12:18
Weatherlawyer
This spell is the only one I have covered that is near it and it has a
certain resonance:
>http://groups.google.com/group/sci.geo.earthquakes/browse_frm/thread/836c8d7555429109/845d79a372a54a47?lnk=gst&q=12%3A#845d79a372a54a47
Spells at twelve and 6 o'clock tend to produce low overcast even misty
weather in Britain. Of course with a Cat 4 running elsewhere things
are going to be different for a while, perhaps we could knock 3 hours
off it?
09:18. Something unstable and given to thunder. And in the USA more
tornadic stuff. Looks like a continuum from the folowing, all the more
so ifthe storm moderates and we have a spell more akin to 10:18 or
whatever:
> > When a flaccid set up pertains in the North Atlantic and the Lows
> > don't behave the way that they are supposed to, expect:
>
> > "The population of Chaiten in Chile has been evacuated after a volcano
> > began to erupt, covering the town in ash.
>
> > The volcano spewed ash and caused tremors in the region on Friday,
> > forcing water supplies to be cut off, the authorities said.
>
> > By Sunday the town, about 1,300km from Santiago, the capital, was
> > covered in ash.
>
> > It is the volcano's first eruption in at least 2,000 years, according
> > to Sernageomin, a government mining and geology agency, and caused the
> > Patagonian town of nearly 4,500 people to be emptied.
>
> > Many evacuees travelled by boat to Chiloe Island to the north and
> > Puerto Montt on the mainland."
>
> >http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/F7930EFB-6587-476A-BFB8-2765B0...
>
> An interesting Low in the North Atlantic this. It wouldn't surprise me
> if it continued all through the next spell too.
>
> This morning a Cat 4 tropical storm appeared over Japan. No warnings
> from any agency I saw.
>
> Anyway the sun's coming out again after some drizzle yesterday. That
> Low after being stationary over the other side of the Mid Atlantic
> Ridge for a week moved quickly at the end of the last spell to Britain
> and with this spell has returned to the west it is now 35 degrees west
> and apparently filling.
>
> Which could mean another eruption and then it will probably move
> quickly west again. Wednesday looks favourite:http://www.westwind.ch/?link=ukmb,http://www2.wetter3.de/Fax/,.gif,br...
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.talk.weather/browse_frm/thread/67a5577b4e2c100b/3c7fa43bbaed378f#
Though why it should moderate in 60 minute intervals is beyond me. Not
that I am stating it as an axiom. Just a rule of thumb until brighter
light is shone on the subject.
Dawlish
> 5th to 12th May 12:18
>
> This spell is the only one I have covered that is near it and it has a
> certain resonance:
>
>
> Though why it should moderate in 60 minute intervals is beyond me. Not
> that I am stating it as an axiom. Just a rule of thumb until brighter
>
> - Show quoted text -
There will be no brighter light as you are the brightest. "could" mean
another eruption? Again, after one eruption of a volcano, so long
dormant, other eruptions are quite likely. Again pure guesswork, on
your part, based upon the increased statistical chance of one eruption
following another.
There are a whole host of ongoing volcanic eruptions, any of which
could be suggested as a result of some other activity. Why latch onto
this one that was completely unpredictable by everyone, including you.
could it be because it is in the news? This is not a major volcanic
eruption, so why even mention it? If another, long-dormant, volcano
erupts, that will take your attention too, I'm sure. Just take a look
at this site and then you'll be able to pick any of the volcanos,
pretend you know something about it and link it to your theories.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0763388.html
Here's a forecast for you about May's weather, based upon your own
language:
After a warm first 4 days, it would not be unusual if the May CET
ended up above average. May is quite capable of producing a CET 2.5C
above average and after the warmth of the first 4 days, it would not
be unlikely if that happened.
If I was right, it would mean nothing in terms of forecasting may's
weather. If you were right, it would mean nothing in terms of
forecasting an earthquake.
Pick a volcano (OK, we've got this one with a Weatherlawyer; "could
erupt again", which is a likelihood possessed by every single active
volcano in the world and all those that have erupted in recorded
history, plus many more) and tell us when it will erupt. Pick an
earthquake site and tell us when it will fracture. Then do it
again........and again.......and muliply that by 20 and I'll allow you
1/3 failures. Then do it again another 80 times and try to approach
80% accuracy. Then I'll begin call Michael "sir" and support your
ideas.
Or, you could start by telling us what your theories have accurately
predicted, including all those, like the 24th April, that you didn't.
That one poor forecast needs two correct to cancel it out and bring
you to 66%. Where are they? And where are all the other correct
forecasts that back up your theory? Without an accuracy base,
forecasts are simply forecasts. They can only be judged by outcome.
So far today, you have vaguely predicted a 7.5 mag earthquake,
somewhere and said that the volcano Chaiten could erupt again, using
obscure reasoning and timings of events, only understood by yourself.
I won't forget and I will return to them at the end of the week.
Weatherlawyer
>
> This spell is the only one I have covered that is near it and it has a
> certain resonance:
>
>
> Though why it should moderate in 60 minute intervals is beyond me. Not
> that I am stating it as an axiom. Just a rule of thumb until brighter
> light is shone on the subject.
12, 9, 6 and 3 o'clock spells bode well for North Atlantic hurricanes
too. I forgot to mention that but then it is already written in the
annals of the great Weatherlawyer and further discourse is mere
repetition to my fans and other followers.
Here is an extract that might be worth watching for:
7 Mar 17:14 This and the one following are the same spell except by
half an our. Quarter each side of the hour. Unstable and tending
toward anticyclonic
14 Mar 10:46 5 and 11 of the clock. And all's well unless there is a
super-cyclone. Who can say?
21 Mar 18:40 Another unstable spell and this one tending to wet.
(Seven o'clock.)
29 Mar 21:47 10 o'clock. An awkward bugger.
6 Apr 03:55 4 o'clock and the same as the previous one. (Whatever that
might be.)
12 Apr 18:32 Troughs and cols maybe ridges. Another unstable spell.
20 Apr 10:25 And a repeat to within 40 minutes of the spell for the
29th March. How close that is I can not say.
28 Apr 14*:12 This one is similar to the spell we have now at the
beginning of March.
5 May 12:18 And this, not unlike the one for the 12th April. And here
we are already.
12 May 03:47 This is one similar to the spell for 6th April.
20 May 02*:11 This one too is similar to the spell we have now at the
beginning of March.
28 May 02*:57 And this one more likely a thundery spell, though not
that dissimilar to the preceding.
And now we begin the Atlantic hurricane season.
3 Jun 19:23 This should install one. Quite a corker of a spell for it
too.
10 Jun 15:04 Whilst this is an anticyclonic as is the following one.
18 Jun 17:30 So no hurricanes here unless...
26 Jun 12:10 Hurricane maybe. Not too bad a one though.
3 Jul 02*:19 Maybe this one too. Except for that proclivity for
Anticyclones on the US east coast.
10 Jul 04:35
18 Jul 07:59 I think this will be an hurricane spell but perhaps not
for the North Atlantic.
25 Jul 18:42 This one is though.
1 Aug 10:13 This one is one for the North pacific I imagine.
8 Aug 20*:20 I should be able to tell by this date just exactly what
to expect from these. So that will be something.
16 Aug 21:16 Thundery if a little too unstable for most tastes.
23 Aug 23:50 As for the 26th June.
30 Aug 19:58 And here is an 8 o'clock one. This should have had an
asterisk.
7 Sept 14*:04 After all this one did!
15 Sept 09:13 More sound of the fury signifying nothing?
22 Sept 05:04 And a summer break. Cold and sunny? In September?
29 Sept 08*:12 There are a ot of these about this year, are there not?
7 Oct 09:04 And more than a smattering of thunder spells too.
14 Oct 20*:03 Is this the last one of the season?
21 Oct 11:55 and 28th Oct 23:14 Or these two.
Weatherlawyer
>
> 12, 9, 6 and 3 o'clock spells bode well for North Atlantic hurricanes too.
>
>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.talk.weather/browse_frm/month/2008-04
>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.talk.weather/browse_frm/thread/9fff6168985d319c/7b1ca6d07d079602?lnk=gst&q=18%3A32#
> 5th May; 12:18. And this, not unlike the one for the 12th April.
Dawlish
>
> - Show quoted text -
Well, lots of strange timings and little evidence of links. Your
commentary is commendably consistent. Consistently useless and
unintelligable. Does anyone else iunderstand a word of what you are
saying? Esotericism does not equal truth.
Nothing, so far, to show that your theories have EVER predicted
anything with any statistical accuracy. You use long-shot statistical
chances and back your reasoning up with thin air, in terms of success
percentage.
Show us, with clarity that you have ever predicted anything in a
particular location accurately. Then show us you have done it
again....and again.....and again. That's what you have to do to
convince.
Difficult, isn't it?
Anything?
Tudor Hughes
>
> - Show quoted text -
You are foolish to engage in any debate with Weatherlawyer. Stop
it now! You'll only encourage him! If someone tells you that the
earth is flat you don't argue with him, you ignore him. For some
considerable time now his contributiuons have been ignored by the vast
majority of posters to this group and I urge you to do the same for
the sake of your own blood pressure if nothing else. Seriously!
There's no future in it!
Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey.
Dawlish
>
> - Show quoted text -
Well, Weatherlawyer calls me foolish and so do you Tudor!
There are some issues with Weatherlawyer that some have on here. I get
told by one person that I'm attacking him and I shouldn't by a couple
more that I should have nothing to do with him, as it is foolish and a
waste of time.
If you have issues with Weatherlawyer, I suggest you deal with them in
your own way and not through advice to me as a proxy. I don't wish
that to sound unkind, but if I want to reply to anyone's posts, I
think I have every right to do so in a way that I think fit. I will
reply to Weatherlawyer in my own way and in a way that I think is
appropriate. If I feel it is a waste of time, I'll stop replying. I
very much feel that it won't be a debate, but it could be and I think
you'd agree that it is up to me to determine that. His contributions
have not been ignored by everyone and everone's views on how to reply
to someone are not the same. You may not feel that replying to him is
appropriate, but we are not all the same. I am highly capable of
making my own mind up, but thank you for your opinion and my blood
pressure is not affected by writing in discussion groups!
That won't affect the way I reply to you, or anyone else, Tudor!
Best wishes, Paul
Tudor Hughes
>
> - Show quoted text -
It's not that I feel that it is inappropriate to reply to
Weatherlawyer but merely a waste of time in my opinion. If you wish
to do so then by all means carry on, and equally it won't affect my
replies to you, or to anyone.
Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey.
Dave R.
"Tudor Hughes" <tudo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:98bb24a1-3f37-4cd2...@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey.
And verity I say unto you, "And there he is, for it is he, Weatherlawyer,
engrossed up to his eyeballs in pixels, obviously a retired old fartbag
because of medical reasons, (brain malfunction I shouldn't doubt, one lobe
not lubricated) at two other members bickering away with each other now,
purely as a result of his insane ramblings."
--
resident BBC shill and media sentry: t'wit
[sticky quote about me from Weatherlawyer]
"DaveR" [westLondon]
Graham Easterling
>
> It's not that I feel that it is inappropriate to reply to
> Weatherlawyer but merely a waste of time in my opinion. If you wish
> to do so then by all means carry on, and equally it won't affect my
> replies to you, or to anyone.
>
>
What worries me about this ongoing attack on Weatherlawer by Dawlish
is that anyone that isn't also in full support also seems to get some
flak. Like you I think Weatherlawer's perplexing, a bit of an enigma
even. But I really don't like people being personally attacked for
their views.
Graham
Penzance
Where it's been proper 'andsome
Dawlish
wrote:
Amazing isn't it. The man is obnoxious to most people who raise a
banner that disagrees with him. He is outrightly rude in many of his
posts to a whole range of people and yet someone is then criticised
for "attacking" him when they robustly question his "science". Such an
odd odd standpoint. Perhaps there is a "perplexed" apologist who need
to wake up to this completely bogus science and speak out himself.
Toleration of such ideas, simply allows perpetuation.
So come on Weatherlawyer. Where are your stats to show that any of you
ideas are good science? I'm still waiting for that 7.5 earthquake.
There will be one, somewhere in the world, in the reasonably near
future, but the chances of you having predicted it by your theories
are so remote as to be completely dismissable. The volcano Chaiten
continues to erupt, but as you didn't forecast the original eruption,
you can hardly claim to have forecast the continuation.
Forecast us the location of a major earthquake, or forecast me a
volcano that will erupt. It's not much to ask.
crazy...@hotmail.com
>
> Forecast us the location of a major earthquake, or forecast me a
> volcano that will erupt. It's not much to ask.
