PDA

View Full Version : Quake Predictor



Copernicus
2016-Nov-25, 02:15 PM
This site, associated with coast to coast, has predicted earthquakes 7 out of 7 times by day and location in the last couple months for quakes greater than magnitude 6. Their predictions are getting more and more specific. Anyone else been following this site.

http://www.suspicious0bservers.org/

It has to do with corona holes and energy of the earth.

Strange
2016-Nov-25, 06:15 PM
Have they really predicted earthquakes? Have the listed all the times they made a prediction that didn't pan out? Have they listed all the earthquakes they didn't predict?


It has to do with corona holes and energy of the earth.

So nonsense then.

Copernicus
2016-Nov-25, 07:15 PM
Have they really predicted earthquakes? Have the listed all the times they made a prediction that didn't pan out? Have they listed all the earthquakes they didn't predict?



So nonsense then.

They have it posted everyday. I would watch it for yourself since anything I tell you, won't be believable. If you know how to do statistics you should be able to determine within a month that their work is accurate or not. I'm pretty sure this will be the biggest mainstream egg on the face in quite a long time. I believe you are a science reporter so you should be able to get in on the ground floor. I watched 3 predictions within the last week come true.

Strange
2016-Nov-25, 10:12 PM
I watched 3 predictions within the last week come true.

Out of how many?
And ow many other similar size earthquakes were there?
And how accurately do they predict them (location, size, date, time, etc)

I tried going to that website but could not find any information at all. Can you provide a link to the page that lists their predictions.

Copernicus
2016-Nov-26, 12:32 AM
Out of how many?
And ow many other similar size earthquakes were there?
And how accurately do they predict them (location, size, date, time, etc)

I tried going to that website but could not find any information at all. Can you provide a link to the page that lists their predictions.

I don't know all the factors, but a corona hole in the sun, mainly on the southern hemisphere of the sun helps predict when an earth quake will occur and then some energy level over fault lines predicts when, within 24 hours. He looks at all the major fault lines and there is some energy, global electric circuits, that are more elevated. On 24th he had five areas that were likely to have a greater than 6 magnitude earthquake. So basically he predicted that each area had about a 20 percent chance of have a 6 or greater magnitude earthquake. He had different areas picked out the two days before that and one of the areas had a greater than 6 earth quake.
You can go to his quakewatch.net for more information. There was a local news story about it at http://www.koat.com/article/video-earthquake-researcher-uses-sun-to-make-predictions/8299193
I am sure, if you called him, he would be more than glad to talk to you.

CJSF
2016-Nov-26, 12:34 AM
What "energy level"? What form of energy? How is it measured?

CJSF

PetersCreek
2016-Nov-26, 12:39 AM
Copernicus,

If you are prepared to defend these assertions in the ATM forum, report this post and I will move the thread. If not, stop advocating for the claims.

Strange
2016-Nov-26, 07:27 AM
On 24th he had five areas that were likely to have a greater than 6 magnitude earthquake. So basically he predicted that each area had about a 20 percent chance of have a 6 or greater magnitude earthquake. He had different areas picked out the two days before that and one of the areas had a greater than 6 earth quake.
You can go to his quakewatch.net for more information.

I dug around on that website as well. All I could find was a table with (non working) links to maps showing that a quake would happen somewhere in the world at some time (typically in the next week). If that is a "prediction" then it is quite likely to be correct occasionally. There are, on average, several quakes of magnitude 6 or above each week.

Without a proper statistical analysis of the accuracy, I see no reason not to consider this the nonsense that it appears to be.

01101001
2016-Nov-26, 12:21 PM
This site, associated with coast to coast, has predicted earthquakes 7 out of 7 times by day and location in the last couple months for quakes greater than magnitude 6. Their predictions are getting more and more specific.

When you used your critical-thinking skills to ask yourself about this site, what questions did you ask, and how did you answer them?

geonuc
2016-Nov-26, 12:35 PM
Copernicus, I poked around the site and couldn't find any predictions, just talk of past predictions, which are naturally suspect. Maybe I missed it. If you think there's some validity to this, how about posting several of his predictions here and we'll see what happens?

01101001
2016-Nov-26, 01:36 PM
If anyone cares to hunt for past predictions: Internet Archive, Wayback Machine: suspicious0bservers.org (https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://suspicious0bservers.org)

Copernicus
2016-Nov-26, 07:47 PM
Copernicus, I poked around the site and couldn't find any predictions, just talk of past predictions, which are naturally suspect. Maybe I missed it. If you think there's some validity to this, how about posting several of his predictions here and we'll see what happens?

I will post a prediction when I see one. I will post it between 5 and 8 am central standard time when I see a prediction.

Copernicus
2016-Nov-26, 07:49 PM
I dug around on that website as well. All I could find was a table with (non working) links to maps showing that a quake would happen somewhere in the world at some time (typically in the next week). If that is a "prediction" then it is quite likely to be correct occasionally. There are, on average, several quakes of magnitude 6 or above each week.

Without a proper statistical analysis of the accuracy, I see no reason not to consider this the nonsense that it appears to be.

You are right, there is about one magnitude 6 earthquake each 3 days.

Reality Check
2016-Nov-28, 12:23 AM
It has to do with corona holes and energy of the earth.
Basically cherry-picked "predictions" on a crank web site run by Ben Davidson - a lawyer (http://www.suspicious0bservers.org/about-faq/)! He has associated himself with the Thunderbolts cranks whose founders Talbott and Thornhill are neo-Velikovskians. He seems a climate change denier since he links to a climate change denial web site with for example the idiocy of "The 100% Fraudulent Hockey Stick" and does not realize how bad that site is. A rather scathing article about him: How one man turned conspiracy theories and impeding doom into a YouTube empire. (http://kernelmag.dailydot.com/issue-sections/headline-story/15158/ben-davidson-suspicious-observers-youtube-conspiracy-entrepreneur/)
The "7 predictions in a row" video is a bit crazy. Prediction via Tweets! Waves a cursor over Japan + dumb image of a what looks like an electric discharge gives a prediction of a M6.2 earthquake in Japan! Repeat assertions and electric discharge craziness.

Where is his prediction of a M7.8 earthquake in New Zealand for 13 November 2016 (http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/us1000778i#executive)? Quake Predictions of SpaceWeatherNews (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zRUPkFrofDO7HF41pqvg6SXTJugNGtsszqaweF43HP0/edit) missed that one end even got the daily prediction for 13 November 2016 wrong - and 11 November and 18 November :eek:!

Every day there are earthquakes. Anyone can make up that an earthquake is related to something on the Sun by cherry picking the earthquake and activity.

