts.
But geophysics hasn't embraced that quiet yet; but they may in 2050.
And having said that I think I will give up on sending e-mails to
scientists unless I personally know them.
Petra
Skywise
@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
<Snipola>
> It's due to budget cuts. Fewer employees means less time to do
<Snipola>
I'm sorry, I guess I didn't drop enough of a hint....this email
wasn't from any gov't employees.
Brina
Weatherlawyer
The person you replied to seems to have (had?) no idea about tides on the Pacific coast. I only have a small amount of such knowledge myself but:
Jim Berkland From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
James O. Berkland (July 31, 1930 – July 22, 2016) claimed to predict earthquakes, including the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake and 1994 Northridge Earthquake[2] popularized people are earthquake sensitive. The Man Who Predicts Earthquakes includes a chapter that notes "Many of Berkland's theories--based on tides, moons, disoriented pets, lost cats and dogs, and magnetic field changes--were factors in the great Indian Ocean quake-tsunami disaster on December 26, 2004."[3]
His methods and predictions have not been published in any scientific journals for peer review. His results have been disputed by peers, with other scientists going so far as calling him a crank[4] and a clown.[5]
The problem he faced was reflection engineered by the deep state, the people who run the dark satanic mills that are our colleges.
Jim studied geology at the University of California, Berkeley a veritable den of iniquity. But how would a simple man realise what Califonrnia was shortly to become? He worked for the United States Geological Survey while pursuing graduate study. In 1964, he took a position at the United States Bureau of Reclamation.[6] After further graduate study, he taught for a year at Appalachian State University, 1972–1973, then returned to California to work as County Geologist for Santa Clara County from 1973 until he retired in 1994.[7]
Predictions
Berkland's predictions have been either self-published in his newsletter or website, or announced in various interviews or speaking engagements.[8] His notoriety arose from an interview published in the Gilroy Dispatch on October 13, 1989, where he predicted that an earthquake with a magnitude between 3.5 and 6.0 would occur in the San Francisco Bay Area between October 14 and October 21.[9] The 6.9-magnitude Loma Prieta earthquake occurred on October 17, just four days later.
Berkland claims that government officials told him not to make any more predictions, fearing mass panic, and he was suspended for two months from his Santa Clara County geology position in late October, 1989.[citation needed]
Interviewed on Fox News in March 2011, Berkland predicted a massive earthquake in California for sometime between March 19 and March 26, 2011. He cited as factors the highest tides in 18 years and the proximity of the Moon, suggesting that the quake will most likely strike on Saturday, March 19, 2011.[10] No such quake occurred.[11]
An aerial view of tsunami damage in Tōhoku. Areas affected: Japan (shaking, tsunami) Pacific Rim (tsunami)
Total damage $360 billion USD
Max. intensity IX (Violent)
Shindo 7
Peak acceleration 2.99 g
Peak velocity 117.41 cm/s
Tsunami Up to 40.5 m (133 ft)
in Miyako, Iwate, Tōhoku
Landslides Yes
Foreshocks
Smoke from the Sendai Nippon Oil refinery
2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami is located in Japan Sendai
UTC time 2011-03-11 05:46:24
Duration 6 minutes
Magnitude 9.0–9.1 (Mw)
Depth 29 km (18 mi)
Epicenter 38.322°N 142.369°ECoordinates: 38.322°N 142.369°E
Type Megathrust
List of foreshocks and aftershocks of the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake
Aftershocks 13,386 (as of 6 March 2018)[1]
Casualties 15,899 deaths,[2] +2 (Overseas),
6,157 injured,[3]
2,529 people missing[4][5][6][7][8][9][10]
The 2011 earthquake off the Pacific coast of Tōhoku (東北地方太平洋沖地震, Tōhoku-chihō Taiheiyō Oki Jishin) was a magnitude 9.0–9.1 (Mw) undersea megathrust earthquake off the coast of Japan that occurred at 14:46 JST (05:46 UTC) on Friday 11 March 2011,[5][11][12] with the epicenter approximately 70 kilometers (43 mi) east of the Oshika Peninsula of Tōhoku and the hypocenter at an underwater depth of approximately 29 km (18 mi).[5][13]
I would have expected a time frame for the Fox News article but this was in the days of Bill Oreally? and Roger Isles so not enough clit available for indepth coverage.
He has also claimed to have predicted the 1980 M 7.2 Eureka earthquake just fourteen hours before it hit, but the tape-recording documenting this "had somehow been lost in the mail".[12]
These people were running Earthquakes Central using the Directed Energy Weapons that were used on 9/11.
I doubt those in control over Phi Beta Kappa and Kappa Beta Phi would have had any problem with intercepting the US Mail or, for that matter, the GPO.