Mount St Helens
A quick look at the time lapse photography from the webcam should give
a clue
Dawlish
True! Maybe I should have added...............and when!
Paul
Graham Easterling
> > is that anyone that isn't also in full support also seems to get some
> > flak. Like you I think Weatherlawer's perplexing, a bit of an enigma
> > even. But I really don't like people being personally attacked for
> > their views.
>
> > Graham
> > Penzance
>
> > Where it's been proper 'andsome
>
> Amazing isn't it. The man is obnoxious to most people who raise a
> banner that disagrees with him. He is outrightly rude in many of his
> posts to a whole range of people and yet someone is then criticised
> for "attacking" him when they robustly question his "science". Such an
> odd odd standpoint. Perhaps there is a "perplexed" apologist who need
> to wake up to this completely bogus science and speak out himself.
> Toleration of such ideas, simply allows perpetuation.
>
Don't tell me what I should or shouldn't think.
Graham
Penzance
Dave R.
"Graham Easterling" <GEast...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:a3e0c7a2-12a6-4de6...@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
> It's not that I feel that it is inappropriate to reply to
> Weatherlawyer but merely a waste of time in my opinion. If you wish
> to do so then by all means carry on, and equally it won't affect my
> replies to you, or to anyone.
>
> Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey.- Hide quoted text -
>
But I really don't like people being personally attacked for
their views.
Graham
Penzance
but he never HAS a view its all perplexing
Dawlish
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
There's a very easy and much deserved reply to that one: nor you me.
I said that because of your strange and continued antipathy towards
me. Your implicit defence of the rudeness you see in so many of
Weatherlawyers posts, which you completely fail to condemn, makes your
condemnation of my replies to the man terribly hypocritical and it
makes a mockery of your trying to attain some mythical moral high
ground. I suspect an ulterior motive Graham. If you don't like what I
say, the best thing to do would be to follow the sensible advice of
others and ignore me (or, if you don't like being "told" what do - and
I think you are correct to take that viewpoint, actually, then carry
on your bickering).
I'm pretty sick of your interference, to be perfectly honest. If I
wish to reply to someone's posts, I will do and I don't intend to seek
your permission. I am seriously unconcerned whether you think it is a
waste of time for me, or anyone else, to reply to someone's posts.
I'll determine that for myself, thank you very much. OK?
Paul
Now we've got that out of the way, back on topic for this thread
When's Weatherlawyer going to make some more forecasts, located both
temporally and spatially, so I can demonstrate that he will not be
able to demonstrate any kind of statistical success?
Weatherlawyer
wrote:
> > It's not that I feel that it is inappropriate to reply to
> > Weatherlawyer but merely a waste of time in my opinion. If you wish
> > to do so then by all means carry on, and equally it won't affect my
> > replies to you, or to anyone.
>
> > Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey.- Hide quoted text -
>
> What worries me about this ongoing attack on Weatherlawer by Dawlish
> is that anyone that isn't also in full support also seems to get some
> even. But I really don't like people being personally attacked for
> their views.
Well if it could happen to Jesus it could and should happen to people
like me. I fully deserve it but don't mind when the idiot leaves
himself wide open for another slap when he does it.
Consider his ignorance about that recent eruption:
>http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/images.php3?img_id=18020
As if such a thing is the run of the mill -which mill is something I
pointed out to the fool in the first place.
Weatherlawyer
> "Graham Easterling" <GEasterl...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:a3e0c7a2-12a6-4de6...@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > It's not that I feel that it is inappropriate to reply to
> > Weatherlawyer but merely a waste of time in my opinion. If you wish
> > to do so then by all means carry on, and equally it won't affect my
> > replies to you, or to anyone.
>
>
Boy, I'll say.
It must be murder trying to attack someone for their views who hasn't
got any views. Sort of murder in the dark, as it were.
Weatherlawyer
>
> Show us, with clarity that you have ever predicted anything
I predict that one day you may or may not grasp the eloquence of
Nettiquette.
Tudor Hughes
>
> - Show quoted text -
Antipathy towards you here is not confined to one
individual. This group had been chugging along quite happily for a
long time, giving Weatherlawyer a wide berth and a patronising smile,
when along you come, like some bumptious teenager who doesn't know
when to keep his gob shut and start raising the temperature and
provoking even more nonsense from the said Weatherlawyer than we had
before. If left alone, Weatherlawyer is not at all obnoxious, which
is more than can be said for you, matey, it appears.
Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey.
Alan White
wrote:
> Antipathy towards you here is not confined to one
>individual. This group had been chugging along quite happily for a
>long time, giving Weatherlawyer a wide berth and a patronising smile,
>when along you come, like some bumptious teenager who doesn't know
>when to keep his gob shut and start raising the temperature and
>provoking even more nonsense from the said Weatherlawyer than we had
>before. If left alone, Weatherlawyer is not at all obnoxious, which
>is more than can be said for you, matey, it appears.
I'd say that sums it up pretty well.
--
Alan White
Mozilla Firefox and Forte Agent.
Twenty-eight miles NW of Glasgow, overlooking Lochs Long and Goil in Argyll, Scotland.
Webcam and weather:- http://windycroft.gt-britain.co.uk/weather
Dawlish
>
> - Show quoted text -
Read the foul language and pure hatred and abuse in what the dear man
has said Tudor and then tell me again that I am somehow wrong in my
challenge. Weatherlwayer promotes bad science in the most obnoxious
way possible, with insult after insult to anyone that challenges him.
I waited a month and observed the way he has talked to a whole section
of people. I don't like it; you are very welcome to your blinkers.
You appear to be quite happy with the said person doing this, albeit
on an occasional basis (only every other day, perhaps?). You also
appear to feel that "the group has been chugging along for a long
time". well, the group has and good luck to it, but your memory, as
regards Weatherlawyer is hugely selective Even since the end of March
when I started posting again; Weatherlawyer has abused and harangued
over half a dozen people individually and insulted a whole lot more by
association. See my post where I cut and pasted some of his invective.
The people who have emailed me shows me that this outright, abusive
bully intimidates people. Why on earth do you show support?
The abuse that I will get from him (and from yourself, it appears -
"Bumptious teenager" "doesn't know when to keep his gob shut"
"obnoxious, matey") is actually quite entertaining. I didn't, for a
moment, think that you were cast in a mould of the remotest similarity
to him, however, reading what you have posted, it appears I may be
wrong in that assumption.
Appeasement has never been an option for me, but, unfortunately, it
obviously is for you.
Back on topic.
Weatherlawyer. Yes, you have noticed the volcano is erupting and you
have found a satellite photo to show it. Well done. It will continue
to erupt and the strength of the eruption may increase, but it may
not. There's a problem, it is very difficult to predict, even though
the vulcanologists studying the eruption feel that it has reached it's
peak. However, as you didn't predict it and your theories didn't point
to it erupting (oh, sorry, there has been an eruption, therefore it
shows you that the links you propose exist....hmmm, fine science,
that....) why are you focussing on it?
The 7.5 Earthquake that you proposed could happen in the next 2-3
days..... hasn't. Your predition from 24th April was wrong. To even
achieve a continuing 50% accuracy will now requre you to get the next
two predictions correct. I await them with interest.
crazy...@hotmail.com
There are, on average, around 20 earthquakes above mag. 7.0 per year.
In other words, one every 18 days approximately. It does not take a
genius to forecast another one in the next few days, when there has
been a fortnight since the last one.
Dawlish
>
> - Show quoted text -
Exactly what I said and I agree entirely. Unfortunately for
Weatherlawyer; this particular guess was wrong. A 6.6mag in the
Aleutian Islands has been the highest since his pronouncement. As the
USGS says that there are, on average, 134 earthquakes of intensity 6.0
- 6.9 around the world in a year, I don't think even he could ckaim
his methods spotted that one.
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/learning/faq.php?categoryID=11&faqID=69
If a 7.5 occurred later today, it would still prove nothing as
regards his theories. Predictions like his can only be separated from
chance by a statistical analysis of a good number (say 50) of
predictions over time. That would form the basis for further work and
would certainly not form proof. He won't provide any evidence of past
success and thus his links have no basis in actuality. The way he
frames forecasts, it cannot be separated from guesswork anyway.
Paul
Weatherlawyer
>
> Back on topic.
Quite right, let us put the past behind us and you can go and boil
your head while I think about editing my posts to make you look even
more bumptious than you are.
<low gramur snipped.
Blast!
I was going to reply regardless but I have forgotten what you drooled
and can't be asked to look.
> The 7.5 Earthquake that you proposed could happen in the next 2-3
> days..... hasn't. Your prediction from 24th April was wrong. To even
> achieve a continuing 50% accuracy will now require you to get the next
> two predictions correct. I await them with interest.
But in Weather Law a Cat 4 hurricane can be regarded as a stand-in for
an earthquake of from 7.5 M to 7.8 or 9ish.
(Bearing in mind that not only is perturbation considered but the time
at high oscillation is taken into account. If the same was true for
hurricanes, the time interval would put it well into the teens.)
Other outcomes also to be considered are volcanic eruptions with a
large output of matter. Large cells of F 3 and 4 tornadoes covering
many counties even a number of states. Above cloud lightning and
lesser storms in higher latitudes.
Search and see (if you can find someone to show you how) the one thing
all the above have in common is that they occur at a region where the
surface pressure is near 1010 millibars. Usually between two or more
fairly flaccid weather systems.
Generally an hurricane force in the temperate climes is the equivalent
of a Cat 3 or 4 cyclone.
I will not be dictated to by you in the use of English.
Now look at this, you recalcitrant scion of a ne'er do well:
5.3 M. 2008/05/06. 23:28 -7.9 123.2 Banda Sea
5.3 M. 2008/05/06. 12:42 -20.4 168.8 Loyalty Islands
5.1 M. 2008/05/06. 10:06 -20.3 168.8 Loyalty Islands
5.3 M. 2008/05/05. 21:58 28.4 54.1 Southern Iran
If you take the matched pair out of this equation you get a lapse of
over 24 hours for the next pair:
06. 23:28 -7.9 123.2 Banda Sea
05. 21:58 28.4 54.1 Southern Iran
And a storm in the west (Asian) Pacific:
http://www.hurricanezone.net/tcgraphics/wp0308.gif
No hurricane yet (it is classed as a gale on the Beaufort Scale) it
will grow more powerful or the earthquake I said would arrive some
days ago is at last going to avail itself for our edification.
One more axiom for Clueless:
When the classical methods of weather-forecasting show error or
uncertainty and there is something of the same ilk with my efforts
too, then the likelihood (the North Atlantic having a positive NAO
(according to my way of classifying said anomaly (not that I think it
is anomalous, in the true meaning of the word))) is that an earthquake
of Mag 7 or larger is due.
This one is SOOOO due....
You have much to learn and I have much to teach, so go and wipe your
bottom, clean it and report back so I can give your arse another
kicking. Sodue.
Weatherlawyer
That's gone up in the last few years then?
Maybe it's due to glowballs or more likely the "stones crying out"
that we are indeed living in the "last days" where there is every
reason "to hear reports of earthquakes in one place after another" yea
verrily, even ynto places wherryne there were no places untylle ye
ende tyme.
Dawlish
Show me the evidence of forecast success.......or go away. Mind you,
your abuse is funny! *>))
Without that evidence. You are a charlatan; no more.
An earthquake of Mag 7, or larger, as has already been explained to
you, by two of us, will occur, on average, every few weeks. You just
completely failed to predict the last one. You'll predict this one,
but so will I.
There will be a Mag 7 earthquake, or larger, somewhere in the world in
the next month. 4/6 your odds. Any takers?
Weatherlawyer
This spell will continue until that large earthquake occurs, unless
there is more than one due -in which case (against the odds) they will
occur within a few days of each other.
Care to give me odds on that? Or if you want to chance ytour pocket
money for the month put a fiver on it, sonny.
Harold Brooks
@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, Weathe...@hotmail.com says...
> On May 7, 1:47 pm, crazyh0r...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >
> > There are, on average, around 20 earthquakes above mag. 7.0 per year.
>
> That's gone up in the last few years then?
No. The USGS gives 18/year as the average. (See
http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/eqlists/eqstats.html.) From their data, from
2000-2007, it was only 15, but I doubt that's statistically
significantly different from 18.
