It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by kdog1982
Ok,I'm back and here is what I got.
They predicted the quake for Japan,but called it off in January 2011.
The premature termination of TIP in the 2011a Update of the Global Test of M8-MSc predictions happen to be due to the function Z1 (an inverse of the Zhurkov criterion, which is linear concentration of ruptures) anomaly threshold change from 2407 to 2440 bringing the voting scores from the required (and factual in the 2010b Update) 4:6/4:6 down to 4:6/4:5... A reasonable man would not even notice this change in one of the seven graphs involved in TIP diagnosis, while the prefixed in 1992 "black box" version of the M8 algorithm does.
Abbreviation: TIP, time of increased probability of a strong earthquake (an alarm).
Although the M8-MSc predictions are intermediate-term middle-range and by no means imply any "red alert", some colleagues have expressed a legitimate concern about maintaining necessary confidentiality. Therefore, the up-to-date predictions are not easily accessed, although available on the web-pages of restricted access provided to about 150 members of the Mailing List.
They may know something,but are not to alert the public.
And notice this link where access is restricted
edit on 12-9-2011 by kdog1982 because: (no reason given)
Now,I have downloaded this power point presentation on how all this works,trying to figure out how to upload it.
I got it from this link.
the file is e2c2@Comorova.ppt. It goes into great detail and how the have had alot of success predicting earthquake.
edit on 12-9-2011 by kdog1982 because: (no reason given)edit on 12-9-2011 by kdog1982 because: (no reason given)edit on 12-9-2011 by kdog1982 because: (no reason given)
You asked [earlier] about “the next big one” in California. By existing regulations the newly issued alarms should be distributed only among professional community, lest they trigger disruptive anxiety of population, profiteering and crime. Their further release is at the discretion of public safety authorities; leaks do occur. Our web sites open to public each alarm after it expires, whether it proved correct or false. This information is important as quality control both for predictions and disaster preparedness.
He said parallels could be drawn between what happened in L'Aquila and elsewhere in the world, such as Japan. "We all have to work on new, and more clear, protocols, on the transfer of information," he said.
After that meeting some members of the commission made reassuring statements to the press.
"Despite decades of scientific research in Italy and in the rest of the world, it is not yet possible to accurately and consistently predict the timing, location, and magnitude of earthquakes before they occur," the AGU statement said.
"It is thus incorrect to assume that the L'Aquila earthquake should have been predicted. The charges may also harm international efforts to understand natural disasters and mitigate associated risk, because risk of litigation will discourage scientists and officials from advising their government or even working in the field of seismology and seismic risk assessment."
Originally posted by Robin Marks
Dear T Middlebrook,
Could you please answer this following question? And could you be as specific as possible? I'm only do as you've asked, to remain skeptical.
Why did you start your writings on the Arkansas thread?