|
12:18
5th to 12th May 12:18
This spell is the only one I have covered that is near it and it has a certain resonance: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.g...5d79a372a54a47 Spells at twelve and 6 o'clock tend to produce low overcast even misty weather in Britain. Of course with a Cat 4 running elsewhere things are going to be different for a while, perhaps we could knock 3 hours off it? 09:18. Something unstable and given to thunder. And in the USA more tornadic stuff. Looks like a continuum from the folowing, all the more so ifthe storm moderates and we have a spell more akin to 10:18 or whatever: When a flaccid set up pertains in the North Atlantic and the Lows don't behave the way that they are supposed to, expect: "The population of Chaiten in Chile has been evacuated after a volcano began to erupt, covering the town in ash. The volcano spewed ash and caused tremors in the region on Friday, forcing water supplies to be cut off, the authorities said. By Sunday the town, about 1,300km from Santiago, the capital, was covered in ash. It is the volcano's first eruption in at least 2,000 years, according to Sernageomin, a government mining and geology agency, and caused the Patagonian town of nearly 4,500 people to be emptied. Many evacuees travelled by boat to Chiloe Island to the north and Puerto Montt on the mainland." http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exer...6A-BFB8-2765B0... An interesting Low in the North Atlantic this. It wouldn't surprise me if it continued all through the next spell too. This morning a Cat 4 tropical storm appeared over Japan. No warnings from any agency I saw. Anyway the sun's coming out again after some drizzle yesterday. That Low after being stationary over the other side of the Mid Atlantic Ridge for a week moved quickly at the end of the last spell to Britain and with this spell has returned to the west it is now 35 degrees west and apparently filling. Which could mean another eruption and then it will probably move quickly west again. Wednesday looks favourite:http://www.westwind.ch/?link=ukmb,ht...e/Fax/,.gif,br... http://groups.google.com/group/alt.t...fa43bbaed378f# Though why it should moderate in 60 minute intervals is beyond me. Not that I am stating it as an axiom. Just a rule of thumb until brighter light is shone on the subject. |
12:18
On May 5, 10:00*pm, Weatherlawyer wrote:
5th to 12th May 12:18 This spell is the only one I have covered that is near it and it has a certain resonance: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.g...se_frm/thread/... Spells at twelve and 6 o'clock tend to produce low overcast even misty weather in Britain. Of course with a Cat 4 running elsewhere things are going to be different for a while, *perhaps we could knock 3 hours off it? 09:18. Something unstable and given to thunder. And in the USA more tornadic stuff. Looks like a continuum from the folowing, all the more so ifthe storm moderates and we have a spell more akin to 10:18 or whatever: When a flaccid set up pertains in the North Atlantic and the Lows don't behave the way that they are supposed to, expect: "The population of Chaiten in Chile has been evacuated after a volcano began to erupt, covering the town in ash. The volcano spewed ash and caused tremors in the region on Friday, forcing water supplies to be cut off, the authorities said. By Sunday the town, about 1,300km from Santiago, the capital, was covered in ash. It is the volcano's first eruption in at least 2,000 years, according to Sernageomin, a government mining and geology agency, and caused the Patagonian town of nearly 4,500 people to be emptied. Many evacuees travelled by boat to Chiloe Island to the north and Puerto Montt on the mainland." http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exer...6A-BFB8-2765B0.... An interesting Low in the North Atlantic this. It wouldn't surprise me if it continued all through the next spell too. This morning a Cat 4 tropical storm appeared over Japan. No warnings from any agency I saw. Anyway the sun's coming out again after some drizzle yesterday. That Low after being stationary over the other side of the Mid Atlantic Ridge for a week moved quickly at the end of the last spell to Britain and with this spell has returned to the west it is now 35 degrees west and apparently filling. Which could mean another eruption and then it will probably move quickly west again. Wednesday looks favourite:http://www.westwind.ch/?link=ukmb,ht...e/Fax/,.gif,br... http://groups.google.com/group/alt.t...frm/thread/67a... Though why it should moderate in 60 minute intervals is beyond me. Not that I am stating it as an axiom. Just a rule of thumb until brighter light is shone on the subject.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - There will be no brighter light as you are the brightest. "could" mean another eruption? Again, after one eruption of a volcano, so long dormant, other eruptions are quite likely. Again pure guesswork, on your part, based upon the increased statistical chance of one eruption following another. There are a whole host of ongoing volcanic eruptions, any of which could be suggested as a result of some other activity. Why latch onto this one that was completely unpredictable by everyone, including you. could it be because it is in the news? This is not a major volcanic eruption, so why even mention it? If another, long-dormant, volcano erupts, that will take your attention too, I'm sure. Just take a look at this site and then you'll be able to pick any of the volcanos, pretend you know something about it and link it to your theories. http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0763388.html Here's a forecast for you about May's weather, based upon your own language: After a warm first 4 days, it would not be unusual if the May CET ended up above average. May is quite capable of producing a CET 2.5C above average and after the warmth of the first 4 days, it would not be unlikely if that happened. If I was right, it would mean nothing in terms of forecasting may's weather. If you were right, it would mean nothing in terms of forecasting an earthquake. Pick a volcano (OK, we've got this one with a Weatherlawyer; "could erupt again", which is a likelihood possessed by every single active volcano in the world and all those that have erupted in recorded history, plus many more) and tell us when it will erupt. Pick an earthquake site and tell us when it will fracture. Then do it again........and again.......and muliply that by 20 and I'll allow you 1/3 failures. Then do it again another 80 times and try to approach 80% accuracy. Then I'll begin call Michael "sir" and support your ideas. Or, you could start by telling us what your theories have accurately predicted, including all those, like the 24th April, that you didn't. That one poor forecast needs two correct to cancel it out and bring you to 66%. Where are they? And where are all the other correct forecasts that back up your theory? Without an accuracy base, forecasts are simply forecasts. They can only be judged by outcome. So far today, you have vaguely predicted a 7.5 mag earthquake, somewhere and said that the volcano Chaiten could erupt again, using obscure reasoning and timings of events, only understood by yourself. I won't forget and I will return to them at the end of the week. |
12:18
On May 5, 10:00 pm, Weatherlawyer wrote:
5th to 12th May 12:18 This spell is the only one I have covered that is near it and it has a certain resonance: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.g...se_frm/thread/... Spells at twelve and 6 o'clock tend to produce low overcast even misty weather in Britain. Of course with a Cat 4 running elsewhere things are going to be different for a while, perhaps we could knock 3 hours off it? 09:18. Something unstable and given to thunder. And in the USA more tornadic stuff. Looks like a continuum from the folowing, all the more so ifthe storm moderates and we have a spell more akin to 10:18 or whatever: When a flaccid set up pertains in the North Atlantic and the Lows don't behave the way that they are supposed to, expect: "The population of Chaiten in Chile has been evacuated after a volcano began to erupt, covering the town in ash. The volcano spewed ash and caused tremors in the region on Friday, forcing water supplies to be cut off, the authorities said. By Sunday the town, about 1,300km from Santiago, the capital, was covered in ash. It is the volcano's first eruption in at least 2,000 years, according to Sernageomin, a government mining and geology agency, and caused the Patagonian town of nearly 4,500 people to be emptied. Many evacuees travelled by boat to Chiloe Island to the north and Puerto Montt on the mainland." http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exer...6A-BFB8-2765B0... An interesting Low in the North Atlantic this. It wouldn't surprise me if it continued all through the next spell too. This morning a Cat 4 tropical storm appeared over Japan. No warnings from any agency I saw. Anyway the sun's coming out again after some drizzle yesterday. That Low after being stationary over the other side of the Mid Atlantic Ridge for a week moved quickly at the end of the last spell to Britain and with this spell has returned to the west it is now 35 degrees west and apparently filling. Which could mean another eruption and then it will probably move quickly west again. Wednesday looks favourite:http://www.westwind.ch/?link=ukmb,ht...e/Fax/,.gif,br... http://groups.google.com/group/alt.t...frm/thread/67a... Though why it should moderate in 60 minute intervals is beyond me. Not that I am stating it as an axiom. Just a rule of thumb until brighter light is shone on the subject. 