Harold
--
Harold Brooks
hebro...@hotmail.com
Dawlish
>
> - Show quoted text -
No: the probability is that a large magnitude (7.0, 7.5, you seem very
confused as to what constitutes "large") earthquake will occur over
the next month (odds on) and the enormous likelihood is that the
earthquake will have nothing whatsoever to do with the position of any
of your meteorological features.
Did you look at those gfs pressure maps of Asia, that I referred you
to, including the "commie conspiracy" countries that apparently
prevent them being released and stopped you finding any for so long?
Most of us have been looking at them for years. Hope they help you.
PS As Harold says, nothing has "gone up in the last few
years"........you just weren't aware of the stats. We can't help that,
but some of us really are here to help when you need it.
PPS Any chance of those success statistics? Not much to ask.
Weatherlawyer
> In article <ef28be7f-63d8-43da-bd88-2fdfb01ee034
>
> > On May 7, 1:47 pm, crazyh0r...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > > There are, on average, around 20 earthquakes above mag. 7.0 per year.
>
> > That's gone up in the last few years then?
>
> 2000-2007, it was only 15, but I doubt that's statistically
> significantly different from 18.
I could have sworn the rate for >7M/annum was about 8. But it appears
that since 1990 at least the average is about what you say:
>http://www.ceri.memphis.edu/aware/follies.html
>http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/eqlists/eqstats.html
However:
>http://neic.usgs.gov/cgi-bin/epic/epic.cgi?SEARCHMETHOD=1&FILEFORMAT=4&SEARCHRANGE=NO&SYEAR=1950&SMONTH=01&SDAY=01&EYEAR=1950&EMONTH=12&EDAY=31&LMAG=7&UMAG=10&NDEP1=&NDEP2=&IO1=&IO2=&SLAT2=0.0&SLAT1=0.0&SLON2=0.0&SLON1=0.0&CLAT=0.0&CLON=0.0&CRAD=0&SUBMIT=Submit+Search
>http://neic.usgs.gov/cgi-bin/epic/epic.cgi?SEARCHMETHOD=1&FILEFORMAT=4&SEARCHRANGE=NO&SYEAR=1951&SMONTH=01&SDAY=01&EYEAR=1951&EMONTH=12&EDAY=31&LMAG=7&UMAG=10&NDEP1=&NDEP2=&IO1=&IO2=&SLAT2=0.0&SLAT1=0.0&SLON2=0.0&SLON1=0.0&CLAT=0.0&CLON=0.0&CRAD=0&SUBMIT=Submit+Search
>http://neic.usgs.gov/cgi-bin/epic/epic.cgi?SEARCHMETHOD=1&FILEFORMAT=4&SEARCHRANGE=NO&SYEAR=1952&SMONTH=01&SDAY=01&EYEAR=1952&EMONTH=12&EDAY=31&LMAG=7&UMAG=10&NDEP1=&NDEP2=&IO1=&IO2=&SLAT2=0.0&SLAT1=0.0&SLON2=0.0&SLON1=0.0&CLAT=0.0&CLON=0.0&CRAD=0&SUBMIT=Submit+Search
>http://neic.usgs.gov/cgi-bin/epic/epic.cgi?SEARCHMETHOD=1&FILEFORMAT=4&SEARCHRANGE=NO&SYEAR=1960&SMONTH=01&SDAY=01&EYEAR=1960&EMONTH=12&EDAY=31&LMAG=7&UMAG=10&NDEP1=&NDEP2=&IO1=&IO2=&SLAT2=0.0&SLAT1=0.0&SLON2=0.0&SLON1=0.0&CLAT=0.0&CLON=0.0&CRAD=0&SUBMIT=Submit+Search
>http://neic.usgs.gov/cgi-bin/epic/epic.cgi?SEARCHMETHOD=1&FILEFORMAT=4&SEARCHRANGE=NO&SYEAR=1961&SMONTH=01&SDAY=01&EYEAR=1961&EMONTH=12&EDAY=31&LMAG=7&UMAG=10&NDEP1=&NDEP2=&IO1=&IO2=&SLAT2=0.0&SLAT1=0.0&SLON2=0.0&SLON1=0.0&CLAT=0.0&CLON=0.0&CRAD=0&SUBMIT=Submit+Search
>http://neic.usgs.gov/cgi-bin/epic/epic.cgi?SEARCHMETHOD=1&FILEFORMAT=4&SEARCHRANGE=NO&SYEAR=1962&SMONTH=01&SDAY=01&EYEAR=1962&EMONTH=12&EDAY=31&LMAG=7&UMAG=10&NDEP1=&NDEP2=&IO1=&IO2=&SLAT2=0.0&SLAT1=0.0&SLON2=0.0&SLON1=0.0&CLAT=0.0&CLON=0.0&CRAD=0&SUBMIT=Submit+Search
>http://neic.usgs.gov/cgi-bin/epic/epic.cgi?SEARCHMETHOD=1&FILEFORMAT=4&SEARCHRANGE=NO&SYEAR=1970&SMONTH=01&SDAY=01&EYEAR=1970&EMONTH=12&EDAY=31&LMAG=7&UMAG=10&NDEP1=&NDEP2=&IO1=&IO2=&SLAT2=0.0&SLAT1=0.0&SLON2=0.0&SLON1=0.0&CLAT=0.0&CLON=0.0&CRAD=0&SUBMIT=Submit+Search
>http://neic.usgs.gov/cgi-bin/epic/epic.cgi?SEARCHMETHOD=1&FILEFORMAT=4&SEARCHRANGE=NO&SYEAR=1971&SMONTH=01&SDAY=01&EYEAR=1971&EMONTH=12&EDAY=31&LMAG=7&UMAG=10&NDEP1=&NDEP2=&IO1=&IO2=&SLAT2=0.0&SLAT1=0.0&SLON2=0.0&SLON1=0.0&CLAT=0.0&CLON=0.0&CRAD=0&SUBMIT=Submit+Search
>http://neic.usgs.gov/cgi-bin/epic/epic.cgi?SEARCHMETHOD=1&FILEFORMAT=4&SEARCHRANGE=NO&SYEAR=1972&SMONTH=01&SDAY=01&EYEAR=1972&EMONTH=12&EDAY=31&LMAG=7&UMAG=10&NDEP1=&NDEP2=&IO1=&IO2=&SLAT2=0.0&SLAT1=0.0&SLON2=0.0&SLON1=0.0&CLAT=0.0&CLON=0.0&CRAD=0&SUBMIT=Submit+Search
>http://neic.usgs.gov/cgi-bin/epic/epic.cgi?SEARCHMETHOD=1&FILEFORMAT=4&SEARCHRANGE=NO&SYEAR=1980&SMONTH=01&SDAY=01&EYEAR=1980&EMONTH=12&EDAY=31&LMAG=7&UMAG=10&NDEP1=&NDEP2=&IO1=&IO2=&SLAT2=0.0&SLAT1=0.0&SLON2=0.0&SLON1=0.0&CLAT=0.0&CLON=0.0&CRAD=0&SUBMIT=Submit+Search
>http://neic.usgs.gov/cgi-bin/epic/epic.cgi?SEARCHMETHOD=1&FILEFORMAT=4&SEARCHRANGE=NO&SYEAR=1981&SMONTH=01&SDAY=01&EYEAR=1981&EMONTH=12&EDAY=31&LMAG=7&UMAG=10&NDEP1=&NDEP2=&IO1=&IO2=&SLAT2=0.0&SLAT1=0.0&SLON2=0.0&SLON1=0.0&CLAT=0.0&CLON=0.0&CRAD=0&SUBMIT=Submit+Search
>http://neic.usgs.gov/cgi-bin/epic/epic.cgi?SEARCHMETHOD=1&FILEFORMAT=4&SEARCHRANGE=NO&SYEAR=1982&SMONTH=01&SDAY=01&EYEAR=1982&EMONTH=12&EDAY=31&LMAG=7&UMAG=10&NDEP1=&NDEP2=&IO1=&IO2=&SLAT2=0.0&SLAT1=0.0&SLON2=0.0&SLON1=0.0&CLAT=0.0&CLON=0.0&CRAD=0&SUBMIT=Submit+Search
>
OK so now we come to the era of detante where the use of nuclear
spyophones can be utilised to their best extent:
>http://neic.usgs.gov/cgi-bin/epic/epic.cgi?SEARCHMETHOD=1&FILEFORMAT=4&SEARCHRANGE=NO&SYEAR=1990&SMONTH=01&SDAY=01&EYEAR=1990&EMONTH=12&EDAY=31&LMAG=7&UMAG=10&NDEP1=&NDEP2=&IO1=&IO2=&SLAT2=0.0&SLAT1=0.0&SLON2=0.0&SLON1=0.0&CLAT=0.0&CLON=0.0&CRAD=0&SUBMIT=Submit+Search
>http://neic.usgs.gov/cgi-bin/epic/epic.cgi?SEARCHMETHOD=1&FILEFORMAT=4&SEARCHRANGE=NO&SYEAR=1991&SMONTH=01&SDAY=01&EYEAR=1991&EMONTH=12&EDAY=31&LMAG=7&UMAG=10&NDEP1=&NDEP2=&IO1=&IO2=&SLAT2=0.0&SLAT1=0.0&SLON2=0.0&SLON1=0.0&CLAT=0.0&CLON=0.0&CRAD=0&SUBMIT=Submit+Search
>http://neic.usgs.gov/cgi-bin/epic/epic.cgi?SEARCHMETHOD=1&FILEFORMAT=4&SEARCHRANGE=NO&SYEAR=1992&SMONTH=01&SDAY=01&EYEAR=1992&EMONTH=12&EDAY=31&LMAG=7&UMAG=10&NDEP1=&NDEP2=&IO1=&IO2=&SLAT2=0.0&SLAT1=0.0&SLON2=0.0&SLON1=0.0&CLAT=0.0&CLON=0.0&CRAD=0&SUBMIT=Submit+Search
Bah! Fancy, yer bloody sheep!
Dawlish
> On May 7, 7:13 pm, Harold Brooks <hebrook...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <ef28be7f-63d8-43da-bd88-2fdfb01ee034
> > @c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, Weatherlaw...@hotmail.com says...
>
> > > On May 7, 1:47 pm, crazyh0r...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > There are, on average, around 20 earthquakes above mag. 7.0 per year.
>
> > > That's gone up in the last few years then?
>
> > No. The USGS gives 18/year as the average. (Seehttp://neic.usgs.gov/neis/eqlists/eqstats.html.) From their data, from
> > 2000-2007, it was only 15, but I doubt that's statistically
> > significantly different from 18.
>
> I could have sworn the rate for >7M/annum was about 8. But it appears
> that since 1990 at least the average is about what you say:
>
> >http://www.ceri.memphis.edu/aware/follies.html
> >http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/eqlists/eqstats.html
>
> >http://neic.usgs.gov/cgi-bin/epic/epic.cgi?SEARCHMETHOD=1&FILEFORMAT=...
> >http://neic.usgs.gov/cgi-bin/epic/epic.cgi?SEARCHMETHOD=1&FILEFORMAT=...
> >http://neic.usgs.gov/cgi-bin/epic/epic.cgi?SEARCHMETHOD=1&FILEFORMAT=...
> >http://neic.usgs.gov/cgi-bin/epic/epic.cgi?SEARCHMETHOD=1&FILEFORMAT=...
> >http://neic.usgs.gov/cgi-bin/epic/epic.cgi?SEARCHMETHOD=1&FILEFORMAT=...
> >http://neic.usgs.gov/cgi-bin/epic/epic.cgi?SEARCHMETHOD=1&FILEFORMAT=...
> >http://neic.usgs.gov/cgi-bin/epic/epic.cgi?SEARCHMETHOD=1&FILEFORMAT=...
> >http://neic.usgs.gov/cgi-bin/epic/epic.cgi?SEARCHMETHOD=1&FILEFORMAT=...
> >http://neic.usgs.gov/cgi-bin/epic/epic.cgi?SEARCHMETHOD=1&FILEFORMAT=...
> >http://neic.usgs.gov/cgi-bin/epic/epic.cgi?SEARCHMETHOD=1&FILEFORMAT=...
> >http://neic.usgs.gov/cgi-bin/epic/epic.cgi?SEARCHMETHOD=1&FILEFORMAT=...
>
> OK so now we come to the era of detante where the use of nuclear
> spyophones can be utilised to their best extent:
>
> >http://neic.usgs.gov/cgi-bin/epic/epic.cgi?SEARCHMETHOD=1&FILEFORMAT=...
> >http://neic.usgs.gov/cgi-bin/epic/epic.cgi?SEARCHMETHOD=1&FILEFORMAT=...
