On Jan 20, 2:21*pm, Weatherlawyer wrote:
On Jan 18, 6:39*pm, Hatunen wrote:





On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 18:36:15 -0000, "Col"

wrote:
Dawlish wrote:
On Jan 18, 2:54 pm, Weatherlawyer wrote:
On Jan 16, 11:38 pm, Hatunen wrote:

On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 07:35:10 -0800 (PST), Weatherlawyer

wrote:

The relationship with large magnitude earthquakes seems to be a
compression of millibars at sea level between the east coast of
greenland and a point just to the north of Lapland, somehwere
between Svarlbad and Western Norway.

What the hell does "compression of millibars " mean?

Earthquakes,.in this case.

Can't resist - as you unwisely brought it up:

go on W. Predict one.

I'm never quite sure if it's the weather that causes the earthquakes
or the earthquakes that cause the weather.

Did he predict Haiti?
That was something of a biggie....

Thus far, at least as far as I can tell, no one in this newsgroup
has ever made a proper prediction of any significant earthquake,
save for post facto.

Define "Proper".

I don't think that even god has made one of those, IIGC.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"Prediction" is pretty easy to define though.......but very difficult
for you to do, isn't it? No track record in prediction: no use. Simple
as that.

On Wed, 20 Jan 2010 06:21:47 -0800 (PST), Weatherlawyer
wrote:
Thus far, at least as far as I can tell, no one in this newsgroup
has ever made a proper prediction of any significant earthquake,
save for post facto.

Define "Proper".

Glas you asked.

We get a lot of predictions posted here, so I'm trying to
distinguish those that provide date, time, location and magnitude
windows in a manner that is not so general that it is useless
(e.g., predicting a major earthquake somewhere in California in
the next thirty years).

Unfortunately, the maxim that even a blind squirrel finds an
acorn now and then requires that it be done more than once by the
prognosticator.

I don't think that even god has made one of those, IIGC.

I've never heard of god making any predictions at all.



--
************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

On Jan 20, 9:11*pm, Hatunen wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jan 2010 06:21:47 -0800 (PST), Weatherlawyer

wrote:
Thus far, at least as far as I can tell, no one in this newsgroup
has ever made a proper prediction of any significant earthquake,
save for post facto.

Define "Proper".

Glad you asked.

We get a lot of predictions posted here, so I'm trying to
distinguish those that provide date, time, location and magnitude
windows in a manner that is not so general that it is useless
(e.g., predicting a major earthquake somewhere in California in
the next thirty years).

Unfortunately, the maxim that even a blind squirrel finds an
acorn now and then requires that it be done more than once by the
prognosticator.

I don't think that even god has made one of those, IIGC.

I've never heard of god making any predictions at all.

As it happens it is impossible for him to make predictions but that
didn't stop the miracles having such nice timing.

The windows offered to would be geologists is designed to convince
them not to waste there time doing what the general public think they
are paying them for.

However I did post on a thread in uk.sci.weather that the trend under
discussion was indicative of earthquakes. That isn't so much a
prediction as a fact of life. Along with me be ignored on the point.

(The thread was about the Met Office being caught with its trousers
down, giving a blow job to the Highways Departements of not a few
local authorities. The Uncertainty Principle of prognostics. (Never
fails.))

Meanwhile catch up on the three blind mice for the Solomon's Islands
trilogy over at:
http://www.wetterzentrale.de/topkart...xsem.html16,17 and 18th -
nice spread but over 60 degrees at 50 north; that would be... what?
About 30 degrees on the great circle?

MAP 5.1 2010/01/19 01:00:23 -8.841 157.839 35.0 SOLOMON
ISLANDS
MAP 5.5 2010/01/19 00:17:51 -8.977 158.133 52.3 SOLOMON
ISLANDS
MAP 5.1 2010/01/19 00:17:01 -8.946 158.036 35.0 SOLOMON
ISLANDS

But the whole thing is through a looking glass, darkly, what with
Yellowstone throwing a wabbler.

My OP was just to note for future reference that to get a large
magnitude quake the pressure differentials have to high and close
together. That stuff about the occluded fronts is old hat. (As you
should know if you had been paying attention.)

I am not attempting to make any predictions per se. Thickos like
Dawlish seem to have no idea what might be involved. Nor will they
listen to an explanation. For goodness sake, the best brains in the
business don't even know what causes tides to behave the way they do.
How many years have people studied that? And no teachers starting off
each year's intake at JPL with the bull**** that it can't be done.

I can't say I am forecasting earthquakes -yet; but the one who comes
after me will. Without a shed of a doubt. That's another 10 or 20
years time then, for sure...
unless.....

On Jan 21, 11:42*am, Weatherlawyer wrote:
On Jan 20, 9:11*pm, Hatunen wrote:





On Wed, 20 Jan 2010 06:21:47 -0800 (PST), Weatherlawyer

wrote:
Thus far, at least as far as I can tell, no one in this newsgroup
has ever made a proper prediction of any significant earthquake,
save for post facto.

Define "Proper".

Glad you asked.