Copernicus
2016-Dec-01, 03:22 PM
Basically cherry-picked "predictions" on a crank web site run by Ben Davidson - a lawyer (http://www.suspicious0bservers.org/about-faq/)! He has associated himself with the Thunderbolts cranks whose founders Talbott and Thornhill are neo-Velikovskians. He seems a climate change denier since he links to a climate change denial web site with for example the idiocy of "The 100% Fraudulent Hockey Stick" and does not realize how bad that site is. A rather scathing article about him: How one man turned conspiracy theories and impeding doom into a YouTube empire. (http://kernelmag.dailydot.com/issue-sections/headline-story/15158/ben-davidson-suspicious-observers-youtube-conspiracy-entrepreneur/)
The "7 predictions in a row" video is a bit crazy. Prediction via Tweets! Waves a cursor over Japan + dumb image of a what looks like an electric discharge gives a prediction of a M6.2 earthquake in Japan! Repeat assertions and electric discharge craziness.

Where is his prediction of a M7.8 earthquake in New Zealand for 13 November 2016 (http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/us1000778i#executive)? Quake Predictions of SpaceWeatherNews (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zRUPkFrofDO7HF41pqvg6SXTJugNGtsszqaweF43HP0/edit) missed that one end even got the daily prediction for 13 November 2016 wrong - and 11 November and 18 November :eek:!

Every day there are earthquakes. Anyone can make up that an earthquake is related to something on the Sun by cherry picking the earthquake and activity.

No new predictions yet for greater than 6.0 earthquake.

Reality Check
2016-Dec-01, 11:10 PM
No new predictions yet for greater than 6.0 earthquake.
Which is a problem with the "predictions" - where is his prediction of a period without a > 6.0 earthquake?

Note that the alert maps have markings produced through some magical process that just happen to coincide with earthquake-prone zones, e.g. Japan, Indonesia and California! That is pretty much a "there will be hurricanes in hurricane season"-type prediction.

Copernicus
2016-Dec-01, 11:42 PM
Which is a problem with the "predictions" - where is his prediction of a period without a > 6.0 earthquake?

Note that the alert maps have markings produced through some magical process that just happen to coincide with earthquake-prone zones, e.g. Japan, Indonesia and California! That is pretty much a "there will be hurricanes in hurricane season"-type prediction.

I was just updating that I have not seen a prediction for a greater than 6 earthquake since I said I would post when one is predicted. I am fairly confident there will be predictions in the next day or so. I am not confident that he is not a quack yet.

01101001
2016-Dec-02, 07:47 AM
I am not confident that he is not a quack yet.


When you used your critical-thinking skills to ask yourself about this site, what questions did you ask, and how did you answer them?

Perhaps you are so open-minded that you did not ask questions of yourself?

Copernicus
2016-Dec-02, 03:11 PM
Perhaps you are so open-minded that you did not ask questions of yourself?

I have to take physicists thoughts with a grain of salt when they ridicule other people. This video is how I see physicists are with each other all time.

https://www.facebook.com/186033568941/videos/vb.186033568941/100869609935842/?type=2&theater

That said I still think Ben could be a crackpot, but his ideas of weather on the sun affecting the earth dramatically, doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

Gillianren
2016-Dec-02, 04:40 PM
If he's citing Thunderbolts, it should. I remember Electric Universe from my time spent actually participating in ATM, and it's unreliable at best and completely nonsensical at worst, usually pointing due "ignoring the evidence."

Copernicus
2016-Dec-02, 04:50 PM
According to Ben Davidson a large earthquake or series of large earthquakes are likely to hit when there is a large southern corona hole facing the earth. This is about to happen in the next few days.

bknight
2016-Dec-02, 05:21 PM
According to Ben Davidson a large earthquake or series of large earthquakes are likely to hit when there is a large southern corona hole facing the earth. This is about to happen in the next few days.
Have you researched the timing between recent earthquakes in that area? Does the statistical variation fall in Davidson's prediction? If so he is not likely predicting an earthquake with science but more statistics.

mkline55
2016-Dec-02, 05:29 PM
According to Ben Davidson a large earthquake or series of large earthquakes are likely to hit when there is a large southern corona hole facing the earth. This is about to happen in the next few days.

That's not exactly the same as saying they are more likely to occur at a given time. Are earthquakes also likely to occur when no large southern corona hole is facing the Earth?

Admittedly I have not looked at the site. If I looked at statistics for 5000 continuous days, then if the theory is valid, there should be a significant statistical correlation for earthquake numbers on days with the coronal alignment and those without.

Copernicus
2016-Dec-02, 05:42 PM
Have you researched the timing between recent earthquakes in that area? Does the statistical variation fall in Davidson's prediction? If so he is not likely predicting an earthquake with science but more statistics.

We can go with just a statistical correlation for now. His arguments do have the sound of slight of hand. So we will see, if, when the corona hole does face earth, if large earthquakes, or a series of large earthquakes hit earth in the next few days. Not sure when the corona hole will be facing earth exactly. Could be a day or two days yet.

Copernicus
2016-Dec-02, 05:56 PM
That's not exactly the same as saying they are more likely to occur at a given time. Are earthquakes also likely to occur when no large southern corona hole is facing the Earth?

Admittedly I have not looked at the site. If I looked at statistics for 5000 continuous days, then if the theory is valid, there should be a significant statistical correlation for earthquake numbers on days with the coronal alignment and those without.

The corona holes occur rather frequently. Not all earthquakes are predicted to occur during this time. It is not suggested that this is the case. I'm not a statistician, but sometimes correlations are so strong, that one does not need pin point statistics to analyze the data. I do not think 5000 days of data would be necessary or even one year.
I'm pretty sure traditions, diet, that have been developed in society, or for that matter, animals, are developed because we see intuitively, that this works. The first year I plant pumpkins in an area, the deer do not eat them. The next year, somehow, many deer already know that those plants are edible. Did they do complex statistical analysis?

Torsten
2016-Dec-02, 06:13 PM
That said I still think Ben could be a crackpot, but his ideas of weather on the sun affecting the earth dramatically, doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

I've watched as much of his "Top 6 Climate Problems" video as I can stand. It is full of long-debunked ideas, and to anyone who has studied the issue it is completely unreasonable.

01101001
2016-Dec-02, 06:23 PM
That said I still think Ben could be a crackpot, but his ideas of weather on the sun affecting the earth dramatically, doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

Good to know. Filed.

Copernicus
2016-Dec-02, 06:36 PM
I've watched as much of his "Top 6 Climate Problems" video as I can stand. It is full of long-debunked ideas, and to anyone who has studied the issue it is completely unreasonable.

Just to let you know. This thread is about his quake predictions not the weather. That said, if Ben is correct about large corona holes, but more so southern ones being associated with earthquakes, I think, since his audience is amateurs, that this correlation should be low hanging fruit, otherwise he is just another guy producing interesting, entertaining, stuff to get money off of people.

geonuc
2016-Dec-02, 07:55 PM
So this is not so much a claim of earthquake prediction but a hypothesis that solar activity influences the Earth's tectonics?

Swift
2016-Dec-02, 08:00 PM
Magnitude 6.3 - 43km NE of Huarichancara, Peru. 2016-12-01 22:40:26 UTC

USGS (http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/us10007e55#executive)

Was this predicted?

Copernicus
2016-Dec-02, 08:39 PM
Magnitude 6.3 - 43km NE of Huarichancara, Peru. 2016-12-01 22:40:26 UTC

USGS (http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/us10007e55#executive)

Was this predicted?

