Re: Hourly Earthquake Chart & Forecast
Skywise
Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?
effa...@hotmail.com
of 0 yet??
Skywise
@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
> hey Airbag, have you beaten your all-time earthquake prediction record
> of 0 yet??
You're the one who backed out of your own challenge posted to SGE
when I stepped up to the plate, you loser.
effa...@hotmail.com
> when I stepped up to the plate, you loser.
loser?! Your 0 forecast trackrecord qualifies you as a winner huh?
Damn I guess I need to try a whole bunch less to qualify as a winner
in your book.
I'm working on a super program in which I will be able to make hourly
forecasts within a magnitude error of 1. I'll should be finished this
week. I won't expect any competition this time round again, but if you
know someone who is up to a challenge, let me know.
effa...@hotmail.com
> In article <1178476237.702617.56...@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,> ROFLMAO!
oh dear, don't rupture anything
Skywise
@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
So, is this another challenge? Spell it out, then.
effa...@hotmail.com
> So, is this another challenge? Spell it out, then.
>
> Brian
Skywise
@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com:
>
>> So, is this another challenge? Spell it out, then.
>>
>> Brian
> only when you grow some, I'm into bigger fish.
You imply a challenge and when I take you up on it, you back down
yet again.
Put your money where your mouth is. If you think you're so damned
good, lay down the ground rules of your challenge.
I accept your challenge. Now put up or shut up.
effa...@hotmail.com
I'll start off with a slow pitch. Will the west coast of USA have an
increase in seismic activity over the next three years? Now don't back
out, I will slowly increase the test if you can get past kindegarten.
effa...@hotmail.com
> In article <133thls2bb72...@corp.supernews.com>,> You're asking him to spell?
Spam noted from mr. no spam.
el...@no.spam
<effa...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Spam noted from mr. no spam.
It's not spam, moron.
Skywise
@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
Three years?!?! You do realize that with such a time frame we
will have to wait at least those three years before a 'winner'
can be decided?
effa...@hotmail.com
> Three years?!?! You do realize that with such a time frame we
> will have to wait at least those three years before a 'winner'
> can be decided?
>
> Brian
lol backed out again I see .. THAT was predictable. You couldn't throw
a dart at a chart or ask your mom for an opinion?
Mr. Backout, I've just completed one of the best programs I've wrote
and I'm currently testing it out so I've got one arm tied behind my
back so to speak, but still I'm prolly able to whip your sorry ass and
twice on Sundays.
My new pgm forecasts the next four bars, be it hourly, daily, weekly,
etc. To spot you a few more point, I'll even let you pick the region
of your liking and time frame. Just give me the data parameters and
lets get it on. I'll check back to see if you'll finally take up the
challenge.
Cordially,
Steve
effa...@hotmail.com
> In article <1178677247.312017.296...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
>
> Steve <philhend...@aol.com> wrote:
> >A little weak on the comeback punches.
>
> Considering what I was coming back to nothing more
> was needed. You remain pathetic.
You remain spammy troll. You ever add anything to a single discussion
in your sorry life?
Skywise
@e51g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
>
>> Three years?!?! You do realize that with such a time frame we
>> will have to wait at least those three years before a 'winner'
>> can be decided?
>>
>> Brian
>
> lol backed out again I see .. THAT was predictable. You couldn't throw
> a dart at a chart or ask your mom for an opinion?
I never said I was backing out. Don't put words into my mouth.
Geez...you remind me a lot of someone on another forum.
I am simply pointing out that you have set a condition that
will require three years to test. Are you sure you want to do
that? I am giving you the benefit of the doubt that you might
not have realized the implications of what you said.
Fine. Three years it is then. Do you have any other criteria
for this challenge?
effa...@hotmail.com
> effac...@hotmail.com wrote in news:1178737868.286920.230790
> @e51g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
> >> Three years?!?! You do realize that with such a time frame we
> >> will have to wait at least those three years before a 'winner'
> >> can be decided?
