On Sunday, 8 December 2013 19:22:21 UTC, Weatherlawyer wrote:
On Sunday, 8 December 2013 08:25:08 UTC, Malcolm wrote:
In article ,

And now you are forecasting "an influx of magnitude 6 earthquakes".
Are you going to be monitoring for these and report back?

You are a very strange man. You have made connections between the
weather and volcanoes and earthquakes, and I, not really understanding
how you link them, have asked you a couple of questions.

Your last comment was that you were expecting "an influx of magnitude 6
earthquakes". I regarded that as a forecast and thought it reasonable
to assume that you would follow up your forecast by monitoring what
actually happened.

It is only a forecast if it fails to come true occasionally. I have never known it to fail.
That is not to say it can't fail so much as I have never seen it do so.

I am sorry that I wa rude to you. I got the impression you were Dawlish and he really irritated me in those days. Now that he is dead and gone, back to America no doubt, his master finding lesser work for him to do once I sacked you all.

I never really bothered reporting on my findings mainly because I didn't want to seem to be counting coup. What benefit would bragging be if I still could not predict where the actual epicentre or volcanic eruption was going to be?

I would just be an empty drum clanging.

Three cyclonic systems [running in a straight line along] the border of Canada and the USA means large earthquakes and or volcanic activity

[and I have lost the gist by what I meant about:] ...and two cyclones mean large medium sized quakes.
[I guess what I meant is that the line was incomplete enough to produce a full house and that a busted flush was only capable of producing a couple of earthquake swarms or somewhere between 5.5 to 6.5 magnitudes. But the term applies as well to anticyclones as it does to cyclones. With too much on my plate to think about I was usually posting from memory and often failed to use the clarity expected of science.]

In my defence, I am as susceptible to the clouds of dis/misinformation as well as suffering dislocation from MKUlta/NexRad events -as are other people my age. In fact more so than some.

The only time the three in a row failed (not counting the one time before I realised the signal for volcanics) there was a really bad tornado event in the USA. The signal for tornadoes did not show up on the Met Office North Atlantic chart but did do so on the US OPC chart. I never looked closely enough at that to spot it.

Your response "Why the hell should I?" suggests either a lack of confidence
or an unwarranted intemperance.

Not unwarranted I assure you. The sci.geo.earthquakes group was alive once with dick heads like nobodies business. But nice guys finish last. Now that I am the last one left, I am starting to change. But it is difficult.

And I really am not cut out to be nice.
It's just not me.
Sorry.

Anyone enjoying my stuff will be following the full thrust of them on
sci.geo.earthquakes.

Thank you

Having just glanced at the last 100 posts to that ng, I see that you are
a prolific poster there, and that you and one other poster accounted for
over 90% of them, while you have also stated that you regard it as your
blog! I also note that you appear to monitor earthquakes, which makes
your initial response, above, even stranger.

Not really. I just lose interest quickly with things that I have established to be true (I never have needed to beat home the truth on anyone's head except Dawlish's obligingly fat one.)

And to be patronising, it seems.

For a lifetime the Meteorologicast industry has been following the teachings of Richardson. It is locked into failure due to the butterfly effect of partial solutions.

I have dropped on the reason that computers err in their calculations. It is a technique which if enlarged to encompass the solar system will restore Newton's place in physics usurped by that fool Einstein.

It is a technique which if applied to other systems will answer much in the other end of the spectrum too -though I have not looked at that in any detail.

So no, I don't lack confidence. Just charm.

There is something very dawlish in your mannerisms and your lack of
manners.
How would I know you are not another one of his fake addresses?

It really isn't difficult to check that my e-mail address has not been
faked.

But if you fail the Turin test, why bother?

More intemperance. Perhaps a few deep breaths or counting to 10 before
responding would help. So also would politeness and some respect for an
enquiring scientist wanting to understand the science behind your claims
and forecasts.

I did not understand them myself back then. (3013 is a long time in geology it was a couple of years before the superquake in Mexico that broke all known records, occurring with Tropical Storms.)

I was pretty convinced by your earlier post that you were the person who mindlessly ploughs on trying to right the wrongs of someone who believes he is right. After that I didn't pay much attention to you. Arguing with a fool makes me look even more foolish than arguing that earthquakes can be forecast.

What is the name for that compulsive psychosis he has?
It's so bloody annoying I can't be bothered with people who respond to his posts.

Concerning earthquakes and plate technology:
It is impossible for material more than 5 miles deep to behave in any acceptable manner that fits with such a theory.

You say you are a scientist. Presumably you are an earth-scientist?

If so you really ought to know that much. You should also have no difficulty realising that antinoise and interference patterns provide a far better explanation for the Mohorivicic Discontinuities called shadow zones, that as far as I know remain unexplained in any other way.

The remainder of my arguments are that the sea level pressure forecast charts for any large enough area will give you ample warning of tornadic activity, earthquake likelihood and the state of volcanic activity world wide generally.

They are also useful for forecasting the weather.