EQF evaluation
#1
This is a tentative evaluation of EQF's forecasting graphs.

He has claimed that when a peak appears in his graphs it indicates a greater probability of a quake at the indicated longitude at some future time.

To test this idea I used his 2001-2013 graph posted on his website.

I had the lines digitized and summed the values into one line representing the total amplitude for each degree of longitude. I also eliminated the 20 degree overlap at each end.

Then I similarly summed all mag 6+ quakes in the NEIC catalog by degree of longitude and plotted both for visual comparison.

Both lines were converted to percentages of their total ranges.

I also computed the coefficient of correlation which was 0.245 indicating a small similarity, not large enough to be significant.

Clearly these graphs do not indicate an increased probability for a quake. They are random curve which sometimes match and sometimes do not match.

Roger




Reply
#2
(01-14-2014, 04:28 AM)Roger Hunter Wrote: This is a tentative evaluation of EQF's forecasting graphs.

He has claimed that when a peak appears in his graphs it indicates a greater probability of a quake at the indicated longitude at some future time.

To test this idea I used his 2001-2013 graph posted on his website.

I had the lines digitized and summed the values into one line representing the total amplitude for each degree of longitude. I also eliminated the 20 degree overlap at each end.

Then I similarly summed all mag 6+ quakes in the NEIC catalog by degree of longitude and plotted both for visual comparison.

Both lines were converted to percentages of their total ranges.

I also computed the coefficient of correlation which was 0.245 indicating a small similarity, not large enough to be significant.

Clearly these graphs do not indicate an increased probability for a quake. They are random curve which sometimes match and sometimes do not match.

Roger

What? No comments, no criticisms, no debate?

Most unusual. I guess everyone agrees (except EQF)

Roger




Reply
#3
I didn’t see that Roger had posted that note and so did not respond earlier. I have been quite busy the past few weeks. There was also some confusion regarding someone else posting forecasts as EQF forecast. And I thought that that might be what was taking place.

As I stated in notes to the board monitor, the fact that people cannot see all recent posts on a single page makes it more difficult to tell when something they might want to see has been posted.


Roger’s comments regarding my forecasting chart have virtually no significance in my opinion. And I have explained why that is the case to him in detail on quite a few occasions. Yet he constantly ignores those explanations.

The data on my Web site charts are so complex that they can only be evaluated by a person who understands what they represent and carefully studies them. And up until fairly late in 2013 when I finished a major computer program update they were to a large extent a mystery to me. I could not understand why there were line peaks clearly pointing to the approach of some powerful earthquakes and not to others. And they are MY data.

http://www.freewebs.com/eq-forecasting/Data.html

A computer program could not possibly be used to evaluate them because there just too many variables that the computer program would have to take into account.

For example, the Chart A, Chart B, and Year Chart data are all dramatically different from one another. And although the Chart A and Year Chart data might look the same, they are not.

During the calculation process, the Chart A data put a very heavily weight on past earthquakes that produced at least one fatality. The reason is that they are preferentially biased towards pointing towards past destructive earthquakes because those are the most important earthquakes to people around the world. No one cares too much about a 7 magnitude earthquake that occurs out in the middle of the ocean and does not generate a tsunami. But people are VERY concerned about a possible 7 magnitude earthquake that might occur near a city. So, those past destructive earthquakes are preferentially emphasized by the data generation computer programs.

In contrast, the Year Chart data are based on all earthquakes with no preference for what amount of destruction they caused. But there are other factors that go into the Year Chart calculations. And without knowing what they are, no computer program could be used to evaluate those data.

Roger in my opinion is trying to force the proverbial “square peg into a round hole,” or whatever.

He is saying that any data displayed regarding earthquakes must say exactly what he determines they are supposed to say. And that is nonsense.

For example, he is apparently attempting to match my line peaks with high magnitude earthquakes. And although that might seem to be logical, I have determined in the past and stated repeatedly that earthquake depth appears to have a very strong impact on where those line peaks appear on the chart. So there might be strong line peaks for a shallow 6.5 magnitude earthquake and none for a deep 7.5 magnitude one. A computer program cannot take things like that into account.

Roger appears to have just ignored those critically important data along with others in spite of the fact that I told him about them over and over. And so his analyses are of little use.

Try using the link below to look at my data for the February 6, 2013 Solomon Islands earthquake. They are some of the most extraordinary data that I have on those Year Charts. The line peaks appeared at just the right longitude months before the earthquake occurred and then disappeared right afterwards. That could not possibly happen by coincidence. And no computer program could possibly evaluate that type of data.

http://www.freewebs.com/eq-forecasting/Data.html


So, the important questions are,

“Do people actually want to know how to predict earthquakes?”

