Tsunami Geography, New Bacteria, Quake Stats

reply to post by rockymcgilicutty

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.

I understand that. It is not a new concept.

The article reference above is not talking about Solar activity causing earthquakes. To say that NASA is looking at it that way is not true. If you would trouble yourself to read it you would know that.

reply to post by Phage

The article reference above is not talking about Solar activity causing earthquakes. To say that NASA is looking at it that way is not true. If you would trouble yourself to read it you would know that

You are right there I jumped the gun.

Also if I didn't get the point across eariler that the watches were periods not days, I did mean to sometimes I don't articulate myself all that well with comments.

As for the watch periods for the year the first watch was from Jan 30th to Feb 11th, the second watch was from Feb 28th to March 10th . He has already called the second half of the 2nd watch a failure.

I would really like to see you look at his theory on the quake watch, I would be very intrested in your opinion of the theories. Not just the probabilty of odds. If the theories have holes I would like to know them.

reply to post by rockymcgilicutty

Since we're talking about periods instead of individual days we need to take a different approach instead of hit/miss.

Since 1990 there have been an average of 150 earthquakes of 6.0 and greater each year. This works out to an average of 0.42 per day. We can use this to calculate how many earthquakes might be expected to occur in any given time period.

For the 12 day period from Jan. 30 to Feb. 11 there was a statistical chance for 5 quakes. For that period there were 21 quakes. Wow. That sounds impressive. But almost all of those quakes were in that swarm in the Santa Cruz islands. While that doesn't falsify the theory, it should be pointed out that the Earth rotated 12 times in that time period and there was little activity elsewhere on the planet. Now let's look at geomagnetic activity at the time. There was very little to be seen. Not even minor storm activity at any time during the period. I don't see how a connection can be made with solar activity under these circumstances.
www.swpc.noaa.gov...


For the 10 day period from Feb. 28 to Mar 10. There was a statistical chance for 4 quakes. There were 3. All in the same location. There was some minor geomagnetic storming but not until after that 3 quake swarm.

I don't think this shows much of a connection between solar activity and earthquakes. I've seen lots of theories about such a connection. I haven't seen much evidence to support them. I've looked into it and have been for a while
www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by Phage

Now let's look at geomagnetic activity at the time. There was very little to be seen. Not even minor storm activity at any time during the period. I don't see how a connection can be made with solar activity under these circumstances

I can see your point. There are two problems for the way or discussion is going.

First and most important, and I can admit this freely. If you are only going off what I say, you are missing probably 2/3 of what he is saying.

The only thing I can add is that is does geomagnetic activity include a coronal hole stream? This is one of the factor's in his watches, if they were based on sunspot or solar flares, with the action from the sun lately I don't think he could have issued any for awhile.

Give me a while I am reading thru the thread you linked.

reply to post by Phage

For the 10 day period from Feb. 28 to Mar 10. There was a statistical chance for 4 quakes

So for the 70 day period ( 7 ten day periods) there was a statistical chance for 28 quakes of 6.0 or larger? This is where I see a difference.

16 quakes occured, 13 of which happen during the watches. Which were durning coronal whole streams along with planitary alignments among other factors.

Now the statistical probablity was for 28 quakes to occur. That didn't happen there were less than 28. But the occurrence of most of these quakes did conincide with the quake watches, which were called for the various factors of which I mentioned a few above.

That seems to me to lessen the statical factor of occurrence considerably, and stregnthen the quake watch theory. This might be chance, but 2 1/2 (about) months is not enough data to prove or disprove a theory.

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)

EDIT

It seems you actually went ahead and did the calculations.

So in continuing the spirit of my original post . . . .

Shame on you for not calculating the odds out in the first place prior to throwing out numbers.

reply to post by rockymcgilicutty

16 quakes occured, 13 of which happen during the watches. Which were durning coronal whole streams along with planitary alignments among other factors.

I don't know why you think there were 16. Actually, for the 70 day period from Jan 1 to Mar 12 (we aren't there yet), there were 32 quakes. That's pretty close to what would be expected (29.2).

Yes, the first watch showed high earthquake activity because of the Santa Cruz swarm. The second showed nothing unusual.