12, 9, 6 and 3 o'clock spells bode well for North Atlantic hurricanes too. I forgot to mention that but then it is already written in the annals of the great Weatherlawyer and further discourse is mere repetition to my fans and other followers. Here is an extract that might be worth watching for: 7 Mar 17:14 This and the one following are the same spell except by half an our. Quarter each side of the hour. Unstable and tending toward anticyclonic 14 Mar 10:46 5 and 11 of the clock. And all's well unless there is a super-cyclone. Who can say? 21 Mar 18:40 Another unstable spell and this one tending to wet. (Seven o'clock.) 29 Mar 21:47 10 o'clock. An awkward bugger. 6 Apr 03:55 4 o'clock and the same as the previous one. (Whatever that might be.) 12 Apr 18:32 Troughs and cols maybe ridges. Another unstable spell. 20 Apr 10:25 And a repeat to within 40 minutes of the spell for the 29th March. How close that is I can not say. 28 Apr 14*:12 This one is similar to the spell we have now at the beginning of March. 5 May 12:18 And this, not unlike the one for the 12th April. And here we are already. 12 May 03:47 This is one similar to the spell for 6th April. 20 May 02*:11 This one too is similar to the spell we have now at the beginning of March. 28 May 02*:57 And this one more likely a thundery spell, though not that dissimilar to the preceding. And now we begin the Atlantic hurricane season. 3 Jun 19:23 This should install one. Quite a corker of a spell for it too. 10 Jun 15:04 Whilst this is an anticyclonic as is the following one. 18 Jun 17:30 So no hurricanes here unless... 26 Jun 12:10 Hurricane maybe. Not too bad a one though. 3 Jul 02*:19 Maybe this one too. Except for that proclivity for Anticyclones on the US east coast. 10 Jul 04:35 18 Jul 07:59 I think this will be an hurricane spell but perhaps not for the North Atlantic. 25 Jul 18:42 This one is though. 1 Aug 10:13 This one is one for the North pacific I imagine. 8 Aug 20*:20 I should be able to tell by this date just exactly what to expect from these. So that will be something. 16 Aug 21:16 Thundery if a little too unstable for most tastes. 23 Aug 23:50 As for the 26th June. 30 Aug 19:58 And here is an 8 o'clock one. This should have had an asterisk. 7 Sept 14*:04 After all this one did! 15 Sept 09:13 More sound of the fury signifying nothing? 22 Sept 05:04 And a summer break. Cold and sunny? In September? 29 Sept 08*:12 There are a ot of these about this year, are there not? 7 Oct 09:04 And more than a smattering of thunder spells too. 14 Oct 20*:03 Is this the last one of the season? 21 Oct 11:55 and 28th Oct 23:14 Or these two. |
12:18
On May 5, 11:06 pm, Weatherlawyer wrote:
12, 9, 6 and 3 o'clock spells bode well for North Atlantic hurricanes too. 12th April; 18:32. Troughs and cols maybe ridges. Another unstable spell. http://groups.google.com/group/alt.t.../month/2008-04 http://groups.google.com/group/alt.t...gst&q=18%3A32# 5th May; 12:18. And this, not unlike the one for the 12th April. And here we are already. |
12:18
On May 5, 11:06*pm, Weatherlawyer wrote:
On May 5, 10:00 pm, Weatherlawyer wrote: 5th to 12th May 12:18 This spell is the only one I have covered that is near it and it has a certain resonance: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.g...se_frm/thread/.... Spells at twelve and 6 o'clock tend to produce low overcast even misty weather in Britain. Of course with a Cat 4 running elsewhere things are going to be different for a while, *perhaps we could knock 3 hours off it? 09:18. Something unstable and given to thunder. And in the USA more tornadic stuff. Looks like a continuum from the folowing, all the more so ifthe storm moderates and we have a spell more akin to 10:18 or whatever: When a flaccid set up pertains in the North Atlantic and the Lows don't behave the way that they are supposed to, expect: "The population of Chaiten in Chile has been evacuated after a volcano began to erupt, covering the town in ash. The volcano spewed ash and caused tremors in the region on Friday, forcing water supplies to be cut off, the authorities said. By Sunday the town, about 1,300km from Santiago, the capital, was covered in ash. It is the volcano's first eruption in at least 2,000 years, according to Sernageomin, a government mining and geology agency, and caused the Patagonian town of nearly 4,500 people to be emptied. Many evacuees travelled by boat to Chiloe Island to the north and Puerto Montt on the mainland." http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exer...6A-BFB8-2765B0.... An interesting Low in the North Atlantic this. It wouldn't surprise me if it continued all through the next spell too. This morning a Cat 4 tropical storm appeared over Japan. No warnings from any agency I saw. Anyway the sun's coming out again after some drizzle yesterday. That Low after being stationary over the other side of the Mid Atlantic Ridge for a week moved quickly at the end of the last spell to Britain and with this spell has returned to the west it is now 35 degrees west and apparently filling. Which could mean another eruption and then it will probably move quickly west again. Wednesday looks favourite:http://www.westwind.ch/?link=ukmb,ht...e/Fax/,.gif,br... http://groups.google.com/group/alt.t...frm/thread/67a... Though why it should moderate in 60 minute intervals is beyond me. Not that I am stating it as an axiom. Just a rule of thumb until brighter light is shone on the subject. 12, 9, 6 and 3 o'clock spells bode well for North Atlantic hurricanes too. I forgot to mention that but then it is already written in the annals of the great Weatherlawyer and further discourse is mere repetition to my fans and other followers. Here is an extract that might be worth watching for: 7 * * * Mar * * 17:14 * This and the one following are the same spell except by half an our. Quarter each side of the hour. Unstable and tending toward anticyclonic 14 * * *Mar * * 10:46 * 5 and 11 of the clock. And all's well unless there is a super-cyclone. Who can say? 21 * * *Mar * * 18:40 * Another unstable spell and this one tending to wet. (Seven o'clock.) 29 * * *Mar * * 21:47 * 10 o'clock. An awkward bugger. 6 * * * Apr * * 03:55 * 4 o'clock and the same as the previous one. (Whatever that might be.) 12 * * *Apr * * 18:32 * *Troughs and cols maybe ridges. Another unstable spell. 20 * * *Apr * * 10:25 * And a repeat to within 40 minutes of the spell for the 29th March. How close that is I can not say. 28 * * *Apr * * 14*:12 *This one is similar to the spell we have now at the beginning of March. 5 * * * May * * 12:18 * And this, not unlike the one for the 12th April. And here we are already. 12 * * *May * * 03:47 * This is one similar to the spell for 6th April. 20 * * *May * * 02*:11 *This one too is similar to the spell we have now at the beginning of March. 28 * * *May * * 02*:57 *And this one more likely a thundery spell, though not that dissimilar to the preceding. And now we begin the Atlantic hurricane season. 3 * * * Jun * * 19:23 * This should install one. Quite a corker of a spell for it too. 10 * * *Jun * * 15:04 * Whilst this is an anticyclonic as is the following one. 18 * * *Jun * * 17:30 * So no hurricanes here unless... 26 * * *Jun * * 12:10 * Hurricane maybe. Not too bad a one though. 3 * * * Jul * * 02*:19 *Maybe this one too. Except for that proclivity for Anticyclones on the US east coast. 10 * * *Jul * * 04:35 18 * * *Jul * * 07:59 * I think this will be an hurricane spell but perhaps not for the North Atlantic. 25 * * *Jul * * 18:42 * This one is though. 1 * * * Aug * * 10:13 * This one is one for the North pacific I imagine. 8 * * * Aug * * 20*:20 *I should be able to tell by this date just exactly what to expect from these. So that will be something. 16 * * *Aug * * 21:16 * Thundery if a little too unstable for most tastes. 23 * * *Aug * * 23:50 * As for the 26th June. 30 * * *Aug * * 19:58 * And here is an 8 o'clock one. This should have had an asterisk. 7 * * * Sept * *14*:04 *After all this one did! 15 * * *Sept * *09:13 * More sound of the fury signifying nothing? 22 * * *Sept * *05:04 * And a summer break. Cold and sunny? In September? 29 * * *Sept * *08*:12 *There are a ot of these about this year, are there not? 7 * * * Oct * * 09:04 * And more than a smattering of thunder spells too. 14 * * *Oct * * 20*:03 *Is this the last one of the season? 21 * * *Oct * * 11:55 and * * * 28th Oct * * * *23:14 * Or these two.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Well, lots of strange timings and little evidence of links. Your commentary is commendably consistent. Consistently useless and unintelligable. Does anyone else iunderstand a word of what you are saying? Esotericism does not equal truth. Nothing, so far, to show that your theories have EVER predicted anything with any statistical accuracy. You use long-shot statistical chances and back your reasoning up with thin air, in terms of success percentage. Show us, with clarity that you have ever predicted anything in a particular location accurately. Then show us you have done it again....and again.....and again. That's what you have to do to convince. Difficult, isn't it? Anything? |