And,

“Do people really want to know how to accurately evaluate forecast data that are available on the Internet?”

Earthquakes don’t occur where I live. If they occur near where you live then the answer to both of those questions should be “Yes.” But, it appears to me that Roger’s answer for both of them is “No.” If the available data are not saying exactly what he has decided they should say then they are in his opinion of no use.


Finally, it really doesn’t matter what he says about those data. I generally send E-mail notes to people who actually need to be aware of my forecast data when there is something significant for them to consider.

These are personal opinions.




Reply
#4
(01-29-2014, 02:56 PM)EQF Wrote: As I stated in notes to the board monitor, the fact that people cannot see all recent posts on a single page makes it more difficult to tell when something they might want to see has been posted.

And as I have stated numerous times....

  1. Log in
  2. Click "View New Posts" (top left corner under logo)
  3. See threads with new messages on one page

Brian





Signing of Skywise Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?
Reply
#5
Two problems would be that the "New Posts" resource is only available to people who are members from what I can see. And, even then only a few posts are listed.

I believe that site visitors would really like to see perhaps the last 30 or so posts even if they had read some of them before.

There is probably an option with that software that allows for the creation of a forum that displays a certain number of posts like that from all of the forums combined. And even though they might not be nicely organized in threads it would still probably be more of greater use to many people.


On another topic,

Roger and I are involved with an effort to create an "Earthquake Triggering" research Web page that would have data and computer software related to that area of science.

Some of the background work is presently being done. I need to find out what distance between the sun and Earth researchers use for calculating the "average" gravitational pull of the sun on the Earth.

One or two notes to one of the astronomy Newsgroups should get that question answered.




Reply
#6
(01-29-2014, 11:56 PM)EQF Wrote: Two problems would be that the "New Posts" resource is only available to people who are members from what I can see. And, even then only a few posts are listed.

I believe that site visitors would really like to see perhaps the last 30 or so posts even if they had read some of them before.

There is probably an option with that software that allows for the creation of a forum that displays a certain number of posts like that from all of the forums combined. And even though they might not be nicely organized in threads it would still probably be more of greater use to many people.

So in other words, you're arguing to make the new software look exactly like the old software. But then what's the point?

OK. Let's just take it as read that you don't like the new software and move on. Harping on me repeatedly isn't going to do much other than irritate me.


(01-29-2014, 11:56 PM)EQF Wrote: On another topic,

Roger and I are involved with an effort to create an "Earthquake Triggering" research Web page that would have data and computer software related to that area of science.

Some of the background work is presently being done. I need to find out what distance between the sun and Earth researchers use for calculating the "average" gravitational pull of the sun on the Earth.

One or two notes to one of the astronomy Newsgroups should get that question answered.

This is easy. Calculate the pull at periapsis and at apoapsis, add them together, divide by two. There's your average.

These kinds of calcs are easy. I've done them many times. I've written programs that use them. It's just Newton's law of Universal Gravitation. High school physics stuff. Just gotta be careful to use the right units and get the conversions right.

They can be done on paper, they're that easy, although a calculator helps with large exponents.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_...ravitation

Brian





Signing of Skywise Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?
Reply
#7
As I have said many times, it can be difficult to explain things clearly in short notes such as these. You appear to me to be forming not quite accurate opinions regarding the directions of my efforts.

First,

No. I am not saying I don't like the new software. What I am doing is proposing how it might be expanded or refined so that it would be of more use to visitors and posters.

Second,

The earthquake triggering processes that Roger and I are discussing are quite a bit more complex than he and many other people realize. And as the saying goes,

"If it were easy, anyone could do it."

Specialized equations need to be developed to show how earthquakes are being triggered. My forecast program relies on very simple forms of those equations. What Roger and I are at least planning to do is develop better equations.

This is something that should be done by a government agency or university research group. They have the very powerful computers needed to do the best work. The reason that Roger and I are working on this is because he is interested in doing some research using his free time. And this seems to be about the only project that is of interest to him.

The limiting factor in this effort is actually the amount of time that I can spend on the project. I have quite a few other more important ones that need attention. But I can spend a little time on it each day. Most of the present effort involved developing specialized equations for the sun and moon gravity strength etc. at the location of a fault zone.

Roger seems to have a little trouble with doing 4 D type calculations (time is the 4th dimension). So, I am having to get the equations organized. And that takes a while.




Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)