On Jun 12, 8:35*pm, wrote:

Keep it coming, Mr McNeil.....!!

I'm sorry you don't fooly appreciate my gift but here goes:

Earthquake size is expressed by its magnitude.

Magnitudes usually are measured from the amplitude and period of
seismic signals as they arrive and are recorded at a seismic station.
For a given earthquake, the amplitude decreases with increasing
distance (due to attenuation of the signals) and a distance dependent
correction is applied when computing magnitude to result in one
magnitude value for each station.

Earthquake size does not depend on where an earthquake was recorded,
this is contrary to felt effects - the intensity - which decreases
with distance from the earthquake source.

Several methods exist on how to compute magnitude - in principal, all
methods provide the same or a similar value. However, there are
fundamental differences on how these magnitudes are computed
(sometimes resulting differing magnitudes). Here is a short summary,
describing various magnitude types:

ML:
The local magnitude ML is computed for earthquakes, which occurred
relatively close to the recording stations. Typically this is done for
earthquakes within a few hundred kilometers between the earthquake and
the recording station. The first magnitude scale developed 1935 by
Richter (the 'Richter-Magnitude') is such a local magnitude; even
today earthquake size is commonly given as 'Richter-Magnitude'.

mb:
The body-wave magnitude mb is typically recorded for earthquakes that
occurred more than about 2000 kilometers away from the recording
station. It can be computed relatively fast, because its value relies
on the amplitude of the so-called P-phase of an earthquake. P-phases
are waves travelling through the body of the earth's interior and are
the first signal that reaches a seismic station.

For large earthquakes (magnitude larger than 6), mb 'saturates',
meaning that even if the actual size of the earthquake is larger, the
value of mb does not increase any more. In such cases, seismologists
have to rely on other magnitude types.

MS:
The surface wave magnitude MS is measured from surface waves. These
waves travel along the surface of the earth with a velocity much
slower than P-waves travel through the earth. Therefore, one has to
wait a longer time, until these waves arrive at a distant station and
MS cannot be computed as rapidly as mb. Depending on distance, it may
take up to 1 or 2 hours until surface waves arrive, compared to a
maximum of 20 minutes of P-waves.

MS is measured from 20 s period waves (compared to 1 s for mb) and
'saturation' begins only for very large (magnitude larger than 8)
earthquakes. The slow surface wave speed is the reason, why
seismologists cannot distinguish quickly between a strong and very
strong (magnitude 6) earthquake.

Earthquakes close to the earth's surface (say, the upper 30
kilometers) generate large surface waves compared to a same-size
earthquake at larger depth (this has to do with how surface waves are
generated).

Shallow earthquakes are more prone to cause damage than deep ones; a
high MS-value compared to the mb-magnitude thus indicates that strong
damage might have occurred for an earthquake close to a major urban
area.

The ratio between MS- and mb-magnitude is also a good measure to
distinguish earthquakes from (nuclear) explosions. Explosions have a
much smaller source-volume than similar sized earthquakes and
explosions typically cause less shearing motion (which mainly generate
surface waves) than earthquakes.

Explosion MS-values are thus typically much smaller than for an
earthquake of the same size. For shallow seismic events, the mb/MS
ratio is thus a good discriminant (large ratios pointing to an
explosion).

Mw:
The moment magnitude Mw is the only magnitude that is directly related
to the physics at the earthquake source. Mw is derived (based on
theoretical considerations) from the seismic moment M0, which is the
product of the fault area times average displacement at the fault
times material rigidity.

In theory, Mw does not saturate since M0 includes the complete
earthquake rupture.

Several ways exist to determine Mw; often Mw is obtained by fitting
seismic waveforms or spectral amplitudes by scaling synthetic
seismograms to match observed seismogram amplitudes. The procedures
are (a bit) more time consuming than simple seismogram amplitude
measurements (ML, mb, MS) and Mw for larger events globally are
currently available several hours after an earthquake.

M:
Whenever the magnitude type in one of our lists is given as 'M', this
means, that the seismological observatory reporting the specific
magnitude did not specify how the magnitude was computed. Often, these
are magnitude values from the NEIC.

You may assume, that such a magnitude value represents 'their best
effort', and for strong earthquakes such magnitudes often are
magnitudes of the type Mw.

http://www.seismo.ethz.ch/redpuma/magnitudes.html

*******

What this all does not say is that the background noise is 5.5 M
"whatevers" for negative North Pacific and Atlantic anomalies and for
positive anomalies according to the height and depth of the sea level
highs and lows, the likelihood for runs of greater than 6 M. increases
with the contrast of air pressure systems at sea level.

