I found this table revealing if specious:

Richter TNT for Seismic Example
Magnitude Energy Yield (approximate)

-1.5 6 ounces Breaking a rock on a lab table
1.0 30 pounds Large Blast at a Construction Site
1.5 320 pounds
2.0 1 ton Large Quarry or Mine Blast
2.5 4.6 tons
3.0 29 tons
3.5 73 tons
4.0 1,000 tons Small Nuclear Weapon
4.5 5,100 tons Average Tornado (total energy)
5.0 32,000 tons
5.5 80,000 tons Little Skull Mtn., NV Quake, 1992
6.0 1 million tons Double Spring Flat, NV Quake, 1994
6.5 5 million tons Northridge, CA Quake, 1994
7.0 32 million tons Hyogo-Ken Nanbu, Japan Quake, 1995;
Largest Thermonuclear Weapon
7.5 160 million tons Landers, CA Quake, 1992
8.0 1 billion tons San Francisco, CA Quake, 1906
8.5 5 billion tons Anchorage, AK Quake, 1964
9.0 32 billion tons Chilean Quake, 1960
10.0 1 trillion tons (San-Andreas type fault circling Earth)
12.0 160 trillion tons (Fault Earth in half through center,
OR Earth's daily receipt of solar
energy)

http://www.seismo.unr.edu/ftp/pub/lo...magnitude.html

With all due respect to those who compiled it, it is hard to see how
the accuracy can be maintained so evenly. But then it is probably
similar to my efforts, no more than a rule of thumb.

My stuff fits in there somewhere between the 6.5 to 8 mag quakes. A
super-typhoon will cause the same amount of input to an international
weather model run as a 7 to 7.5 quake. Give or take a few million tons
of TNT.

I liked that bit at the end about the value of the insolation for one
day.

Weatherlawyer wrote in
oups.com:

I found this table revealing if specious:

Richter TNT for Seismic Example
Magnitude Energy Yield (approximate)

-1.5 6 ounces Breaking a rock on a lab table
1.0 30 pounds Large Blast at a Construction Site
1.5 320 pounds
2.0 1 ton Large Quarry or Mine Blast
2.5 4.6 tons
3.0 29 tons
3.5 73 tons
4.0 1,000 tons Small Nuclear Weapon
4.5 5,100 tons Average Tornado (total energy)
5.0 32,000 tons
5.5 80,000 tons Little Skull Mtn., NV Quake, 1992
6.0 1 million tons Double Spring Flat, NV Quake, 1994
6.5 5 million tons Northridge, CA Quake, 1994
7.0 32 million tons Hyogo-Ken Nanbu, Japan Quake, 1995;
Largest Thermonuclear Weapon
7.5 160 million tons Landers, CA Quake, 1992
8.0 1 billion tons San Francisco, CA Quake, 1906
8.5 5 billion tons Anchorage, AK Quake, 1964
9.0 32 billion tons Chilean Quake, 1960
10.0 1 trillion tons (San-Andreas type fault circling Earth)
12.0 160 trillion tons (Fault Earth in half through center,
OR Earth's daily receipt of solar
energy)

http://www.seismo.unr.edu/ftp/pub/lo...magnitude.html

With all due respect to those who compiled it, it is hard to see how
the accuracy can be maintained so evenly. But then it is probably
similar to my efforts, no more than a rule of thumb.

Nope. Not a rule of thumb. It's all in the formula just above
that chart...

logE(s) = 11.8 + 1.5M

where E(s) is energy in ergs
M is magnitude

Ergs is a unit of energy which can be converted into other
forms of energy, for example joules or megatons TNT.

Simple math(s). Well, the logarithm might be secondary school.

I've done the math several times before. I'd be glad to walk
you through it if you'd like.

For example, my calculations regarding the Sumatra quake can
be found at,

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.g...ead/thread/860
09267aa53cee9/66d35a57217238e7?lnk=st&q=&rnum=1#66d35a57217238e7

or if that's too long...

http://tinyurl.com/yr674d

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

On Jul 16, 5:06 am, Skywise wrote:
Weatherlawyer wrote

http://www.seismo.unr.edu/ftp/pub/lo...magnitude.html

With all due respect to those who compiled it, it is hard to see how
the accuracy can be maintained so evenly. But then it is probably
similar to my efforts, no more than a rule of thumb.

