"Dawlish" skrev i melding
...
On Mar 28, 3:29 pm, "Bj rn S rheim"
wrote:
"Skywise" skrev i
.. .

I've been happy to leave you to your neurotic theories for quite
some time, but since there are newcomers to this group seeking
information about the Japan quake, I feel it my duty to point out
that 'Weatherlawyer' aka Michael McNeil aka McNut doesn't know his
physics.

He seems to think he can predict earthquakes around the globe based
on the weather in England. Not exactly shining example of the the
"bright ol' chap", ya think?

I expect to be 'plonked' by him agian....

Brian

The way you treat him. he has the right to be mad and
hit back at the lot that bully him...

It is incorrect to say that he predicts earthquakes from
the weather in England. As far as I know he says that
hurricanes (and fronts?) in the North Atlantic, toghether
with tropical hurricanes around the globe can produce
earthquakes.
Besides astronomical parameters like proximity of solar-
system bodies like theSun, Moon, Jupiter and other planets,
what strong and complex variable forces are there at
the Earth that can effect and set of earthquakes besides
exactly a deep low/hurricane. I can see none.

So actually a natural idea he has. Note also the Icelandic
low is placed more or less exactly over a mid-ocean
ridge - like no other. So you might ask the very interesting
question: Did the icelandic low make Iceland?

Like one have to rock a car to get it out of a
slippery dump in snow, do the Icelandic low pump
the magma out of the crust and mantle below Iceland
to create and expand Iceland? Actually I suspect
more and more so...
And when a deep low pop out the mantle plume together
the other layers that make up Iceland and the rest of the
North Atlantic near the low, the expanded mass must
push away at something. And that something is among
other objects (plates) the Eurasian plate - that go all the
way unimpeded to - the 'Pacific Ring of Fire', like
Sumatra, Japan etc.
Makes you think doesn't it...?

Bj rn S rheim

He's also completely mad and any cursory monitoring of his prediction
accuracy shows him up to be the complete charlatan that he is. Looking
at 8 of his forecasts in 3 months, he managed a 14% accuracy - and the
14% was a very generous one from me. It's not worth monitoring anymore
and anyway, W gets all upset and childish when I do.

Don't be fooled Bjorn. Skywise is absolutely right; this is one very
nutty fruitcake. if you see what I mean.

As as said I don't think the basic idea is foolish at all.
And taken into account the payoff, more than enormous you
wold have to agree, being able to get away with much less death
and damage when a quake strikes - it is worth going into
quite a lot of ideas - quirky and mad as the may look at the outset.
And I don't monitor his forecasting scores. I don't know where too
look. To find someones post by searching Google Usenet posting
is fairly fruitless nowadays, only a fraction show up for some reason.

Bjørn Sørheim