>
> Bah! Fancy, yer bloody sheep!
g'night W (Weatherlawyer is such a mouthful), sleep well. Don't fret
too much about your missing Earthquake. It'll come around soon. Betcha!
crazy...@hotmail.com
Its not just the pressure maps in Asia he needs to look at.
I suggest he takes a look at the pressure maps for the entire planet,
especially between the tropics and then he will see just how much of
it has surface pressure close to 1010mb for many months.
Is it really suprising that volcanoes, earthquakes and other
disturbances are more common in those areas, when an average pressure
of 1010mb is probably the most common around the globe?
Of course, we must not forget the power of the moon's gravitational
pull which (although it may not have as much effect on land as it does
over the water) is one day going to coincide with a geological
weakness and......
....well I dare not allow myself to imagine what may come next.
Weatherlawyer
>
> ....well I dare not allow myself to imagine what may come next.
Your lack of imagination aught to have a bearing on your intestinal
fortitude. However your greatest disability is the sheer volume of
ignorance you have so patiently stored between your ears.
Consider:
> Of course, we must not forget the power of the moon's gravitational
> pull which (although it may not have as much effect on land as it does
> over the water)
Define gravity.
OK, that's an hard one for you. Let's try something easier:
Which orbits which? Does the moon go around the earth or the earth
around the moon?
In which case the attraction of the [blank] is [blanker] than that of
[blank].
Replace blank with ...
No, too difficult for you...
Let me see...
You obviously do not subscribe to Aristotle's theory of gravitational
attraction.
Where did you come up with your version of the alternative? No.. hang
on. I have got it..
Have you ever heard of a bloke called Galileo?
Ah forget it. Believe what you like.
Alan LeHun
ed7e3c...@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, Weathe...@hotmail.com
says...
> On May 8, 12:22 pm, crazyh0r...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >
> > ....well I dare not allow myself to imagine what may come next.
>
> Your lack of imagination aught to have a bearing on your intestinal
> fortitude.
I see. When someone says they "dare not imagine", you comprehend this as
meaning they admit to having no imagination? And then you insult them as
a result of your own comprehension issues.
> However your greatest disability is the sheer volume of
> ignorance you have so patiently stored between your ears.
>
> Consider:
>
> > Of course, we must not forget the power of the moon's gravitational
> > pull which (although it may not have as much effect on land as it does
> > over the water)
>
> Define gravity.
>
> OK, that's an hard one for you. Let's try something easier:
> Which orbits which? Does the moon go around the earth or the earth
> around the moon?
>
The moon goes round the Earth.
> In which case the attraction of the [blank] is [blanker] than that of
> [blank].
>
> Replace blank with ...
>
> No, too difficult for you...
> Let me see...
>
> You obviously do not subscribe to Aristotle's theory of gravitational
> attraction.
> Where did you come up with your version of the alternative? No.. hang
> on. I have got it..
>
> Have you ever heard of a bloke called Galileo?
>
> Ah forget it. Believe what you like.
>
>
What a large amount of condescending and unwarranted claptrap, just
because crazyh0rse made a small, and not necessary factual, error (or
was it because he made "suggestions" for you to peruse). It is quite
clear to me that your most favoured pursuit is the ego inflating rampage
that you embark upon every time anyone should make any sort of
percieved) error which allows you to expose your self inferred
intellectual superiority.
Your post did nothing for anyone else (it didn't even identify
crazyh0rses mistake let alone correct it), had no substance whatsoever,
and served only your own personal gratification. I'm sure you at least
felt really clever while you wrote it.
--
Alan LeHun
crazy...@hotmail.com
> In article <9a9e6df3-0dbb-4adf-afbe-
> ed7e3c289...@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, Weatherlaw...@hotmail.com
Sorry, I was trying to be sarcastic.
I should really know better.
Dawlish
>
> - Show quoted text -
You got abuse. Typical, but unfortunately the norm.
Now where's that 7.5+ Earthquake that this genius "predicted" would
happen in the next couple of days...... I forget how many days ago
now?
Of course, the last sentence would be interpreted as an unprovoked
attack on someone's views by a particular poster. The completely
unwarranted attack on crazy would be interpreted by the same person as
"perplexing". Funny how some people's world works.....especially W's.
mirage
>
> Sorry, I was trying to be sarcastic.
>
> I should really know better.
Don't apologize. Your sarcasm couldn't have been clearer or more
appropriate. Hardly your fault that the gentleman you were writing to
is a loon.
--mirage
Dawlish
Now that really is an unprovoked attack on someone's reasonable views.
Disgusted of Dawlish.
*>))
Paul
Weatherlawyer
>
> I should really know better.
That's the difference between us don't you know, I was being sarcastic
and I do know better. In fact, I know best.
Here is an example to tear you another place for you to put your head.
These quakes occur each time an High pressure area leaves North
America by way of the Carolinas.
5.0 M. ANDREANOF ISLANDS, ALEUTIAN IS., ALASKA.
Have fun children.
Oh, by the way; is this an example of diffluence?
>http://www.westwind.ch/?link=ukmb,http://www2.wetter3.de/Fax/,.gif,bracknell+00,bracknell+24,bracknell+36,bracknell+48,bracknell+60,bracknell+72,bracknell+84,bracknell+96,bracknell+108,bracknell+120,bracknell+132
(55 N. 35 W.)
They think it's all over!
Weatherlawyer
Unappreciative loon. And... No gentleman.
I wonder why he writes to me? Maybe he needs help?
Glad to oblige.
Or not, as the case maybe.
Dawlish
So, earthquake of 7.5, or greater, W? You've gone very quiet on the
analysis of your predictions front. Or maybe that is a "not", as the
case may be?
Weatherlawyer
>
> Oh, by the way; is this an example of diffluence?>http://www.westwind.ch/?link=ukmb,http://www2.wetter3.de/Fax/,.gif,br...
>
> (55 N. 35 W.)
>
> They think it's all over!
Complex problems with complex low and the Low Complex:
>http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/europe/surface_pressure.html
That has just GOT to be a major volcanic eruption late saturday most
of Sunday and early Monday. Just like it shows on the model run I
posted about on this thread:
>http://groups.google.com/group/uk.sci.weather/browse_frm/thread/f764497819d93f17#
Weatherlawyer
>
> Complex problems with complex low and the Low Complex:
>
> >http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/europe/surface_pressure.html
>
> That has just GOT to be a major volcanic eruption late saturday most
> of Sunday and early Monday. Just like it shows on the model run I
> posted about on this thread:
>
This is from the NEIC: 5.5 Magnitude earthquake at 23:21 on 8th May
2008.
!8 hours since the last one, therefore a storm brewing maybe. It is
certainly heading that way.
Dawlish
>
> - Show quoted text
OK, a major eruption at some time over a specified 2-day period. We'll
monitor that. You need this one to occur, to increase your forecast
accuracy to 33% over your last 3 forecasts. At the moment, your
percentage accuracy stands at zero (0/2) since April 24th.
If your definition of a "major" eruption would be "explosive" on the
VEI scale, one would expect one to happen weekly, on average. As one
hasn't happened since the 2nd May, another would be expected soon -
hence, probably, your forecast. The biggest one recently, Chaiten,
your methods patently failed to predict.
http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/eruption_scale.html
Also, you can't pull the wool over our eyes by quoting any of these,
unless there is a significant change in the output of any of them. All
these are ongoing.
http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/eruption_scale.html
Good luck. You'll need it.
Dawlish
"a storm" what's that supposed to mean?
Harold Brooks
@x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, Weathe...@hotmail.com says...
From NEIC, based on the ~1500 M5+ earthquakes per year, there are about
480 M5.5+ earthquakes per year, or about 1 every 18 hours. (There have
been 43 5.5 or larger quakes in the last 30 days.)
crazy...@hotmail.com
> In article <cff8a1a5-f7fd-4656-8bee-f80f10f37ca8
>
>
>
> > On May 9, 3:47 pm, Weatherlawyer <Weatherlaw...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Complex problems with complex low and the Low Complex:
>
> > > >http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/europe/surface_pressure.html
>
> > > That has just GOT to be a major volcanic eruption late saturday most
> > > of Sunday and early Monday. Just like it shows on the model run I
> > > posted about on this thread:
>
> > > >http://groups.google.com/group/uk.sci.weather/browse_frm/thread/f7644...
>
> > This is from the NEIC: 5.5 Magnitude earthquake at 23:21 on 8th May
> > 2008.
> > !8 hours since the last one, therefore a storm brewing maybe. It is
> > certainly heading that way.
>
> From NEIC, based on the ~1500 M5+ earthquakes per year, there are about
> 480 M5.5+ earthquakes per year, or about 1 every 18 hours. (There have
> been 43 5.5 or larger quakes in the last 30 days.)
>
> Harold
> --
> Harold Brooks
It would now seem as if a complex low pressure at 55N 30W is being
used to predict a major volcanic eruption anywhere in the world.
But, why the Northern Atlantic? There are plenty of vigorous areas of
low pressure in the Southern Ocean between Antarctic and S. America,
S. Africa, New Zealand etc. Are these never able to contribute to
earthquakes/volcanoes?
Or is this an "upmarket, decadent, Western standard of living" theory?
Weatherlawyer
> In article <cff8a1a5-f7fd-4656-8bee-f80f10f37ca8
>
> > This is from the NEIC: 5.5 Magnitude earthquake at 23:21 on 8th May
> > 2008.
>
> > !8 hours since the last one, therefore a storm brewing maybe. It is
> > certainly heading that way.
>
> From NEIC, based on the ~1500 M5+ earthquakes per year, there are about
> 480 M5.5+ earthquakes per year, or about 1 every 18 hours. (There have
> been 43 5.5 or larger quakes in the last 30 days.)
What did you make of the facts I pointed out to you earlier? A series
of years with less than 8 quakes of 7 M and over per annum.
As for the lower magnitude quakes there does seem to be a relationship
between mascons, high pressure areas and said quakes. If you look at
the world list of quakes greater than 2 M., the relationship is even
more striking.
Please don't make the mistake that some of the dunces on
uk.sci.weather tend to make, that I am insisting one is the cause of
the other.
My take on the matter is more in the nature of harmonics that might be
engendered in the three body problem, where the orbit perturbations
cause a lapse in the system. A sphere of several billion tons, moving
at thousands of miles an hour must have a special problem dealing with
inertia.
Consider what might happen with a gyro-compass were it 2 thousand
miles wide and on an armature 1/4 million miles long.
The mere orbit of the moon is impossibly complex.
On top of that, It has huge mass-concentrations the like of which make
earth's mascons -which as yet are still to be explored; pale into
insignificance.
Which in turn means that the ideas I have put forward should not be
ruled out without some consideration.
May I take it that you would agree that all the earth's weather in
intimately interlinked?
Logically then, a shower in North Wales affects the wind in Barra.
Which is only a small step away from my claim that a severe storm in
the Philippines can affect the weather here in Britain.
It is axiomatic that floods in Britain following long spells of wet
weather here coincide with reports of forest fires in the arid climes
of North America. You have noticed that?
Did you know that the mascon we call the Mid Atlantic Ridge runs
friction a close second in the cause of the failure of man made
satellites?
When I first started looking at these things, one of the first put
downs I received was that there are some 3 million earthquakes each
year. I don't know what parameters the person was using, some quote
from a TV show I imagine. But that merely means they are as common as
waves on the sea shore.
30 million seconds in a year; one wave hitting every shore in ten of
those -every ten of those; on average...
And the waves are intimately linked to the weather are they not?
OK, that is a non sequitur. Merely saying such and such is caused by
so and so does not prove anything.
Saying silly things about a fellow poster for instance, instead of
reasoning with him, is not the way to prove him wrong, even if he says
he agrees with you that he is a kook for example, it merely shows a
paucity of respect for both people and for science.
Ah well, I have said my piece. One thing I have learned whilst airing
my views is that it is a thankless task trying to disabuse an expert
of his fallacies.
Believe what you like. Stay in the dark. Be the master of the cul-de-
sac.
Much good may it do you.
It would be a shame to wake some people.
Or:
It's 21 hours now since the last one:
>http://earthquake.usgs.gov/eqcenter/recenteqsww/Quakes/quakes_big.php
Stop thinking in terms of averages and do the actual observations. And
while you are at it, ponder on the weight of the moon.
3.5 x 1 Kilo per litre. What is that for a spheroid some 3.5 million
metres across?
A lot.
And it doesn't roll around the earth on averages.
Please do not berate me with statistics in future. They all add up to
proof positive for my argument not yours.