Nope. Not a rule of thumb. It's all in the formula just above that chart...

You are an idiot.

Weatherlawyer wrote in
oups.com:

On Jul 16, 5:06 am, Skywise wrote:
Weatherlawyer wrote

http://www.seismo.unr.edu/ftp/pub/lo...magnitude.html

With all due respect to those who compiled it, it is hard to see how
the accuracy can be maintained so evenly. But then it is probably
similar to my efforts, no more than a rule of thumb.

Nope. Not a rule of thumb. It's all in the formula just above that
chart...

You are an idiot.

Gosh. What a deep and profound statement. I hope you didn't
hurt your brain cell coming up with that remark.

Of course, one cannot hurt what one does not have. So I guess
that means you can't hurt yourself thinking.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

On Jul 17, 3:04 am, Weatherlawyer wrote:
On Jul 16, 5:06 am, Skywise wrote:

Weatherlawyer wrote

http://www.seismo.unr.edu/ftp/pub/lo...magnitude.html

With all due respect to those who compiled it, it is hard to see how
the accuracy can be maintained so evenly. But then it is probably
similar to my efforts, no more than a rule of thumb.

Nope. Not a rule of thumb. It's all in the formula just above that chart...

You are an idiot.

The lad is quite bright and as eager as Garfield's dog but even though
I said some things about him in another newsgroup that I regret
saying; I retract nothing.

On the same message board, concurrent with the OP, I managed to show a
relationship between earthquakes and super-typhoons.

Maybe he just read the wrong post first.

Unfortunately, I now find myself wishing to ask him how many degrees
there are between Japan and Fox Islands Alaska.

Fortunately I have a globe and a large compass.

To certain degree you can compare energy other large explosions
like a volcanic eruption(6), skyscaper falling down(3), solar
flare(14),
etc.

On Jul 17, 8:03 am, Skywise wrote:
Weatherlawyer wrote groups.com:

http://www.seismo.unr.edu/ftp/pub/lo...magnitude.html

With all due respect to those who compiled it, it is hard to see how
the accuracy can be maintained so evenly. But then it is probably
similar to my efforts, no more than a rule of thumb.

Nope. Not a rule of thumb. It's all in the formula just above that
chart...

You are an idiot.

Gosh. What a deep and profound statement. I hope you didn't
hurt your brain cell coming up with that remark.

Of course, one cannot hurt what one does not have. So I guess
that means you can't hurt yourself thinking.

Why do you even bother replying to me if you are no better than I?

There is a season of large quakes running at the moment, after what
has been a dearth of them. The two Japanese ones occurred
coincidentally when there was a typhoon that reached past Japan's
record books, the others are all a matter of those interesting degrees
apart from either that storm or one running in the area of Hawaii and
you think I am the fool?

They seem to circle them like some sort of a gyre if you are
interested.

That scale runs ad indefinitum with a regular increase of 2, 4, 6, 8
and you sit down with your cheesy mathematics as though it has
explained something to you of great significance.

Weather models are impossibly complex and require the finesse of
experts with decades of training, people culled from the best science
classes straight from scholl and even then can't do much better than
give a rough estimate for all the tickling the runs get.

Vulcanology as a science doesn't even exist. It is like the priest-
craft of the dark ages masquerading as Christianity. People are still
poking mountains with sticks as in biblical times and they are the
best we have.

No-one is even working on a method to explain tides and you sit there
telling me I don't think?

Put me back in you kill filters please, oh brilliant one. I am not
worthy. Either that or pull your finger out,

fool!

On Jul 17, 8:03?am, Skywise wrote:
Weatherlawyer wrote groups.com:

On Jul 16, 5:06 am, Skywise wrote:
Weatherlawyer wrote

http://www.seismo.unr.edu/ftp/pub/lo...magnitude.html

With all due respect to those who compiled it, it is hard to see how
the accuracy can be maintained so evenly. But then it is probably
similar to my efforts, no more than a rule of thumb.

Nope. Not a rule of thumb. It's all in the formula just above that
chart...

You are an idiot.

Gosh. What a deep and profound statement. I hope you didn't
hurt your brain cell coming up with that remark.