Up to June 2010 Berkland made many predictions in his newsletter and on his website, for which he has claimed a "75 percent accuracy rate".[13]
This average is considered good enough to predict the British Monsoon season (uk.sci.weather) http://weather.org.uk/resource/ukswxfaq.htm
http://weather.org.uk/resource/ukswxfaq.htm#2B.7
I apologise that I can't find the stuff I was after but it is already really late here.
Here is the stuff I got about the recent tornadoes sweeping the board:
https://www.spc.noaa.gov/climo/reports/200318_rpts.html
https://www.spc.noaa.gov/climo/reports/200319_rpts.html
https://www.spc.noaa.gov/climo/reports/200320_rpts.html
I have the feeling that they are coming back again:
https://www.spc.noaa.gov/climo/reports/200322 to 23?_rpts.html
Weatherlawyer
English: Figure 1 from McNutt and Heaton, 1981, p. 12: Amplitude of the ocean tide at Golden Gate Bridge for five weeks in 1970. Brackets indicate seismic window periods.
Date 1 January 1981
Source ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dmg/pubs/cg/1981/34_01.pdf
Author Marcia McNutt & Thomas H. Heaton (USGS)
The California tides are different to the ones we have in the UK. I already knew they were intermediate diurnal around Washington and the seattle area I had no idea the pacific tides were all the same type. (I thought it was due to a channel effect lacking containment.)
Compare the UK tides for Southapton and the Isle of Wight
JOB seemed to have ignored the behaviour of pets inland. They are very much aggravated by tornadic weather as well as volcanic stuff and JOB did not seem to tally his stuff with either phenomena. Too late to ask him now I presume. Unless his papers explained more.
Ah well, it's early, it's so late.
Weatherlawyer
This stuff sound exactly what Ken Ring states in his stuff. I consider something like this does happen and it does appear on the North Atlantic weather charts. When the cyclones reach the end point of the track across the North Atlantic, they tend to reach the coast of Europe at the same time that the lunar phase changes.
There is no known reason why that occurs, the amount of light the moon reflect to the earth controls the descriptions of the phase. The amount of matter moving around the world doesn't change nor does the power ratio.
As for the apsides, perigee and apogee seems to apply to volcanic eruptions. This unlike the phases also occurs with a rate of change in the angle of incidence with the Lagrangian Points involved. The times of dwell. More so when there is a large time lapse between the apse and the phase.
Magnetic fluctuations, these are perfectly coincident to volcanic eruptions.
Seismic quiet periods, these are related to volcanic eruptions in the Beaufort Scale. You draw the time-scale out to several days between quakes as large as 5.5 Magnitude or larger... This will give you some idea of the likely scale of volcanic events.
I am a seismic sensitive. I am also sensitive to tornadoes as well as volcanic eruptions. "How Berkland evaluated his success rate prior to 1999 is unknown."
"Berkland's method of predicting earthquakes is based primarily on the idea that where tectonic forces have brought rock to the brink of failure earthquakes can be triggered by the tidal forces induced by the Sun and Moon."
This is nonsense but the imaginary science that discredits it is worse. They are guilty of denying a suspicion. If it were more than a suspicion Mr Berkland would have published the relevant papers he is condemned for not writing.
"While this seems plausible, attempts to identify any such effect generally have been equivocal, possibly because various factors might not have been properly accounted for."
Who wrote this?
A troll?[
"An evaluation specifically of earthquakes in the San Francisco Bay area (done by the USGS in 1980 at Berkland's request) showed a slight deficiency of earthquakes during Berkland's "seismic windows". Although that deficiency was considered statistically insignificant, the overall conclusion was that "the seismic window theory fails as a reliable method of earthquake prediction."
Some cyclones are larger than many continets. Is it even probable that an epicente might one day be pinpointed with the foregoing accuracy?
Speaking of cyclones, they are capable of being heard hundreds of miles away. Has anyone considered that the noise they make might contribute to earthquakes?
Weatherlawyer
On Sunday, March 15, 2020 at 10:05:09 PM UTC, daw...@talktalk.losernet wrote:
> On Sunday, March 15, 2020 at 9:37:19 AM UTC, Spike wrote:snipped
> > > The world continues to be very, very, warm.
> >
> > As part of the Ice-Age/Desert planetary cycles. Nothing new there.
> >
> > > https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v4/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
> >
> > --
> > Spike
I was wondering if Mr silly would oblige me with an opportunity to have another go at him. Thanks for keeping the nit warm for me.
Steve Hemphill: Concerning the alleged cause of the apparent global cooling which occurred according to the surface temperature record between 1940 and 1976...
http://www.john-daly.com/bigbangs.htm
1976
PEACEFUL NUCLEAR EXPLOSIONS TREATY - U.S. President Gerald Ford and Soviet General Secretary Leonid Brezhnev sign the Treaty on Underground Nuclear Explosions for Peaceful Purposes
1980
LAST ATMOSPHERIC TEST - China conducts the last atmospheric nuclear test to date.
https://fas.org/nuke/control/ctbt/chron1.htm
You might like to compare the records for a couple of years following the SSWs caused by nuclear warfare. For example the long winter following the Tzara Bomba was 1962/3 was it not?