(I have no idea how upper air levels affect the convergence of sub
soil acoustics. No doubt that which accompanies severe storms
accompanies severe earthquakes.)

*******

Some more background:

MAP 5.1 2009/06/12 14:32:56 -17.355 167.637 35.9 Vanuatu
MAP 4.1 2009/06/12 11:42:52 53.090 172.766 15.6 Near
Islands
MAP 6.0 2009/06/12 09:44:20 -17.611 167.748 52.6 Vanuatu
MAP 5.0 2009/06/12 09:24:45 -17.540 167.677 53.6 Vanuatu
MAP 5.0 2009/06/12 08:47:43 -17.491 167.650 53.2 Vanuatu

Having removed everything below 4M. (blasted Alaskan 4.1!!!) we have 4
medium sized quakes showing up consecutively at one place. (OK, I'm
hoping the Alaskan will be marked down, they usually drop a couple of
magnitudes on closer inspection.)

I haven't checked the Atlantic sea level charts but I have no doubt
that there were a sequence of parallel occlusions accompanying one or
two Lows predicted before the Vauatuans occurred.

A pair indicates that the meteorological storms are ended. That is,
there will be no more tornadoes; and three indicates that the storms
extant are ended but that another is due to scale up. 4 of them, on
the other hand, is something quite rare. And it is a pity that that
bloody Aleutian took place when it did to muck things up.

But there you go.

Or not as the case may be.

On Jun 12, 10:04*pm, terry tibbs wrote:
the idiot dawlish is back again spamming us with his crap gfs t+240
betting shop

bugger off will you

Fat chance. He has a psychosis. Just live with it. He has to.

So do his workmates.

Just be thankful he is not an United States of American. Imagine if he
ran for presidunce. They'd all vote for him. Or if he joined their
navy, promote him as vice admiral in charge of counting the spoons at
Pearl Harbour's mess halls.

Well someone has to do something there to cope with all the seamen.

On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 15:22:48 -0700 (PDT), Weatherlawyer
wrote:

On Jun 12, 8:35=A0pm, wrote:

Keep it coming, Mr McNeil.....!!

snip lots of erudite stuff

But there you go.

Or not as the case may be.


You are a tease! I thought you might say that!

Best wishes

Geoff

On Jun 12, 11:32*pm, wrote:
On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 15:22:48 -0700 (PDT), Weatherlawyer

wrote:
On Jun 12, 8:35=A0pm, wrote:

Keep it coming, Mr McNeil.....!!

snip lots of erudite stuff



But there you go.

Or not as the case may be.

You are a tease! I thought you might say that!

Best wishes

Geoff

You have a fan W!

However, again, you've produced a whole load of retrospective stuff
and your "explanations" are just links that you see - they aren't
really there. It's your lack of capability to predict that brings into
question everything about your theory. You can write long posts until
the cows come home justifying your predictions, but the words just
don't add up. Again, you've made a prediction about "strong"
earthquakes around the Isthmus of Panama, mentioning nothing about
Vanuatu in your analysis of this quarter "spell". Look back to the
first post. You can't suddenly begin to justify earthquakes in the
Vanuatu area, simply because they have happened and therefore there
must have been a cause related to your theories. You guessed the wrong
place for the earthquakes.

You think your theories are correct, but the actual outcomes, in terms
of predictions show clearly that they aren't. It's only when someone
looks into these outcomes that your scribblings are revealed as what
they really are.

No prediction accuracy: no use.

On Jun 12, 11:22*pm, Weatherlawyer wrote:

The background noise is 5.5 M "whatevers" for negative North
Pacific and Atlantic anomalies combined.

As there is a certain lack of convergence.
So here is another set of permutations:
A state where both oceans are negative, giving the above results.
(Tornadoes.)
One where the Atlantic is negative and the Pacific is positive (I
think this indicates a surge of Hawaiian volcanic activity.)
Another where the Pacific is negative and the Atlantic is positive.
And one where both oceans are positive. (Lots of convergence above and
below ground.)

For positive anomalies: According to the height and depth of the sea
level pressures, the likelihood for runs of greater than 6 M. increases
with the contrast of air pressure systems at sea level.