He says that it was an alert zone, but his mention of it was only after the earthquake. It may have been mentioned as an alert zone in his paid section ahead of time as he says, but I am not going to pay for any premium service. My plan is only to mention alert zones when he posts them in the free section.

Copernicus
2016-Dec-02, 08:46 PM
He says that it was an alert zone, but his mention of it was only after the earthquake. It may have been mentioned as an alert zone in his paid section ahead of time as he says, but I am not going to pay for any premium service. My plan is only to mention alert zones when he posts them in the free section.

I guess I'm not being clear. His predictions are statistically an earthquake is more likely to occur at certain times and locations. He does not predict any exact times or locations.

Torsten
2016-Dec-02, 09:43 PM
Just to let you know. This thread is about his quake predictions not the weather. That said, if Ben is correct about large corona holes, but more so southern ones being associated with earthquakes, I think, since his audience is amateurs, that this correlation should be low hanging fruit, otherwise he is just another guy producing interesting, entertaining, stuff to get money off of people.

Yes, I know the thread is about quakes. But you mentioned the weather thing, as if it was something that could bolster his credibility. But the reverse is true. If he can get something so well understood so incredibly wrong, then why should I trust him to get this much more complicated (going by what geologists say) topic right? I think it's a pretty common phenomenon that cranks will claim not just one, but a whole slew of wrong ideas. I find it irritating, and not interesting or entertaining.

geonuc
2016-Dec-02, 10:26 PM
I guess I'm not being clear. His predictions are statistically an earthquake is more likely to occur at certain times and locations. He does not predict any exact times or locations.
Well, then I'd say there's a ton of data on earthquakes times and locations, and a ton of data on solar activity. Shouldn't be too hard to run the numbers and see if they correlate. 'Predicting' earthquakes is snake oil salesmanship. Has he run the numbers and then submitted his work for peer review?

Copernicus
2016-Dec-02, 10:52 PM
Yes, I know the thread is about quakes. But you mentioned the weather thing, as if it was something that could bolster his credibility. But the reverse is true. If he can get something so well understood so incredibly wrong, then why should I trust him to get this much more complicated (going by what geologists say) topic right? I think it's a pretty common phenomenon that cranks will claim not just one, but a whole slew of wrong ideas. I find it irritating, and not interesting or entertaining.

True enough.

Copernicus
2016-Dec-02, 10:55 PM
Well, then I'd say there's a ton of data on earthquakes times and locations, and a ton of data on solar activity. Shouldn't be too hard to run the numbers and see if they correlate. 'Predicting' earthquakes is snake oil salesmanship. Has he run the numbers and then submitted his work for peer review?

True enough. I don't know where to find the data. But the last corona hole eartquakes were enough do me to notice.

Copernicus
2016-Dec-02, 11:13 PM
This the closest I could find to a study. http://spaceweathernews.com/studies-suggest-sun-triggers-massive-earthquakes/ and the journal new concepts in global tectonics journal Sept 2015 p 310

Copernicus
2016-Dec-02, 11:29 PM
I don't know anything about the electric universe and the thunderbolt project except that they are considered quackery. I still wouldn't doubt that the suns magnetic fields and whatever the sun emits could have profound effects on the earth. Earthquakes weather lightening volcanos people's moods etc.

Jens
2016-Dec-02, 11:59 PM
This the closest I could find to a study. http://spaceweathernews.com/studies-suggest-sun-triggers-massive-earthquakes/ and the journal new concepts in global tectonics journal Sept 2015 p 310

It's not a peer reviewed journal. It's just a place for people fighting against "mainstream censorship" to publish what they want.

geonuc
2016-Dec-03, 12:06 AM
True enough. I don't know where to find the data. But the last corona hole eartquakes were enough do me to notice.

No, I was suggesting this Ben Davidson should have done the research and determined if there's a correlation.

Jens
2016-Dec-03, 12:08 AM
I don't know anythinI still wouldn't doubt that the suns magnetic fields and whatever the sun emits could have profound effects on the earth. Earthquakes weather lightening volcanos people's moods etc.

It's wrong to lump those together. The weather and people's moods? Sure, there are plausible mechanisms. But earthquakes? No, there isn't a plausible mechanism. Earthquakes are geologic events that take place regularly along faults because of pressure on faults caused by plate movements. There are historical maps of where earthquakes regularly occur.

Copernicus
2016-Dec-04, 02:17 PM
It's wrong to lump those together. The weather and people's moods? Sure, there are plausible mechanisms. But earthquakes? No, there isn't a plausible mechanism. Earthquakes are geologic events that take place regularly along faults because of pressure on faults caused by plate movements. There are historical maps of where earthquakes regularly occur.

It appears ben is not making specific predictions. Based on his past arguments there should be large earthquakes in one to two days, due to a corona hole and certain planetary alignments.

His recent lack of specificity is agravating.

Jens
2016-Dec-04, 02:37 PM
His recent lack of specificity is agravating.

His lack of specificity is his brilliance. [emoji4]

That's how fortune tellers do their work. The more non-specific you are, the more hits you get...

publiusr
2016-Dec-04, 08:19 PM
About the best you can do is have a detector of a P wave shut down train traffic before the S wave hits and de-rails everything.

Copernicus
2016-Dec-04, 09:13 PM
These locations he says have a 40 percent chance of greater than 7 earth quake in next 24 hours https://mobile.twitter.com/TheRealS0s/status/805427347755331584/photo/1

Swift
2016-Dec-04, 09:56 PM
These locations he says have a 40 percent chance of greater than 7 earth quake in next 24 hours https://mobile.twitter.com/TheRealS0s/status/805427347755331584/photo/1
To be blunt, that is a meaningless prediction. If there isn't an earthquake, he can claim it was only a 40% chance. If there is, he would have to demonstrate that you somehow did better than a random guess of a earthquake in multiple earthquake-prone locations.

Let's just suppose that there is something to his idea, that coronal holes on the sun increase the probability of an earthquake. I suppose he must believe it isn't an on/off mechanism (otherwise it would be 100% chance), but more like it increases the stresses in that region and increases the probability.

The only way you are ever going to demonstrate such a relationship is a massive statistical analysis, showing that the coronal holes increase the probabilities over a massive data set. Fortunately, we have such data; earthquake records go back many decades. I don't know how long coronal holes have been systematically monitored (they've been known since at least the 1980s), but it has to be years. So one could do such an analysis.

So, where is this analysis? I'm not asking you, Copernicus, to do it, but I expect this guy to have done so. If there is something there, then publish it. If there isn't, but you are still trying to milk the idea... I suspect you would only tweet about it. Until I see the publication, I rate this as nonsense.

Jens
2016-Dec-04, 11:27 PM
It's not completely clear what he means in the tweet. The areas seem pretty broad, but if he's saying that there is a 40 percent chance in each of those locations, then if there are big earthquakes in three of them, then I'd be impressed. If he's only saying that there is a 40 percent chance of one happening in any of those areas, then it's much less impressive but still worth looking at. On average I think that currently there are about 15 magnitude 7 or bigger earthquake a year, so we should expect one every 24 days. If you take a single prediction, then yes it's meaningless because there are insufficient data points, but if you look up a lot of his predictions you can start to average them up and see how well he does.