I hope you realise that I am paying you a compliment in writing to you
of these things. I wouldn't even consider it were your name Dawlish or
that other plonker.
Weatherlawyer
>
> It's 21 hours now since the last one:
>
> >http://earthquake.usgs.gov/eqcenter/recenteqsww/Quakes/quakes_big.php
And Rammasun is at hurricane force. It is slated to become a cat. 2.
Coincidence?
Perhaps.
If you care to look, you will find plenty of them.
Weatherlawyer
And here is another one:
https://www.fnmoc.navy.mil/efs/cgi-bin/efs_loop.cgi?strt=0&incr=12&stop=240&imagePrefix=US058VMET-GIFwxg.EFS.no_atl_gale_&title=FNMOC%20EFS%20Gale%20Probability%20Forecasts%20(North%20Atlantic%20Basin)
Pay attention to Friday 12 Z 9th May through to
Monday 00 Z 12th May 2008.
When a couple of coincidents point to me being right, does it make you
think?
Harold Brooks
@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, Weathe...@hotmail.com says...
> On May 9, 6:47 pm, Harold Brooks <hebrook...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > In article <cff8a1a5-f7fd-4656-8bee-f80f10f37ca8
> > @x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, Weatherlaw...@hotmail.com says...
> >
> > > This is from the NEIC: 5.5 Magnitude earthquake at 23:21 on 8th May
> > > 2008.
> >
> > > !8 hours since the last one, therefore a storm brewing maybe. It is
> > > certainly heading that way.
> >
> > From NEIC, based on the ~1500 M5+ earthquakes per year, there are about
> > 480 M5.5+ earthquakes per year, or about 1 every 18 hours. (There have
> > been 43 5.5 or larger quakes in the last 30 days.)
>
> What did you make of the facts I pointed out to you earlier? A series
> of years with less than 8 quakes of 7 M and over per annum.
>
I made of it that you didn't know how to do the search on the NEIC
website. The NOAA catalog of significant earthquakes, which is what you
searched, has less than half of the earthquakes that the NEIC database
has. For 1990-2, from your search, NOAA had 9, 6, and 13, respectively.
Searching the NEIC database gives 18, 18, and 24. If you had looked at
"USGS/NEIC (PDE) 1973 - Present", instead of "Significant Worldwide
Earthquakes (2150 B.C. - 1994 A.D.)", you'd have gotten a very different
answer.
Weatherlawyer
> In article <abadbb16-3d4a-4d3a-982c-2e9ffe16d985
> @k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, Weatherlaw...@hotmail.com says...
>
> > > > This is from the NEIC: 5.5 Magnitude earthquake at 23:21 on 8th May
> > > > 2008.
>
> > > > certainly heading that way.
>
> > > From NEIC, based on the ~1500 M5+ earthquakes per year, there are about
> > > 480 M5.5+ earthquakes per year, or about 1 every 18 hours. (There have
> > > been 43 5.5 or larger quakes in the last 30 days.)
>
> > What did you make of the facts I pointed out to you earlier? A series
> > of years with less than 8 quakes of 7 M and over per annum.
>
> I made of it that you didn't know how to do the search on the NEIC
> website. The NOAA catalog of significant earthquakes, which is what you
> searched, has less than half of the earthquakes that the NEIC database
> has. For 1990-2, from your search, NOAA had 9, 6, and 13, respectively.
> Searching the NEIC database gives 18, 18, and 24. If you had looked at
> "USGS/NEIC (PDE) 1973 - Present", instead of "Significant Worldwide
> Earthquakes (2150 B.C. - 1994 A.D.)", you'd have gotten a very different
> answer.
This was a NOAA site?
NEIC: Earthquake Search Results
U. S. G E O L O G I C A L S U R V E Y
E A R T H Q U A K E D A T A B A S E
FILE CREATED: Fri May 9 10:00:11 2008
Global Search Earthquakes= 12
Catalog Used: NOAA
Date Range: Year: 1971 - 1971 Month: 01/Day: 01 Month: 12/
Day: 31
Magnitude Range: 7.0 - 10.0
Data Selection: Significant Earthquakes World Wide (NOAA)
CAT YEAR MO DA ORIG TIME LAT LONG DEP MAGNITUDE IEFM
DTSVNWG DIST
NFPO km
TFS
NOAA 1971 01 10 0717 -3.20 139.70 34 8.10 MsNOAA
9D.. .......
NOAA 1971 02 04 1533 0.50 98.70 40 7.10 MsNOAA
9D.. .......
NOAA 1971 05 22 1643 38.80 40.50 3 7.00
MsNOAA .C.. .......
NOAA 1971 06 17 21 -25.40 -69.40 76 7.00 MsNOAA
5C.. .......
NOAA 1971 07 09 0303 -32.50 -71.30 58 7.50 MsNOAA
9C.. .T.....
NOAA 1971 07 14 0611 -5.50 153.90 47 7.90 MsNOAA
7C.. .T.....
NOAA 1971 07 26 0123 -4.90 153.20 43 7.90 MsNOAA
6D.. .T.....
NOAA 1971 07 27 0203 -2.70 -77.40 135 7.50 MsNOAA
7C.. .......
NOAA 1971 09 05 1835 46.80 141.20 9 7.70 MsNOAA
9D.. .T.....
NOAA 1971 10 27 1758 -15.60 167.20 49 7.10 MsNOAA
7C.. .......
NOAA 1971 11 24 1935 52.90 159.20 106 7.50
MsNOAA .... .......
NOAA 1971 12 15 0829 55.90 163.40 30 7.80 MsNOAA
XF.. .......
Why would the NEIC be using a NOAA database if it were in error?
I was wondering, too, why the National oceans and Atmosphere people
were storing seismic tables. It turns out they are chargeds with the
responsibility of storing most of the USA's geophysics data:
"Welcome to the World Data Center for Solid Earth Geophysics, Boulder.
The WDC for SEG is maintained by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA), National Geophysical Data Center (NGDC) in
Boulder, Colorado.
The WDC SEG maintains extensive data and documentation compilations in
a number of geophysical and environmental disciplines, including
historic tsunamis, significant earthquakes, Earth magnetism,
paleomagnetism, topography, gravity, and ecosystems.
Data come from surface, aircraft and satellite platforms. See our list
of datasets held by the WDC for SEG."
>http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/geomag/wdc/
It's not my problem whatever you think. Here is the search from a
different catalogue:
Global CMT Catalog
Search criteria:
Start date: 1976/1/1 End date: 1977/1/1
-90 <=lat<= 90 -180 <=lon<= 180
0 <=depth<= 1000 -9999 <=time shift<= 9999
0 <=mb<= 10 0<=Ms<= 10 7<=Mw<= 10
0 <=tension plunge<= 90 0 <=null plunge<= 90
Results
010176A KERMADEC ISLANDS REGION
Date: 1976/ 1/ 1 Centroid Time: 1:29:53.4 GMT
Lat= -29.25 Lon=-176.96
Depth= 47.8 Half duration= 9.4
Centroid time minus hypocenter time: 13.8
Moment Tensor: Expo=26 7.680 0.090 -7.770 1.390 4.520 -3.260
Mw = 7.3 mb = 6.2 Ms = 0.0 Scalar Moment = 9.56e+26
Fault plane: strike=202 dip=30 slip=93
Fault plane: strike=18 dip=60 slip=88
011476A KERMADEC ISLANDS
Date: 1976/ 1/14 Centroid Time: 15:56: 7.5 GMT
Lat= -29.69 Lon=-177.04
Depth= 46.7 Half duration=20.0
Centroid time minus hypocenter time: 32.6
Moment Tensor: Expo=27 4.780 -0.490 -4.300 0.830 3.620 -1.320
Mw = 7.8 mb = 6.3 Ms = 0.0 Scalar Moment = 6.02e+27
Fault plane: strike=200 dip=26 slip=95
Fault plane: strike=15 dip=64 slip=88
011476B KERMADEC ISLANDS REGION
Date: 1976/ 1/14 Centroid Time: 16:47:44.8 GMT
Lat= -28.72 Lon=-176.75
Depth= 17.7 Half duration=20.5
Centroid time minus hypocenter time: 11.3
Moment Tensor: Expo=27 2.560 0.180 -2.740 3.580 6.770 -1.230
Mw = 7.9 mb = 6.5 Ms = 8.0 Scalar Moment = 8.18e+27
Fault plane: strike=189 dip=11 slip=71
Fault plane: strike=28 dip=80 slip=93
012176A KURIL ISLANDS
Date: 1976/ 1/21 Centroid Time: 10: 5:33.6 GMT
Lat= 44.58 Lon= 149.49
Depth= 26.5 Half duration= 9.3
Centroid time minus hypocenter time: 9.5
Moment Tensor: Expo=26 3.210 -1.490 -1.720 2.870 5.330 -1.840
Mw = 7.2 mb = 6.3 Ms = 7.0 Scalar Moment = 6.91e+26
Fault plane: strike=237 dip=16 slip=116
Fault plane: strike=30 dip=76 slip=83
020476A GUATEMALA
Date: 1976/ 2/ 4 Centroid Time: 9: 1: 7.2 GMT
Lat= 15.14 Lon= -89.78
Depth= 16.3 Half duration=13.8
Centroid time minus hypocenter time: 23.8
Moment Tensor: Expo=27 -0.350 -0.780 1.120 0.380 -0.470 1.670
Mw = 7.5 mb = 6.2 Ms = 7.5 Scalar Moment = 2.04e+27
Fault plane: strike=254 dip=73 slip=-10
Fault plane: strike=347 dip=80 slip=-162
032476A KERMADEC ISLANDS
Date: 1976/ 3/24 Centroid Time: 4:46:16.4 GMT
Lat= -29.99 Lon=-177.51
Depth= 54.1 Half duration= 8.1
Centroid time minus hypocenter time: 12.0
Moment Tensor: Expo=26 3.670 0.120 -3.780 0.070 1.780 -1.410
Mw = 7.0 mb = 6.4 Ms = 6.8 Scalar Moment = 4.34e+26
Fault plane: strike=206 dip=34 slip=103
Fault plane: strike=11 dip=57 slip=81
050576A KERMADEC ISLANDS
Date: 1976/ 5/ 5 Centroid Time: 4:52: 2.6 GMT
Lat= -29.84 Lon=-177.43
Depth= 41.8 Half duration= 7.9
Centroid time minus hypocenter time: 11.6
Moment Tensor: Expo=26 3.630 0.040 -3.660 0.150 1.800 -1.750
Mw = 7.0 mb = 6.2 Ms = 6.8 Scalar Moment = 4.39e+26
Fault plane: strike=211 dip=34 slip=105
Fault plane: strike=13 dip=57 slip=80
060376A NEW IRELAND REGION
Date: 1976/ 6/ 3 Centroid Time: 16:44:53.1 GMT
Lat= -4.75 Lon= 153.47
Depth= 85.9 Half duration= 8.7
Centroid time minus hypocenter time: 14.3
Moment Tensor: Expo=26 5.110 -1.330 -3.780 -1.270 2.650 2.710
Mw = 7.1 mb = 6.2 Ms = 0.0 Scalar Moment = 6.08e+26
Fault plane: strike=143 dip=31 slip=83
Fault plane: strike=331 dip=59 slip=94
062076A NORTHERN SUMATERA
Date: 1976/ 6/20 Centroid Time: 20:53:23.5 GMT
Lat= 3.18 Lon= 96.24
Depth= 19.1 Half duration= 7.5
Centroid time minus hypocenter time: 10.1
Moment Tensor: Expo=26 2.430 -0.020 -2.410 1.120 -1.680 1.840
Mw = 7.0 mb = 6.3 Ms = 7.0 Scalar Moment = 3.55e+26
Fault plane: strike=338 dip=28 slip=99
Fault plane: strike=147 dip=62 slip=85
>http://www.globalcmt.org/cgi-bin/globalcmt-cgi-bin/CMT3/form?itype=ymd&yr=1976&mo=1&day=1&otype=ymd&oyr=1977&omo=1&oday=1&jyr=1976&jday=1&ojyr=1976&ojday=1&nday=1&lmw=7&umw=10&lms=0&ums=10&lmb=0&umb=10&llat=-90&ulat=90&llon=-180&ulon=180&lhd=0&uhd=1000<s=-9999&uts=9999&lpe1=0&upe1=90&lpe2=0&upe2=90&list=0
Perhaps you would care to put me right and give me a link to a search
of a catalogue more to your tastes? Maybe include the parameters?
I can't seem to find the details in your previous posts. A bit dense I
know, so what am I going to do?