5.1 * *2009/06/12 14:33 * * *17.4S. * * * * *167.6N. * * Vanuatu
6.0 * *2009/06/12 09:44 * * *17.6S. * * * * *167.7N. * * Vanuatu
5.0 * *2009/06/12 09:25 * * *17.5S. * * * * *167.7N. * * Vanuatu
5.0 * *2009/06/12 08:48 * * *17.5S. * * * * *167.7N. * * Vanuatu

So this 6.0M. was pushing it.
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/eqcenter/...uakes_all.html

When we have 4 medium sized quakes showing up consecutively
at almost the same location.

It has the same effect as a much larger quake. The weather changes
with very large quakes. Contemporary models and such come
"right" (possibly needing less correction. I wish I could say.)

I haven't checked the Atlantic sea level charts but I have no doubt
that there were a sequence of parallel occlusions accompanying one or
two Lows predicted before the Vauatuans occurred.

Yep!
But only one pair of parallels as far s I know. And that with a 997 mb
Low just west of the UK. I have no doubt* that this Low was some 80
degrees from Vanuatu when the series occurred.

But I have not checked my facts. I'd bet too that in another part of
the ocean or in the N Pacific some 80 degrees from said series there
is the other pair on file.

There is one for midnight on this site:
http://www.wetterzentrale.de/topkarten/fsfaxsem.html
Zeigen for the 13th June

A pair indicates that the meteorological storms are ended. That is,
there will be no more tornadoes; and three indicates that the storms
extant are ended but that another is due to scale up.

4 of them is something quite rare.

Pity this set was flawed. But talking about convergence. They were
some 5 or 6 minutes apart:
*14:33
09:44
09:25
*08:48

If they had all arrived on time it would have been a very large quake.
Contemporary theory has it that magnitudes don't add up in the same
way I'd put them and I don't intend to find out what they consider the
increase would be. It was on line once as that is where I read it.

Anyone except Dawlish wishing to follow it up can do so at their
leisure. I imagine Dawlish would eat his teeth before finding out
anything, even if he knew how.

But I am being unkind to an unfortunate. I should be more generous. He
provides so much entertainment. I hope he doesn't hang himself in his
desponderence one day, when he could be trained with so little effort.

Do they have trains at Exitdoor?
I'm sure they do. Let's hope the driver knows him.

On Jun 13, 8:24*am, Weatherlawyer wrote:
On Jun 12, 11:22*pm, Weatherlawyer wrote:



The background noise is 5.5 M "whatevers" for negative North
Pacific and Atlantic anomalies combined.

As there is a certain lack of convergence.
So here is another set of permutations:
A state where both oceans are negative, giving the above results.
(Tornadoes.)
One where the Atlantic is negative and the Pacific is positive (I
think this indicates a surge of Hawaiian volcanic activity.)
Another where the Pacific is negative and the Atlantic is positive.
And one where both oceans are positive. (Lots of convergence above and
below ground.)

For positive anomalies: According to the height and depth of the sea
level pressures, the likelihood for runs of greater than 6 M. increases
with the contrast of air pressure systems at sea level.

5.1 * *2009/06/12 14:33 * * *17.4S. * * * * *167.6N.. * * Vanuatu
6.0 * *2009/06/12 09:44 * * *17.6S. * * * * *167.7N.. * * Vanuatu
5.0 * *2009/06/12 09:25 * * *17.5S. * * * * *167.7N.. * * Vanuatu
5.0 * *2009/06/12 08:48 * * *17.5S. * * * * *167.7N.. * * Vanuatu

So this 6.0M. was pushing it. http://earthquake.usgs.gov/eqcenter/...uakes_all.html

When we have 4 medium sized quakes showing up consecutively
at almost the same location.

It has the same effect as a much larger quake. The weather changes
with very large quakes. Contemporary models and such come
"right" (possibly needing less correction. I wish I could say.)

I haven't checked the Atlantic sea level charts but I have no doubt
that there were a sequence of parallel occlusions accompanying one or
two Lows predicted before the Vauatuans occurred.

Yep!
But only one pair of parallels as far s I know. And that with a 997 mb
Low just west of the UK. I have no doubt* that this Low was some 80
degrees from Vanuatu when the series occurred.

But I have not checked my facts. I'd bet too that in another part of
the ocean or in the N Pacific some 80 degrees from said series there
is the other pair on file.

There is one for midnight on this site: http://www.wetterzentrale.de/topkarten/fsfaxsem.html
Zeigen for the 13th June

A pair indicates that the meteorological storms are ended. That is,
there will be no more tornadoes; and three indicates that the storms
extant are ended but that another is due to scale up.
4 of them is something quite rare.