Copernicus
2016-Dec-04, 11:40 PM
It's not completely clear what he means in the tweet. The areas seem pretty broad, but if he's saying that there is a 40 percent chance in each of those locations, then if there are big earthquakes in three of them, then I'd be impressed. If he's only saying that there is a 40 percent chance of one happening in any of those areas, then it's much less impressive but still worth looking at. On average I think that currently there are about 15 magnitude 7 or bigger earthquake a year, so we should expect one every 24 days. If you take a single prediction, then yes it's meaningless because there are insufficient data points, but if you look up a lot of his predictions you can start to average them up and see how well he does.

He changed the alert zones to the following. His prediction is that it would be a 40 percent chance of a greater than 7 with all the zones together in the next 24 hours, and about 80 percent chance of a 6 or greater.

https://twitter.com/TheRealS0s

Superluminal
2016-Dec-05, 12:51 AM
Until someone figures out how to make specific predictions, and hits them consistently, to within an hour or two, earthquake prediction will never be more more than educated guesses. There is a good correlation between fraking and minor quakes. Yet still in areas where we are having man made quakes, we can't seem to be able to predict the time, location and magnitude of a quake.

Jens
2016-Dec-05, 01:15 AM
Another thing to mention about earthquake prediction. In Japan we get fairly large earthquakes quite regularly. To be honest, even if I knew that a magnitude 6 earthquake was going to come tomorrow afternoon, I probably wouldn't stay home from work. The buildings sway, but they don't fall down, and the trains sometimes stop as a precaution but they usually start up within a few minutes. Now, if I knew that a 7.9 or 8.0 earthquake was coming, I would definitely go to a park to wait it out, but those earthquakes a very rare. So in practical terms, earthquake prediction isn't even that useful when it's accurate. The best thing to do is (as is done in Japan) make buildings earthquake proof, have helmets in your desk, know what to do when an earthquake strikes, and have food and water supplies in local government offices. In Tokyo the last really devastating earthquake was almost a century ago (1923), and that was only so horrible because homes were made of wood then and it happened just before lunchtime when people were using stoves. Even the 3/11 earthquake, which was about 8 I think, didn't kill so many people. It was the tsunami that caused the vast majority of the deaths (and the nuclear accident as well). I doubt that power companies would even bother to shut down nuclear reactors unless they knew that a very big earthquake was coming, because normally they are tripped automatically if the earthquake is over a certain level, so there's no point in deliberately stopping it just to prevent it from being stopped by the tripping mechanism.

Knowing about a typhoon or snowstorm is much more useful, because you would avoid going out that evening.

Copernicus
2016-Dec-05, 02:27 AM
Looks like there was a 6.0 in the Indonesia alert zone.

Copernicus
2016-Dec-05, 02:29 AM
Until someone figures out how to make specific predictions, and hits them consistently, to within an hour or two, earthquake prediction will never be more more than educated guesses. There is a good correlation between fraking and minor quakes. Yet still in areas where we are having man made quakes, we can't seem to be able to predict the time, location and magnitude of a quake.

You are right that 24 hours is too long and the locations are not specific enough to help. But prediction has to start somewhere.

DaveC426913
2016-Dec-05, 03:04 AM
Not that I want to lend credence to this Earthquake Predictor idea, but let's not go overboard with the criticism.

To wit:

... just happen to coincide with earthquake-prone zones, e.g. Japan, Indonesia and California! That is pretty much a "there will be hurricanes in hurricane season"-type prediction.
This is not a valid criticism.

It does not hurt his claims by us (you) noting that his predictions of earthquakes tend to occur where earthquakes are common. He's not looking for inexplicable earthquakes.

"I can predict when tornados will occur! I can save lives!"
"Really? Anywhere in the world?"
"Well, they mostly occur on Toronado Alley and Europe, but..."
"Bah! What a dumb talent. Now if you told me you could predict them in the Arctic! THAT would be a feat!"
But ... tornados don't happen in the Arctic...

Jens
2016-Dec-05, 04:08 AM
Looks like there was a 6.0 in the Indonesia alert zone.

I'm not sure but it looks like it was to the north of the alert zone. Though I'm not sure what that arrow means.

Jens
2016-Dec-05, 04:13 AM
Not that I want to lend credence to this Earthquake Predictor idea, but let's not go overboard with the criticism.

Yes, I agree. He's not saying that coronal holes can create earthquakes where they never occur, just that they trigger ones that are waiting to happen.

Another thing is that it seems that he keeps "updating" the predictions. Which is fine, except that you also have to give him credit for both hits and misses with previous versions. So for example, Indonesia wasn't in the version posted 17 hours ago. So in that prediction, he failed to predict the one in Indonesia.

John Mendenhall
2016-Dec-05, 06:41 AM
Copernicus, this guy has made no accurate predictions ans wants to charge for his services. :doh:

You figure it out.

Copernicus
2016-Dec-05, 07:32 AM
Copernicus, this guy has made no accurate predictions ans wants to charge for his services. :doh:

You figure it out.

Sorry I thought he charged for the quake predictor site but he does not. But anyways the first post of his actual prediction was yesterday. Roughly a 6 magnitude occurs every 3 days. His alert areas are roughly one sixth of the seismicly active areas so there was approximately one in 18 chance that he would have randomly succeeded. Let's say this happens 3 times in a row
Then one is talking 4 sigma. The corona hole is just starting so I expect he will be predicting more soon. Ben will probably say that not much energy is released from a 6.3 so it Will be active for the next few days. Definitely we should skeptical.

bengali
2016-Dec-05, 07:50 AM
I dug around on that website as well. All I could find was a table with (non working) links to maps showing that a quake would happen somewhere in the world at some time (typically in the next week). If that is a "prediction" then it is quite likely to be correct occasionally. There are, on average, several quakes of magnitude 6 or above each week.

Without a proper statistical analysis of the accuracy, I see no reason not to consider this the nonsense that it appears to be.

I predict an earthquake every day at every location, that way I get them all.

It would also be interesting to know whether the website predicted these earthquakes before or after they happened.

Copernicus
2016-Dec-05, 10:03 AM
The quake watch is still active, the alert zones have shifted. Ben does not say it explicitly, but he 6 magnitude quake would be about 80 percent within 24 hours and the 7 magnitude watch would be 40 percent within 24 hours. The alert zones do shift, just like the weather keeps moving and shifting. The following is the current alert zone.

https://twitter.com/TheRealS0s

Copernicus
2016-Dec-05, 10:06 AM
I predict an earthquake every day at every location, that way I get them all.

It would also be interesting to know whether the website predicted these earthquakes before or after they happened.

I'm not saying that Ben is legit, but his alert was more specific than saying an earthquake will occur at every location every day. His prediction as shown below is a 24 hour alert, which is more specific than anything I have heard of before.