>
> >> Brian
>
> > lol backed out again I see .. THAT was predictable. You couldn't throw
> > a dart at a chart or ask your mom for an opinion?
>
> I never said I was backing out. Don't put words into my mouth.
> Geez...you remind me a lot of someone on another forum.
Stutter here, excuse there, complaint over there. Stall over here , no
reply over there, "oh I can't forecast that," six months go by without
a "ok lets duke it out" ... it's quite apparent and I don't have to
read between the lines.
>
> I am simply pointing out that you have set a condition that
> will require three years to test.
Ok, but you can't make a forecast anyway. Why is it such a root canal
to get you to say anything about the future?
>Are you sure you want to do that? I am giving you the benefit of the doubt that you might
> not have realized the implications of what you said.
>
bla bla bla stop stalling perch
> Fine. Three years it is then.
Oh right, just say it now. How long are you gonna stall on a slow
pitch like this?
>Do you have any other criteria for this challenge?
Criteria? Come up with the parameters you want because I'm fed up with
your stalling quite frankly. .. and provide the data source link
please.
Here's how I'm gonna make my forecasts: I only forecast HIGHEST MAG
QUAKES PER BAR, all the rest get tossed. I divide the magnitude (of
each bar) (bar is the time interval) into five magnitude slots from 0
to 9.99 mag dispersing the activity of that region evenly into each of
the slots. Then I rank each of those slots with what I think the
percent chance will be. Each slot is 20%. So for instance if my second
highest mag slot is eventualized, my forecast was 80% accurate. This
is a much more accurate way of representing seismic activity than just
two slots (which most use when they say a quake larger than 3.0 will
occur in the next bar). So if you are one of these black or white
forecasters no problem. I can easily determine the average quake size
AND MORE IMPORTANTLY what percentage your claim lies. For example if
you say a 2.0 or larger quake will occur in the next bar and the
average is 2.5, your forecast weight is low, but no problem what I'll
do is include all the slots down to that level. So you can make any
type of forecast you want and I'll determine the "risk factor" you are
taking to make your forecasts. Mine are always fixed at 20% odds per
slot.
So let's get it on!
Good luck,
Steve
effa...@hotmail.com
> On May 9, 9:09 pm, Skywise <i...@oblivion.nothing.com> wrote:
Let's make it two 5-FORECAST rounds. The first one will be a trial
(and error) round .. a chance to get all the kinks (and complaints and
excuses) out. The second round will be the one that counts and we'll
put it in its own thread. I've yet to test my latest program, so this
first round will reveal any bugs.
Skywise
@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
> Criteria? Come up with the parameters you want because I'm fed up with
> your stalling quite frankly. .. and provide the data source link
> please.
First of all, it's your challenge and I'm asking you what the
parameters of YOUR challenge are.
But, if it were up to me, a prediction requires the following
three parameters at a bare minimum:
Location - this needs to be clearly defined. An example of
clearly defined is drawing a box and giving latitude/longitude
pairs for the top and bottom. Or, giving a lat/lon center of
a circle and a defined distance. An example of a bad location
is something ambigous such as "Southern California".
Window - this is the start and end of the prediction window,
clearly defined to the second, preferably in UTC format.
Magnitude - again, clearly defined. Examples could be boxed
such as "4.0 to 6.5" in which case 3.99 would be interpreted
as a miss. Or, open ended on one side such as "larger than 5.0"
in which case 5.0 is actually a miss because it was stated as
being larger than that.
The catalog to test against should be chosen appropriately for
the region. Obviously, the SCEC catalog would not be a good
choice for say, Hawai'i, but would be the ideal catalog for
Southern California locations.
The above is just to determine if a prediction is a hit or a
miss.
Then there is the whole matter of determining the significance
of a set of predictions. This can only be done with the
appropriate statistical test of significance.