12:18
5.3 M. 2008/05/05 21:58. SOUTHERN IRAN
|
12:18
On May 6, 9:28 am, Weatherlawyer wrote:
5.3 M. 2008/05/05 21:58. SOUTHERN IRAN Let's see now maybe that Japanese storm was too far north for the regular coverage such things normally get from Hawaii: http://www.hurricanezone.net/ OK, let's go over it again for the hard of reading. From another thread: On May 5, 6:37 pm, Weatherlawyer wrote: This morning a Cat 4 tropical storm appeared over Japan. No warnings from any agency I saw. I was actually looking there and didn't see it.. What it was is that something was updating each time I looked so I just assumed they were newrather than looking at them properly. Slip shod I know but no one is paying me and if I thought anyone beside the inane was reading my stuff I'd still be too cursory. A small flaw in my nature, I am afraid. 5.1 M. 2008/05/05. 00:27. Near the east coast of Honshu, Japan. 5.8 M. 2008/05/03. 19:02. Bougainville region, PNG. I know not everyone is thick as pig-pooh but I seem to have picked up a stalker with that qualification, I can't imagine why. But since I am a nice guy and quite like helping people... 5.3 M. 2008/05/06. 20.4 S. 168.8 E. Loyalty Islands. 5.1 M. 2008/05/06 10:06. 20.3 S. 168.8 E. Loyalty Islands. 5.3 M. 2008/05/05 21:58. 28.4 N. 54.0 E. Southern Iran. As a rule of thumb, a space of a day or so between earthquakes of Magnitude 5 or over indicates a severe storm is brewing. Maybe a 12 hour gap means something, if it does, what it does, I don't know. When a storm peters out, the phenomenon of two or more earthquakes in much the same place as each other, appearing consecutively in the same NEIC list, occurs. Another axiom is that the weather in the UK might be bad or (by British standards) wet, when a storm suddenly blows up, the weather here then changes to sunny. Of course (for the sake of Dawlish once more) it goes without saying the storm if arrives in Britain (rather than for example the tropics) the opposite effect is more likely to be true. (I'm sitting here laughing at what the plonker makes of that. Sad or what?) |
12:18
On May 5, 11:26 pm, Dawlish wrote:
Show us, with clarity that you have ever predicted anything I predict that one day you may or may not grasp the eloquence of Nettiquette. |
12:18
A gentle breeze has sprung up and reminded me that some changes are
heralded by the softest zephyrs. I think this indicates a small change in the planet's weather. But it will be late morning before we find out how things have turned. |
12:18
Weatherlawyer wrote in news:ff8dd2ca-2bb0-4ffb-
: 5.3 M. 2008/05/05 21:58. SOUTHERN IRAN Easy with the one liners. Patra might get upset. 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? |
12:18
On May 7, 8:46 am, Dawkish wrote:
Back on topic. Quite right, let us put the past behind us and you can go and boil your head while I think about editing my posts to make you look even more bumptious than you are. low gramur snipped. Blast! I was going to reply regardless but I have forgotten what you drooled and can't be asked to look. The 7.5 Earthquake that you proposed could happen in the next 2-3 days..... hasn't. Your prediction from 24th April was wrong. To even achieve a continuing 50% accuracy will now require you to get the next two predictions correct. I await them with interest. But in Weather Law a Cat 4 hurricane can be regarded as a stand-in for an earthquake of from 7.5 M to 7.8 or 9ish. (Bearing in mind that not only is perturbation considered but the time at high oscillation is taken into account. If the same was true for hurricanes, the time interval would put it well into the teens.) Other outcomes also to be considered are volcanic eruptions with a large output of matter. Large cells of F 3 and 4 tornadoes covering many counties even a number of states. Above cloud lightning and lesser storms in higher latitudes. Search and see (if you can find someone to show you how) the one thing all the above have in common is that they occur at a region where the surface pressure is near 1010 millibars. Usually between two or more fairly flaccid weather systems. Generally an hurricane force in the temperate climes is the equivalent of a Cat 3 or 4 cyclone. I will not be dictated to by you in the use of English. Now look at this, you recalcitrant scion of a ne'er do well: 5.3 M. 2008/05/06. 23:28 -7.9 123.2 Banda Sea 5.3 M. 2008/05/06. 12:42 -20.4 168.8 Loyalty Islands 5.1 M. 2008/05/06. 10:06 -20.3 168.8 Loyalty Islands 5.3 M. 2008/05/05. 21:58 28.4 54.1 Southern Iran If you take the matched pair out of this equation you get a lapse of over 24 hours for the next pair: 06. 23:28 -7.9 123.2 Banda Sea 05. 21:58 28.4 54.1 Southern Iran And a storm in the west (Asian) Pacific: http://www.hurricanezone.net/tcgraphics/wp0308.gif No hurricane yet (it is classed as a gale on the Beaufort Scale) it will grow more powerful or the earthquake I said would arrive some days ago is at last going to avail itself for our edification. One more axiom for Clueless: When the classical methods of weather-forecasting show error or uncertainty and there is something of the same ilk with my efforts too, then the likelihood (the North Atlantic having a positive NAO (according to my way of classifying said anomaly (not that I think it is anomalous, in the true meaning of the word))) is that an earthquake of Mag 7 or larger is due. This one is SOOOO due.... You have much to learn and I have much to teach, so go and wipe your bottom, clean it and report back so I can give your arse another kicking. Sodue. |
12:18
On May 7, 3:01*pm, Weatherlawyer wrote:
On May 7, 8:46 am, Dawkish wrote: Back on topic. Quite right, let us put the past behind us and you can go and boil your head while I think about editing my posts to make you look even more bumptious than you are. low gramur snipped. Blast! I was going to reply regardless but I have forgotten what you drooled and can't be asked to look. The 7.5 Earthquake that you proposed could happen in the next 2-3 days..... hasn't. Your prediction from 24th April was wrong. To even achieve a continuing 50% accuracy will now require you to get the next two predictions correct. I await them with interest. But in Weather Law a Cat 4 hurricane can be regarded as a stand-in for an earthquake of from 7.5 M to 7.8 or 9ish. (Bearing in mind that not only is perturbation considered but the time at high oscillation is taken into account. If the same was true for hurricanes, the time interval would put it well into the teens.) Other outcomes also to be considered are volcanic eruptions with a large output of matter. Large cells of F 3 and 4 tornadoes covering many counties even a number of states. Above cloud lightning and lesser storms in higher latitudes. Search and see (if you can find someone to show you how) the one thing all the above have in common is that they occur at a region where the surface pressure is near 1010 millibars. Usually between two or more fairly flaccid weather systems. Generally an hurricane force in the temperate climes is the equivalent of a Cat 3 or 4 cyclone. I will not be dictated to by you in the use of English. Now look at this, you recalcitrant scion of a ne'er do well: 5.3 M. *2008/05/06. 23:28 * * * -7.9 * *123.2 * Banda Sea 5.3 M. *2008/05/06. 12:42 * * * -20.4 * 168.8 * Loyalty Islands 5.1 M. *2008/05/06. 10:06 * * * -20.3 * 168.8 * Loyalty Islands 5.3 M. *2008/05/05. 21:58 * * * 28.4 * *54.1 * *Southern Iran If you take the matched pair out of this equation you get a lapse of over 24 hours for the next pair: 06. 23:28 * * * -7.9 * *123.2 * Banda Sea 05. 21:58 * * * 28.4 * *54.1 * *Southern Iran And a storm in the west (Asian) Pacific:http://www.hurricanezone.net/tcgraphics/wp0308.gif No hurricane yet (it is classed as a gale on the Beaufort Scale) it will grow more powerful or the earthquake I said would arrive some days ago is at last going to avail itself for our edification. One more axiom for Clueless: When the classical methods of weather-forecasting show error or uncertainty and there is something of the same ilk with my efforts too, then the likelihood (the North Atlantic having a positive NAO (according to my way of classifying said anomaly (not that I think it is anomalous, in the true meaning of the word))) is that an earthquake of Mag 7 or larger is due. This one is SOOOO due.... You have much to learn and I have much to teach, so go and wipe your bottom, clean it and report back so I can give your arse another kicking. Sodue. Show me the evidence of forecast success.......or go away. Mind you, your abuse is funny! *)) Without that evidence. You are a charlatan; no more. An earthquake of Mag 7, or larger, as has already been explained to you, by two of us, will occur, on average, every few weeks. You just completely failed to predict the last one. You'll predict this one, but so will I. There will be a Mag 7 earthquake, or larger, somewhere in the world in the next month. 4/6 your odds. Any takers? |
12:18
On May 7, 3:10 pm, Dawlish wrote:
On May 7, 3:01 pm, Weatherlawyer wrote: On May 7, 8:46 am, Dawkish wrote: Back on topic. Quite right, let us put the past behind us and you can go and boil your head while I think about editing my posts to make you look even more bumptious than you are. low gramur snipped. Blast! I was going to reply regardless but I have forgotten what you drooled and can't be asked to look. The 7.5 Earthquake that you proposed could happen in the next 2-3 days..... hasn't. Your prediction from 24th April was wrong. To even achieve a continuing 50% accuracy will now require you to get the next two predictions correct. I await them with interest. But in Weather Law a Cat 4 hurricane can be regarded as a stand-in for an earthquake of from 7.5 M to 7.8 or 9ish. (Bearing in mind that not only is perturbation considered but the time at high oscillation is taken into account. If the same was true for hurricanes, the time interval would put it well into the teens.) Other outcomes also to be considered are volcanic eruptions with a large output of matter. Large cells of F 3 and 4 tornadoes covering many counties even a number of states. Above cloud lightning and lesser storms in higher latitudes. Search and see (if you can find someone to show you how) the one thing all the above have in common is that they occur at a region where the surface pressure is near 1010 millibars. Usually between two or more fairly flaccid weather systems. Generally an hurricane force in the temperate climes is the equivalent of a Cat 3 or 4 cyclone. I will not be dictated to by you in the use of English. Now look at this, you recalcitrant scion of a ne'er do well: 5.3 M. 2008/05/06. 23:28 -7.9 123.2 Banda Sea 5.3 M. 2008/05/06. 12:42 -20.4 168.8 Loyalty Islands 5.1 M. 2008/05/06. 10:06 -20.3 168.8 Loyalty Islands 5.3 M. 2008/05/05. 21:58 28.4 54.1 Southern Iran If you take the matched pair out of this equation you get a lapse of over 24 hours for the next pair: 06. 23:28 -7.9 123.2 Banda Sea 05. 21:58 28.4 54.1 Southern Iran And a storm in the west (Asian) Pacific:http://www.hurricanezone.net/tcgraphics/wp0308.gif No hurricane yet (it is classed as a gale on the Beaufort Scale) it will grow more powerful or the earthquake I said would arrive some days ago is at last going to avail itself for our edification. One more axiom for Clueless: When the classical methods of weather-forecasting show error or uncertainty and there is something of the same ilk with my efforts too, then the likelihood (the North Atlantic having a positive NAO (according to my way of classifying said anomaly (not that I think it is anomalous, in the true meaning of the word))) is that an earthquake of Mag 7 or larger is due. This one is SOOOO due.... You have much to learn and I have much to teach, so go and wipe your bottom, clean it and report back so I can give your arse another kicking. Sodue. Show me the evidence of forecast success.......or go away. Mind you, your abuse is funny! *)) Without that evidence. You are a charlatan; no more. An earthquake of Mag 7, or larger, as has already been explained to you, by two of us, will occur, on average, every few weeks. You just completely failed to predict the last one. You'll predict this one, but so will I. There will be a Mag 7 earthquake, or larger, somewhere in the world in the next month. 4/6 your odds. Any takers? This spell will continue until that large earthquake occurs, unless there is more than one due -in which case (against the odds) they will occur within a few days of each other. Care to give me odds on that? Or if you want to chance ytour pocket money for the month put a fiver on it, sonny. |
12:18
On May 7, 6:45 pm, Weatherlawyer wrote:
This spell will continue until that large earthquake occurs, unless there is more than one due -in which case (against the odds) they will occur within a few days of each other. Care to give me odds on that? Or if you want to chance ytour pocket money for the month put a fiver on it, sonny. Actually the likelihood of it being an earthquake began to diminish yesterday. At the moment there isn't a good enough gradient between the various highs and lows to indicate a large magnitude earthquake. The lows are all pretty near the 1000 mb mark and the lowest that odd one that has occupied the uk.sci.weather group so much, the singularity in the North Atlantic is the lowest I can see in the northern hemisphere http://www.westwind.ch/?link=ukmb,ht...racknell+13 2 What appears most likely is another vicious burst of activity in that Chilean volcano. Maybe some tornadic stuff in New Zealand and the USA. Extensive cells in the USA if so. There are flash flood warnings on he http://www.weather.gov/largemap.php (Kansas and Missouri.) There is another massive High in the Arctic, 1050 mb. I forget what happened last time. Hawaii erupting I think. It was only a few days ago but I forget, gophigure! OK: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.g...4a30c804f96ca3 There followed a super typhoon that killed thousands and then the Chilean eruption. Ooer! |
12:18
On May 7, 6:45*pm, Weatherlawyer wrote:
On May 7, 3:10 pm, Dawlish wrote: On May 7, 3:01 pm, Weatherlawyer wrote: On May 7, 8:46 am, Dawkish wrote: Back on topic. Quite right, let us put the past behind us and you can go and boil your head while I think about editing my posts to make you look even more bumptious than you are. low gramur snipped. Blast! I was going to reply regardless but I have forgotten what you drooled and can't be asked to look. The 7.5 Earthquake that you proposed could happen in the next 2-3 days..... hasn't. Your prediction from 24th April was wrong. To even achieve a continuing 50% accuracy will now require you to get the next two predictions correct. I await them with interest. But in Weather Law a Cat 4 hurricane can be regarded as a stand-in for an earthquake of from 7.5 M to 7.8 or 9ish. (Bearing in mind that not only is perturbation considered but the time at high oscillation is taken into account. If the same was true for hurricanes, the time interval would put it well into the teens.) Other outcomes also to be considered are volcanic eruptions with a large output of matter. Large cells of F 3 and 4 tornadoes covering many counties even a number of states. Above cloud lightning and lesser storms in higher latitudes. Search and see (if you can find someone to show you how) the one thing all the above have in common is that they occur at a region where the surface pressure is near 1010 millibars. Usually between two or more fairly flaccid weather systems. Generally an hurricane force in the temperate climes is the equivalent of a Cat 3 or 4 cyclone. I will not be dictated to by you in the use of English. Now look at this, you recalcitrant scion of a ne'er do well: 5.3 M. *2008/05/06. 23:28 * * * -7.9 * *123.2 * Banda Sea 5.3 M. *2008/05/06. 12:42 * * * -20.4 * 168.8 * Loyalty Islands 5.1 M. *2008/05/06. 10:06 * * * -20.3 * 168.8 * Loyalty Islands 5.3 M. *2008/05/05. 21:58 * * * 28.4 * *54.1 * *Southern Iran If you take the matched pair out of this equation you get a lapse of over 24 hours for the next pair: 06. 23:28 * * * -7.9 * *123.2 * Banda Sea 05. 21:58 * * * 28.4 * *54.1 * *Southern Iran And a storm in the west (Asian) Pacific:http://www.hurricanezone.net/tcgraphics/wp0308.gif No hurricane yet (it is classed as a gale on the Beaufort Scale) it will grow more powerful or the earthquake I said would arrive some days ago is at last going to avail itself for our edification. One more axiom for Clueless: When the classical methods of weather-forecasting show error or uncertainty and there is something of the same ilk with my efforts too, then the likelihood (the North Atlantic having a positive NAO (according to my way of classifying said anomaly (not that I think it is anomalous, in the true meaning of the word))) is that an earthquake of Mag 7 or larger is due. This one is SOOOO due.... You have much to learn and I have much to teach, so go and wipe your bottom, clean it and report back so I can give your arse another kicking. Sodue. Show me the evidence of forecast success.......or go away. Mind you, your abuse is funny! *)) Without that evidence. You are a charlatan; no more. An earthquake of Mag 7, or larger, as has already been explained to you, by two of us, will occur, on average, every few weeks. You just completely failed to predict the last one. You'll predict this one, but so will I. There will be a Mag 7 earthquake, or larger, somewhere in the world in the next month. 4/6 your odds. Any takers? This spell will continue until that large earthquake occurs, unless there is more than one due -in which case (against the odds) they will occur within a few days of each other. Care to give me odds on that? Or if you want to chance ytour pocket money for the month put a fiver on it, sonny.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - No: the probability is that a large magnitude (7.0, 7.5, you seem very confused as to what constitutes "large") earthquake will occur over the next month (odds on) and the enormous likelihood is that the earthquake will have nothing whatsoever to do with the position of any of your meteorological features. Did you look at those gfs pressure maps of Asia, that I referred you to, including the "commie conspiracy" countries that apparently prevent them being released and stopped you finding any for so long? Most of us have been looking at them for years. Hope they help you. PS As Harold says, nothing has "gone up in the last few years"........you just weren't aware of the stats. We can't help that, but some of us really are here to help when you need it. PPS Any chance of those success statistics? Not much to ask. |
12:18
7th May 2008.