Copernicus
2016-Dec-05, 08:45 PM
The alert zone has changed to the following. https://mobile.twitter.com/TheRealS0s

Reality Check
2016-Dec-06, 12:26 AM
I am not confident that he is not a quack yet.
Why would we want any earthquake predictions from a lawyer with no expertise in earthquakes?
Experts in earthquakes have been looking a relationship between solar activity and earthquakes because there were reasonable physical mechanisms that might have an influence, e.g. increases in solar wind might make the atmosphere expand which would affect Earth's rotations and put stress on fault lines. No significant correlation has been found.
Insignificant solar-terrestrial triggering of earthquakes (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50211/abstract)

We examine the claim that solar-terrestrial interaction, as measured by sunspots, solar wind velocity, and geomagnetic activity, might play a role in triggering earthquakes. We count the number of earthquakes having magnitudes that exceed chosen thresholds in calendar years, months, and days, and we order these counts by the corresponding rank of annual, monthly, and daily averages of the solar-terrestrial variables. We measure the statistical significance of the difference between the earthquake-number distributions below and above the median of the solar-terrestrial averages by χ2 and Student's t tests. Across a range of earthquake magnitude thresholds, we find no consistent and statistically significant distributional differences. We also introduce time lags between the solar-terrestrial variables and the number of earthquakes, but again no statistically significant distributional difference is found. We cannot reject the null hypothesis of no solar-terrestrial triggering of earthquakes.

Does the sun trigger earthquakes? (http://file.scirp.org/Html/1-8301704_21661.htm)

avares and Azevedo [1] showed in their article, that there existed a correlation between the solar cycles and the earthquake activity. In their study they used both ancient records, as well as recent seismicity between 1950 and 2010. According to them, a possible link between solar activity and earthquake occurrence is the magnetic field of the earth, that is being changed in shape corresponding to the solar cycles and thus exerts a pressure on the earth’s crust. This study tries to test their results by means of correlation and cointegration, not only using recent solar and earthquake data, but also taking measurements of the Earth’s magnetic field strength into account. The results presented in this work show no clear connection between the seismicity and the 11-year solar cycles. The data rather indicates an anti-periodicity. It is not excluded, that a few strong CME events can influence the triggering of earthquake events, however, this effect is presumably small and plays only a minor roll in the faulting process.

Reality Check
2016-Dec-06, 12:39 AM
So this is not so much a claim of earthquake prediction but a hypothesis that solar activity influences the Earth's tectonics?
It is more than a guess that solar activity influences the Earth's tectonics. There is some secret magic which is for members only he goes through that produces "alert zones" that he puts on maps. These happen to be earthquake prone areas, e.g. Japan and California - almost as if the Sun knows about Earth's tectonic plates and aims CME at them :D!

How do you become am member - you pay Ben Davidson money :eek:! That turns Davidson from a crank into a scammer playing on peoples fears of earthquakes to make money.

geonuc
2016-Dec-06, 10:58 AM
It is more than a guess that solar activity influences the Earth's tectonics. There is some secret magic which is for members only he goes through that produces "alert zones" that he puts on maps. These happen to be earthquake prone areas, e.g. Japan and California - almost as if the Sun knows about Earth's tectonic plates and aims CME at them :D!

How do you become am member - you pay Ben Davidson money :eek:! That turns Davidson from a crank into a scammer playing on peoples fears of earthquakes to make money.

You're absolutely right, of course. I should not have used the term 'hypothesis'. It's more a notion, and that's being polite. Scam is quite a bit more accurate.

Copernicus
2016-Dec-06, 02:05 PM
There were no 6.0 or greater earthquakes in the alert zones or anywhere in the world for the last 24 hours. Considering it was 80 percent chance of a 6.0 earthquake it is a modest miss.

Copernicus
2016-Dec-06, 02:08 PM
You're absolutely right, of course. I should not have used the term 'hypothesis'. It's more a notion, and that's being polite. Scam is quite a bit more accurate.

I don't doubt that suspiciousobservers could be a scam. I will always be polite to anyone though. I have seen way to many scientific pronouncements that have later been proven wrong so I don't judge anything to harshly. Life and science are very tricky business.

Gillianren
2016-Dec-06, 03:42 PM
What would it take to convince you that he's wrong?

Reality Check
2016-Dec-06, 09:34 PM
I don't doubt that suspiciousobservers could be a scam.
You missed that Ben Davidson is a lawyer making a living out of conspiracy theory and crank science: How one man turned conspiracy theories and impeding doom into a YouTube empire. (http://kernelmag.dailydot.com/issue-sections/headline-story/15158/ben-davidson-suspicious-observers-youtube-conspiracy-entrepreneur/)
It is a basically a scam that you are advertising. Science ends up in journals, not on a YouTube channel on advertised on a web site. Davidson is trying to milk as much money as possible by churning out propaganda videos. He is ignoring the fact that decades of earthquake and solar observations exist. A non-crank would analyze that data.

Copernicus
2016-Dec-06, 10:32 PM
You missed that Ben Davidson is a lawyer making a living out of conspiracy theory and crank science: How one man turned conspiracy theories and impeding doom into a YouTube empire. (http://kernelmag.dailydot.com/issue-sections/headline-story/15158/ben-davidson-suspicious-observers-youtube-conspiracy-entrepreneur/)
It is a basically a scam that you are advertising. Science ends up in journals, not on a YouTube channel on advertised on a web site. Davidson is trying to milk as much money as possible by churning out propaganda videos. He is ignoring the fact that decades of earthquake and solar observations exist. A non-crank would analyze that data.

You are right Reality Check, real science ends up in journals. With the internet changing everything now, who knows how real science publishing and distribution is happening or evolving. I remember how gravitational waves detection were announced or hinted. Everything is changing.

That said Ben could very well be a scam artist.

Copernicus
2016-Dec-06, 10:34 PM
The latest alert from 5 hours ago is below. I would assume it is the same 80 percent chance of greater than 6 earth quake and 40 percent of greater than 7 earth quake.
I don't like that Ben Davidson doesn't narrow down his predictions every time.

https://twitter.com/TheRealS0s

Swift
2016-Dec-06, 10:43 PM
You are right Reality Check, real science ends up in journals. With the internet changing everything now, who knows how real science publishing and distribution is happening or evolving. I remember how gravitational waves detection were announced or hinted. Everything is changing.

I personally am old school. Until it is published in a reputable, peer-reviewed journal, I pretty much ignore it. It can be published on-line, but it has to be peer-reviewed.

Copernicus
2016-Dec-06, 11:17 PM
I personally am old school. Until it is published in a reputable, peer-reviewed journal, I pretty much ignore it. It can be published on-line, but it has to be peer-reviewed.

Peer review is wonderful. The computer and the internet are just such powerful tool, just the way print was, that who can predict which way things will evolve.

