Re: WeatherAction forecast issued 16OCT2007: overall review [Long] - more comment

On Nov 29, 11:21 pm, Weatherlawyer <Weatherlaw...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Nov 29, 6:37 pm, Richard Dixon <rdngem...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Seismological / meteorological links, anyone?

If you really want to take me apart, I can give you a mess of data to
do it with. I did intend to collate it and probably will one day. But
at the moment I have no idea how a database works.

I don't know if you have followed anything I have said but assume you
paid no attention to most of it and were swayed by an innate ability
to think negative thoughts about the rest. However if I get around to
it in time, I will restate my ideas on my ideas once more.

Of course since I am learning a lot with every event I pay attention
to most of what I said in the past is outdated. Most of the major
tenets are still intact though. These are:

1. Earthquakes and storms come from the same cause.

2. I base my ideas on the time or times of the lunar phases not on the
solar stuff Piers Corbyn may or may not use.

3. When there is a very large tropical or subtropical cyclone it
subverts my forecasts.

4. Global weather models tend to account for the behaviour of sub/
tropical/storms but fail to account for the energy from the original
source being used for seismic activity.

5. When these weather models are uncertain or in disagreement, there
is usually a large earthquake about to occur.

6. When my forecasts go wrong, there is either an earthquake or a
tropical cyclone due.

7. A tropical cyclone can subvert my forecast by a factor that can be
calculated according to the Saffir Simpson scale.

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.
.

Quantcast