Of course, one cannot hurt what one does not have. So I guess
that means you can't hurt yourself thinking.

If your original offer is still open would you care instewad to work
out the proximity of the recent spate of large magnitude earhtquakes
to the varios tropoical / extratropical storms also current at their
times.

Then one of us can apologise to the other.

Weatherlawyer wrote in
oups.com:

On Jul 17, 8:03 am, Skywise wrote:
Weatherlawyer wrote
groups.com:

http://www.seismo.unr.edu/ftp/pub/lo...magnitude.html

With all due respect to those who compiled it, it is hard to see
how the accuracy can be maintained so evenly. But then it is
probably similar to my efforts, no more than a rule of thumb.

Nope. Not a rule of thumb. It's all in the formula just above that
chart...

You are an idiot.

Gosh. What a deep and profound statement. I hope you didn't
hurt your brain cell coming up with that remark.

Of course, one cannot hurt what one does not have. So I guess
that means you can't hurt yourself thinking.

Why do you even bother replying to me if you are no better than I?

Because your responses are entertaining?



There is a season of large quakes running at the moment, after what
has been a dearth of them. The two Japanese ones occurred
coincidentally when there was a typhoon that reached past Japan's
record books, the others are all a matter of those interesting degrees
apart from either that storm or one running in the area of Hawaii and
you think I am the fool?

Do you really want me to answer that?

But seriously, ever hear the phrase "correlation does not equal
causation"? Just because two events happen in proximity spatially
and/or temporally does not mean one caused the other. Hey, I had
tuna for lunch and the sky was blue!!



They seem to circle them like some sort of a gyre if you are
interested.

’Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe



That scale runs ad indefinitum with a regular increase of 2, 4, 6, 8
and you sit down with your cheesy mathematics as though it has
explained something to you of great significance.

FYI, it's "ad infinitum".

But yes, the scale is a regular progression. The amount of
energy involved in larger quakes is quite large, therefore
the scale is structured logarithmically to compress the
information into a range the majority of people, educated
or not in seismology, can understand.

It's much easier to compare to quakes by saying either mag 6
versus mag 9 than saying 6.3e20 ergs versus 1.99e25 ergs.

Or would you rather measure your car's speed in furlongs
per fornight?


Weather models are impossibly complex and require the finesse of
experts with decades of training, people culled from the best science
classes straight from scholl and even then can't do much better than
give a rough estimate for all the tickling the runs get.

"scholl"?


Vulcanology as a science doesn't even exist. It is like the priest-
craft of the dark ages masquerading as Christianity. People are still
poking mountains with sticks as in biblical times and they are the
best we have.

No-one is even working on a method to explain tides and you sit there
telling me I don't think?

What do you mean "explain tides"? Didn't you go to scholl?


Put me back in you kill filters please, oh brilliant one. I am not
worthy. Either that or pull your finger out,

fool!

rant!

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

Weatherlawyer wrote in
ups.com:

On Jul 17, 8:03?am, Skywise wrote:
Weatherlawyer wrote
groups.com:

On Jul 16, 5:06 am, Skywise wrote:
Weatherlawyer wrote

http://www.seismo.unr.edu/ftp/pub/lo...magnitude.html

With all due respect to those who compiled it, it is hard to see
how the accuracy can be maintained so evenly. But then it is
probably similar to my efforts, no more than a rule of thumb.

Nope. Not a rule of thumb. It's all in the formula just above that
chart...

You are an idiot.

Gosh. What a deep and profound statement. I hope you didn't
hurt your brain cell coming up with that remark.

Of course, one cannot hurt what one does not have. So I guess
that means you can't hurt yourself thinking.

If your original offer is still open would you care instewad to work
out the proximity of the recent spate of large magnitude earhtquakes
to the varios tropoical / extratropical storms also current at their
times.

You've lost already. Quakes happen all year 'round. All I'd
have to show is a graph of the average number of quakes each
day for a year and you'll see a relatively flat line. That
tropical storms have seasons, ie only happen during certain
times of the year, proves lack of causation. Quakes happen
equally with and without storms.

To put it another way, explain all the quakes that happen
when there are no tropical storms?


Then one of us can apologise to the other.

I'm waiting.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?