Weatherlawyer
* start_time=1990/01/01,00:00:00
* end_time=1991/01/01,00:00:00
* minimum_latitude=-90
* maximum_latitude=90
* minimum_longitude=-180
* maximum_longitude=180
* minimum_magnitude=7.0
* maximum_magnitude=10
* event_type=E
Date Time Lat Lon Depth Mag Nst Gap Clo RMS
SRC
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1990/03/03 12:16:27.96 -22.12 175.16 33.20 7.40 322 1.32
NEI
1990/03/05 16:38:12.57 -18.32 168.06 20.70 7.00 335 1.24
NEI
1990/05/30 10:40:06.14 45.84 26.67 89.30 7.10 648 1.03
NEI
Weatherlawyer
> On May 9, 8:52 pm, Weatherlawyer <Weatherlaw...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 9, 8:41 pm, Weatherlawyer <Weatherlaw...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > It's 21 hours now since the last one:
>
> > > >http://earthquake.usgs.gov/eqcenter/recenteqsww/Quakes/quakes_big.php
>
> > And Rammasun is at hurricane force. It is slated to become a cat. 2.
> > Coincidence?
>
> > Perhaps.
> > If you care to look, you will find plenty of them.
>
> think?
A 6.7 and smack on time too. You know what?
I am bloody good I am.
2008/05/09. 21:51. Guam region.
Dawlish
Pure coincidence. the only way to verify your theories is to use them
to predict and then analyse your predictions.
You don't come back to the predictions you make; you leave them. Thus
you have no statistics to back up your theories. That's why no-one
takes what you say seriously. You may have "perplexed" one or two, but
that's really the best you've done. Produce the goods by using what
you believe in to predict. Show that your doubters and everyone in the
scientific community except yourself and a couple of other left-
fielders are wrong, by using your theory to accurately predict.
If you can't, there is no benefit whatsoever in what you
write.........except to yourself and as entertainment value to us in
the associated abuse..
There's a "major" volcanic eruption about to happen in the next 2 days
according to your theory. If you get that right (and, of course, you
have not defined "major") you will have increased your percentage
forecast accuracy from 0% to 33% since 24th April. If there is no
"major" eruption, you remain on 0%.
In the case of weather forecasting, or any other forecasting, accurate
success statistics are the only judge.
By identifying a link in hindsight, which you do often, by quoting
something and then saying "coincidence?", without any verification by
forecast accuracy means - well, I'll let you figure that one out for
yourself.
Weatherlawyer
>
>http://earthquake.usgs.gov/eqcenter/recenteqsww/Quakes/quakes_big.php
>
> > > And Rammasun is at hurricane force. It is slated to become a cat. 2.
> > > Coincidence?
>
http://www.hurricanezone.net/tcgraphics/wp0308.gif
120 knots. A Cat 4 again.
This gives us an opportunity to play with a little algebra vis a vis
weather patterns. A Lunar Phase near 12 or 6 o'clock should produce a
low overcast relatively cool spell. We have enjoyed an unusually fine
spell instead.
If you accord the times of the phases arbitrary values of 1 through 6
a la Weatherlawyer's Precepts, you derive a value of 5 o'clock for
this spell.
It has been displaced by 5 hours. Or if you advance the clock, 1 hour.
I am presuming the cause to be inertia, therefore I am going to go
with the larger number where I imagine the spell being retarded not
advanced. Ergo:
Spell X = 5
Time X = 6 = 00
Force X = Cat 4
Now we need a base line for the weather in that neck of the woods in
May. This is about the only time that statistics prove useful in
climatology:
DAMN!
Nothing is ever easy is it:
"The Philippines has two very different climate zones.
In the coastal and lowland areas there's a typically tropical marine
climate: hot and humid throughout most of the year. However, most of
the year constant sea breezes temper the climate somewhat except
during the dry summer months from March to the end of May.
The two main seasons are wet and dry; the dry season from mid-November
to mid-May<<<<
... from November to the end of February enjoying cool, ocean breezes
with March to May with being the hottest, up to 38C" Did you write
this Dawlish?
"..and the wet season from June to October being hot and humid.
Every year during the rainy season nearly 20 typhoons, known as
"bagyos" blow across the islands usually lasting 3 or 4 days. Steamy,
sunny days during the wet season are common after the tropical
downpours of heavy rain during the nights and early mornings."
http://www.world66.com/asia/southeastasia/philippines/climate
Let us presume calm humid overcast is the norm for phases there as
here, where the time of the phase is 12 or 6 o'clock.
So a marked deterioration in the weather of from calm to 125 knots in
the West Pacific is worth a marked change from cool overcast to
anticyclonic in Britain.
And it can be given a value. A Cat 4 = an M 8 to M 9.
And an anticyclone where it should be a col is thus worth C4 or M 8.5.
Therefore a change in the spell from the predictable to the actual of
5 hours is the equivalent of 5 billion tons of TNT per region
affected.
>http://www.seismo.unr.edu/ftp/pub/louie/class/100/magnitude.html
Hence the need to specify harmonics as per the question that started
this whole fracas off in the first place:
>http://groups.google.com/group/uk.sci.weather/browse_frm/thread/e447ef84fbbc1ec9/0c48035decef3092?lnk=gst&q=harmonics+and+astrometry#0c48035decef3092
Which Low, as it happens, is still pending at 60 N 30 W:
>http://www.wetterzentrale.de/pics/bracka.html
crazy...@hotmail.com
No you are not, you just think you are.
There still has not been one over 7 for 3 weeks.
(Last month, the earthquake "quack" said 'This spell runs from April
28th to May 5th. I expect an earthquake in the region of 7.3 to occur
early in it.')
However, like all bogus fortune tellers/horoscope writers there is
always a proviso such as, it may not happen because of........ (insert
pages of internet quotes, links and total bullshit designed to divert
attention from the fact that no prediction has been issued at all).
May I suggest that if you want to command any kind of respect, you
cease the Mystic Meg style of forecasting and actually predict the
precise date that a mag. 7+ earthquake will occur, preferably more
than 24 hours in advance. If you could narrow this down to a
continent, then even better.
And, you are quite welcome to fire the most vicious insults known to
man, in my direction. I dont care.
And remember - mag 6.7 does not count as 'in the region of 7.3' and
May 9th does not count as 'Apr 28th to May 5th'
Accurate forecasting becomes much harder when you are subject to very
close scrutiny and independent verification - doesn't it?
Dawlish
>
> Which Low, as it happens, is still pending at 60 N 30 W:
>
>
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
A prediction of a 7.5 Earthquake is now justified by you, by the
ocurrence of a 6.7 earthquake, which is over 8x weaker?? That's
"bloody good". Nah. That's guessing the probabilities completely
wrong. You went for far too big an eathquake. As has been pointed out
to you, on average, there are between 15 and 20 Earthquakes of >7.0
per year. >7.5 would probably be around 5. You can't cope with odds of
over 70/1 against.
An earthquake of >6 occurs around 150 times a year, 1 every 2 to 3
days on average. Just think how "bloody good" you could have been if
you'd just guessed your number a little differently?
Waiting for the "major eruption" over the next 2 days to increase your
success stats to 33% (and also for you to define what you mean by a
"major" eruption, though I know it benefits you a great deal to have
such obfuscation in your success criteria, even though the obfuscation
is painfully obvious.
No reasonable success percentage in predictions; no use.
Weatherlawyer
> 5 hours is the equivalent of 5 billion tons of TNT per region
> affected.
>
> >http://www.seismo.unr.edu/ftp/pub/louie/class/100/magnitude.html
>
> Hence the need to specify harmonics as per the question that started
> this whole fracas off in the first place:
>
>
> Which Low, as it happens, is still pending at 60 N 30 W:
>
> >http://www.wetterzentrale.de/pics/bracka.html
Furthermore the two North Atlantic cells are of the same order of
magnitude. The High focussed at Oslo/Gothenburg and the Low at 55 N 35
W are both about 1 hour wide.
OK, they cover some 20 or 40 degrees but the actual diameter is
Gothenburg to Edinburgh, isn't that far off 15 degrees on a great
circle.
I like that coincidence. 15 degrees suits me.
Dawlish
I'm afraid it's a case of "whatever" here. You can write about all the
imaginary links you want, but without any success in using it to
predict, you are simply writing made-up nonsense; however much you
wish it to be true.
Looking forward to you defining "major" volcanic eruption then it
actually occurring by noon on Monday; otherwise, your prediction
accuracy over the last few weeks, stands at zero. I think you are
desperately wanting this one to be correct and 33% looks a lot better
than zero.
Weatherlawyer
That should have read radius from Gothenburg to Edinburgh. The
diameter is more like 15 degrees as if from Edinburgh to Helsinki.
Anyway, the last quake was nearly 18 hours back so we might be getting
another storm.
Weatherlawyer
Ah well they upgraded that Japanese quake after downgrading it
earlier. So that was a 15/16 hour break. And severe winds in the New
England region. Hardly hurricane force but then what you gonna do
boudit?
Winter weather warnings on there too:
>http://www.weather.gov/
Will Hand
unpredictable anyway.
Will
--
Weatherlawyer
These may not be giving the information they are supposed to be doing
but if they are giving neat computer output from direct digital data
feeds, they are giving us notice of something else.
This first one for instance:
>https://www.fnmoc.navy.mil/efs/dynamic/US058VMET-GIFwxg.EFS.no_pac_gale_0.gif
is obviously advising us of the Cat 2 in the Pacific.
Apparently this one needs correcting:
>https://www.fnmoc.navy.mil/efs/dynamic/US058VMET-GIFwxg.EFS.no_atl_gale_0.gif
Without the corrections -which amount to erasure I imagine, it might
help us understand what data the system holds that might be being
overlooked.
No offence to anybody in particular but it seems to be a given for
satellite data.
Not that it makes all that much difference to weather forecasting but
who cares about weather forecasts? They are inaccurate over 5 days
either way.
Dawlish
> Pretty is as pretty does.
> These may not be giving the information they are supposed to be doing
> but if they are giving neat computer output from direct digital data
> feeds, they are giving us notice of something else.
>
>
> is obviously advising us of the Cat 2 in the Pacific.
>
> Apparently this one needs correcting:
>
>
> Without the corrections -which amount to erasure I imagine, it might
> help us understand what data the system holds that might be being
> overlooked.
>
> No offence to anybody in particular but it seems to be a given for
> satellite data.
> Not that it makes all that much difference to weather forecasting but
> who cares about weather forecasts? They are inaccurate over 5 days
> either way.
Perhaps, with your record since 24th June, the weather forecasts are
FAR more accurate.
Still waiting for you to back your proposed links up with forecast
accuracy data.
You're struggling aren't you..........and this won't go away.
Weatherlawyer
concerned. But the USA gets an imprint on things to come one day ahead
of us. Take a look at what is going on here:
>http://weather.unisys.com/images/sat_sfc_map_loop.html
If I had to rate that output in kilotons, I'd say:
A lot!
Which bodes ill for this next spell. Traditionally this month is one
for thunderstorms of great power in the UK, which is not saying much
by Congolese or Floridian standards. But it is a time that is
difficult for me to predict what an unstable spell is going to do. And
this one is bad enough.
12's and 6's are easily overridden by more powerful spells preceding
them, that spate of spells just gone is a fine example of that. Those
spells were nearly 10's -or if you give them their Weather Lore
denominations:
4's.
This next spell is near enough a 4 too. A classical one, no
interpretation, no extrapolation. So this set up is going to prove
interesting.
Meanwhile it is end-game for this spell, so keep on the watch for the
unexpected. For you know what to expect with the unexpected now, don't
you children?
crazy...@hotmail.com
> It is now the last day before the spell ends as far as the UK is
> concerned. But the USA gets an imprint on things to come one day ahead
> of us. Take a look at what is going on here:
>
> >http://weather.unisys.com/images/sat_sfc_map_loop.html
>
> If I had to rate that output in kilotons, I'd say:
> A lot!
It's an area of low pressure moving east across the USA - nothing
unusual in that at this time of year.
Tornadoes likely, nothing unusual in that at this time of year.
>
> Which bodes ill for this next spell. Traditionally this month is one
> for thunderstorms of great power in the UK, which is not saying much
> by Congolese or Floridian standards.
Well that is not surprising either, given their latitude. Especially
with the Congo being on/near the Equator.
>
> 12's and 6's are easily overridden by more powerful spells preceding
> them, that spate of spells just gone is a fine example of that. Those
> spells were nearly 10's -or if you give them their Weather Lore
> denominations:
> 4's.
