On Monday, 29 August 2016 17:58:35 UTC+1, Weatherlawyer wrote:
On Monday, 29 August 2016 08:29:05 UTC+1, wrote:
On Monday, 29 August 2016 06:56:51 UTC+1, Weatherlawyer wrote:
On Friday, 26 August 2016 16:09:04 UTC+1, Weatherlawyer wrote:
On Friday, 26 August 2016 03:19:21 UTC+1, Weatherlawyer wrote:

Another one if the signal for the 27th holds. This should be a Mag Seven but with a functioning eruption in the background it is a new one on me. It looks like we will have lost the tropical storms by then (mostly.)

The following day (the 29th) will be a revelation.

Bet you are wondering how I know that?
You won't find it with statistics!
Cluetip:
Far from it.

Statistics are for losers.

2016/08/29 04:29 0.04 S. 17.83 W. M 7.1. North of Ascension Island But you were waiting for this were you not?

So there we are.

Some of us have followed the full thread and some of us relied on stooooooooopid for out information. What you take form this is what you always wanted. Big deal. This stuff is easy and the thing is that it always has been. Nobody ever had to be taken by surprise by any of the ways that god designed this system. Not in the last 60 centuries, at least.

Yes. Didn't happen on the 27th, did it, after you'd said, several times, that it would? On that date, very clearly as everything was apparently lined up for it. There is an earthquake of this magnitude on average 13 times per year and this is the second time, at least, (I think it is actually more), that you've tried to predict this in the last month.

All you have done is shown, quite clearly, that you cannot predict earthquakes, (or anything else, for that matter) by your 'methods'.

On the plus side, no-one else can predict earthquakes with any accuracy, so welcome to the same boat as the rest of science.

PS Why am I even talking about this on a weather newsgroup?

PPS 1/18 = idiot.

Yes, That's typical of your response when your views are challenged. I'll repeat, as this forecast was clearly incorrect, but it is beyond you to admit it, as it always is and instead, you resort to abuse, your only other way out. You always do:

'Didn't happen on the 27th, did it, after you'd said, several times, that it would? On that date, very clearly as everything was apparently lined up for it. There is an earthquake of this magnitude on average 13 times per year and this is the second time, at least, (I think it is actually more), that you've tried to predict this in the last month.

All you have done is shown, quite clearly, that you cannot predict earthquakes, (or anything else, for that matter) by your 'methods'.

On the plus side, no-one else can predict earthquakes with any accuracy, so welcome to the same boat as the rest of science. '