Main Page | Report this Page
 
   
Science Forum Index  »  Geology - Earthquakes Forum  »  12:18...
Page 2 of 6    Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Author Message
Weatherlawyer...
Posted: Wed May 07, 2008 1:21 pm
Guest
7th May 2008.

5.0 M. 18:20. 36.1 N. 141.8 E. 35.0. Near the east coast of Honshu,
Japan
5.2 M. 17:31. 36.2 N. 141.6 E. 35.0 Near the east coast of Honshu,
Japan
6.8 M. 16:45. 36.1 N. 141.5 E. 35.0 Near the east coast of Honshu,
Japan
5.0 M. 16:24. 36.1 N. 141.8 E. 37.3 Near the east coast of Honshu,
Japan
5.9 M. 16:16. 36.3 N. 141.7 E. 35.0 Near the east coast of Honshu,
Japan
5.4 M. 16:12. 36.3 N 141.7 E. 35.0 Near the east coast of Honshu,
Japan
6.2 M. 16:02. 36.2 N. 141.5 E. 35.0 Near the east coast of Honshu,
Japan

This phenomenon follows a severe storm. The two events will be some
multiple of 15 degrees apart. Usually 120 but sometimes 90 and
sometimes 60 degrees.

Of course since a storm has just run through Japan, the distance to
the Burmese peninsula from Honshu being 45 degrees makes no
difference: >http://earthquake.usgs.gov/eqcenter/recenteqsww/Maps/
10/140_35.php
Weatherlawyer...
Posted: Wed May 07, 2008 7:58 pm
Guest
The UK is enjoying a very nice spell of anticyclonic at the moment.
There are no severe storms elsewhere in the northern hemisphere to
account for it and apart from some very minor cramps yesterday I don't
have any twinges.

Interesting.

The Smithsonian updater for the volcanoes archive seems to be busted.
I got the latest release by fiddling with the last three digits on
this link:
Quote:
http://www.volcano.si.edu/reports/usgs/index.cfm?wvarweek=20080505

Apparently it doesn't matter what day you put on as long as it falls
in the week you want.

That N Atlantic low is now over 1000 mb and sending a ridge out
towards Greenland. Could it actually do what I said it was going to do
all those yonks ago?

If so, watch out Xinjiang.
...
Posted: Thu May 08, 2008 1:22 am
Guest
On 7 May, 21:01, Dawlish <pjg... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:
Quote:
On May 7, 6:45 pm, Weatherlawyer <Weatherlaw... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:



On May 7, 3:10 pm, Dawlish <pjg... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:

On May 7, 3:01 pm, Weatherlawyer <Weatherlaw... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:

On May 7, 8:46 am, Dawkish <pigsn... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:

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.

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?

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.- Hide quoted text -

- 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.

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...
Posted: Thu May 08, 2008 4:36 am
Guest
On May 8, 12:22 pm, crazyh0r... at (no spam) hotmail.com wrote:
Quote:

....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:

Quote:
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.
...
Posted: Thu May 08, 2008 7:56 am
Guest
On 8 May, 17:57, Alan LeHun <t... at (no spam) reply.to> wrote:
Quote:
In article <9a9e6df3-0dbb-4adf-afbe-
ed7e3c289... at (no spam) c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, Weatherlaw... at (no spam) hotmail.com
says...

On May 8, 12:22 pm, crazyh0r... at (no spam) 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

Sorry, I was trying to be sarcastic.

I should really know better.
Dawlish...
Posted: Thu May 08, 2008 9:52 am
Guest
On May 8, 6:56 pm, crazyh0r... at (no spam) hotmail.com wrote:
Quote:
On 8 May, 17:57, Alan LeHun <t... at (no spam) reply.to> wrote:





In article <9a9e6df3-0dbb-4adf-afbe-
ed7e3c289... at (no spam) c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, Weatherlaw... at (no spam) hotmail.com
says...

On May 8, 12:22 pm, crazyh0r... at (no spam) 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

Sorry, I was trying to be sarcastic.

I should really know better.- Hide quoted text -

- 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...
Posted: Thu May 08, 2008 10:05 am
Guest
On May 8, 10:56 am, crazyh0r... at (no spam) hotmail.com wrote:
Quote:

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...
Posted: Thu May 08, 2008 10:08 am
Guest
On May 8, 9:05 pm, mirage <mjohnso... at (no spam) earthlink.net> wrote:
Quote:
On May 8, 10:56 am, crazyh0r... at (no spam) hotmail.com wrote:



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

Now that really is an unprovoked attack on someone's reasonable views.

Disgusted of Dawlish.

*>))

Paul
Weatherlawyer...
Posted: Thu May 08, 2008 11:53 am
Guest
On May 8, 6:56 pm, crazyh0r... at (no spam) hotmail.com wrote:
Quote:

Sorry, I was trying to be sarcastic.

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?
Quote:
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!
Alan LeHun...
Posted: Thu May 08, 2008 11:57 am
Guest
In article <9a9e6df3-0dbb-4adf-afbe-
ed7e3c28965e at (no spam) c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, Weatherlawyer at (no spam) hotmail.com
says...
Quote:
On May 8, 12:22 pm, crazyh0r... at (no spam) 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.


Quote:
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.

Quote:
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
Weatherlawyer...
Posted: Thu May 08, 2008 11:57 am
Guest
On May 8, 9:05 pm, mirage <mjohnso... at (no spam) earthlink.net> wrote:
Quote:
On May 8, 10:56 am, crazyh0r... at (no spam) hotmail.com wrote:

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.

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...
Posted: Thu May 08, 2008 8:59 pm
Guest
On May 8, 10:57 pm, Weatherlawyer <Weatherlaw... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:
Quote:
On May 8, 9:05 pm, mirage <mjohnso... at (no spam) earthlink.net> wrote:

On May 8, 10:56 am, crazyh0r... at (no spam) hotmail.com wrote:

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.

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.

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...
Posted: Fri May 09, 2008 4:47 am
Guest
On May 8, 10:53 pm, Weatherlawyer <Weatherlaw... at (no spam) hotmail.com>
Quote:

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:
Quote:
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...
Posted: Fri May 09, 2008 6:21 am
Guest
On May 9, 3:47 pm, Weatherlawyer <Weatherlaw... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:
Quote:

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.
Dawlish...
Posted: Fri May 09, 2008 7:38 am
Guest
On May 9, 3:47 pm, Weatherlawyer <Weatherlaw... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:
Quote:
On May 8, 10:53 pm, Weatherlawyer <Weatherlaw... at (no spam) hotmail.com



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/f7644...- Hide quoted text -

- 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.
 
Page 2 of 6    Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next   All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sat Aug 30, 2008 12:05 am