Now this is a real classic.
You may be familiar with this site
http://www.hibberts.co.uk/collect2/tempres.htm
Are you aware of a place where they study this kind of theory?
I think it is in Nottinghamshire.
Near Retford. It is a nice part of the country, near what remains of
Sherwood Forest, and now much cleaner after the closure of those
awfully filthy nearby coal mines.
I'm sure there are many people there that will listen intently to what
you have to say.....
It is called Rampton.
Harold Brooks
24g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Weathe...@hotmail.com says...
It's not so much in error as it is different. It goes back earlier in
time than the USGS data.
Respectfully, the problem is yours. You've failed to complete this
search. Do it again, go to the bottom of that page, and click on the
highlighed "More solutions" in the phrase "More solutions with same
search criteria" and you'll see the rest of the year with an additional
8 earthquakes meeting the criteria.
> Perhaps you would care to put me right and give me a link to a search
> of a catalogue more to your tastes? Maybe include the parameters?
I don't particularly have "a catalogue more to [my] tastes." I was only
pointing out that you were being inconsistent in the comparison. If you
had read the post you replied to (and included in your reply), you would
have read "If you had looked at 'USGS/NEIC (PDE) 1973 - Present',
instead of 'Significant Worldwide Earthquakes (2150 B.C. - 1994 A.D.)',
you'd have gotten a very different answer."
>
> I can't seem to find the details in your previous posts. A bit dense I
> know, so what am I going to do?
>
Improve your reading comprehension. Go to the NEIC site that you
searched from and select "USGS/NEIC (PDE) 1973 - Present" instead of
"Significant Worldwide Earthquakes (2150 B.C. - 1994 A.D.)"
Harold
--
Harold Brooks
hebrooks87 hotmail.com
Weatherlawyer
> In article <30a432ce-2306-46be-b385-ae23c6a4ff0a@
> 24g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Weatherlaw...@hotmail.com says...
>
> > U. S. G E O L O G I C A L S U R V E Y
>
> > E A R T H Q U A K E D A T A B A S E
>
> > FILE CREATED: Fri May 9 10:00:11 2008
> > Global Search Earthquakes= 12
> > Catalog Used: NOAA
> > Date Range: Year: 1971 - 1971 Month: 01/Day: 01 Month: 12/
> > Day: 31
> > Magnitude Range: 7.0 - 10.0
> > Data Selection: Significant Earthquakes World Wide (NOAA)
>
>
> It's not so much in error as it is different. It goes back earlier in
> time than the USGS data.
Thus making it a superior source of data for the years specified?
> > "Welcome to the World Data Center for Solid Earth Geophysics, Boulder.
> > The WDC for SEG is maintained by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
> > Administration (NOAA), National Geophysical Data Center (NGDC) in
> > Boulder, Colorado.
>
> > Data come from surface, aircraft and satellite platforms. See our list
> > of datasets held by the WDC for SEG."
>
> > >http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/geomag/wdc/
>
> > >http://www.globalcmt.org/cgi-bin/globalcmt-cgi-bin/CMT3/form?itype=ym...
So I search for quakes of 7 M or more falling between 90 south and 90
north and whatever the full circle is east and west and every day from
January the first to December the thirty first inclusive and the
search misses half of them and it's my fault because I failed to read
the fine print?
> > I can't seem to find the details in your previous posts. A bit dense I
> > know, so what am I going to do?
>
> Improve your reading comprehension. Go to the NEIC site that you
> searched from and select "USGS/NEIC (PDE) 1973 - Present"
I don't think I'll find many earthquakes from 19~ 50, 51, 52, 60, 61,
62, 70 or 72 on that will I?
Dawlish
>
> - Show quoted text -
A 7.5+ earthquake in China.
You missed it by your predictions and I got it spot on with mine. You
predicted a 7.5 earthquake and missed it by a week. I predicted a 7.5
earthquake and got it spot on in the timescale I presented. The
difference? I understand the probabilities and how to use them far
better than you do. That's all we are talking about here. Not
harmonics, or resonance, or interactions of tectonics, atmosphere and
the pull of close celestial bodies, but movements of plates, very
probably completely independent of any of your theories, but
nevertheless presently unpredictable. Seismologists are always on the
watch for the unexpected, W and the unexpected has again happened;
pretty much a once a year earthquake magnitude, this one, completely
unspotted by your theories again, just like you missed Chaiten
erupting, but they are not contacting you for advice. That must be
galling for you, as it will be terribly galling for you when you wake
up and see the news this morning and find you have missed another
"major" event.
Now the Chinese authorities has the aftermath of a 7.5+ earthquake to
deal with in the run up to the olympics. it'll test them, but of
course, you believe they are just "commies" and as such have little
worth.
Still waiting for the "major" volcanic eruption. There has been an
eruption in Kamchatka, in Russia, but you could hardly describe it as
"major". If there isn't one by lunchtime today, your success
statistics will stand at 0/3 = 0%.
Dawlish
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ok, nothing; no major eruption. Your stats stand at 0/3, 0%, since
April 24th. That ignores the fact that your methods missed the 2 major
events in that time period; Chaiten erupting and the Sichuan
eathquake. How could your methods miss the biggest earthquake and the
biggest volcanic eruption of the year? Also those stats ignore this,
in your very first post on this 12.18 thread:
"5th to 12th May 12:18
Spells at twelve and 6 o'clock tend to produce low overcast even
misty
weather in Britain. Of course with a Cat 4 running elsewhere things
are going to be different for a while, perhaps we could knock 3
hours
off it?"
Haar is developing now on the East of Britain, but overcast?? The
period 5th - 12th was very sunny! You got the UK weather for the
period 5-12 May completely wrong too. The meteorologists didn't,
though the temps for the weekend were being underplayed at the start
of the period.
0/3 - and that's being generous. Taking this last one into
consideration, it could easily be 0/4....and you've missed the two
outstanding tectonic events of this period. Ziltch is not a great
success percentage, W.
Weatherlawyer
There is an high leaving the United States at the moment over the
Carolinas/Florida:
>http://weather.unisys.com/images/sat_sfc_map_loop.html
This will produce a 6.5 I think at the Andrianof Islands chain
somewhere on this arc:
>http://earthquake.usgs.gov/eqcenter/recenteqsww/Maps/10/180_50.php
6 to 6.5 M. probably. And it will occur at something like 90 degrees
from where it hits the steep slope I believe. I don't know if rat
Island is more likely in that case but it's going to be in that area.
Dawlish
Time frame?
jim
> >http://earthquake.usgs.gov/eqcenter/recenteqsww/Maps/10/180_50.php
>
> 6 to 6.5 M. probably. And it will occur at something like 90 degrees
> from where it hits the steep slope I believe. I don't know if rat
> Island is more likely in that case but it's going to be in that area.
When will this happen? Roughly?
Jim
--
"Well, well. We've come a long way from the Prime Minister's
exploding cake." - Adam West, Batman.
http://www.UrsaMinorBeta.co.uk http://twitter.com/GreyAreaUK
Weatherlawyer
> Weatherlawyer <Weatherlaw...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >http://earthquake.usgs.gov/eqcenter/recenteqsww/Maps/10/180_50.php
>
> > 6 to 6.5 M. probably. And it will occur at something like 90 degrees
> > Island is more likely in that case but it's going to be in that area.
>
> When will this happen? Roughly?
No idea.
Dawlish is the star for that sort of thing. Ask him. Meantime don't
give up. That High is still there:
>http://www.weatheroffice.gc.ca/ensemble/charts_e.html?Hour=0&Day=0&RunTime=00&Type=pnm
There is a sort of universality of design in the material universe.
Like with an atom you get the little bits floating around the big bit
and the whole is infinitesimal compared to the nothingnesses
connecting them. And that pales into its own oblivion when compared to
the absolute nothingnesses between atoms.
Well imagine the "bits that float around the big bits" are the two
highs straddling the USA at the moment. And the "bigger bits" are the
planet, as in this example North America.
Then that nothingness between them... defines them.
So I imagine that when the High coming over the hills starts to fill
in the blanks, you will have your major event. I repeat; I don't know.
But as with miracles in general, it all works on timing doesn't it?
Let's see, we are 3 days in to an 8 day spell. There is often a lull
in these things in the middle of a spell. But in Britain I think that
this is something more to do with interference patterns as a Low or
whatever hits a distance of some 15 degrees from us.
(Don't ask.) (Well, you can ask Dawlish.)
Perhaps, wherever you are you might notice such a thing. The big
question in that case is: How much interference does an interference
pattern impart?
The Andreanofs look like they are winding up nicely. There again one
could say the same for the Fox Islands a few days back:
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/eqcenter/recenteqsww/Quakes/quakes_all.html
Jim
> On May 15, 7:04 am, j...@magrathea.plus.com (jim) wrote:
>> Weatherlawyer <Weatherlaw...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > >http://earthquake.usgs.gov/eqcenter/recenteqsww/Maps/10/180_50.php
>>
>> > 6 to 6.5 M. probably. And it will occur at something like 90 degrees
>> > from where it hits the steep slope I believe. I don't know if Rat
>> > Island is more likely in that case but it's going to be in that area.
>>
>> When will this happen? Roughly?
>
> No idea.
So, essentially, you're predicting an earthquake 'at some point' in a region
that gets several 'quakes a day?
Jim
--
http://www.ursaMinorBeta.co.uk http://twitter.com/GreyAreaUK
"Sometimes when I talk to a Windows person about using a Mac,
I feel like I'm explaining Van Halen to a horse." Merlin Mann
crazy...@hotmail.com
> Weatherlawyer <Weatherlaw...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >http://earthquake.usgs.gov/eqcenter/recenteqsww/Maps/10/180_50.php
>
> > 6 to 6.5 M. probably. And it will occur at something like 90 degrees
> > from where it hits the steep slope I believe. I don't know if rat
> > Island is more likely in that case but it's going to be in that area.
>
> When will this happen? Roughly?
>
Soon.
There are 3 to 4 earthquakes in that area on a daily basis, so it wont
be long.
Our Mr McNeil does not go in for predictions unless (a) they are a
statistical certainty, or (b) the predictions are so vague that they
could be describing an event over half the earth's surface within the
next 3 weeks.
Weatherlawyer
>
> So, essentially, you're predicting an earthquake 'at some point' in a region
> that gets several 'quakes a day?
Yes.
You are quick of the mark, you are, so you are, to be sure.
Weatherlawyer
>
> Our Mr McNeil does not go in for predictions unless (a) they are a
> statistical certainty,
Well, in my own defence, I have to admit that they are certainly
certainties. What would you prefer?
> or (b) the predictions are so vague that they
> could be describing an event over half the earth's surface within the
> next 3 weeks.
I am much more vague than that. But had the whole earth been preparing
for the inevitable that you yourself are admitting is preordained,
then thousands of people from Burma to China would be going about
their relatively uneventful lives because of people like me.
Or at the very least the emergency services would have been gearing up
3 weeks in advance instead of 3 days after the event. What would that
be worth to mankind?
And why are you upset about me? You are not paying my wages.
Timberwoof
<86ea1774-df4a-4877...@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
Weatherlawyer <Weathe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Hey, I predict a car is going to drive up my street. Soon.
Any moment now.
Oh, it's in the lull between the morning rush and lunch.
Oh! A car! A car! I predicted it!
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
"When you post sewage, don't blame others for
emptying chamber pots in your direction." �Chris L.
Weatherlawyer
wrote:
> In article
> <86ea1774-df4a-4877-9a87-697cfa7e3...@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
>
> Weatherlawyer <Weatherlaw...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On May 15, 10:41 am, Jim <j...@magrathea.plus.com> wrote:
>
> > > So, essentially, you're predicting an earthquake 'at some point' in a region
> > > that gets several 'quakes a day?
>
> > Yes.
> > You are quick of the mark, you are, so you are, to be sure.
>
> Hey, I predict a car is going to drive up my street. Soon.
>
> Any moment now.
>
> Oh, it's in the lull between the morning rush and lunch.
>
> Oh! A car! A car! I predicted it!
Now predict the big ones.
Dawlish
>
> - Show quoted text -
The chorus of questions gets louder. You missed the big ones, W and
the 6.5 earthquake prediction "at some point", when; "I don't know"
can only be described as laughable. I'll give you a week, eh? That's
generous, wouldn't you agree?
Time, surely, to give it up, if what you are doing is this lame and no
use to anyone except to give odd pleasure to you?
crazy...@hotmail.com
>
> The chorus of questions gets louder. You missed the big ones, W and
> the 6.5 earthquake prediction "at some point", when; "I don't know"
> can only be described as laughable. I'll give you a week, eh? That's
> generous, wouldn't you agree?