2013-03-01 13:20:50.10 50.949 157.448 29.0 6.5 Mw us
2013-03-01 12:53:52.40 50.938 157.511 40.9 6.4 Mw us
2013-02-28 14:05:50.40 50.942 157.339 41.0 6.9 Mw us
2013-02-22 12:01:59.20 -27.993 -63.195 585.8 6.1 Mw us
2013-02-16 04:37:36.20 5.812 125.762 105.0 6.1 Mw us
2013-02-14 13:13:52.80 67.582 142.564 9.9 6.6 Mw us
2013-02-10 18:39:32.30 -10.959 165.459 11.0 6.0 Mw us
2013-02-09 21:02:22.50 -10.952 165.838 15.6 6.6 Mw us
2013-02-09 14:16:07.90 1.142 -77.400 145.0 6.9 Mw us
2013-02-08 15:26:38.50 -10.932 166.021 21.0 7.1 Mw us
2013-02-08 11:12:13.00 -10.905 165.886 15.9 6.8 Mw us
2013-02-07 18:59:16.10 -11.001 165.658 10.0 6.7 Mw us
2013-02-07 00:30:10.70 -11.658 164.940 8.0 6.0 Mw us
2013-02-06 11:53:55.20 -11.245 165.727 14.0 6.0 Mw us
2013-02-06 10:33:17.40 -10.643 164.764 10.0 6.0 Mt us
2013-02-06 06:35:19.80 -10.784 164.512 10.1 6.1 Mt us
2013-02-06 01:54:15.20 -10.479 165.772 9.8 7.0 Mw us
2013-02-06 01:23:19.77 -11.254 164.932 10.1 7.1 Mww us
2013-02-06 01:12:27.00 -10.738 165.138 28.7 8.0 Mw us
2013-02-06 00:07:22.30 -10.865 165.248 12.6 6.0 Mw us
2013-02-02 18:58:05.80 -10.938 165.255 3.2 6.0 Mt us
2013-02-02 14:17:35.10 42.758 143.106 107.0 6.9 Mw us
2013-02-01 22:18:33.00 -11.120 165.378 10.0 6.4 Mw us
2013-02-01 22:16:34.10 -10.896 165.379 10.0 6.3 Mw us
2013-02-01 05:36:41.70 -11.104 165.532 15.0 6.0 Mw us
2013-01-31 03:33:43.80 -10.628 166.382 9.2 6.1 Mw us
2013-01-30 23:03:43.80 -10.635 166.371 11.0 6.1 Mw us
2013-01-30 20:15:43.20 -28.080 -70.621 45.0 6.8 Mw us
2013-01-28 16:38:53.50 42.605 79.708 15.0 6.1 Mw us
2013-01-21 22:22:52.90 4.966 95.856 11.6 6.1 Mw us
2013-01-15 16:09:37.08 -62.571 -161.432 10.0 6.1 mww pde
2013-01-05 08:58:19.33 55.394 -134.650 10.0 7.5 mww pde

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by rockymcgilicutty

 

16 quakes occured, 13 of which happen during the watches. Which were durning coronal whole streams along with planitary alignments among other factors.

I don't know why you think there were 16. Actually, for the 70 day period from Jan 1 to Mar 12 (we aren't there yet), there were 32 quakes. That's pretty close to what would be expected (29.2).

Yes, the first watch showed high earthquake activity because of the Santa Cruz swarm. The second showed nothing unusual.

2013-03-01 13:20:50.10 50.949 157.448 29.0 6.5 Mw us
2013-03-01 12:53:52.40 50.938 157.511 40.9 6.4 Mw us
2013-02-28 14:05:50.40 50.942 157.339 41.0 6.9 Mw us
2013-02-22 12:01:59.20 -27.993 -63.195 585.8 6.1 Mw us
2013-02-16 04:37:36.20 5.812 125.762 105.0 6.1 Mw us
2013-02-14 13:13:52.80 67.582 142.564 9.9 6.6 Mw us
2013-02-10 18:39:32.30 -10.959 165.459 11.0 6.0 Mw us
2013-02-09 21:02:22.50 -10.952 165.838 15.6 6.6 Mw us
2013-02-09 14:16:07.90 1.142 -77.400 145.0 6.9 Mw us
2013-02-08 15:26:38.50 -10.932 166.021 21.0 7.1 Mw us
2013-02-08 11:12:13.00 -10.905 165.886 15.9 6.8 Mw us
2013-02-07 18:59:16.10 -11.001 165.658 10.0 6.7 Mw us
2013-02-07 00:30:10.70 -11.658 164.940 8.0 6.0 Mw us
2013-02-06 11:53:55.20 -11.245 165.727 14.0 6.0 Mw us
2013-02-06 10:33:17.40 -10.643 164.764 10.0 6.0 Mt us
2013-02-06 06:35:19.80 -10.784 164.512 10.1 6.1 Mt us
2013-02-06 01:54:15.20 -10.479 165.772 9.8 7.0 Mw us
2013-02-06 01:23:19.77 -11.254 164.932 10.1 7.1 Mww us
2013-02-06 01:12:27.00 -10.738 165.138 28.7 8.0 Mw us
2013-02-06 00:07:22.30 -10.865 165.248 12.6 6.0 Mw us
2013-02-02 18:58:05.80 -10.938 165.255 3.2 6.0 Mt us
2013-02-02 14:17:35.10 42.758 143.106 107.0 6.9 Mw us
2013-02-01 22:18:33.00 -11.120 165.378 10.0 6.4 Mw us
2013-02-01 22:16:34.10 -10.896 165.379 10.0 6.3 Mw us
2013-02-01 05:36:41.70 -11.104 165.532 15.0 6.0 Mw us
2013-01-31 03:33:43.80 -10.628 166.382 9.2 6.1 Mw us
2013-01-30 23:03:43.80 -10.635 166.371 11.0 6.1 Mw us
2013-01-30 20:15:43.20 -28.080 -70.621 45.0 6.8 Mw us
2013-01-28 16:38:53.50 42.605 79.708 15.0 6.1 Mw us
2013-01-21 22:22:52.90 4.966 95.856 11.6 6.1 Mw us
2013-01-15 16:09:37.08 -62.571 -161.432 10.0 6.1 mww pde
2013-01-05 08:58:19.33 55.394 -134.650 10.0 7.5 mww pde