Yes, the above parameters are black/white hit/misses with no
room for interpretation. But unfortunately there has not yet
been developed a satisfactory way of statistically analyzing
"fuzzy predictions".
> Here's how I'm gonna make my forecasts:
<Snipola>
Quite frankly, this is gibberish. There are so many words and
and terms being used in ways that the meaning is ambiguous at
best. I have the distinct impression that you have derived your
own definitions for the words you used.
"Scientific language does not make a science."
http://www.skywise711.com/Skeptic/WPBWT/index.html#5
For a specific example, there is no such word as "eventualized."
I think I know what you may mean, but it would be foolish of me
to make such a presumption.
effa...@hotmail.com
> > Criteria? Come up with the parameters you want because I'm fed up with
> > your stalling quite frankly. .. and provide the data source link
> > please.
> First of all, it's your challenge and I'm asking you what the
> parameters of YOUR challenge are.
Sure, I'll do the legwork for you cripple. Let me know if the west
coast region of USA from MEXICO to CANADA in daily time intervals is
ok with you, stalling Crip Backout:
catalog=ANSS
start_time=2004/01/01,00:00:00
end_time=2006/11/17,08:10:01
minimum_latitude= 32
maximum_latitude= 49
minimum_longitude= -125
maximum_longitude= -115
minimum_magnitude= 2.0
http://www.ncedc.org/anss/catalog-search.html
> But, if it were up to me, a prediction requires the following
> three parameters at a bare minimum:
lmao you mean stoooooped way down to you, you're the only fish taking
the bait and i'm hungry to own you fried.
> Location - this needs to be clearly defined. An example of
> clearly defined is drawing a box and giving latitude/longitude
> pairs for the top and bottom. Or, giving a lat/lon center of
> a circle and a defined distance. An example of a bad location
> is something ambigous such as "Southern California".
See above.
> Window - this is the start and end of the prediction window,
> clearly defined to the second, preferably in UTC format.
See above.
> Magnitude - again, clearly defined. Examples could be boxed
> such as "4.0 to 6.5" in which case 3.99 would be interpreted
> as a miss. Or, open ended on one side such as "larger than 5.0"
> in which case 5.0 is actually a miss because it was stated as
> being larger than that.
You pick your mag window. I'm sticking to my 20% mag frequency
window.
Here is those mag slots for this region:
SLOT MAGNITUDE VARIANCES:
0 = 0.00 to 2.7 magnitude
1 = 2.71 to 2.9
2 = 2.91 to 3.1
3 = 3.11 to 3.5
4 = 3.51+
Quakes for this region evenly fall into those 5 slots. You can range
your "guesses" any width you want and then I'll do the legwork (what's
new) and I run a program to see the occurance rate is of your mag
width. That will be your risk factor (and forecast weight). Obviously
the thinner, the more accurate you will be if you are right. I also
will reveal my second third, forth, & fifth place winners.
> Yes, the above parameters are black/white hit/misses with no
> room for interpretation. But unfortunately there has not yet
> been developed a satisfactory way of statistically analyzing
> "fuzzy predictions".
<snipola>
> Quite frankly, this is gibberish.
WHAT! MORE STALL TACTICS YOU LAMEBRAIN? And you call yourself a
forecaster?? You've snipped the most pertinent, germane criteria for
forecasting earthquakes! What the hell? What are you crazy?You are
truly full of fluff ain't you lamey. You're pathetic.
If you cannot even get by the criteria I've laid out in clear detail,
you obviously aren't even up to the task of a match. Don't know where
we go from here you fakeass.
>There are so many words and
> and terms being used in ways that the meaning is ambiguous at
> best. I have the distinct impression that you have derived your
> own definitions for the words you used.
What grade did you achieve in junior high? Get mommy to help explain
then.
> For a specific example, there is no such word as "eventualized."
> I think I know what you may mean, but it would be foolish of me
> to make such a presumption.
