In article .com,
says...

Weatherlawyer wrote:
Weatherlawyer wrote:
Richard Dixon wrote:

"Weatherlawyer" wrote in
oups.com:

Forecast for either southern N Atlantic or Australian NW Territory =
cyclone(s)

Do you mean tropical cyclones are forecast in the next week for Atlantic
basin or just over the summer? I think the latter is standard, as for the
former, where's the incipient system you talk about?

No.

I am just referring to an anomally that turned up last year during the
North Atlantic hurricane season. Coastal Western/Northern Europe seemed
to get frosts or fogs when they occurred. Or visa versa. Or rather:
Due to them having the same root cause.

Which engine is alsso responsible for earthquakes.

Sadly I have not been able to push the envelope more open.

Yet.

Here is the most striking geophysical phenomenon that arrived with this
present spell:

6.1 Mag 2006/04/21 NEAR THE EAST COAST OF KORYAKIA, RUSSIA

These first 5.1; 4.9; 4.6; 5.2; 4.5; 4.5; 5.1; 5.1; All in the same
region.

And the day befo
2006/04/20 5.4; and 7.7 Mag KORYAKIA, RUSSIA

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/eqcenter/...quakes_all.php

Coincidence?

My opinion is the same value as yours. And of course the weight of
opinion is that it is just a coincidence.

But as with miracles. Timing is everything.

The spell that the OP referred to has melded into another one whose
time is more relevant to the orient. And in harmony with whatever
harmonics are involved:
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ne...nG=Search+News

And in keeping with the anomaly of British temperatures funding
tornadic activity (sick) in the States:
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ne...nG=Search+News

A certain Harold Brooks sees no reason to check the records but I am
certain that these things are pretty much a given.

I know I shouldn't bother to follow up to your annoying remarks, but
this is a complete misrepresentation. I think the records should be
checked, but the entire record should be checked systematically. You
don't go off and find some instance where two events occurred near the
same time as each other and claim there's a connection. You look at all
of the record and find out when they occur together, when they don't
occur together, when neither of them occurs.

You also have to have some predefined notion of what you're calling a
prediction of an event. Saying "something bad is going to happen
somewhere soon" is close to meaningless. For example, magnitude 6.7 (or
larger) earthquakes happen, on average, about once every two weeks in
the world. By this time of year, on average, there are five tornadoes
per day in the US, so that one of news items pointed to in the google
search above points to a day that was less tornadic than normal.

You have to have the relationship defined in a testable way, with clear
forecasts and a way to determine how many things you should get right by
chance, based on the definition of the forecast and the event. The
Farmer's Almanac in the US claims to get 80% of its forecasts correct
over a year in advance. The claim is correct because they make the
forecast areas large enough and the forecasts vague enough that you'd
expect them to get 80% right by chance. There's no skill to that. It's
just random guessing.

Until you define your "technique" in such a way that other people can
independently evaluate it (that requires well-defined forecasts and
events), it's not particularly interesting or scientific. You started
this thread with

Forecast for Britain = mists.

Forecast for either southern N Atlantic or Australian NW Territory =
cyclone(s)

Could be an early start for the hurricane season.

You then added:

Coastal Western/Northern Europe seemed
to get frosts or fogs when they occurred. Or visa versa. Or rather:
Due to them having the same root cause.

How many days a year are there mists in Britain (frosts or fogs in
coastal western/northern Europe)? How many of them occur at the same
time as hurricanes? How many don't? How many hurricanes occur without
mists in Britain (frosts or fogs in coastal western/northern Europe)?

Until you've looked at the records to answer those questions, you're
just making noise. If there's something there, until you've got some
physical reasoning to back that up, you've got an interesting, but not
necessarily useful tidbit.

Harold

--
Harold Brooks
hebrooks87 hotmail.com