Another Deyo 'hit'
Skywise
claiming to have 'nailed it' on this Oct 10th map.
On that map he did have a new circle centered right on the epicenter.
But...always a but, isn't there? :)
I looked back at my archived maps up to the Oct. 10th one, a total
of 111 maps. Of those 111, the epicenter for todays quake was
covered by a circle 50 times (approx. 45%).
I only counted if the epicenter was definately in the circle. However,
as Stan pointed out to me, and I mentioned here the other day, the
epicenter does not have ot be in the circle, just in the area. So
that means there's a bunch of circles that could have counted that
I did not include in my tally. I don't know how far out of a circle
a hit could be counted, though I did ask.
Something else I did is I went through a bunch of maps, 109 to be
exact, and counted how many circles there were - 1025 total. That's
an average of 9.4 circles per day. Low was 0, high was 21. On many
maps Stan has overlapping circles, but they are drawn so that the
circles are joined. In such cases I counted them as one circle, even
though there may be several in the set. Otherwise it would raise the
number of circles and the average.
Point being that out of all those circles, there are only 3 claimed
hits. Pretty lousy batting average if you ask me - .00293.
Now, I'm not picking on Stans method of forecasting quakes but that
his forecasts are so bad. Each circle represents an area where there
_may_ be an increased risk of seismic, volcanic, or storm activity
within 5 days. A few maps have circles labeled as storm related. The
operative word is "may". Based on private emails Stan likens it to
the weatherman saying it "may" rain. But if a weatherman forecasts
rain 1025 times and only got it right 3 times, how long would he
keep his job?
I really think Stan throws his circles around too much. Based on his
results, randomness has a better chance of hitting a quake. If you
throw enough darts, eventually you'll hit the bulls-eye. The trick
is to be skillful and hit the bulls-eye more than random chance
would give you.
I really think he should be able to do better.
Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes? Supernews Sucks!
Petra
Hi Brian,
I don't know what Deyo's method is, but it would kind of fun if you did
the same thing for six months. Perhaps pick 3 to 5 places a week
anywhere in the world where there might be a 5.5 or greater earthquake
and see what happens. We have to acknowledge of course that you
probably know more about global seismicity than Deyo does. Maybe you
could pick a date to start and play opposite of Deyo's predictions from
that day forward for the six month term. Perhaps Alan Jones could be
your evaluator and monitor to Deyo's predictions.
What do you think? Sound like fun. Does anyone else want to play? Or
do you want to go mono e mono?
Petra
Skywise
@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
<Snipola>
> Hi Brian,
>
> I don't know what Deyo's method is,
Something to do with sea surface temperature fluctuations. That's
all I've been able to figure out. I've asked questions, but the
answers I've received were...well...non answers. I've encouraged
him to write up a page for his site explaining his method and he
says he has considered it, but that he has a busy schedule.
> but it would kind of fun if you did
> the same thing for six months. Perhaps pick 3 to 5 places a week
> anywhere in the world where there might be a 5.5 or greater earthquake
> and see what happens. We have to acknowledge of course that you
> probably know more about global seismicity than Deyo does.
He is picking places based on known seismic activity. I mean, he
does seem to know more than the common person would know.
> Maybe you
> could pick a date to start and play opposite of Deyo's predictions from
> that day forward for the six month term. Perhaps Alan Jones could be
> your evaluator and monitor to Deyo's predictions.
>
> What do you think? Sound like fun. Does anyone else want to play? Or
> do you want to go mono e mono?
>
> Petra
That's an intriguing idea, Petra.
To go 1 on 1 with Stan, though, I'd have to pick an average of 9.4
per day, not just 3 to 5 per week. Also, he goes for "Richter 5"
and up.
But, the elusiveness of what defines a 'hit' is a problem. In Stans
recent claim of hitting the tragic Pakistani quake I pointed out that
none of his circles covered the epicenter - in fact, the epicenter
was twice the radius of his circle. His response was, to put it in
simple words, 'close enough'. So how would I, or Alan, or anyone else
decide when close is close enough? Would I be allowed to be off by
twice the radius of my circles?
Could I do better? I would hope so, but I wouldn't be upset if I did
just as lousy. Mother Nature has a way of showing us how little we
know right when we think we've got Her all figured out.
Petra
>
>
> > Maybe you
> > could pick a date to start and play opposite of Deyo's predictions from
> > that day forward for the six month term. Perhaps Alan Jones could be
> > your evaluator and monitor to Deyo's predictions.