What appears foolish is my presumption that you could at least follow
a simple, clearly outlined guide. If your mommy can't get you to
understand the most simple criteria in the world then I can't help
either. Forecaster?
Sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesh! You really
want to end my challenge again don't you lightweight. Ding!
Skywise
you if you are going to continue to make constant ad hominem
attacks.
I was willing to suspend my urge to do the same to you for the
duration of this challenge and to conduct this competition in
a mature and adult manner.
It's obvious that you are not.
Oh yeah...go ahead...make all the comments you want about me
"backing out", cuz frankly, I don't care. I have much better
things to do than to fart around with a phucktard like you.
There's much bigger fish to fry. You are a nothing. You are
a fart in the wind. You will but disipate into the history of
whackjobs with self-reinforcing delusions and I will still
be here, far more respected by those around us than you and
your mental masturbation.
Oh, and I am STILL a far better predictor than you ever dreamed
of being.
effa...@hotmail.com
> You know what? Forget it. I refuse to dilly-daddle around with
> you if you are going to continue to make constant ad hominem
> attacks.
Backout # LOSTCOUNT noted .. as expected. Actually this is your most
delayed backout to date. Congrats. And you've made no attacks? At
least all of mine had substance.
>
> I was willing to suspend my urge to do the same to you for the
> duration of this challenge and to conduct this competition in
> a mature and adult manner.
>
> It's obvious that you are not.
>
Adult manner? Certainly not thinking adult manner. "Gibberish" and
"you loser" were your words, not mine Mr. mature adolescent. I laid
out the criteria which you called gibberish and you have the audacity
to consider yourself a mature adult here??
> Oh yeah...go ahead...make all the comments you want about me
> "backing out", cuz frankly, I don't care.
Nah you've wasted too much of my time already.
>I have much better
> things to do than to fart around with a phucktard like you.
Mature comment #LOSTCOUNT.
> There's much bigger fish to fry. You are a nothing. You are
> a fart in the wind. You will but disipate into the history of
Mature comment #LOSTCOUNT.
> whackjobs with self-reinforcing delusions and I will still
Mature comment #LOSTCOUNT.
> be here, far more respected by those around us than you and
Mature comment #LOSTCOUNT.
> your mental masturbation.
Mature comment #LOSTCOUNT.
>
> Oh, and I am STILL a far better predictor than you ever dreamed
> of being.
BS comment #LOSTCOUNT.
And you've proven your worth with every challenge you've backout of
RIIIIIIGHT.
We got it.
Go back to your darts lighty.
Skywise
like you.
I'm beginning to get bored with folks like you. You're all the
same. Nothing new. Only the names change.
effa...@hotmail.com
> EXACTLY the type of response expected from a predictible nutjob
> like you.
Right. And you have been a very mature adult in this thread.
>
> I'm beginning to get bored with folks like you. You're all the
> same. Nothing new. Only the names change.
Right, and all your predictions have been so incredibly meaningful.
effa...@hotmail.com
> On Sun, 13 May 2007 05:06:47 -0000, in alt.august, Skywise
>
> <i...@oblivion.nothing.com> wrote:
> >EXACTLY the type of response expected from a predictible nutjob
> >like you.
>
> >I'm beginning to get bored with folks like you. You're all the
> >same. Nothing new. Only the names change.
>
> >Brian
>
> coast region" it became gibberish. The west coast region could be any
> area from the coast (or a bunch of miles off the coast) to the point
> half way between atlantic and the pacific oceans. He ignored the
> request for a closed region with a set of fully defined boarders.
>
> I would ignore him.
>
> He is no different than EDG.
>
> --
> Ak'toh'di
BobO, and when it came to defining that region, I gave the dimensions
in plain view. That lightweight was the one who "draws a blank" at the
drop of a question mark or request. Do you enjoy being wrong so often?
I wish both of you would ignore me. Please.