5.0 M. 18:20. 36.1 N. 141.8 E. 35.0. Near the east coast of Honshu, Japan 5.2 M. 17:31. 36.2 N. 141.6 E. 35.0 Near the east coast of Honshu, Japan 6.8 M. 16:45. 36.1 N. 141.5 E. 35.0 Near the east coast of Honshu, Japan 5.0 M. 16:24. 36.1 N. 141.8 E. 37.3 Near the east coast of Honshu, Japan 5.9 M. 16:16. 36.3 N. 141.7 E. 35.0 Near the east coast of Honshu, Japan 5.4 M. 16:12. 36.3 N 141.7 E. 35.0 Near the east coast of Honshu, Japan 6.2 M. 16:02. 36.2 N. 141.5 E. 35.0 Near the east coast of Honshu, Japan This phenomenon follows a severe storm. The two events will be some multiple of 15 degrees apart. Usually 120 but sometimes 90 and sometimes 60 degrees. Of course since a storm has just run through Japan, the distance to the Burmese peninsula from Honshu being 45 degrees makes no difference: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/eqcenter/recenteqsww/Maps/ 10/140_35.php |
12:18
The UK is enjoying a very nice spell of anticyclonic at the moment.
There are no severe storms elsewhere in the northern hemisphere to account for it and apart from some very minor cramps yesterday I don't have any twinges. Interesting. The Smithsonian updater for the volcanoes archive seems to be busted. I got the latest release by fiddling with the last three digits on this link: http://www.volcano.si.edu/reports/us...rweek=20080505 Apparently it doesn't matter what day you put on as long as it falls in the week you want. That N Atlantic low is now over 1000 mb and sending a ridge out towards Greenland. Could it actually do what I said it was going to do all those yonks ago? If so, watch out Xinjiang. |
12:18
On 7 May, 21:01, Dawlish wrote:
On May 7, 6:45 pm, Weatherlawyer wrote: On May 7, 3:10 pm, Dawlish wrote: On May 7, 3:01 pm, Weatherlawyer wrote: On May 7, 8:46 am, Dawkish wrote: Back on topic. Quite right, let us put the past behind us and you can go and boil your head while I think about editing my posts to make you look even more bumptious than you are. low gramur snipped. Blast! I was going to reply regardless but I have forgotten what you drooled and can't be asked to look. The 7.5 Earthquake that you proposed could happen in the next 2-3 days..... hasn't. Your prediction from 24th April was wrong. To even achieve a continuing 50% accuracy will now require you to get the next two predictions correct. I await them with interest. But in Weather Law a Cat 4 hurricane can be regarded as a stand-in for an earthquake of from 7.5 M to 7.8 or 9ish. (Bearing in mind that not only is perturbation considered but the time at high oscillation is taken into account. If the same was true for hurricanes, the time interval would put it well into the teens.) Other outcomes also to be considered are volcanic eruptions with a large output of matter. Large cells of F 3 and 4 tornadoes covering many counties even a number of states. Above cloud lightning and lesser storms in higher latitudes. Search and see (if you can find someone to show you how) the one thing all the above have in common is that they occur at a region where the surface pressure is near 1010 millibars. Usually between two or more fairly flaccid weather systems. Generally an hurricane force in the temperate climes is the equivalent of a Cat 3 or 4 cyclone. I will not be dictated to by you in the use of English. Now look at this, you recalcitrant scion of a ne'er do well: 5.3 M. 2008/05/06. 23:28 -7.9 123.2 Banda Sea 5.3 M. 2008/05/06. 12:42 -20.4 168.8 Loyalty Islands 5.1 M. 2008/05/06. 10:06 -20.3 168.8 Loyalty Islands 5.3 M. 2008/05/05. 21:58 28.4 54.1 Southern Iran If you take the matched pair out of this equation you get a lapse of over 24 hours for the next pair: 06. 23:28 -7.9 123.2 Banda Sea 05. 21:58 28.4 54.1 Southern Iran And a storm in the west (Asian) Pacific:http://www.hurricanezone.net/tcgraphics/wp0308.gif No hurricane yet (it is classed as a gale on the Beaufort Scale) it will grow more powerful or the earthquake I said would arrive some days ago is at last going to avail itself for our edification. One more axiom for Clueless: When the classical methods of weather-forecasting show error or uncertainty and there is something of the same ilk with my efforts too, then the likelihood (the North Atlantic having a positive NAO (according to my way of classifying said anomaly (not that I think it is anomalous, in the true meaning of the word))) is that an earthquake of Mag 7 or larger is due. This one is SOOOO due.... You have much to learn and I have much to teach, so go and wipe your bottom, clean it and report back so I can give your arse another kicking. Sodue. Show me the evidence of forecast success.......or go away. Mind you, your abuse is funny! *)) Without that evidence. You are a charlatan; no more. An earthquake of Mag 7, or larger, as has already been explained to you, by two of us, will occur, on average, every few weeks. You just completely failed to predict the last one. You'll predict this one, but so will I. There will be a Mag 7 earthquake, or larger, somewhere in the world in the next month. 4/6 your odds. Any takers? This spell will continue until that large earthquake occurs, unless there is more than one due -in which case (against the odds) they will occur within a few days of each other. Care to give me odds on that? Or if you want to chance ytour pocket money for the month put a fiver on it, sonny.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - No: the probability is that a large magnitude (7.0, 7.5, you seem very confused as to what constitutes "large") earthquake will occur over the next month (odds on) and the enormous likelihood is that the earthquake will have nothing whatsoever to do with the position of any of your meteorological features. Did you look at those gfs pressure maps of Asia, that I referred you to, including the "commie conspiracy" countries that apparently prevent them being released and stopped you finding any for so long? Most of us have been looking at them for years. Hope they help you. PS As Harold says, nothing has "gone up in the last few years"........you just weren't aware of the stats. We can't help that, but some of us really are here to help when you need it. PPS Any chance of those success statistics? Not much to ask. Its not just the pressure maps in Asia he needs to look at. I suggest he takes a look at the pressure maps for the entire planet, especially between the tropics and then he will see just how much of it has surface pressure close to 1010mb for many months. Is it really suprising that volcanoes, earthquakes and other disturbances are more common in those areas, when an average pressure of 1010mb is probably the most common around the globe? Of course, we must not forget the power of the moon's gravitational pull which (although it may not have as much effect on land as it does over the water) is one day going to coincide with a geological weakness and...... .....well I dare not allow myself to imagine what may come next. |
12:18
On May 8, 12:22 pm, wrote:
....well I dare not allow myself to imagine what may come next. Your lack of imagination aught to have a bearing on your intestinal fortitude. However your greatest disability is the sheer volume of ignorance you have so patiently stored between your ears. Consider: Of course, we must not forget the power of the moon's gravitational pull which (although it may not have as much effect on land as it does over the water) Define gravity. OK, that's an hard one for you. Let's try something easier: Which orbits which? Does the moon go around the earth or the earth around the moon? In which case the attraction of the [blank] is [blanker] than that of [blank]. Replace blank with ... No, too difficult for you... Let me see... You obviously do not subscribe to Aristotle's theory of gravitational attraction. Where did you come up with your version of the alternative? No.. hang on. I have got it.. Have you ever heard of a bloke called Galileo? Ah forget it. Believe what you like. |
12:18
On 8 May, 17:57, Alan LeHun wrote:
In article 9a9e6df3-0dbb-4adf-afbe- , says... On May 8, 12:22 pm, wrote: ....well I dare not allow myself to imagine what may come next. Your lack of imagination aught to have a bearing on your intestinal fortitude. I see. When someone says they "dare not imagine", you comprehend this as meaning they admit to having no imagination? And then you insult them as a result of your own comprehension issues. However your greatest disability is the sheer volume of ignorance you have so patiently stored between your ears. Consider: Of course, we must not forget the power of the moon's gravitational pull which (although it may not have as much effect on land as it does over the water) Define gravity. OK, that's an hard one for you. Let's try something easier: Which orbits which? Does the moon go around the earth or the earth around the moon? The moon goes round the Earth. In which case the attraction of the [blank] is [blanker] than that of [blank]. Replace blank with ... No, too difficult for you... Let me see... You obviously do not subscribe to Aristotle's theory of gravitational attraction. Where did you come up with your version of the alternative? No.. hang on. I have got it.. Have you ever heard of a bloke called Galileo? Ah forget it. Believe what you like. What a large amount of condescending and unwarranted claptrap, just because crazyh0rse made a small, and not necessary factual, error (or was it because he made "suggestions" for you to peruse). It is quite clear to me that your most favoured pursuit is the ego inflating rampage that you embark upon every time anyone should make any sort of percieved) error which allows you to expose your self inferred intellectual superiority. Your post did nothing for anyone else (it didn't even identify crazyh0rses mistake let alone correct it), had no substance whatsoever, and served only your own personal gratification. I'm sure you at least felt really clever while you wrote it. -- Alan LeHun Sorry, I was trying to be sarcastic. I should really know better. |
12:18
On May 8, 6:56*pm, wrote:
On 8 May, 17:57, Alan LeHun wrote: In article 9a9e6df3-0dbb-4adf-afbe- , says... On May 8, 12:22 pm, wrote: ....well I dare not allow myself to imagine what may come next. Your lack of imagination aught to have a bearing on your intestinal fortitude. I see. When someone says they "dare not imagine", you comprehend this as meaning they admit to having no imagination? And then you insult them as a result of your own comprehension issues. However your greatest disability is the sheer volume of ignorance you have so patiently stored between your ears. Consider: Of course, we must not forget the power of the moon's gravitational pull which (although it may not have as much effect on land as it does over the water) Define gravity. OK, that's an hard one for you. Let's try something easier: Which orbits which? Does the moon go around the earth or the earth around the moon? The moon goes round the Earth. In which case the attraction of the [blank] is [blanker] than that of [blank]. Replace blank with ... No, too difficult for you... Let me see... You obviously do not subscribe to Aristotle's theory of gravitational attraction. Where did you come up with your version of the alternative? No.. hang on. I have got it.. Have you ever heard of a bloke called Galileo? Ah forget it. Believe what you like. What a large amount of condescending and unwarranted claptrap, just because crazyh0rse made a small, and not necessary factual, error (or was it because he made "suggestions" for you to peruse). It is quite clear to me that your most favoured pursuit is the ego inflating rampage that you embark upon every time anyone should make any sort of percieved) error which allows you to expose your self inferred intellectual superiority. Your post did nothing for anyone else (it didn't even identify crazyh0rses mistake let alone correct it), had no substance whatsoever, and served only your own personal gratification. I'm sure you at least felt really clever while you wrote it. -- Alan LeHun Sorry, I was trying to be sarcastic. I should really know better.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - You got abuse. Typical, but unfortunately the norm. Now where's that 7.5+ Earthquake that this genius "predicted" would happen in the next couple of days...... I forget how many days ago now? Of course, the last sentence would be interpreted as an unprovoked attack on someone's views by a particular poster. The completely unwarranted attack on crazy would be interpreted by the same person as "perplexing". Funny how some people's world works.....especially W's. |
12:18
On May 8, 10:56 am, wrote:
Sorry, I was trying to be sarcastic. I should really know better. Don't apologize. Your sarcasm couldn't have been clearer or more appropriate. Hardly your fault that the gentleman you were writing to is a loon. --mirage |
12:18
On May 8, 9:05*pm, mirage wrote:
On May 8, 10:56 am, wrote: Sorry, I was trying to be sarcastic. I should really know better. Don't apologize. *Your sarcasm couldn't have been clearer or more appropriate. *Hardly your fault that the gentleman you were writing to is a loon. --mirage Now that really is an unprovoked attack on someone's reasonable views. Disgusted of Dawlish. *)) Paul |
12:18
On May 8, 6:56 pm, wrote:
Sorry, I was trying to be sarcastic. I should really know better. That's the difference between us don't you know, I was being sarcastic and I do know better. In fact, I know best. Here is an example to tear you another place for you to put your head. These quakes occur each time an High pressure area leaves North America by way of the Carolinas. 5.0 M. ANDREANOF ISLANDS, ALEUTIAN IS., ALASKA. Have fun children. Oh, by the way; is this an example of diffluence? http://www.westwind.ch/?link=ukmb,ht...racknell+13 2 (55 N. 35 W.) They think it's all over! |
12:18
On May 8, 9:05 pm, mirage wrote:
On May 8, 10:56 am, wrote: I should really know better. Don't apologize. Your sarcasm couldn't have been clearer or more appropriate. Hardly your fault that the gentleman you were writing to is a loon. Unappreciative loon. And... No gentleman. I wonder why he writes to me? Maybe he needs help? Glad to oblige. Or not, as the case maybe. |
12:18
On May 8, 10:57*pm, Weatherlawyer wrote:
On May 8, 9:05 pm, mirage wrote: On May 8, 10:56 am, wrote: I should really know better. Don't apologize. *Your sarcasm couldn't have been clearer or more appropriate. *Hardly your fault that the gentleman you were writing to is a loon. Unappreciative loon. And... No gentleman. I wonder why he writes to me? Maybe he needs help? Glad to oblige. Or not, as the case maybe. So, earthquake of 7.5, or greater, W? You've gone very quiet on the analysis of your predictions front. Or maybe that is a "not", as the case may be? |
12:18
On May 8, 10:53 pm, Weatherlawyer
Oh, by the way; is this an example of diffluence?http://www.westwind.ch/?link=ukmb,ht...e/Fax/,.gif,br... (55 N. 35 W.) They think it's all over! Complex problems with complex low and the Low Complex: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/..._pressure.html That has just GOT to be a major volcanic eruption late saturday most of Sunday and early Monday. Just like it shows on the model run I posted about on this thread: http://groups.google.com/group/uk.sc...4497819d93f17# |
12:18
On May 9, 3:47 pm, Weatherlawyer wrote:
Complex problems with complex low and the Low Complex: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/..._pressure.html That has just GOT to be a major volcanic eruption late saturday most of Sunday and early Monday. Just like it shows on the model run I posted about on this thread: http://groups.google.com/group/uk.sc...m/thread/f7644... This is from the NEIC: 5.5 Magnitude earthquake at 23:21 on 8th May 2008. !8 hours since the last one, therefore a storm brewing maybe. It is certainly heading that way. |
12:18
On May 9, 3:47*pm, Weatherlawyer wrote:
On May 8, 10:53 pm, Weatherlawyer Oh, by the way; is this an example of diffluence?http://www.westwind.ch/?link=ukmb,ht...e/Fax/,.gif,br... (55 N. 35 W.) They think it's all over! Complex problems with complex low and the Low Complex: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/..._pressure.html That has just GOT to be a major volcanic eruption late saturday most of Sunday and early Monday. Just like it shows on the model run I posted about on this thread: http://groups.google.com/group/uk.sc...read/f7644...- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text OK, a major eruption at some time over a specified 2-day period. We'll monitor that. You need this one to occur, to increase your forecast accuracy to 33% over your last 3 forecasts. At the moment, your percentage accuracy stands at zero (0/2) since April 24th. If your definition of a "major" eruption would be "explosive" on the VEI scale, one would expect one to happen weekly, on average. As one hasn't happened since the 2nd May, another would be expected soon - hence, probably, your forecast. The biggest one recently, Chaiten, your methods patently failed to predict. http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/eruption_scale.html Also, you can't pull the wool over our eyes by quoting any of these, unless there is a significant change in the output of any of them. All these are ongoing. http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/eruption_scale.html Good luck. You'll need it. |
12:18
On May 9, 5:21*pm, Weatherlawyer wrote:
On May 9, 3:47 pm, Weatherlawyer wrote: Complex problems with complex low and the Low Complex: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/..._pressure.html That has just GOT to be a major volcanic eruption late saturday most of Sunday and early Monday. Just like it shows on the model run I posted about on this thread: http://groups.google.com/group/uk.sc...m/thread/f7644.... This is from the NEIC: 5.5 Magnitude earthquake at 23:21 on 8th May 2008. !8 hours since the last one, therefore a storm brewing maybe. It is certainly heading that way. "a storm" what's that supposed to mean? |
12:18
In article cff8a1a5-f7fd-4656-8bee-f80f10f37ca8
@x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com, says... On May 9, 3:47 pm, Weatherlawyer wrote: Complex problems with complex low and the Low Complex: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/..._pressure.html That has just GOT to be a major volcanic eruption late saturday most of Sunday and early Monday. Just like it shows on the model run I posted about on this thread: http://groups.google.com/group/uk.sc...m/thread/f7644... This is from the NEIC: 5.5 Magnitude earthquake at 23:21 on 8th May 2008. !8 hours since the last one, therefore a storm brewing maybe. It is certainly heading that way. From NEIC, based on the ~1500 M5+ earthquakes per year, there are about 480 M5.5+ earthquakes per year, or about 1 every 18 hours. (There have been 43 5.5 or larger quakes in the last 30 days.) Harold -- Harold Brooks |
12:18
On 9 May, 18:47, Harold Brooks wrote:
In article cff8a1a5-f7fd-4656-8bee-f80f10f37ca8 @x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com, says... On May 9, 3:47 pm, Weatherlawyer wrote: Complex problems with complex low and the Low Complex: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/..._pressure.html That has just GOT to be a major volcanic eruption late saturday most of Sunday and early Monday. Just like it shows on the model run I posted about on this thread: http://groups.google.com/group/uk.sc...m/thread/f7644... This is from the NEIC: 5.5 Magnitude earthquake at 23:21 on 8th May 2008. !8 hours since the last one, therefore a storm brewing maybe. It is certainly heading that way. From NEIC, based on the ~1500 M5+ earthquakes per year, there are about 480 M5.5+ earthquakes per year, or about 1 every 18 hours. (There have been 43 5.5 or larger quakes in the last 30 days.) Harold -- Harold Brooks It would now seem as if a complex low pressure at 55N 30W is being used to predict a major volcanic eruption anywhere in the world. But, why the Northern Atlantic? There are plenty of vigorous areas of low pressure in the Southern Ocean between Antarctic and S. America, S. Africa, New Zealand etc. Are these never able to contribute to earthquakes/volcanoes? Or is this an "upmarket, decadent, Western standard of living" theory? |
12:18
On May 9, 6:47 pm, Harold Brooks wrote:
In article cff8a1a5-f7fd-4656-8bee-f80f10f37ca8 @x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com, says... This is from the NEIC: 5.5 Magnitude earthquake at 23:21 on 8th May 2008. !8 hours since the last one, therefore a storm brewing maybe. It is certainly heading that way. From NEIC, based on the ~1500 M5+ earthquakes per year, there are about 480 M5.5+ earthquakes per year, or about 1 every 18 hours. (There have been 43 5.5 or larger quakes in the last 30 days.) What did you make of the facts I pointed out to you earlier? A series of years with less than 8 quakes of 7 M and over per annum. As for the lower magnitude quakes there does seem to be a relationship between mascons, high pressure areas and said quakes. If you look at the world list of quakes greater than 2 M., the relationship is even more striking. Please don't make the mistake that some of the dunces on uk.sci.weather tend to make, that I am insisting one is the cause of the other. My take on the matter is more in the nature of harmonics that might be engendered in the three body problem, where the orbit perturbations cause a lapse in the system. A sphere of several billion tons, moving at thousands of miles an hour must have a special problem dealing with inertia. Consider what might happen with a gyro-compass were it 2 thousand miles wide and on an armature 1/4 million miles long. The mere orbit of the moon is impossibly complex. On top of that, It has huge mass-concentrations the like of which make earth's mascons -which as yet are still to be explored; pale into insignificance. Which in turn means that the ideas I have put forward should not be ruled out without some consideration. May I take it that you would agree that all the earth's weather in intimately interlinked? Logically then, a shower in North Wales affects the wind in Barra. Which is only a small step away from my claim that a severe storm in the Philippines can affect the weather here in Britain. It is axiomatic that floods in Britain following long spells of wet weather here coincide with reports of forest fires in the arid climes of North America. You have noticed that? Did you know that the mascon we call the Mid Atlantic Ridge runs friction a close second in the cause of the failure of man made satellites? When I first started looking at these things, one of the first put downs I received was that there are some 3 million earthquakes each year. I don't know what parameters the person was using, some quote from a TV show I imagine. But that merely means they are as common as waves on the sea shore. 30 million seconds in a year; one wave hitting every shore in ten of those -every ten of those; on average... And the waves are intimately linked to the weather are they not? OK, that is a non sequitur. Merely saying such and such is caused by so and so does not prove anything. Saying silly things about a fellow poster for instance, instead of reasoning with him, is not the way to prove him wrong, even if he says he agrees with you that he is a kook for example, it merely shows a paucity of respect for both people and for science. Ah well, I have said my piece. One thing I have learned whilst airing my views is that it is a thankless task trying to disabuse an expert of his fallacies. Believe what you like. Stay in the dark. Be the master of the cul-de- sac. Much good may it do you. It would be a shame to wake some people. Or: It's 21 hours now since the last one: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/eqcenter/...quakes_big.php Stop thinking in terms of averages and do the actual observations. And while you are at it, ponder on the weight of the moon. 3.5 x 1 Kilo per litre. What is that for a spheroid some 3.5 million metres across? A lot. And it doesn't roll around the earth on averages. Please do not berate me with statistics in future. They all add up to proof positive for my argument not yours. I hope you realise that I am paying you a compliment in writing to you of these things. I wouldn't even consider it were your name Dawlish or that other plonker. |
12:18
On May 9, 8:41 pm, Weatherlawyer wrote:
It's 21 hours now since the last one: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/eqcenter/...quakes_big.php And Rammasun is at hurricane force. It is slated to become a cat. 2. Coincidence? Perhaps. If you care to look, you will find plenty of them. |
12:18
On May 9, 8:52 pm, Weatherlawyer wrote:
On May 9, 8:41 pm, Weatherlawyer wrote: It's 21 hours now since the last one: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/eqcenter/...quakes_big.php And Rammasun is at hurricane force. It is slated to become a cat. 2. Coincidence? Perhaps. If you care to look, you will find plenty of them. And here is another one: https://www.fnmoc.navy.mil/efs/cgi-b...ntic%20Bas in) Pay attention to Friday 12 Z 9th May through to Monday 00 Z 12th May 2008. When a couple of coincidents point to me being right, does it make you think? |
12:18
In article abadbb16-3d4a-4d3a-982c-2e9ffe16d985
@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com, says... On May 9, 6:47 pm, Harold Brooks wrote: In article cff8a1a5-f7fd-4656-8bee-f80f10f37ca8 @x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com, says... This is from the NEIC: 5.5 Magnitude earthquake at 23:21 on 8th May 2008. !8 hours since the last one, therefore a storm brewing maybe. It is certainly heading that way. From NEIC, based on the ~1500 M5+ earthquakes per year, there are about 480 M5.5+ earthquakes per year, or about 1 every 18 hours. (There have been 43 5.5 or larger quakes in the last 30 days.) What did you make of the facts I pointed out to you earlier? A series of years with less than 8 quakes of 7 M and over per annum. I made of it that you didn't know how to do the search on the NEIC website. The NOAA catalog of significant earthquakes, which is what you searched, has less than half of the earthquakes that the NEIC database has. For 1990-2, from your search, NOAA had 9, 6, and 13, respectively. Searching the NEIC database gives 18, 18, and 24. If you had looked at "USGS/NEIC (PDE) 1973 - Present", instead of "Significant Worldwide Earthquakes (2150 B.C. - 1994 A.D.)", you'd have gotten a very different answer. Harold -- Harold Brooks |
