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 - from my layman's point of
view. Extra-tropical storms are formed by interactions of the upper
air with surface baroclinicity (temperature gradients). You really
need both in existence for the deepest "common-or-garden" storms.
Hurricanes form where sea surface temperatures are warmest and the
atmosphere is unstable to convection and there is little vertical
shear. Struggling to find any link here with earthquake formation.

I had been thinking exactly the same. A further point to bear in mind
is that earthquakes occur nearly constantly around the world with most
of them (90%, and 81% of the largest) 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.

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

- Northwest Pacific
- South Indian
- Northeast Pacific
- North Atlantic
- Australia Southwest Pacific
- North Indian

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

--
Mike LONGWORTH, Yateley, Hampshire, UK

On Nov 30, 4:40 pm, Malcolm wrote:
In article
,
Weatherlawyer writesOn Nov 29, 11:39 pm, Weatherlawyer wrote:

8. I am full of ****, so you either walk away from this or look at it
impartially. The alternative is for me to react rather badly all over
you if I get any wrong impressions.

9. Another synergy occurs when tow or more similar lunar phases run
together.

Eh?

We've only one moon which has four phases which follow each other in an
ordered fashion. How can two of them "run together"?

He is a barking mad net kook - no rational conversation is possible.
He doesn't understand tides.

11. On several occasions a run of lunar phases at similar times have
been followed by one or two different ones in a sequence that
repeated.

I'm beginning to think that you are using the phrase "lunar phase" to
mean something other than full, last quarter, new, first quarter. If you
are, perhaps you could enlighten us.

I suspect he is hopelessly confused by the moons elliptical orbit and
the fact that as the Earth goes around the sun it is possible to get
full moons of various sizes +/-5% depending on whether the moon is
near apogee or perigee.

http://www.fourmilab.ch/earthview/moon_ap_per.html

The lunar tidal effects are strongest when it is at its closest
(perigee), but AFAIK noone has ever managed to demonstrate any
meaningful statistical correlation between either lunar distance or
visible illuminated phase and frequency of earthquakes. Many have
tried and failed. The Japanese are understandably very keen on
earthquake prediction.

Fourmilab have a nice online lunar calculator that can show you the
range and also phase.

http://www.fourmilab.ch/earthview/pacalc.html

In the very weakest sense you can get minor weather induced
earthquakes when persistent rain waterlogs weak clay soils in steep
valleys causing it to suddenly fluidise and fall under gravity. It is
just about conceivable that water ingress into rock faults or weak
strata during extensive flooding or monsoon rains might help lubricate
a slip releasing stored energy.

Regards,
Martin Brown

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.

On 30 Nov, 19:36, Weatherlawyer wrote:


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.

Maybe you could explain why you mainly talk about weather on the
seismology newsgroup, and seismology on the weather newsgroup.

Then, when someone asks a perfectly sensible question about your
methods and/or statistics that prove your theories, you disappear into
'vague naivety' mode which I can only assume is calculated to enable
you to reverse out of the hole you have dug for yourself, while
everyone else is still confused.

wrote in message
...
On 30 Nov, 19:36, Weatherlawyer wrote:


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.


Who do you think you are? God? The Special One? LOL :-)

Will
--

On Dec 1, 1:57 pm, Malcolm wrote:
In article , Will Hand
writes

wrote in message
...
On 30 Nov, 19:36, Weatherlawyer wrote:

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.

Who do you think you are? God? The Special One? LOL :-)

Whoever he thinks he is, that's a wonderfully mixed ornithological
metaphor!

Troglodytes are people who live in holes, hence the scientific name of
the wren, which makes a spherical nest often in a nook or cranny, is
Troglodytes troglodytes. An eyrie is the name given to a nest of, e.g.,
an eagle, placed high up, e.g., in a tree or on a cliff ledge.

You mean you really can't see it?
Well there's a surprise!

On Dec 2, 7:41 am, Malcolm wrote:
In article
,
Weatherlawyer writes

On Dec 1, 1:57 pm, Malcolm wrote:
In article , Will Hand
writes

wrote in message
...
On 30 Nov, 19:36, Weatherlawyer wrote:

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.

Who do you think you are? God? The Special One? LOL :-)

Whoever he thinks he is, that's a wonderfully mixed ornithological
metaphor!

Troglodytes are people who live in holes, hence the scientific name of
the wren, which makes a spherical nest often in a nook or cranny, is
Troglodytes troglodytes. An eyrie is the name given to a nest of, e.g.,
an eagle, placed high up, e.g., in a tree or on a cliff ledge.

You mean you really can't see it?
Well there's a surprise!

All I can see is someone rather muddled in their thinking - or at least
in their writing about their thinking. Care to have another go at
explaining what you were trying to say when you kept mentioning "lunar
phases"?

Care to make with the shekels?

On 30 Nov, 19:36, Weatherlawyer wrote:

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.

Yes but where we have jetstreams (and their associated vertical
circulations where there are jet maxima), these can interact with
strong regions of baroclinicity (i.e. temperature gradients i.e. the
polar front) - and form low pressure systems. There's lots of
textbooks with all this in - dare say that Martin's FAQ contains some
stuff.

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?

By the fact that you put earthquakes side by side with storms. OK -
maybe I got that bit wrong, but you consistently think the two are
linked. I don't and cannot believe that they are.

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.

Define "weather", please !! Are you talking common or garden sunny
weather or just bad weather. Or are you just being deliberately hand-
wavy?!

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.)

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.)

Do you wonder why you get so many people's backs up?! Maybe if you
entered into reasoned, polite discussion you might get more people
interested in your theories.

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

I think I give up, I don't understand a word of what you've written.
Tides, multiple earthquakes, and their link to "weather". Help! I'm
clearly not in your intelligence bracket and you're clearly right even
though none of us have realised it, and I'm wasting my time here. I
bid you good luck in getting anyone to jump on board your slightly
bizarre bandwagon.

Richard

On Dec 3, 10:40 am, Richard Dixon wrote:
On 30 Nov, 19:36, Weatherlawyer wrote:

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.

Yes but where we have jetstreams (and their associated vertical
circulations where there are jet maxima), these can interact with
strong regions of baroclinicity (i.e. temperature gradients i.e. the
polar front) - and form low pressure systems. There's lots of
textbooks with all this in - dare say that Martin's FAQ contains some
stuff.

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?

By the fact that you put earthquakes side by side with storms. OK -
maybe I got that bit wrong, but you consistently think the two are
linked. I don't and cannot believe that they are.

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.

Define "weather", please !! Are you talking common or garden sunny
weather or just bad weather. Or are you just being deliberately hand-
wavy?!

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.)
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.)

Do you wonder why you get so many people's backs up?! Maybe if you
entered into reasoned, polite discussion you might get more people
interested in your theories.

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

I think I give up, I don't understand a word of what you've written.
Tides, multiple earthquakes, and their link to "weather". Help! I'm
clearly not in your intelligence bracket and you're clearly right even
though none of us have realised it, and I'm wasting my time here. I
bid you good luck in getting anyone to jump on board your slightly
bizarre bandwagon.

If I was paid shekels instead of heckles I might even bother.

Goodbye.
Don't forget to kill-file me in Google-mail as well as my Hotmail
accounts.

On 3 Dec, 11:41, Weatherlawyer wrote:

If I was paid shekels instead of heckles I might even bother.

Run away then, child.

Richard