View Article & Comments
view the latest news articles
Saturday, May 26th 2012, 12:32 PM EDT
Above image taken from
earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/map/
The location of the Norwegian Sea took the top Earthquake location of M6.2 for the Piers CorbynR5 period 23rd - 25th May, and for the second time in two Solar Climate Change attempts from the Sun to Earth, the Earth surface remained relatively stable in May, and there lies a flaw in this forecasting process.
It is only in periods when the Earth is less stable there will be higher Earthquake recordings and trying to predict another Japan Earthquake type event of M8.9 would also need knowledge of the condition of the Earth tectonic structure, something that is and maybe will never be known.
So far out of the 7 M6+ recordings in May, 5 were recorded inside the R4 and R5 period and 1 within a R3 period.
Although this month is not completely over I think the Piers Corbyn "Red Warning Trial" for Solar Lunar effects on the Earth should be standardized from June so we look at M6+ as being significant rather then M6.5+ or M7+.
Article continues below this advert:
From the original brief I had on this with Piers last year the objective of this "trial" was to see whether there are noticeable changes on the Earth tectonic plate structure due to changes in Sun's Solar output along with the Lunar influence.
Since the "trial" started in April 2011, it has been noticeable that simply using R4+ rather then R3 returned a higher yield of M6+, so with this in mind from June the "trial" will be simplified.
The "trial" was never designed to be a challenge for Piers to guess a M7+ but to find a useful level to monitor the influence of the Piers Corbyn "Solar Lunar" method in advance. The fact is there is a noticeable correlation of R4+ and M6+. Although we have had a few months of higher successful recordings, it would seem Piers is making "rod for his back" in making the "trial" far more difficult then necessary.
This month in particular harvested 5 out of the 7 M6+ inside the 3x R4+ periods, a significant result when you consider that there are huge investments involved in research that as of yet have not been put forward to the public in the same way that Piers has demonstrated.
Well done Piers for the May Earthquake results.
Now what else can I find for this R5 period.
There was a couple of Volcano Eruptions and we also recorded the FIRST named Hurricane and Typhoon. These were, as far as the "trial" criteria, was a HIT. Hurricane "Bud" was good example in that it powered up and went down within the period and thats the sort of effect solar activity has on storms
Other storms were recorded during 23rd - 25th May.
That is not to say each time there is a storm its from Solar activity, what we need to find is a "supercell" type storm, and then record how many fall inside a R4+ period, just like the Earthquake recordings, we need to show if there are more that fall inside the R4+ periods.
This is a new field of "climate science" and who is to say Piers is correct with this work. If any of you can be objective in the "Solar Lunar" forecast results please drop Piers or me a line in the comments section below.
Comments section below this advert:
Comments
Have Your Say
9 comments found
showing page 1 of 1
« previous 1 next »
Tweet Article
Post to Facebook
Print Article
It is only in periods when the Earth is less stable there will be higher Earthquake recordings and trying to predict another Japan Earthquake type event of M8.9 would also need knowledge of the condition of the Earth tectonic structure
Undoubtedly if solar activity is having an effect it is as a trigger to seismically 'ready' set ups.
something that is and maybe will never be known.
Many active areas are closely monitored and potential for activity is often known, timings very much less so.
Just using R4 is a good idea, it would give a smaller number of prediction days and help reduce the 'grip' that chance has on the trial at present. Analysing this month so far using a wide window R4 only, does show a slight favour to EQ's falling in the prediction times.
'Powering down of hurricanes.' This is the sort of whacky idea that loses you credibility. Bud was forecast to weaken because of entrainment of dry air that was already present locally. Dry air 'weakens' a hurricane, it doesn't weaken then take on dry air as a consequence.
The other point that I'd like to stress is that this shouldn't be about trying to score points in a debate that is largely irrelevant to the science. Constant sniping about deluded warmists and referring to others as fraudulent, liars, charlatans etc is very unprofessional and is again, a credibility killer in the scientific world and a magnet to conspiracy theorists!