12:18
On May 9, 10:34 pm, Harold Brooks wrote:
In article abadbb16-3d4a-4d3a-982c-2e9ffe16d985 @k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com, says... This is from the NEIC: 5.5 Magnitude earthquake at 23:21 on 8th May 2008. 18 hours since the last one, therefore a storm brewing maybe. It is certainly heading that way. From NEIC, based on the ~1500 M5+ earthquakes per year, there are about 480 M5.5+ earthquakes per year, or about 1 every 18 hours. (There have been 43 5.5 or larger quakes in the last 30 days.) What did you make of the facts I pointed out to you earlier? A series of years with less than 8 quakes of 7 M and over per annum. I made of it that you didn't know how to do the search on the NEIC website. The NOAA catalog of significant earthquakes, which is what you searched, has less than half of the earthquakes that the NEIC database has. For 1990-2, from your search, NOAA had 9, 6, and 13, respectively. Searching the NEIC database gives 18, 18, and 24. If you had looked at "USGS/NEIC (PDE) 1973 - Present", instead of "Significant Worldwide Earthquakes (2150 B.C. - 1994 A.D.)", you'd have gotten a very different answer. This was a NOAA site? NEIC: Earthquake Search Results U. S. G E O L O G I C A L S U R V E Y E A R T H Q U A K E D A T A B A S E FILE CREATED: Fri May 9 10:00:11 2008 Global Search Earthquakes= 12 Catalog Used: NOAA Date Range: Year: 1971 - 1971 Month: 01/Day: 01 Month: 12/ Day: 31 Magnitude Range: 7.0 - 10.0 Data Selection: Significant Earthquakes World Wide (NOAA) CAT YEAR MO DA ORIG TIME LAT LONG DEP MAGNITUDE IEFM DTSVNWG DIST NFPO km TFS NOAA 1971 01 10 0717 -3.20 139.70 34 8.10 MsNOAA 9D.. ....... NOAA 1971 02 04 1533 0.50 98.70 40 7.10 MsNOAA 9D.. ....... NOAA 1971 05 22 1643 38.80 40.50 3 7.00 MsNOAA .C.. ....... NOAA 1971 06 17 21 -25.40 -69.40 76 7.00 MsNOAA 5C.. ....... NOAA 1971 07 09 0303 -32.50 -71.30 58 7.50 MsNOAA 9C.. .T..... NOAA 1971 07 14 0611 -5.50 153.90 47 7.90 MsNOAA 7C.. .T..... NOAA 1971 07 26 0123 -4.90 153.20 43 7.90 MsNOAA 6D.. .T..... NOAA 1971 07 27 0203 -2.70 -77.40 135 7.50 MsNOAA 7C.. ....... NOAA 1971 09 05 1835 46.80 141.20 9 7.70 MsNOAA 9D.. .T..... NOAA 1971 10 27 1758 -15.60 167.20 49 7.10 MsNOAA 7C.. ....... NOAA 1971 11 24 1935 52.90 159.20 106 7.50 MsNOAA .... ....... NOAA 1971 12 15 0829 55.90 163.40 30 7.80 MsNOAA XF.. ....... Why would the NEIC be using a NOAA database if it were in error? I was wondering, too, why the National oceans and Atmosphere people were storing seismic tables. It turns out they are chargeds with the responsibility of storing most of the USA's geophysics data: "Welcome to the World Data Center for Solid Earth Geophysics, Boulder. The WDC for SEG is maintained by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), National Geophysical Data Center (NGDC) in Boulder, Colorado. The WDC SEG maintains extensive data and documentation compilations in a number of geophysical and environmental disciplines, including historic tsunamis, significant earthquakes, Earth magnetism, paleomagnetism, topography, gravity, and ecosystems. Data come from surface, aircraft and satellite platforms. See our list of datasets held by the WDC for SEG." http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/geomag/wdc/ It's not my problem whatever you think. Here is the search from a different catalogue: Global CMT Catalog Search criteria: Start date: 1976/1/1 End date: 1977/1/1 -90 =lat= 90 -180 =lon= 180 0 =depth= 1000 -9999 =time shift= 9999 0 =mb= 10 0=Ms= 10 7=Mw= 10 0 =tension plunge= 90 0 =null plunge= 90 Results 010176A KERMADEC ISLANDS REGION Date: 1976/ 1/ 1 Centroid Time: 1:29:53.4 GMT Lat= -29.25 Lon=-176.96 Depth= 47.8 Half duration= 9.4 Centroid time minus hypocenter time: 13.8 Moment Tensor: Expo=26 7.680 0.090 -7.770 1.390 4.520 -3.260 Mw = 7.3 mb = 6.2 Ms = 0.0 Scalar Moment = 9.56e+26 Fault plane: strike=202 dip=30 slip=93 Fault plane: strike=18 dip=60 slip=88 011476A KERMADEC ISLANDS Date: 1976/ 1/14 Centroid Time: 15:56: 7.5 GMT Lat= -29.69 Lon=-177.04 Depth= 46.7 Half duration=20.0 Centroid time minus hypocenter time: 32.6 Moment Tensor: Expo=27 4.780 -0.490 -4.300 0.830 3.620 -1.320 Mw = 7.8 mb = 6.3 Ms = 0.0 Scalar Moment = 6.02e+27 Fault plane: strike=200 dip=26 slip=95 Fault plane: strike=15 dip=64 slip=88 011476B KERMADEC ISLANDS REGION Date: 1976/ 1/14 Centroid Time: 16:47:44.8 GMT Lat= -28.72 Lon=-176.75 Depth= 17.7 Half duration=20.5 Centroid time minus hypocenter time: 11.3 Moment Tensor: Expo=27 2.560 0.180 -2.740 3.580 6.770 -1.230 Mw = 7.9 mb = 6.5 Ms = 8.0 Scalar Moment = 8.18e+27 Fault plane: strike=189 dip=11 slip=71 Fault plane: strike=28 dip=80 slip=93 012176A KURIL ISLANDS Date: 1976/ 1/21 Centroid Time: 10: 5:33.6 GMT Lat= 44.58 Lon= 149.49 Depth= 26.5 Half duration= 9.3 Centroid time minus hypocenter time: 9.5 Moment Tensor: Expo=26 3.210 -1.490 -1.720 2.870 5.330 -1.840 Mw = 7.2 mb = 6.3 Ms = 7.0 Scalar Moment = 6.91e+26 Fault plane: strike=237 dip=16 slip=116 Fault plane: strike=30 dip=76 slip=83 020476A GUATEMALA Date: 1976/ 2/ 4 Centroid Time: 9: 1: 7.2 GMT Lat= 15.14 Lon= -89.78 Depth= 16.3 Half duration=13.8 Centroid time minus hypocenter time: 23.8 Moment Tensor: Expo=27 -0.350 -0.780 1.120 0.380 -0.470 1.670 Mw = 7.5 mb = 6.2 Ms = 7.5 Scalar Moment = 2.04e+27 Fault plane: strike=254 dip=73 slip=-10 Fault plane: strike=347 dip=80 slip=-162 032476A KERMADEC ISLANDS Date: 1976/ 3/24 Centroid Time: 4:46:16.4 GMT Lat= -29.99 Lon=-177.51 Depth= 54.1 Half duration= 8.1 Centroid time minus hypocenter time: 12.0 Moment Tensor: Expo=26 3.670 0.120 -3.780 0.070 1.780 -1.410 Mw = 7.0 mb = 6.4 Ms = 6.8 Scalar Moment = 4.34e+26 Fault plane: strike=206 dip=34 slip=103 Fault plane: strike=11 dip=57 slip=81 050576A KERMADEC ISLANDS Date: 1976/ 5/ 5 Centroid Time: 4:52: 2.6 GMT Lat= -29.84 Lon=-177.43 Depth= 41.8 Half duration= 7.9 Centroid time minus hypocenter time: 11.6 Moment Tensor: Expo=26 3.630 0.040 -3.660 0.150 1.800 -1.750 Mw = 7.0 mb = 6.2 Ms = 6.8 Scalar Moment = 4.39e+26 Fault plane: strike=211 dip=34 slip=105 Fault plane: strike=13 dip=57 slip=80 060376A NEW IRELAND REGION Date: 1976/ 6/ 3 Centroid Time: 16:44:53.1 GMT Lat= -4.75 Lon= 153.47 Depth= 85.9 Half duration= 8.7 Centroid time minus hypocenter time: 14.3 Moment Tensor: Expo=26 5.110 -1.330 -3.780 -1.270 2.650 2.710 Mw = 7.1 mb = 6.2 Ms = 0.0 Scalar Moment = 6.08e+26 Fault plane: strike=143 dip=31 slip=83 Fault plane: strike=331 dip=59 slip=94 062076A NORTHERN SUMATERA Date: 1976/ 6/20 Centroid Time: 20:53:23.5 GMT Lat= 3.18 Lon= 96.24 Depth= 19.1 Half duration= 7.5 Centroid time minus hypocenter time: 10.1 Moment Tensor: Expo=26 2.430 -0.020 -2.410 1.120 -1.680 1.840 Mw = 7.0 mb = 6.3 Ms = 7.0 Scalar Moment = 3.55e+26 Fault plane: strike=338 dip=28 slip=99 Fault plane: strike=147 dip=62 slip=85 http://www.globalcmt.org/cgi-bin/glo...upe2=90&list=0 Perhaps you would care to put me right and give me a link to a search of a catalogue more to your tastes? Maybe include the parameters? I can't seem to find the details in your previous posts. A bit dense I know, so what am I going to do? |
12:18
* catalog=ANSS
* start_time=1990/01/01,00:00:00 * end_time=1991/01/01,00:00:00 * minimum_latitude=-90 * maximum_latitude=90 * minimum_longitude=-180 * maximum_longitude=180 * minimum_magnitude=7.0 * maximum_magnitude=10 * event_type=E Date Time Lat Lon Depth Mag Nst Gap Clo RMS SRC ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1990/03/03 12:16:27.96 -22.12 175.16 33.20 7.40 322 1.32 NEI 1990/03/05 16:38:12.57 -18.32 168.06 20.70 7.00 335 1.24 NEI 1990/05/30 10:40:06.14 45.84 26.67 89.30 7.10 648 1.03 NEI http://www.ncedc.org/cgi-bin/catalog-search2.pl |
12:18
On May 9, 9:26 pm, Weatherlawyer wrote:
On May 9, 8:52 pm, Weatherlawyer wrote: On May 9, 8:41 pm, Weatherlawyer wrote: It's 21 hours now since the last one: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/eqcenter/...quakes_big.php And Rammasun is at hurricane force. It is slated to become a cat. 2. Coincidence? Perhaps. If you care to look, you will find plenty of them. When a couple of coincidents point to me being right, does it make you think? A 6.7 and smack on time too. You know what? I am bloody good I am. 2008/05/09. 21:51. Guam region. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 11:01 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 WeatherBanter.co.uk