Copernicus
2016-Dec-06, 11:26 PM
There was a 6.4-6.8 earthquake in Sumatra, I don't know if this qualifies according to Ben Davidson's alert zone or not. I am not sure what the big star is in the area of Indonesia that he posted 6 hours ago.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/12/06/strong-earthquake-hits-off-sumatra/95061976/

Ben's Quake alert from 6 hours ago.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CzAiGmkUQAEm7-g.jpg:large

Reality Check
2016-Dec-06, 11:42 PM
There was a 6.4-6.8 earthquake in Sumatra, ...
Who cares about ignorant and vague guesses from a rather deluded crank? We know that he is deluded because he has attended and presented at least 3 electric universe conferences (EU2014, EU2015 and EU2016) hosted by the Thunderbolts people who are neo-Velikovskians - planets whizzing around to cater for cherry picked myths, comets are rocks, the Grand Canyon was carved by electrical discharges, Saturn used to sit over the north pole and other delusions.

Jens
2016-Dec-07, 12:02 AM
There was a 6.4-6.8 earthquake in Sumatra, I don't know if this qualifies according to Ben Davidson's alert zone or not. I am not sure what the big star is in the area of Indonesia that he posted 6 hours ago.


It's not in the zone. I don't know what that star means either, but there is no red line over Sumatra. To be honest, it's a big exasperating to even try to figure out what he's predicting or not predicting.

Copernicus
2016-Dec-07, 12:05 AM
Who cares about ignorant and vague guesses from a rather deluded crank?

I thought he was a crank too, but an interesting crank. I posted his alert zones where he had said a 40 percent chance of a 7.0 and a 80 percent chance of a 6.0 He even narrowed down the alert zones to about 1/8 of the actively seismological zones in the world. There was, a 6.3 and 6.8 earthquake in these areas within 2 days. Ben still says that more is coming. The chances of his prediction of two 6.0 earthquakes in a row in his alert zones is about 1/400. If another happens within 24 hours it is about 1/8000.

The question is, is he a crank or is it just extremely difficult to get new ideas started? KenG seems to be a very smart guy who was trying to get some rather trivial errors corrected, yet he was just viciously attacked. I am just saying that maybe we need some new approaches to disseminating new ideas.

I'm not sure if Ben Davidson is a crank, but what if there really is a silent conspiracy that makes it difficult to radically change science. Do all the super projects like LHC, neutrinoICE, LIGO, just gobble up all enthusiasm for other ideas and just spit them out? I don't know.

Reality Check
2016-Dec-07, 02:44 AM
I thought he was a crank too, but an interesting crank.
An interesting deluded crank is still deluded and not worth wasting your time over. Trusting the numbers about statistics and earthquakes from an ignorant and deluded lawyer is not good.
Especially when you point out one of his delusions! By purposely restricting his "predictions" magically to earthquake prone regions he increased his change of a random hit. Is a prediction of rain in winter a prediction :eek:?

Is that "silent conspiracy" another one of Davidson's delusions?

DaveC426913
2016-Dec-07, 03:06 AM
Why would we want any earthquake predictions from a lawyer with no expertise in earthquakes?
Ad hom.

If it works, who cares what his credentials are.

That's not to say it works, simply that, as ones who purport rationality, we should stick to judging the evidence, not the person.


Trusting the numbers about statistics and earthquakes from an ignorant and deluded lawyer is not good.
No trust required. It is a "relatively" simple matter of seeing if his predictions are statistically significant.



By purposely restricting his "predictions" magically to earthquake prone regions he increased his change of a random hit. Is a prediction of rain in winter a prediction :eek:?
Same faulty logic. See post 53.

"I can predict when tornados will occur! I can save lives!"
"Really? Anywhere in the world?"
"Well, they mostly occur on Toronado Alley and Europe, but..."
"Bah! What a dumb talent. Now if you told me you could predict them in the Arctic! THAT would be a feat!"

Again, he's not claiming inexplicable, magic Earthquakes.

Reality Check
2016-Dec-07, 03:20 AM
Ad hom. ...
It is a statement of fact.
Ben Davidson is a lawyer (a JD) who has no experience in science or mathematics. There is evidence of ignorance and denial of science, e.g. denying climate change and believing in the Electric Universe (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Electric_Universe) nonsense to the extent of presenting at 3 EU conferences. Working astronomers do not present at the EU conferences but mythologists and anti-GR cranks do!

The question is whether it is a waste of time doing our own analysis of his results by trolling through his tweets and YouTube videos? The answer is yes - this is just another Internet physics crank.

Why would we want any earthquake predictions from a lawyer with no expertise in earthquakes?
Experts in earthquakes have been looking a relationship between solar activity and earthquakes because there were reasonable physical mechanisms that might have an influence, e.g. increases in solar wind might make the atmosphere expand which would affect Earth's rotations and put stress on fault lines. No significant correlation has been found.
Insignificant solar-terrestrial triggering of earthquakes (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50211/abstract)

Does the sun trigger earthquakes? (http://file.scirp.org/Html/1-8301704_21661.htm)

Davidson's method is secret but we do know that the Sun does not know about Earth's tectonic plates and does not direct its activity at earthquake-prone zones.

Being a conspiracy theorist throws more doubts on his ability to produce actual science since they tend to deny science.
How one man turned conspiracy theories and impeding doom into a YouTube empire. (http://kernelmag.dailydot.com/issue-sections/headline-story/15158/ben-davidson-suspicious-observers-youtube-conspiracy-entrepreneur/)

He also holds forth on common conspiracy theories about Agenda 21 (a United Nations sustainability plan often cited as a cover for a coming New World Order), chemtrails (jet aircraft trails said to secretly contain dangerous chemicals), and global warming. In a typical video, he claims that global warming isnít happening, and also that the government is secretly spraying chemicals into the air to stop global warming. And that another ice age is around the corner.

That article links to a 2015 Davidson video on predicting earthquakes using OLR anomalies along with "earthspots and space weather". This is Outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outgoing_longwave_radiation)

Outgoing Longwave Radiation (OLR) is the energy radiating from the Earth as infrared radiation at low energy to Space.
Variation (anomalies) in OLR are basically weather, e.g. Outgoing Longwave Radiation (OLR): AVHRR (https://climatedataguide.ucar.edu/climate-data/outgoing-longwave-radiation-olr-avhrr)

OLR (Outgoing Longwave Radiation) is a measure of the amount of energy emitted to space by earth's surface, oceans and atmosphere. As such, it is a critical component of the earth's radiation budget. In a different context, OLR values are often used as a proxy for convection in tropical and subtropical regions since cloud top temperatures (colder is higher) are an indicator of cloud height. OLR observations are made via the Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer (AVHRR) instrument aboard the NOAA polar orbiting spacecraft. The raw ascending and descending swath data have been spatially and temporarally interpolated onto grids to facilitate use.

DaveC426913
2016-Dec-07, 03:44 AM
It is a statement of fact.

"The US Canada border is the longest undefended border in the world" is also a fact.
And is just as germaine to the veracity of the earthquake predictions.

Reality Check
2016-Dec-07, 03:50 AM
And is just as germaine to the veracity of the earthquake predictions.
That Ben Davidson is a lawyer with no expertise in science, a climate change denier, associates with ignorant and even deluded cranks is germane to the veracity of Ben Davidson's claims to have valid predictions. The answer is that we cannot trust him because he has no expertise ands denies basic science.
It is the simple enough - if you wanted to evaluate a medical condition would you ask a plumber or a doctor? Would you go to a homeopath or a doctor? If we want to look at earthquake predictions we go to experts in earthquake prediction, not Internet physics cranks.