We get a lot of predictions posted here, so I'm trying to
distinguish those that provide date, time, location and magnitude
windows in a manner that is not so general that it is useless
(e.g., predicting a major earthquake somewhere in California in
the next thirty years).

Unfortunately, the maxim that even a blind squirrel finds an
acorn now and then requires that it be done more than once by the
prognosticator.

I don't think that even god has made one of those, IIGC.

I've never heard of god making any predictions at all.

As it happens it is impossible for him to make predictions but that
didn't stop the miracles having such nice timing.

The windows offered to would be geologists is designed to convince
them not to waste there time doing what the general public think they
are paying them for.

However I did post on a thread in uk.sci.weather that the trend under
discussion was indicative of earthquakes. That isn't so much a
prediction as a fact of life. Along with me be ignored on the point.

(The thread was about the Met Office being caught with its trousers
down, giving a blow job to the Highways Departements of not a few
local authorities. The Uncertainty Principle of prognostics. (Never
fails.))

Meanwhile catch up on the three blind mice for the Solomon's Islands
trilogy over at:http://www.wetterzentrale.de/topkart...m.html16,17and 18th -
nice spread but over 60 degrees at 50 north; that would be... what?
About 30 degrees on the great circle?

MAP *5.1 * 2010/01/19 01:00:23 * *-8.841 * *157.839 *35.0 * SOLOMON
ISLANDS
MAP *5.5 * 2010/01/19 00:17:51 * *-8.977 * *158.133 *52.3 * SOLOMON
ISLANDS
MAP *5.1 * 2010/01/19 00:17:01 * *-8.946 * *158.036 *35.0 * SOLOMON
ISLANDS

But the whole thing is through a looking glass, darkly, what with
Yellowstone throwing a wabbler.

My OP was just to note for future reference that to get a large
magnitude quake the pressure differentials have to high and close
together. That stuff about the occluded fronts is old hat. (As you
should know if you had been paying attention.)

I am not attempting to make any predictions per se. Thickos like
Dawlish seem to have no idea what might be involved. Nor will they
listen to an explanation. For goodness sake, the best brains in the
business don't even know what causes tides to behave the way they do.
How many years have people studied that? And no teachers starting off
each year's intake at JPL with the bull**** that it can't be done.

I can't say I am forecasting earthquakes -yet; but the one who comes
after me will. Without a shed of a doubt. That's another 10 or 20
years time then, for sure...
unless.....- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Glad I get under your skin because I talk of the one thing that lets
you down, but the one thing that marks you as a charlatan; outcome
prediction success percentage, but thank you for the mention W. You've
tried to forecast before, without success and I'm not sure *anyone* at
all "pays attention" to your pretty senseless, long-winded, ramblings,
as they have proved useless when it comes to predicting earthquakes.
That leaves the chances of your ideas changing to being useful, at
*any* future time, as being close to zero.

So we're all thick and only you have the answer. How many times have I
heard that before from people that don't like what real science says?

No predictive success = highly unlikely your ideas are of any use.
Sorry!

On 16 Jan, 23:38, Hatunen wrote:
On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 07:35:10 -0800 (PST), Weatherlawyer
wrote:

The relationship with large magnitude earthquakes seems to be a
compression of millibars at sea level between the east coast of
greenland and a point just to the north of Lapland, somehwere between
Svarlbad and Western Norway.

What the hell does "compression of millibars " mean?

I was looking at the sea level pressures, the sort you might see on
the TV bulletins or in the "better" newspapers.

When the pressures are high for both cyclonic and anticyclonic
vortices, the system can go critical somehow. And this occurs with a
large magnitude earthquake.

The same is true with flaccid set-ups. They produce tornadoes.

With an High over Greenland and another to the south east and a series
of Low pressure vortices pushing through between, the critical point
is 970 millibars or so.

The day of the tornado it is back up to 980 or so. There is a 10 mb
difference in the charts from the day before.

I have just been looking at about three or four spells where Derechos
were reported.

The set up is reversed.

It seems that for derechos, the dominant set up is a Low to the north
west and another to the south east. And an High pushing through.

But to answer your question.
I was looking at the dates of severe earthquakes and turned up the
North Atlantic Chart. When I went back one day, I saw the isobars were
very close together for an High and a Low.

This pattern was produced over and over again.

I know there is a distinct frequency for angular distances between
Lows and earthquakes (they occur 80 degrees apart, as I have stated
frequently so you aught to be familiar) seeing the proximity of the
Highs -which also have this 80 degree relationship though I have not
bothered to look closely at those.

It crossed my mind that it might be easy to locate probable epicentres
by working out where these two coincidents coincide.

I bet it is 90 degrees. That would make a lot more sense than 80.

On 2 Mar, 12:57, Weatherlawyer wrote:

I have just been looking at about three or four spells where Derechos
were reported.

The set up is reversed.

It seems that for derechos, the dominant set up is a Low to the north
west and another to the south east. And an High pushing through.

Speaking of which:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/..._pressure.html
12:00 UTC 2 March. 2010.

This is not a forecast.

Or not as the case may be.