Tsunami Geography, New Bacteria, Quake Stats

First link covers a new study that scientists might be wrong in how they work
out the maximum height of a tsunami.
not a good read if your from japan.

Until now, it was largely believed that the maximum tsunami height onshore could not exceed the depth of the seafloor. But new research shows that when focusing occurs, that scaling relationship breaks down and flooding can be up to 50 percent deeper with waves that do not lose height as they get closer to shore.

"It is as if one used a giant magnifying lens to focus tsunami energy," said Utku Kanoglu, professor at the Middle East Technical University and senior author of the study. "Our results show that some shorelines with huge earthquake zones just offshore face a double whammy: not only they are exposed to the tsunamis, but under certain conditions, focusing amplifies these tsunamis far more than shoaling and produces devastating effects."

phys.org



Next up is the new lake vostok bacteria in antarctica found by russian scientists.
You can take a look at a thread by Senduko on ats or click the link below.

Russian scientists believe they have found a wholly new type of bacteria in the mysterious subglacial Lake Vostok in Antarctica, the RIA Novosti news agency reported on Thursday. The samples obtained from the underground lake in May 2012 contained a bacteria which bore no resemblance to existing types, said Sergei Bulat of the genetics laboratory at the Saint Petersburg Institute of Nuclear Physics.

"After putting aside all possible elements of contamination, DNA was found that did not coincide with any of the well-known types in the global database," he said. "We are calling this life form unclassified and unidentified," he added.

Again from phys.org

The last link covers the tornado threat this month also in the link you can
take a look at other months.



The weather channel

Other links so you can check it out yourself.

RSEO
USG Earthquake Hazards Program
The wind map

reply to post by skuly


S&F Good post.

The thing I find the most fascinating about his news, is his record on the quake watch's he calls. It is about the only time he goes out on a limb. He calls these quake watch's when there is are planetary alignments, in conjunction with a equatorial coronal hole. His theory is that the cronal hole stream impact along with the effects of gravity, make the earth more susceptible to earth quakes. That's my basic understanding anyway.

He deems suscess or failure of a watch on a 6.0 threshold being a majior quake. In the six Months I have been watching his suscess rate is very high.Here's the first 70 days of 2013, as given in the video.

70 days so far 24 quake watch days........46 non watch days . A total of 16 quakes 6.0 or over for the 70 days.

13, 6.0 quakes occured durning the 24 watch days only 3, 6.0 quakes occured durning the 46 non watch days

His record in 2012 is just as good. I will try to find and link it.

reply to post by rockymcgilicutty

Um... Basic probabilities.
He was right 13 out of 24 tries. That's assuming there was one quake on each of alert days hits. Were there? Or does that 13 include more than one quake on an alert day? How many days was he right about?

Try flipping a coin 24 times. You might do better.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by rockymcgilicutty

 

Um... Basic probabilities.
He was right 13 out of 24 tries. That's assuming there was one quake on each of alert days hits. Were there? Or does that 13 include more than one quake on an alert day? How many days was he right about?

Try flipping a coin 24 times. You might do better.

edit on 3/8/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

There was more than one quake per day on some days correct. Help me to understand this a little better. Out of 70 days so far this year his watches only covered 24 of those days. With a overall percentage of close to 80% of the 6.0 or better quakes falling within those 24 quake watch days.

reply to post by rockymcgilicutty

With a overall percentage of close to 80% of the 6.0 or better quakes falling within those 24 quake watch days.

No. Each alert day is an independent prediction. A day is an alert day or it's not. He has a 50% chance of being right on any particular day. It's exactly the same as flipping a coin on that day. He says, "this is an alert day". If there is a quake, he was right, if there isn't he was wrong.

On how many of his alert days was there at least one quake? If there were less than 12, he didn't beat the odds.

reply to post by rockymcgilicutty


I think this is the video that covers the 2012 quake watch.

Things like lunar/solar alignments are given significance only on the day of occurence. Coronal holes can effect Kp index as well as Flaring/CMEs, so some variable data may be duplicative, but equally distributed in influence in favor and disfavor of the correlation. IF I add another variable, and I likely will, it will be a disruption of the magnetic connection between earth and sun. I believe this will solidify the process but cannot do so retroactively - the process begins.

A quick snip of one of the charts in the video.



Here a snip of the quake watch numbers for 2013 so far.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by rockymcgilicutty

 

With a overall percentage of close to 80% of the 6.0 or better quakes falling within those 24 quake watch days.

No. Each alert day is an independent prediction. A day is an alert day or it's not. He has a 50% chance of being right on any particular day. It's exactly the same as flipping a coin on that day. He says, "this is an alert day". If there is a quake, he was right, if there isn't he was wrong.

On how many of his alert days was there at least one quake? If there were less than 12, he didn't beat the odds.

edit on 3/8/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

If that is true please give me the odds of picking 24 out of 70 days upon which to call the alerts, and on the days chosen 80% of the 6.0 quakes fall within that 24 day period. Remember this is a 70 day period not a 24 day period. He had 70 days to choose from with a sucess rate of 80% on the quakes durning this whole period.

From what you are saying a 80% predicition rate over a 70 day period is basic probability?

reply to post by Phage


he is still right more times than you are.

I still think there is something interesting to his theory, certainly one worth watching for the foreseeable future.
i dont see the need to make a new thread on ats about every different vid he makes tho, unless there is a new concept in his video.

reply to post by rockymcgilicutty

If that is true please give me the odds of picking 24 out of 70 days upon which to call the alerts

That doesn't make any sense. There are no probabilities involved with what you just said.

