further to post by muzzy
This animated GIF shows how hard it is to predict earthquakes based on "young" data.
Preliminary data, which is based on the SeisComp3 automated system, that Geonet got off Geofon, only goes so far.....
On review by the Geonet scientists many events are downgraded in magnitude, some go up, some are even false readings and deleted, and then there are
others added which SeisComp didn't pick up, such as the South of Kermadecs and Kermadec Islands areas.
This all effects the TTNT energy release figures for each 24hr period.
Adding to the muddle, I have it from a reputable source at Geonet that the reviewing of individual events depends on who is on duty at any given time,
their own individual area of particular interest and even their mood at the time.
Not very scientific is it!
So Preliminary data may show some trends over a period of weeks/month, but it can't be relied on, Reviewed data is better, but not by much.
Reviewed data after 12 months might be more accurate, but what use is that if you are watching Energy Release of a daily/monthly basis??
February Preliminary Graph
February Reviewed Graph
In the graphs above only one 5+ quake in Feb occurred on the NZ landmass, the rest are offshore.
I was surprised that on Review so many extra 5+ quakes appeared, I count 10!
But on Preliminary data there were only 5 !!??!!
I have 4 of them on my M5+ page, so need to go and update that now.
(If the TTNT daily figure drops below 10, then there will be a M5+ within the next 6 days)
It happens enough historically to be reasonably reliable.
But that is based on Preliminary data.
If you look at the TTNT side of the Preliminary Graph you can see this drop occurred 6 times in Feb.
Putting the M6 aside (drop was in Jan), the #9 count on the 3rd was not followed by a 5+ , but by 3 x M4's on the 7th. So the energy wasn't all
released. The next drop was #6 on the 11th which was followed right away with a M5+ on the 12th, 13th, 16th and 17th.
So Muzzys Rule didn't really work for Feb, based on Preliminary data.
But what about Reviewed data?
The #9 count on the 3rd was replaced by #1,118 because of a M5.2 South Of Kermadec Islands, so we can dismiss that drop below 10.
There are other 2 days less than 10 in the reviewed data, the 11th (#4) and the 23rd (8).
Were these followed by a M5+???
Yep, a M5. on the 12th and then 2 more over the next days, then the drop to #8 on the 23rd?, yep a 5.36 Kermadec Islands on the 28th, within the 6
So it still works for Reviewed data it seems.
But whats the use? if you have to wait 3-6 days to get the Reviewed data in, by then the odds are the M5+ has already hit!
edit on 03000000595914 by muzzy because: ah so that ois what those red wiggly lines are in the editing window, spelling mistakes!