Pity this set was flawed. But talking about convergence. They were
some 5 or 6 minutes apart:
*14:33
09:44
09:25
*08:48

If they had all arrived on time it would have been a very large quake.
Contemporary theory has it that magnitudes don't add up in the same
way I'd put them and I don't intend to find out what they consider the
increase would be. It was on line once as that is where I read it.

Anyone except Dawlish wishing to follow it up can do so at their
leisure. I imagine Dawlish would eat his teeth before finding out
anything, even if he knew how.

But I am being unkind to an unfortunate. I should be more generous. He
provides so much entertainment. I hope he doesn't hang himself in his
desponderence one day, when he could be trained with so little effort.

Do they have trains at Exitdoor?
I'm sure they do. Let's hope the driver knows him.

Oh W. All I ask is some confirmation through a few correct forecasts.
If you do that, it will be worth looking into. Without that; why
bother? The abuse shouldn't be necessary, though it is for you when
you are questioned by anyone. It's your pattern.

The phrase; "no forecast accuracy: no use", will continue to haunt
you.

Whenever anyone reads this stuff, just think of that. Until W really
begins to anaylse the accuracy of his forecasts and shows some kind of
statistical evidence that these constant (kind of) forecasts show a
link between the moon, tectonics and weather, the stuff that is being
presented for us is pure fantasy. Entertaining fantasy, perhaps, as
your fan has said, but pure scientific fantasy. True, isn't it?

On Jun 11, 8:00*am, Weatherlawyer wrote:
Rather long and old hat but bear with me:

A phase at midday or midnight indicates a misty cool spell of clam
weather with any winds coming from the north or east.

I love clam weather with a scalloped sky, it warms the cockles of my
heart especially when I can flex my mussels with a quick scampi down
to the shops, or use my oyster card for a trip up west. I may even
play chess outside if I can find enough prawns, but being a shellfish
sod I do get very crabby when I lose.

Every morning a minute pressure difference follows the sun. Presumably
there is one that follows the moon as it is a cold wave at 6 am and
warm one at 9 am. Also presumably this wave occurs at noon and 6 and 9
pm.

I don't know if it can be measured for all the other background
changes but early in the days of admiralty log books providing the
weather data that people like FitZroy tried to work with, a certain
mid Atlantic island governor studied the phenomenon and deduced such a
wave from statistical analysis.

A small step from that is looking at the Atlantic chart every 6 hours
and watching these small pressure waves build up. I don't pretend to
know their cause but you really can see Low pressure regions develop
as these things converge.

This is what I mean when I use the term. I have no real idea what the
more knowledgeable understand about it. Nor do I care over-much.
Likewise when a series of waves sound waves reach a certain point
under the earth where they can meet and reinforce other sets of waves
arriving there from different directions, the peaks and troughs
produced have a frequency of their own.

Sometimes these are barely noticeable. Sometimes they peak as small
tremors, sometimes as larger ones and sometimes as catastrophic
earthquakes.

And the weather changes.

Permutations of these effects are tornadoes, volcanic eruptions and
above cloud lightning. Too little is known and almost nothing is
reported on the latter phenomenon to make conjugation with lunar
phases possible.

Since it IS possible to show a relationship between the other stuff
(one only has only to look for a series of the right lunar phases
running consecutively for that.) it is possible to work out what the
weather should be doing when it palpably is not doing what it should.

It doesn't take much experience to form the idea that a run of certain
weather should bring a devastating phenomenon. Since these usually
occur at the end of the run the time to watch out for them is towards
the end of the last of the similar phases.

Although the present run, now ending has been a wet spell or series of
spells, the type of wet spells has differed one from the other. But we
should still be able to see something interesting as the next phase
takes hold on the earth.

The 29th of June 2009, should be an interesting distraction as it
breaks the spell temporarily:

29 JUNE 11:28 A spell of fine weather with ridges dominating part of
the spell.
7 JULY 09:21 An unstable thundery spell of the sort that didn't
produce much thunder IIRC from the 25th April.
15 JULY 09: 53 And this one is some 30 minutes different from the last
which is quite a near miss for lunar phases which are seldom that
obliging in producing matches.

I think even smallbrain should be able to follow that, and I don't
mean that in the way he usually runs up one's backside after every
post.

On Jun 13, 7:06*pm, Weatherlawyer wrote:
Every morning a minute pressure difference follows the sun. Presumably
there is one that follows the moon as it is a cold wave at 6 am and
warm one at 9 am. Also presumably this wave occurs at noon and 6 and 9
pm.