> >
> > What do you think? Sound like fun. Does anyone else want to play? Or
> > do you want to go mono e mono?
> >
> > Petra
>
> That's an intriguing idea, Petra.
(cut-a-ways)
>
> To go 1 on 1 with Stan, though, I'd have to pick an average of 9.4
> per day, not just 3 to 5 per week. Also, he goes for "Richter 5"
> and up.
Actually Brian, you don't have to make as many predictions as he does.
Remember, less is better. If you make fewer and get hits, all of that
is in your favor.
> But, the elusiveness of what defines a 'hit' is a problem. In Stans
> recent claim of hitting the tragic Pakistani quake I pointed out that
> none of his circles covered the epicenter - in fact, the epicenter
> was twice the radius of his circle. His response was, to put it in
> simple words, 'close enough'. So how would I, or Alan, or anyone else
> decide when close is close enough? Would I be allowed to be off by
> twice the radius of my circles?
As for this minor technicality, select a km radius around your
predicted area. You can be very loose on this as Stan is doing so with
his "close enough" calls. Maybe 1000km's from the predicted location
would work?
> Could I do better? I would hope so, but I wouldn't be upset if I did
> just as lousy. Mother Nature has a way of showing us how little we
> know right when we think we've got Her all figured out.
> Brian
Some years ago I knew someone else who used sea surface temperatures as
an added item of emphasis on a given prediction for a place which falls
in the warm water regions. As an example, if one is making a
prediction for a place in South America that person might feel that the
increase in sea surface temperature could make it more likely for that
earthquake to occur at that time.
I think this could be a really fun project and I hope you'll go ahead.
I wouldn't worry about Mother Nature. If you approach this using
everything you can at your disposal, you should succeed easily.
Petra
Skywise
@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
<Snipola>
>> To go 1 on 1 with Stan, though, I'd have to pick an average of 9.4
>> per day, not just 3 to 5 per week. Also, he goes for "Richter 5"
>> and up.
>
> Actually Brian, you don't have to make as many predictions as he does.
> Remember, less is better. If you make fewer and get hits, all of that
> is in your favor.
I agree on that point. If I (or anyone) were to have more hits with
less attempts, the averages would go up. It would show that Stans
method is lacking, but still wouldn't mean didly unless the averages
went above random chance.
Speaking of random chance, that's somethng that should be figured out
for this. It would set a bench mark for comparison.
<Snipola>
>> Would I be allowed to be off by twice the radius of my circles?
>
> As for this minor technicality, select a km radius around your
> predicted area. You can be very loose on this as Stan is doing so with
> his "close enough" calls. Maybe 1000km's from the predicted location
> would work?
I could agree on something along these lines. Stans circles vary in
size but never seem to get 'too big'. ALthough lately he's taken to
using ellipses and compound shapes. But I could still agree to use
something like a fixed size circle.
Hmmm...I just realized that when I counted the days for his circles, I
counted the day it was posted as the first day. I shouldn't have counted
it. That is, if a circle is posted on the 10th, it should be valid through
the 15th, which is five days after the posting. I was counting it as 10th,
11th, 12th, 13th, and 14th. However, this actually works in my favor as
that means there was more chance a circles was covering a given epicenter,
thus increasing the likelyhood of a hit, thus meaning the deck was stacked
more often.
But anyway, my circles would be valid for the same time as Stan's; five
days. I've not encountered any claimed hit's outside of his time frames.
>> Could I do better? I would hope so, but I wouldn't be upset if I did
>> just as lousy. Mother Nature has a way of showing us how little we
>> know right when we think we've got Her all figured out.
>> Brian
>
> Some years ago I knew someone else who used sea surface temperatures as
> an added item of emphasis on a given prediction for a place which falls
> in the warm water regions. As an example, if one is making a
> prediction for a place in South America that person might feel that the
> increase in sea surface temperature could make it more likely for that
> earthquake to occur at that time.
Interesting. I also think Stan is basing his ideas on some published
work involving satellite observed temperature fluctuations before quakes.
Yep, here's the paper:
"Surface Latent Heat Flux as an Earthquake Precursor" - S. Dey, R.P. Singh
http://www.copernicus.org/EGU/nhess/3/2003/6/nhs-3-749.pdf
> I think this could be a really fun project and I hope you'll go ahead.
> I wouldn't worry about Mother Nature. If you approach this using
> everything you can at your disposal, you should succeed easily.
Why do I get the feeling you want me to do this and fail just so it
can be lorded over me? Or am I just being paranoid?