The USA stopped atmosphere testing in 1963 leading to the SALT Talks: https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/DOENTSAtmospheric.pdf
Immediately after a nuclear test there is a resultant earthquake I think is almost natural. It consists of a way to tell that a county is, or has been, meddling with the weather. Fortunately the dead knots on here will pay no attention, leaving me time enough to do some more research -if I can be bothered.
SSWs are Sudden Stratospheric Warming events of the sort that in nature accompany volcanic eruptions. WTH the Smithsonian don't pull up their kecks and sort out a reliable method of reporting them, I can't even imagine.
Well... Yes I can and it has to do with the lamentable Bill Gates.
The semi-natural earthquake is likely of a lesser magnitude than the air weapon. I have not checked this out but it must surely be dampened by god and the fact that an air weapon expends its energy skyward. Hence the severity of the following weather.
his would indicate that underground tests would have been capable of creating larger quakes.
Weatherlawyer
Weatherlawyer
> John Krempasky wrote:
> > Upon close examination his claims of predicting Loma Prieta are essentially
> > a crock.
> >
> > And he demonstrates no particular skill in predicting quakes of any kind. He
> > has a 1/4th chance of predicting basically any remotely noticeable quake in
> > California with his monthly week-long windows. His sets of monthly
> > predictions are set up to produce a 100% chance of a hit for at least one of
> > them somewhere in the world.
> >
> > I could care less what kind of person he is. His forecasts are of no value
> > and he is misleading the public.
> >
> > It's truly disturbing that the critical thinking skills of the public are so
> > poor this guy has an enormous, clueless, almost cult-like fan base.
> A quote on would-be earthquake predictors: "A few such persons are
> mentally unbalanced; but most of them are sane - at least in the
> clinical or legal sense, since they are not dangerous, and are not
> running around with bombs or guns. What ails them is exaggerated ego
> plus imperfect or ineffective education, so that they have not absorbed
> one of the fundamental rules of science - self-criticism. Their wish
> for attention distorts their perception of facts, and sometimes leads
> them on into actual lying."
> This was Charles Richter, speaking 30 years ago in the wake of the
> Palmdale Bulge debacle. (Everyone knows the "fools and charlatans"
> quote, but this one, from a private memo, is my personal favorite.)
> It is amazing--truly uncanny, not to mention depressing--how much his
> words from 30+ years ago still rings true to the modern ear.
> Susan
Sadly for them they had no internet with which to work, this may explain why there are no posters here now except for this one, who does not need the internet except to publish his findings since he does not know how to write a scientific paper. Here is his latest offering:
Thank you.
Allow me to return the favour: http://www.bom.gov.au/australia/charts/viewer/index.shtml?type=mslp-precip&tz=AEDT&area=G&model=G&chartSubmit=Refresh+ViewGlobe
http://www.bom.gov.au/australia/charts/viewer/index.shtml?type=mslp-precip&tz=AEDT&area=G&model=G&chartSubmit=Refresh+ViewGlobeThis the present forecast from the Australian Bureau of Meteorology. It shows sea level pressure all round Earth.
The dark isobars depict low pressure (high energy winds) that will eat high pressure, relatively warm winds. Counter intuitive I know.
When they mix they expand and become a danger to all concerned. They are relatively save at sea. When they blow ashore they tend to separate rapidly. Possibly even explosively.
These charts comprise a series of 25 charts issued daily that show how the mixing occurs at the Bahrents Sea and the isthmus of Antarctica and the tip of South America. These are the main junctions that whistle up the dangerous winds, that cause earthquakes.
At the moment the fake weather is concentrating on the barrier of the roaring 40's. This causes earthquakes to develop at the Falklands and South Sandwich Islands.
This is a system designed to keep the earth fertile and reproductive in minerals as well as fish-food. Earthquakes there Cause the ocean currents to reroute. The same engineering takes place at the tip of Africa and Australia. (In the Northern Hemisphere the design is inverted.)
This was in reply to a Gab post about the scamdemic:
Kenan @SonOfEnos
Edited
YUGE!! Aussie Court Rules Mandatory Jabs Violate Free & Informed Consent & Therefore Break The Law
Australian Member of Parliament, Tanya Davis, is reading from a ruling that was just handed down from Fair Work Commission's decision that declares mandatory jabs as a condition of employment to be against the law. The ruling states that politicians pushing for mandatory "vaccinations" are not doing so to protect public health.
This ruling can effectively have the effect of ending Covid-Tyranny in Australia, and hopefully be the first legal victory that'll initiate a domino effect that will bring this nightmare to an end around the world.
This is HUGE, Patriots.
Let's make it go VIRAL
o7
We Are The News Now, so let's do our duty
https://www.bitchute.com/video/U8UwbcENxRy5/