On Nov 30, 1:56 pm, Mike LONGWORTH wrote:
In reply to an earlier message from Weatherlawyer who wrote:

1. Earthquakes and storms come from the same cause.

Richard Dixon wrote:

Care to explain more?
From my viewpoint, Earthquakes are due to motions at and beneath
the earth's crust.

Extra-tropical storms are formed by interactions of the upper
air with surface temperature gradients. You really
need both in existence for the deepest "common-or-garden" storms.

You really need both what? We always have upper air and we always have
baroclines.

Hurricanes form where sea surface temperatures are warmest [not] and the
atmosphere is unstable to convection and there is little vertical
shear. Struggling to find any link here with earthquake formation.

I never said that earthquakes are caused by storms. Where did you get
that idea from?

A further point to bear in mind is that earthquakes occur nearly constantly
around the world with most of them taking place in the 40,000 km
long, horseshoe-shaped zone called the circum-Pacific seismic belt, also
known as the Pacific Ring of Fire, which for the most part bounds the
Pacific Plate.

It is worth bearing in mind that although somewhere is experiencing an
earthquake at any given moment but that the larger kinds tend to come
and go with the weather.

Think of quakes as as common as waves on the sea shore, one every 10
seconds or so. Only some days there is a clam and the waves are mere
ripples and some days as the recent set for example, show the waves
are more like ocean swells.

All I am saying is that you can use the time of the phase of the moon
to predict when the seismic surf is up.

But hurricanes/tropical cyclones occur at specific times of the year
(usually local summertime) and in regular oceanic locations:

So some explanation is needed by Weatherlawyer for a connection between
these events. I'm sure a lot of people would want to know.

OK; first of all I am the most scatterbrained of people. No lists I
write bear a relationship to priority in any form, alphabetical,
chronological or rank. I was writing them down as I thought of them
and subsequently added to them as they occurred in the next post, too.

As you are all very well aware I put some thoughts about the mechanics
of it all in the thread entitled: "Sonics and Entropy".
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.g...28 6edf721f99

Regardless of how off the wall that thread became the basic ingredient
conveys my thoughts on the cause and effect of the weather and the
other geophysical phenomenon.

As it happens there is ample material in there to compare the effects
of weather and quakes on the "three body problem" with most of the
theories of relativity, which is all the essay was supposed to
challenge.

As for that misbegotten but forgotten appendage that thinks I don't
know aught about tides, I do know enough about physics to shut his
trap if I come across his unmemorable name again.

1. The time of the phase of the moon can be used to predict
geophysical phenomenon. (Sorry I don't know any baby words for that.)

2. I just happen to know how to do so.

3. I have been at great pains for several years now patiently trying
to explain to the most recalcitrant (stupid) of imbeciles (here).

4. Despite what I perceive (see) to be wilful misconstruction
(intentional stupidity) I plod on trying to educate the boneheaded.
(There are some dumb illegitimates on here.)

5. Most of what I say that is difficult to follow, can be perceived
(seen and understood) from the context of the discussion (read what I
bloody said).

6. The cause of the weather can not be the weather.

7. The chances of two plates jumping each other and causing just one
earthquake with a miserably small epicentre, beggars belief to any but
the most hygienically cleansed -if not surgically excised rudiment of
a brain on Usenet.

8. Please let me know what further assistance I might be to you all. I
hope I have been able to help you to see a little bit better than you
could do on your own in your benighted troglodyte's eyries.