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?