But if you want to waste your time doing the science and math Davidson is unable to publish, go ahead, DaveC426913.

Gillianren
2016-Dec-07, 08:03 AM
If he has expertise, it's up to him to prove it. But I note that my question wasn't answered--what would it take to convince those who give him the benefit of the doubt that he doesn't deserve it?

geonuc
2016-Dec-07, 09:50 AM
Law school actually does train you to do research and sift fact from fiction. I think the guy's a crank but his being a law school graduate works to his favor, not against.

Copernicus
2016-Dec-07, 02:08 PM
Yesterday there was a 6.5 earthquake in Indonesia. Ben Davidson states it was not one that his model predicted. Good for him for acknowledging this. Personally it seems that the earthquakes did uptick during the corona hole facing earth, but I don't think Ben's model and his predictions are specific enough to analyze well. The following are his alert zones for today. If he still believes that there is a 80 percent chance that there will be a greater than 6 earthquake or 40 percent chance for a greater than 7 earthquake, I would like to know over what time period each day, so it can be analyzed. That he doesn't say this every time on his model predictions is disturbing. Here is the alert zones for today.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CzAiGmkUQAEm7-g.jpg:large

Copernicus
2016-Dec-07, 02:25 PM
Law school actually does train you to do research and sift fact from fiction. I think the guy's a crank but his being a law school graduate works to his favor, not against.

I agree with you that law school would be an asset for him. Many lawyers are brilliant and meticulous. With all the real time sharing of data from government satellites observing the sun, many people have the opportunity to look for correlations with many different phenomena. I think all one would really need for these correlations would be a good understanding of statistics and the available data. If Ben Davidson's group stumbled on a good correlation, good for them. It is the information age.

01101001
2016-Dec-07, 02:57 PM
Yesterday there was a 6.5 earthquake in Indonesia. Ben Davidson states it was not one that his model predicted. Good for him for acknowledging this.

He gets praise for admitting a documented nonprediction? You seem to be easily impressed.

I hereby state: I did not predict the location of any 6+ earthquakes in the last 24 hours.

Gillianren
2016-Dec-07, 04:23 PM
He gets praise for admitting a documented nonprediction? You seem to be easily impressed.

I hereby state: I did not predict the location of any 6+ earthquakes in the last 24 hours.

I mean, it's marginally better than a retroactive claim of prediction?

DaveC426913
2016-Dec-07, 05:42 PM
That Ben Davidson is a lawyer with no expertise in science, a climate change denier, associates with ignorant and even deluded cranks is germane to the veracity of Ben Davidson's claims to have valid predictions.
You're missing the point. If he's publishing his predictions, they can be verified.
We don't have to trust anything. We don't have to know or care anything about him.

Either his predictions are statistically significant or they are not. It's as simple as that.


The answer is that we cannot trust him
Who - other than you - said anything about trust?


It is the simple enough - if you wanted to evaluate a medical condition would you ask a plumber or a doctor? Would you go to a homeopath or a doctor?
Faulty analogy. Those are all examples of people whom we must trust to do their job.
An accurate Earthquake prediction stands on its own merits. (If born out, of course.)

The rationalist's cry is not
"Who are you and where's your Scientist's membership card?"
but
"Show us your predictions. If - by some miracle - they're statistically significant, let's talk."

Copernicus
2016-Dec-07, 09:28 PM
You're missing the point. If he's publishing his predictions, they can be verified.
We don't have to trust anything. We don't have to know or care anything about him.

Either his predictions are statistically significant or they are not. It's as simple as that.


Who - other than you - said anything about trust?


Faulty analogy. Those are all examples of people whom we must trust to do their job.
An accurate Earthquake prediction stands on its own merits. (If born out, of course.)

The rationalist's cry is not
"Who are you and where's your Scientist's membership card?"
but
"Show us your predictions. If - by some miracle - they're statistically significant, let's talk."

I like your reasoning Dave.

Copernicus
2016-Dec-07, 09:59 PM
The reason I like Dave's thinking is because I have seen over and over again, that although scientists are great people, we are all subject to human emotion and all have the tendency to follow the prevailing wisdom. The following is an article about a problem that could be solved, but wasn't because of the following of prevailing wisdom. This is in a way similar to KenG's ATM. He was trying to correct a problem in the literature, but unable to do so for whatever reason, I don't understand.

http://phys.org/news/2016-12-discovery-super-premium-gasoline.html

New discovery may lead to the development of super premium gasoline

PetersCreek
2016-Dec-07, 10:14 PM
The reason I like Dave's thinking is because I have seen over and over again, that although scientists are great people, we are all subject to human emotion and all have the tendency to follow the prevailing wisdom. The following is an article about a problem that could be solved, but wasn't because of the following of prevailing wisdom. This is in a way similar to KenG's ATM. He was trying to correct a problem in the literature, but unable to do so for whatever reason, I don't understand.

Completely off topic for this thread and flirting with an area where you ought not tread. Please drop it.

Reality Check
2016-Dec-07, 11:32 PM
You're missing the point. If he's publishing his predictions, they can be verified.
He is not actually publishing his "predictions" - he is tweeting them and creating videos about them. No one is disputing that that someone can waste their time (which is my point) going through his tweets and videos and trying to verify them.

It is a waste of time because the science has already been published in scientific journals:

Insignificant solar-terrestrial triggering of earthquakes (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50211/abstract)
Does the sun trigger earthquakes? (http://file.scirp.org/Html/1-8301704_21661.htm) (the answer is no - in fact they find an anti-correlation!)

It is a waste of time because the larger effect of tidal triggering of earthquakes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_triggering_of_earthquakes) has mixed results. Some evidence for volcanic activity and some fault types. Evidence against other kinds of faults.

It is a waste of time because Ben Davison has traits of an Internet physic crank:

No expertise in the fields he has predictions for (astronomy and earthquakes).
Displays incompetence about science (a climate change denier).
He is ignorant enough to associate with actually deluded cranks by presenting at EU conferences run by neo-Velikovskians and full of other cranks.
He is drip-feeding the Internet with his "predictions" as if he was ignorant about the databases of solar activity and earthquakes.
But more likely an advertising ploy since I know that he is not ignorant about these databases.
Not publishing his model so that people can really verify his predictions by making their own.
No noticeable attempts to actually publish his model and results in the scientific literature.

The last point leads to an ethical question. If Ben Davidson is confident about his predictions then does just tweeting them make him to some extent responsible for damage and deaths from the earthquakes he should be predicting?

Or is it the other way around - is the lack of evidence that Ben Davidson is doing his utmost to publish his model and predictions because he has no confidence in his predictions? Or because he tried and they were rejected as obviously wrong (probably not since journals exist that publish just about anything)?

Jens
2016-Dec-08, 01:14 AM
The last point leads to an ethical question. If Ben Davidson is confident about his predictions then does just tweeting them make him to some extent responsible for damage and deaths from the earthquakes he should be predicting?