I don't know if it can be measured for all the other background
changes but early in the days of admiralty log books providing the
weather data that people like FitZroy tried to work with, a certain
mid Atlantic island governor studied the phenomenon and deduced such a
wave from statistical analysis.

A small step from that is looking at the Atlantic chart every 6 hours
and watching these small pressure waves build up. I don't pretend to
know their cause but you really can see Low pressure regions develop
as these things converge.

This is what I mean when I use the term. I have no real idea what the
more knowledgeable understand about it. Nor do I care over-much.
Likewise when a series of waves sound waves reach a certain point
under the earth where they can meet and reinforce other sets of waves
arriving there from different directions, the peaks and troughs
produced have a frequency of their own.

Sometimes these are barely noticeable. Sometimes they peak as small
tremors, sometimes as larger ones and sometimes as catastrophic
earthquakes.

And the weather changes.

Permutations of these effects are tornadoes, volcanic eruptions and
above cloud lightning. Too little is known and almost nothing is
reported on the latter phenomenon to make conjugation with lunar
phases possible.

Since it IS possible to show a relationship between the other stuff
(one only has only to look for a series of the right lunar phases
running consecutively for that.) it is possible to work out what the
weather should be doing when it palpably is not doing what it should.

It doesn't take much experience to form the idea that a run of certain
weather should bring a devastating phenomenon. Since these usually
occur at the end of the run the time to watch out for them is towards
the end of the last of the similar phases.

Although the present run, now ending has been a wet spell or series of
spells, the type of wet spells has differed one from the other. But we
should still be able to see something interesting as the next phase
takes hold on the earth.

The 29th of June 2009, should be an interesting distraction as it
breaks the spell temporarily:

29 JUNE 11:28 A spell of fine weather with ridges dominating part of
the spell.
7 JULY *09:21 An unstable thundery spell of the sort that didn't
produce much thunder IIRC from the 25th April.
15 JULY 09: 53 And this one is some 30 minutes different from the last
which is quite a near miss for lunar phases which are seldom that
obliging in producing matches.

I think even smallbrain should be able to follow that, and I don't
mean that in the way he usually runs up one's backside after every
post.

But W. For the hundredth time. If all this works, why can't you use it
to predict??

On Jun 13, 7:06*pm, Weatherlawyer wrote:


A small step from that is looking at the Atlantic chart every 6 hours
and watching these small pressure waves build up. I don't pretend to
know their cause but you really can see Low pressure regions develop
as these things converge.

This is what I mean when I use the term "convergance".
I have no real idea what the more knowledgeable understand about it.

This is what one source (RA-Aus) says about convergence, divergence
and subsidence:

Atmospheric vertical motion is found in cyclones and anticyclones,
mainly caused by air mass convergence or divergence from horizontal
motion.

Meteorological convergence indicates retardation in air flow with
increase in air mass in a given volume due to net three dimensional
inflow. Meteorological divergence, or negative convergence, indicates
acceleration with decrease in air mass. Convergence is the contraction
and divergence is the spreading of a field of flow."

http://www.auf.asn.au/meteorology/section1b.html

I on the other hand am talking about an increase in the number of low
pressure waves. As they arrive already in combinations that take the
pressure to 990 to 980 millibars they already consist of a number of
wavlets each worth about 2 or 3 millibars decrease in pressure.

They converge off Iceland and Greenland as if waiting the full
pressure capacity required to get them over the Mid Atlantic Ridge.
This has to be some 970 or so minimum IIRC.

When they hit land once more you can see them separating out into
their constituent air masses. Blowing where they list.

The article goes on to describe what happens without explaing why. It
is difficult to see why an air mas floating free of any vessel has to
build up or con~/di~ ~verge:

"If, for example, the front end of moving air mass layer slows down,
the air in the rear will catch up – converge"

How? And more importantly; why?

"The air must move vertically to avoid local compression.

If the lower boundary of the moving air mass is at surface level all
the vertical movement must be upward. If the moving air mass is just
below the tropopause all the vertical movement will be downward
because the tropopause inhibits vertical motion."

How and why?

"If the front end of a moving air mass layer speeds up then the flow
diverges. If the air mass is at the surface then downward motion will
occur above it to satisfy mass conservation principles, if the
divergence is aloft then upward motion takes place.

Rising air must diverge before it reaches the tropopause and sinking
air must diverge before it reaches the surface.

As the surface pressure is the weight per unit area of the overlaying
column of air, and even though divergences in one part of the column
are largely balanced by convergences in another, the slight change in
mass content (thickness) of the over-riding air changes the pressure
at the surface."