edit on 3/9/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

This guy is not debatable, very difficult to debate. At first the OP sounded kind of realistic but it just does not now when I read the reasons why the sun activity had nothing to do with it.. Also the Tornado chart is a little misleading because places like central FL may very well be at greater risk for tornado's thoughs Tornado's are usually very small F'1 types that only hit the ground for a min. or two as apposed to say midwest tornado where it says a greater risk but their tornado's usually are VERY big f4's and stay on the ground for up to 30 min. or so..

reply to post by rockymcgilicutty

It should also be pointed out that the Santa Cruz swarm actually began several days before the arrival of the high speed wind from the coronal hole.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by Phage

Hmmmm. could you send me a link to that page? If that data is correct and none have been downgraded. I have been given some bad data.

reply to post by rockymcgilicutty

earthquake.usgs.gov...

reply to post by Phage


I did also notice that the chart cuts off, at the 30th of Jan. and the increase of solar wind starts on the called quake watch Feb 2nd. But I still would like to see the link to the quake stats you quoted. That was a point you made that was well taken. If that is correct believe me you are starting to get me to come around to your view.

reply to post by Phage


Thanks

reply to post by rockymcgilicutty

The chart cuts off on the 30th because that is the data I selected for it. Because it covers the watch period.
ACE satellite data

reply to post by Phage


Here's what I got from the link USGS after downgrades of initial readings.

Magnitude 6.5 KURIL ISLANDS March 01, 2013
• Magnitude 6.5 KURIL ISLANDS March 01, 2013
• Magnitude 6.9 KURIL ISLANDS February 28, 2013
• Magnitude 6.6 NORTHEASTERN SAKHA, RUSSIA February 14, 2013
• Magnitude 6.6 SANTA CRUZ ISLANDS February 09, 2013
• Magnitude 6.9 COLOMBIA February 09, 2013
• Magnitude 7.0 SANTA CRUZ ISLANDS February 08, 2013
• Magnitude 6.8 SANTA CRUZ ISLANDS February 08, 2013
• Magnitude 6.6 SANTA CRUZ ISLANDS February 07, 2013
• Magnitude 7.0 SANTA CRUZ ISLANDS February 06, 2013
• Magnitude 7.1 SANTA CRUZ ISLANDS REGION February 06, 2013
• Magnitude 8.0 SANTA CRUZ ISLANDS February 06, 2013
• Magnitude 6.9 HOKKAIDO, JAPAN REGION February 02, 2013
• Magnitude 6.3 SANTA CRUZ ISLANDS February 01, 2013
• Magnitude 6.8 ATACAMA, CHILE January 30, 2013
• Magnitude 7.5 SOUTHEASTERN ALASKA January 05, 2013

reply to post by rockymcgilicutty

You are missing a lot of quakes. Where did you get that? Not from the database search I gave you.
There is no "downgrade" of magnitude. There are adjustments as more calculations are made but it is the final values which go into the database.

reply to post by Phage


That point is taken also after the review of your thread on it, I see your firm position on that. I will do look into your point's more. I will say you have but some doubt into me. Which is healthy for the mind.

reply to post by Phage


Here is the one I went to.

earthquake.usgs.gov...

reply to post by rockymcgilicutty

Use the database search. It's comprehensive. That list isn't.
earthquake.usgs.gov...

reply to post by Phage


Thanks I got to the same data you did. Since I may have relied on inncorrect data eariler. I would like to be sure this time. The quote below is from directly below the artical you linked me to. Can you take the time to explain?

The magnitude which the USGS considers official for this earthquake is indicated at the top of this page. This was the best available estimate of the earthquake’s size, at the time that this page was created. Other magnitudes associated with web pages linked from here are those determined at various times following the earthquake with different types of seismic data. Although they are legitimate estimates of magnitude, the USGS does not consider them to be the preferred (“official” magnitude for the event