On May 14, 9:48*am, yttiw wrote:
On 2013-05-13 15:11:29 +0000, Weatherlawyer said:





On May 10, 4:53 pm, yttiw wrote:
On 2013-05-10 14:15:42 +0000, Weatherlawyer said:

On May 10, 9:32 am, yttiw wrote:
On 2013-05-09 15:12:17 +0000, Weatherlawyer said:

Or does anyone else seeing a reply by Dawlish get a mild depression?
Oh for a nice healthy drought.

No, not petty - just childish and boring as usual.

I pretty well agree witha ll the above sentiment but his name just has
the effect of my not wishing to open a thread.
It's OK when someone else's name repaces his unless Dawlish started
the thread and then I just close the link. But what is it in a name
that has such an affect on a person who will never really be troubled
by it?

Maybe I aught to get back on my meds.

But you started this thread, and I assume that you wanted others to
back you up.

Some folk might get depressed reading long posts which link seismic
activity to the position of low pressure areas over German Bight, but
presumably they don't let that wind them up to such an extent that they
become obsessed with insulting one particular poster.

I have no idea if variations in atmospheric pressure can influence the
occurrence of earthquakes, or vice versa, but it would be a fascinating
discovery if proved correct.

Following revelations recently about upper atmosphere soundings being
50% or more bull****, I am surprised that I am the only one in the
world who sees compression of isobars at sea level as the first major
sign of seismic activity.

I don't understand why you are surprised that you are the only one who
sees that.

It's because I pay attention to the way that weather forecast models
run to seed. Everyone else thinks its butterflies (HTH.)

*I have always seen the compression of isobars at sea level as
indicating a steep pressure gradient between areas of high and low
pressure. Air flows from high to low pressure, in order to try and
restore an equilibrium,

That is a patent lie if there is such a thing as a patent lie outside
of East Texan patent law courts. Highs and Lows tend to avoid each
other with a passion that seems to prove theopropomorphism.

and the steeper the pressure gradient, the faster the air moves.

Obviously with compression comes ability to disperse energy faster but
how does it explain the compression in the first place if the one was
deflating the other?

I feel that this is the crux of the stupidity of all meteorological
arguments and have to pass it on to my fans at sci.geo.earthquakes so
that a discussion with the idiots there can resound to better effect.

There is one particular little cranioarsinfact that I'd love to hear
from on there, about that. Only of course I no longer read his crap.

I would presume that the variations in air pressure over a few hundred
miles do not amount to a significant force when measured against the
gravitational forces exerted by the planet, or indeed the moon.

I was told long ago that the sea level rises 1cm (above the calculated
datum figures) for every millibar that atmospheric pressure falls below
1000. I don't know how true that is in reality, but even a low pressure
centre of 950mb would only cause a 50cm rise in sea levels.

Don't mix cause and effect with what you think is happening or what
you have been told is happening. When two things occur at the same
time every time or as near every time as makes little difference, that
once in a while exception should shout at you to be more discerning.

But even if it is an immutable universal law, it doesn't prove one is
the cause of the other.

Compare that to the 3-6 metre rises that the moon can manage.
Yes, the earth's crust is far denser than the waters of the ocean,
but that does not mean it is immune to the variations in gravitational force
imposed on it every 24 hours by our neighbouring celestial body.

There is no way on god's earth that the moon can attract tides to it
from the sea. Not without attracting much heavier stuff first and a
lot further and on a far more permanent basis, as it would have less
ability to collapse back down.

Once you remove that non-Newtonian impediment to your understanding of
celestial mechanics, the rest of the stuff can become a little more
obvious. (With a lot of help from people like me of course. (Of
course, there are no "people like me" there is only me:~))