But even if I do just as badly as Stan, it does not in any way elevate
the worth of Stan's predictions...errr....forecasts. That would be an
either-or falacy. My failure would not automatically make Stan a winner.
> Petra
Skywise
news:p7j5l1p9uphk779i0...@4ax.com:
> Using a finger dipped in purple ink, Bob Officer
> <bobof...@invalid.net> scribed:
>
>>>> I really think he should be able to do better.
>
> And I believe he missed THIS one...
>
> 2005/10/16 21:11 M 4.7 CHANNEL ISLANDS REG., CALIFORNIA Z= 5km 32.53N
> 118.07W
<Snipola>
I thought I felt something, but dismissed it as traffic. I live off
a busy street on the second floor. I even looked at my pendulum and
it was moving a bit, but then I figured that was nothing as it's
always moving a bit because of my overhead fan. Except I forgot that
the fan is off today.
Petra
Skywise wrote:
> Never Anonymous Bud <new...@katxyzkave.net> wrote in
> news:p7j5l1p9uphk779i0...@4ax.com:
>
> > Using a finger dipped in purple ink, Bob Officer
> > <bobof...@invalid.net> scribed:
> >
> >>>> I really think he should be able to do better.
> >
> > And I believe he missed THIS one...
> >
> > 2005/10/16 21:11 M 4.7 CHANNEL ISLANDS REG., CALIFORNIA Z= 5km 32.53N
> > 118.07W
> <Snipola>
>
> I thought I felt something, but dismissed it as traffic. I live off
> a busy street on the second floor. I even looked at my pendulum and
> it was moving a bit, but then I figured that was nothing as it's
> always moving a bit because of my overhead fan. Except I forgot that
> the fan is off today.
>
> Brian
Ah Shucks Brian!
Honestly, I would think more highly of you if you tried rather than
just walking away from a superior challenge. As you know, you cannot
win or lose, if you do not try.
Maybe 6 months is to long to commit to? How about giving it 30 days
and then you can decide after that if you want to continue.
You can do this...why are you doubting?
Petra
Alan
(Skywise) wrote:
Mt St Helens is all foggy too. Look:
http://www.fs.fed.us/gpnf/volcanocams/msh/images/mshvolcanocam.jpg
Alan, son of Nemesis.
“Our own soldiers are returning contaminated with depleted uranium and
now they’re fathering children that are horribly deformed because they’ve
been contaminated with radiated material,”
Peter DeMott
"I don’t believe that Mr. Bush is a Christian. Christians believe in the
prophets, peace be upon them. Bush believes in profits and how to get a piece of
them."
Mr George Galloway.
http://www.mrgallowaygoestowashington.com/
http://www.respectcoalition.org/
Gulf Coast Support Blog
http://unitedeuropeanworkersunion.blogspot.com/
Nemesis Peace Centre
http://www.veloceraptor.free-online.co.uk/protector.html
Nemesis The Goddess of Divine Retribution
http://thanasis.com/modern/nemesis.htm
Firebird - Fighing For Women and Childrens Rights.
http://theoriginalfirebird.blogspot.com/
Nemesis News
http://lordcerneabbas.blogspot.com/
http://www.planetarybillofrights.org/
The Hymn of Nemesis:
Nemesis, winged balancer of life,
dark-faced Goddess, daughter of Justice,
You who restrain with adamantine bridles
the frivolous insolences of mortals,
and spurning the destructive violence of mankind
drive out black envy!
Beneath Your unceasing, traceless orbit
is spun the grey fortune of man
and unnoticed You walk in his tracks,
you bend the neck that is proud.
Beneath Your arm You ever measure out life
and ever do You lower Your eye to Your bosom
as You control the scales in Your hand.
Be gracious, blessed dealer of justice,
Nemesis, winged balancer of life.
Nemesis the deathless Goddess we sing,
Victory with slender wings, all-powerful
infallible, and the assistant to Justice,
You who in displeasure at the pride of men
carry it down into Tartarus.
Alan
(Never Anonymous Bud) wrote:
> Using a finger dipped in purple ink, Bob Officer
> <bobof...@invalid.net> scribed:
>
> >>> I really think he should be able to do better.
>
> And I believe he missed THIS one...
>
> 2005/10/16 21:11 M 4.7 CHANNEL ISLANDS REG., CALIFORNIA Z= 5km 32.53N
> 118.07W
>
> This information is provided by the USGS
> National Earthquake Information Center.
> (Address problems to: se...@ghtmail.cr.usgs.gov)
>
> These parameters are preliminary and subject to revision.