He had 70 days to choose from with a sucess rate of 80% on the quakes durning this whole period.

Again, that makes no sense. It doesn't matter how many alert days he called. The only thing that matters is, was he right or was he wrong on each alert day.

Now, if he had said something like "there will only be earthquakes on alert days". That would be a different matter. Does he say that?

reply to post by scoobyrob

he is still right more times than you are.

Nope. My record is perfect. I don't make predictions.

reply to post by skuly


Thank skuly, Star. That explains it far better than I could.Some people assume that this is just a guy putting out a video about something he knows nothing about. Maybe they can take the time and watch. Of course any scientific theory, is always up for debate. But before you challenge a theory, you should learn a little about it.

reply to post by rockymcgilicutty

And before you analyze his success rate you should understand a bit about probability and statistics.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by scoobyrob

 

he is still right more times than you are.

Nope. My record is perfect. I don't make predictions.

good reply...

reply to post by Phage

He had 70 days to choose from with a sucess rate of 80% on the quakes durning this whole period

Your reply....

Again, that makes no sense

If that really doesn't make any sense, maybe I misjudged you.

Let me dumb it down for you a little then.

Since the begining of this year 70 days have elapsed ( gone by).

Out of those 70 days, 24 have been chosen to have a quake watch called on them. Which is about 1/3 ( which is about 33%)

Now out of the days chosen 33% of 70 days. 80% of the 6.0 or better quakes (13 out of 16) have fallen durning those days in which quake watches were called.

If you still don't follow try to watch the video that skuly posted above, he explains it very well. From what you have told me before you have no opinion of the man , and you do not watch his videos. So I find odd that you will argue theory about something you yourself have said you are uninformed about.

reply to post by rockymcgilicutty

he explains it very well

It doens't matter how he explains it (and I'm sure he tries very hard to make it look like it makes sense).

The only thing that matters is was he right when he said there would be an earthquake or was he wrong.

Try this: Get a calendar, and a die. Since you like those 33% "odds" (they are not), let's simulate that by saying that if we roll a 2 or a 4 it will be an alert day. That gives us actual odds of 2 out of 6 or 1:3 which is the same as 33%.

Now for each day on the calendar roll the die. If you get a 2 or a 4, it's an alert day. Do that for 70 days and you should end up with somewhere around 24 alert days. Now keep track of earthquakes on those days. If you have at least one 6.0+ it's a hit. If not, it isn't.

The odds are you will be right 50% of the time. See if you can beat those odds.

Go for it. If you want a really good test, try it retroactively for last year.

What Suspicious0bservers saying is that there a link between earthquakes
and solar activity which is why he has a quakewatch when there are certain conditions.

Even nasa checking if there is.






NASA Archive

reply to post by Phage

It doens't matter how he explains it (and I'm sure he tries very hard to make it look like it makes sense).

Which means you didn't watch it or you would have found it isn't HIS theory. Deny Ignorance...Ha

The only thing that matters is was he right when he said there would be an earthquake or was he wrong.

First if you would quit putting words in peoples mouths. He never says there will be a earth quake. He says the probabilty is higher ( hence the term watch) you do know the difference between the terms watch and prediction?

you should understand a bit about probability and statistics

Lecture all you want about a coin toss or a die roll. Until you stop fixating on a 24 day period, and admit that the period covers 70 days

Now for each day on the calendar roll the die. If you get a 2 or a 4, it's an alert day. Do that for 70 days and you should end up with somewhere around 24 alert days. Now keep track of earthquakes on those days

Without doing that I will admit that the odds are I will get 24 RANDOM days. Now if you would bother to have any data on what you are talking about ( not just stats and odds) you would see that no prediction are made at all, and the quake watches are set for continuous days. In the 70 days of this period they were called twice (thats 2 different sets of continuous days). In these two sets were a total of 24 days in which 80% that 80% of all 6.0 or better quakes occured, in the 70 day period.

reply to post by skuly

What Suspicious0bservers saying is that there a link between earthquakes
and solar activity which is why he has a quakewatch when there are certain conditions.

And he seems to be right less than half the time.

Even nasa checking if there is.

No. There is nothing about a connection with solar activity in that article. It is about affects of the earthquake on the atmosphere and ionosphere.

We found a positive correlation between the atmospheric and ionospheric anomalies and the Tohoku earthquake. This study may lead to a better understanding of the response of the atmosphere/ionosphere to the Great Tohoku earthquake.

ntrs.nasa.gov...

reply to post by Phage

No. There is nothing about a connection with solar activity in that article. It is about affects of the earthquake on the atmosphere and ionosphere

Again if you could trouble yourself to learn what he is saying instead of blindly debunking. You would see that he talks about the coronal hole's stream energy impacting on the ionosphere as one of the factors for his quake WATCH.

reply to post by rockymcgilicutty

Which means you didn't watch it or you would have found it isn't HIS theory.

That's right, I didn't watch it. I didn't say I did. I've been going off your statements about it.

Until you stop fixating on a 24 day period, and admit that the period covers 70 days

I never said anything about a 24 day period. You said there were 24 alert days.

In the 70 days of this period they were called twice (thats 2 different sets of continuous days).

You didn't explain that. You said there were 24 alert days, not alert periods. How long was each of these two periods? If it gets interesting I might watch the video.