>
> Time, surely, to give it up, if what you are doing is this lame and no
> use to anyone except to give odd pleasure to you?
There does seem to have been rather a lot of earthquakes in the
California region recently. Most of them are relatively minor, but
anyone want to hazard a guess if the San Fransisco 'big one' is
brewing?
I wonder what synoptic situation is needed in advance of this event?
Now, a correct 7-day prediction of the San Andreas faultline making a
large move would be worth the Nobel Prize, I reckon.
Weatherlawyer
Big problem with trying to fix a location is that no one knows the
harmonics involved. How could they? I am the only one looking into it.
Look at this loop as of 2008-5-15-00:00
>https://www.fnmoc.navy.mil/efs/cgi-bin/efs_loop.cgi?strt=0&incr=12&stop=240&imagePrefix=US058VMET-GIFwxg.EFS.no_atl_gale_&title=FNMOC%20EFS%20Gale%20Probability%20Forecasts%20(North%20Atlantic%20Basin)
As of 00:00, there was a clearly defined High of some 15 to 20 degrees
diameter.
12:00 and it is building, being fed by a stream from Canada.
24:00 and it's breaking away again.
36:00 Wow, look at that.
48:00 Pwned.
60:00 and it's back again.
Tudor Hughes
>
> - Show quoted text -
Time for you to give it up as well. You will impress no-one by
trying to demolish Weatherlawyer, an utterly pointless quest as a mere
glance at his postings over time should have told you. You are merely
activating his mischievousness with the result that he assails us with
his nonsense far more frequently than he did before when everyone
wisely ignored him. In an unmoderated group such as this one the only
way to deal with stuff like this is to rigorously ignore it, and it to
large extent that has been successful. But not at the moment.
Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey
Weatherlawyer
> Big problem with trying to fix a location is that no one knows the
> harmonics involved. How could they? I am the only one looking into it.
>
> Look at this loop as of 2008-5-15-00:00 >https://www.fnmoc.navy.mil/efs/cgi-bin/efs_loop.cgi?strt=0&incr=12&st...)
>
> As of 00:00, there was a clearly defined High of some 15 to 20 degrees
> diameter.
> 12:00 and it is building, being fed by a stream from Canada.
> 24:00 and it's breaking away again.
> 36:00 Wow, look at that.
> 48:00 Pwned.
> 60:00 and it's back again.
+24hrs and it looks like this:
>http://www.weatheroffice.gc.ca/ensemble/charts_e.html?Hour=0&Day=0&RunTime=00&Type=pnm
Talk about hanging on by a thread. It couldn't be more circumspect if
it were reading my posts. But I'll get the bugger yet! You just wait.
Dawlish
>
> - Show quoted text -
Thank you for your advice Tudor, but I think I may disappoint you, as
others are doing and have always done, in a few brave cases (scroll
back), by continuing the posting that I'm rather enjoying. You enjoy
yours and I'll enjoy mine. I enjoy your other posts, but I find these,
telling people not to challenge W's theories, rather interfering,
certainly oddly exclusive and very patronising. Please note the tone
of my reply and contrast it with the abusive replies we get from W.
Mind you, W's are far more entertaining! *>))
W; so; "soon". I'll give you a week, as I said and that is generous
for "soon". I think the odds are slightly against you, because you
have located the area, but I note you only use the names of places
that have already cropped up on the earthquake sites - that implies
that you may not actually know this area, or it's geology, very well
at all. Some googling would help.
The odds on a 6-6.5 earthquake occurring somewhere are about 1 every 3
days, but your specific area forecast would make that a longer time
period. However, this is, tectonically, a very active area that you
have chosen; hence I think I'm being generous with a week. Is within a
week OK?
John; to predict one 7.0+ on the San Andreas fault within a week,
once, would only be a good guess. Do it twice in succession and even
seismologists would sit up and take notice. Do it 3 times and there's
the possible Nobel Prize, IF you can keep it up, using a very
"different" theory! Miss a 7.9 mag earthquake anywhere in the world
and no-one gives your theories any credence, as it still leaves
seismology in the place it is today; lots of research (no, W; I mean,
real research), especially in California and very little progress in
prediction.
Paul
Dawlish
> On May 16, 12:30 am, Weatherlawyer <Weatherlaw...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Big problem with trying to fix a location is that no one knows the
> > harmonics involved. How could they? I am the only one looking into it.
>
> > Look at this loop as of 2008-5-15-00:00 >https://www.fnmoc.navy.mil/efs/cgi-bin/efs_loop.cgi?strt=0&incr=12&st...)
>
> > As of 00:00, there was a clearly defined High of some 15 to 20 degrees
> > diameter.
> > 12:00 and it is building, being fed by a stream from Canada.
> > 24:00 and it's breaking away again.
> > 36:00 Wow, look at that.
> > 48:00 Pwned.
> > 60:00 and it's back again.
>
> +24hrs and it looks like this:
>
>
> Talk about hanging on by a thread. It couldn't be more circumspect if
> it were reading my posts. But I'll get the bugger yet! You just wait.
No, W; that's the wrong word..........."you'll GUESS the bugger yet".
And you will. And you'll claim you predicted it, despite your previous
prediction success statistics showing, quite clearly, that your
theories are not rooted in reality.
crazy...@hotmail.com
-
>
> Time for you to give it up as well. You will impress no-one by
> trying to demolish Weatherlawyer, an utterly pointless quest as a mere
> glance at his postings over time should have told you. You are merely
> activating his mischievousness with the result that he assails us with
> his nonsense far more frequently than he did before when everyone
> wisely ignored him. In an unmoderated group such as this one the only
> way to deal with stuff like this is to rigorously ignore it, and it to
> large extent that has been successful. But not at the moment.
>
> Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey
Patronising indeed.
There is no compulsion to look at this thread, especially given the
extent to which you obviously despise its content, and the fact that
it has now continued to nearly 100 posts.
Like Dawlish, I am rather enjoying this attempt to verify
Weatherlawyer's theories. They might be complete nonsense, but there
may be a grain of truth hidden somewhere in what he is saying. Either
way, no one is going to find out by ignoring it. And no amount of
'high and mighty' instructions to conform are going to put me off.
My only wish is to try and discover whether the paragraphs of
confusing stuff about sixes, twelves and a 90 degree harmonic are
actually that; just an attempt to make the theory look clever and
above our intelligence level. On the other hand, if he does know what
he is talking about, it would be nice to have it explained in a less
confusing way, so that even dunces such as me can try and make some
sense of it.
Weatherlawyer
>
> My only wish is to try and discover whether the paragraphs of
> confusing stuff about sixes, twelves and a 90 degree harmonic are
> actually that; just an attempt to make the theory look clever and
> above our intelligence level.
> On the other hand, if he does know what he is talking about, it would
> be nice to have it explained in a less confusing way, so that even
> dunces such as me can try and make some sense of it.
Had you been a deal more civil on the matter, you might have had more
success sooner.
6 hours is 90 degrees and you might expect any harmonic to reflect
that. I can only speak from experience forced on me in an effort to
find matching phases. (The runs of this year are almost unique in the
way that they have repeated.)
15 degrees either side of 120 degrees will get you to the edge of a
shadow zone from an epicentre.
Before I had access to a computer or understood how to work a
spreadsheet, all I had was handwritten tables and a bad memory. I did
have a crib though in that I lived in a place where you could almost
count on some sort of thundery weather at specific times.
Get yourself a large set of navigators dividers or make a set out of
wire or card and buy a cheap globe from Lidl or somewhere. Then mark
off the distances on a great circle between storms and earthquake
epicentres. You will see that they occur in the shadow zones of one
another.
If that doesn't whet your appetite you are a lost cause. Here for a
taster is a link to run off a few example with:
>http://www.gb3pi.org.uk/great.html
As for harmonics; there still remains a reasonable explanation to
better it.
My idea not only explains errata in computer runs, it fits every other
profile that geo-physics demands. Not least among them is that super-
phenomena occur when classical methods fail.
Furthermore it completes the lost theories of celestial mechanics much
more easily than mystical special relativities. It's straightforward
and simple to understand.
Damn it, if I can understand it anyone can. It's boy's own rocket
science for goodness sake!
Weatherlawyer
>
> Get yourself a large set of navigators dividers or make a set out of
> wire or card and buy a cheap globe from Lidl or somewhere. Then mark
> off the distances on a great circle between storms and earthquake
> epicentres. You will see that they occur in the shadow zones of one
> another.
>
> If that doesn't whet your appetite you are a lost cause. Here for a
> taster is a link to run off a few example with:
I did set out a number of worked examples and I posted them to Usenet
a few years back but the trolls were so frantic to bury me without
taking the slightest time to check their facts, that I couldn't be
bothered with them.
It was interesting but a lot of work. I don't have clue what to use
for a search term to locate them.
Dawlish
Unfortunately, phrases like "you could almost count on some sort of
thundery weather at specific times." undermines the things you are
trying to show, as that is just pure memories from someone who has
admitted, a few lines earlier that you have a bad one. Memory just
cannot be relied on - especially in weather recording! " .........
storms and earthquake epicentres. You will see that they occur in the
shadow zones of one another.", ought to producce some forecast
accuracy and the method ought to be reproduceable - exactly how a
theory becomes mainstream science. You really ought to be able to
produce some decent forecast accuracy figures from such a, seemingly,
"definite" relationship, butfrom the start of my monitoring, you
plainly can't. You can't even, so far, get past the first hurdle of
forecasting a single event right.
Memory and no forecast accuracy. No wonder it doesn't add up. Still
waiting for that earthquake of 6-6.5 magnitude in the Andreanof
Islands (care with the spelling) chain, or the Rat Islands (there are
15+, it's not a singular, that's why I questioned your geography).
Tell you what, I'll give you the whole of the Aleutian chain, as well
as allowing you a week, as you've failed to give an actual time
period, being the generous sort that I am. If this is unfair, please
let me know. 6 days to go. It's almost bound to happen in that area,
just by chance. The last one in this region of >6.0 (mag6.6) was in
the Andreanof islands on the 2nd of May and this area had one of the
biggest ever recorded earthquakes of mag (estimated) 8.6, in 1957.
It's an extremely seismically active area, earthquakes of 6.0 are
fairly common there and it has been two weeks since the last one of
6.0+.
W; it's not a case of not understanding. I've scrolled back and read
your theories. It's just a case of....it just doesn't work. Any
prediction success you've had in the past (who knows?) presently can't
be reproduced and, as such, what's the use?
Weatherlawyer
>
> There is an high leaving the United States at the moment over the
> Carolinas/Florida:
>
> >http://weather.unisys.com/images/sat_sfc_map_loop.html
>
> This will produce a 6.5 I think at the Andrianof Islands chain
> somewhere on this arc:
>
> >http://earthquake.usgs.gov/eqcenter/recenteqsww/Maps/10/180_50.php
>
> 6 to 6.5 M. probably. And it will occur at something like 90 degrees
> Island is more likely in that case but it's going to be in that area.
Ah well, back to the drawing board with that one.
Dawlish
>
> - Show quoted text -
Are you giving up with this one? So soon?
Weatherlawyer
>
> There is a sort of universality of design in the material universe.
> Like with an atom you get the little bits floating around the big bit
> and the whole is infinitesimal compared to the nothingnesses
> connecting them. And that pales into its own oblivion when compared to
> the absolute nothingnesses between atoms.
>
> Well imagine the "bits that float around the big bits" are the two
> highs straddling the USA at the moment. And the "bigger bits" are the
> planet, as in this example North America.
Logically you might suspect that the reaction to these things is a
mirror effect in the largest bits. And ths may be seismic in nature?
Why not.
There is certainly that coincident I pointed out elsewhere about the
lapse rate in the appearance of mag 5 and greater quakes being related
to strong winds.
There seems to be something going on along those lines at the moment
with Halong.
I don't claim to know how or why, yet. Perhaps Dawlish with his huge
brain, can oblige us with something useful at long last?
Or am I mistaking oral cavitation for cranial capacity?
Dawlish
If you've given up, that's 0/4 since April 24th. 0%. Not looking good.
Prove to me this works and I'll take an interest, as many others
would.
Weatherlawyer
>
> If you've given up, that's 0/4 since April 24th. 0%. Not looking good.
> Prove to me this works and I'll take an interest, as many others
> would.
No thanks. The alternative is a much better offer. Or are you so dense
you can't tell I am taking the piss?