>
> A magnitude 4.7 earthquake IN THE CHANNEL ISLANDS REG., CALIFORNIA has
> occurred at:
> 32.53N 118.07W Depth 5km Sun Oct 16 21:11:35 2005 UTC
>
> Time: Universal Time (UTC) Sun Oct 16 21:11:35 2005
> Time Near Epicenter Sun Oct 16 14:11:35 2005
> Eastern Daylight Time (EDT) Sun Oct 16 17:11:35 2005
> Central Daylight Time (CDT) Sun Oct 16 16:11:35 2005
> Mountain Daylight Time (MDT) Sun Oct 16 15:11:35 2005
> Pacific Daylight Time (PDT) Sun Oct 16 14:11:35 2005
> Alaska Daylight Time (ADT) Sun Oct 16 13:11:35 2005
> Hawaii Standard Time (HST) Sun Oct 16 11:11:35 2005
>
> Location with respect to nearby cities:
> 90 km (55 miles) WSW of San Diego, California (pop 1,223,000)
> 100 km (60 miles) SW of Oceanside, California (pop 161,000)
> 100 km (60 miles) W of Tijuana, Baja California, Mexico (pop
> 1,148,000)
> 740 km (460 miles) SSE of SACRAMENTO, California
>
> For maps, additional information, and subsequent updates,
> please consult:
> http://earthquake.usgs.gov/recenteqsww/Quakes/usegat.htm .
>
>
> Lumber Cartel (tinlc) #2063. Spam this account at your own risk.
>
> This sig censored by the Office of Home and Land Insecurity...
>
> Remove XYZ to email me
>
http://wcatwc.arh.noaa.gov/message.txt
TO - TSUNAMI WARNING SYSTEM PARTICIPANTS IN
ALASKA/BRITISH COLUMBIA/WASHINGTON/OREGON/CALIFORNIA
FROM - WEST COAST AND ALASKA TSUNAMI WARNING CENTER/NOAA/NWS
SUBJECT - TSUNAMI INFORMATION MESSAGE
ISSUED 10/16/2005 AT 2116 UTC
...THIS IS AN INFORMATION MESSAGE...
EARTHQUAKE DATA
PRELIMINARY MAGNITUDE - 4.6
LOCATION - 32.3N 118.3W - 70 MILES SW OF SAN DIEGO-CA.
120 MILES S OF LOS ANGELES-CA.
TIME - 1312 ADT 10/16/2005
1412 PDT 10/16/2005
2112 UTC 10/16/2005
EVALUATION
THE MAGNITUDE IS SUCH THAT A TSUNAMI WILL NOT BE GENERATED.
THIS WILL BE THE ONLY WC/ATWC BULLETIN ISSUED FOR THIS EVENT.
THE LOCATION AND MAGNITUDE ARE BASED ON PRELIMINARY INFORMATION.
FURTHER INFORMATION WILL BE ISSUED BY THE UNITED STATES
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY - EARTHQUAKE.USGS.GOV.
$$
Skywise
@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
<Snipola>
> Ah Shucks Brian!
>
> Honestly, I would think more highly of you if you tried rather than
> just walking away from a superior challenge. As you know, you cannot
> win or lose, if you do not try.
>
> Maybe 6 months is to long to commit to? How about giving it 30 days
> and then you can decide after that if you want to continue.
>
> You can do this...why are you doubting?
>
> Petra
I think you replied to the wrong post...but that's ok.
But, I haven't turned down the idea yet. Let me think about the
parameters and rules a bit then I'll make my proposal.
I've already started looking for a nice map to draw my circles
on. I've got a really REALLY nice big high res (10917 x 6333)
topographical map including ocean floors, only thing it's in the
wrong projection and it only goes to about +-73 degrees latitutude.
I can fix the projection, but I wouldn't be able to do anything
about the missing polar regions. Although, there's not much seismic
activity that far north and south, so I might be able to use the
map anyway, unless I find something better.
Skywise
> Using a finger dipped in purple ink, Bob Officer
> <bobof...@invalid.net> scribed:
>
>>>> I really think he should be able to do better.
>
> And I believe he missed THIS one...
>
> 2005/10/16 21:11 M 4.7 CHANNEL ISLANDS REG., CALIFORNIA Z= 5km 32.53N
> 118.07W
<Snipola>
Spoke too soon. Stan's claiming it. But then, there's hardly a piece
of the US west coast that hasn't had a circle over it for weeks, if
not months.