To that question, obviously not. If that were an ethical problem, then all attempts to predict earthquakes would be ethically wrong. The Japanese government for example has a system to attempt to warn about earthquake using p waves. It isn't always successful and sometimes gives false positives. But people understand that prediction is difficult, especially about the future.

It is legitimate to ask the opposite, however. If somebody falsely predicts an earthquake and people get injured while evacuating, then yes that would be an issue.

It is also legitimate to ask if a person could be held responsible for telling people that an earthquake will not occur and then it does. This actually happened in Italy, and some researchers were jailed (though a lot of people feel it was an unfair ruling).

Reality Check
2016-Dec-08, 02:30 AM
To that question, obviously not. If that were an ethical problem, then all attempts to predict earthquakes would be ethically wrong.
I did not make it clear what Ben Davidson seems to believe: If Ben Davidson is confident about his predictions successfully predicting earthquakes then does just tweeting them make him to some extent responsible for damage and deaths from the earthquakes he should be predicting?
Taking it to an extreme level - what someone believed they had a 100% success rate in predicting earthquakes but kept the method secret and tweeted predications. Is that ethical or responsible behavior? To what extent are they responsible for damage and deaths?

People working on realistically predicting earthquakes are not yet confident that the predictions are useful and generally make this clear.

Jens
2016-Dec-08, 03:44 AM
I did not make it clear what Ben Davidson seems to believe: If Ben Davidson is confident about his predictions successfully predicting earthquakes then does just tweeting them make him to some extent responsible for damage and deaths from the earthquakes he should be predicting? Taking it to an extreme level - what someone believed they had a 100% success rate in predicting earthquakes but kept the method secret and tweeted predictions. Is that ethical or responsible behavior? To what extent are they responsible for damage and deaths?

Sorry, you've totally lost me. If you cause people to suffer from an earthquake, that's unethical. If you know an earthquake is going to happen and don't warn people, that's unethical. I don't think he's doing any of those. He himself says it's like a "40% chance" or something like that, and he is warning by making Tweets (unless you're saying that he should be doing more than just Tweeting, like taking out ads in local newspapers?). If you're a government and you issue an evacuation order when you don't really think an earthquake is going to happen, that's unethical. But isn't he just issuing ambiguous warnings?

Copernicus
2016-Dec-08, 09:40 AM
I did not make it clear what Ben Davidson seems to believe: If Ben Davidson is confident about his predictions successfully predicting earthquakes then does just tweeting them make him to some extent responsible for damage and deaths from the earthquakes he should be predicting?
Taking it to an extreme level - what someone believed they had a 100% success rate in predicting earthquakes but kept the method secret and tweeted predications. Is that ethical or responsible behavior? To what extent are they responsible for damage and deaths?

People working on realistically predicting earthquakes are not yet confident that the predictions are useful and generally make this clear.

I believe Ben is trying to get his work published. Especially difficult when one doesn't have the credentials.

Copernicus
2016-Dec-08, 09:42 AM
I believe this is a hit for quakewatch.net

http://www.scmp.com/news/china/policies-politics/article/2052904/residents-evacuated-62-magnitude-earthquake-hits

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CzFx6aiUsAAIkLh.jpg:large

We will see what he says in a couple hours.

Jens
2016-Dec-08, 10:28 AM
I believe this is a hit for quakewatch.net



Admittedly it's pretty close to the area, but actually the quake was more to the east. You can see that the quake region (put it into Google maps) is basically directly north of the India-Bangladesh border, but the area in the quake prediction map is really closer to Kazahkstan. Just a rough guess but maybe it's 200 or 300 miles off.

CJSF
2016-Dec-08, 01:46 PM
When does this go from toe in to full wading in ATM?

CJSF

Copernicus
2016-Dec-08, 02:20 PM
Admittedly it's pretty close to the area, but actually the quake was more to the east. You can see that the quake region (put it into Google maps) is basically directly north of the India-Bangladesh border, but the area in the quake prediction map is really closer to Kazahkstan. Just a rough guess but maybe it's 200 or 300 miles off.

You could be right Jens, but he does claim this as a hit according to the model except that it might not be a 6 pointer anymore.

Jens
2016-Dec-08, 02:32 PM
You could be right Jens, but he does claim this as a hit according to the model except that it might not be a 6 pointer anymore.

Could you let me know where he claims that? It doesn't seem to be mentioned on his Twitter feed.

Copernicus
2016-Dec-08, 03:08 PM
Could you let me know where he claims that? It doesn't seem to be mentioned on his Twitter feed.

He only officially claims it if the earthquake is 6.0 If you want to listen to his discussion you have to listen to 12/8 news at http://www.suspicious0bservers.org/

Copernicus
2016-Dec-08, 03:09 PM
Ben Claims the 6.8 earthquake in California as a hit for his alert 4 hours ago. Please see https://twitter.com/TheRealS0s

Swift
2016-Dec-08, 04:33 PM
When does this go from toe in to full wading in ATM?

CJSF
That is not an appropriate in-thread question. If you have such concerns, Report a post or PM a moderator.

DaveC426913
2016-Dec-08, 04:52 PM
I did not make it clear what Ben Davidson seems to believe: If Ben Davidson is confident about his predictions successfully predicting earthquakes then does just tweeting them make him to some extent responsible for damage and deaths from the earthquakes he should be predicting?


So, you swing from accusing him of being a crank (until that's called out) all the way over to accusing him of being irresponsible as an authority.

Trying to have your cake and eat it too - level one zillion.

Gillianren
2016-Dec-08, 05:48 PM
For the third time, what would convince people that he's wrong?

PetersCreek
2016-Dec-08, 05:54 PM
I did not make it clear what Ben Davidson seems to believe: If Ben Davidson is confident about his predictions successfully predicting earthquakes then does just tweeting them make him to some extent responsible for damage and deaths from the earthquakes he should be predicting?


So, you swing from accusing him of being a crank (until that's called out) all the way over to accusing him of being irresponsible as an authority.

Trying to have your cake and eat it too - level one zillion.

...and I think we've gone far enough afield with this line of discussion. This thread is not about the moral implications of Mr. Davidson's predictions and I think we've soundly established that he has no credentials in any field related to his claims. That leaves us with evaluating/critiquing his claims as they stand or fall. Focus on that. Drop the rest.

Spacedude
2016-Dec-08, 06:59 PM
Breaking newz.....big quake, tsunami warning off Solomon isles minutes ago

https://www.rt.com/news/369685-80-quake-strikes-off-solomon/

Swift
2016-Dec-08, 07:32 PM
...and I think we've gone far enough afield with this line of discussion. This thread is not about the moral implications of Mr. Davidson's predictions and I think we've soundly established that he has no credentials in any field related to his claims. That leaves us with evaluating/critiquing his claims as they stand or fall. Focus on that. Drop the rest.
I'm just going to add to what Peterscreek said. This tread topic obviously generates some strong opinions. That's fine, but it also seems to be generating a lot of inappropriate behavior - ad hom comments, off-topic posts, metadiscussion about ATM, etc. These will not be tolerated any further. Consider this a warning that further rule violations will be infracted.

Torsten
2016-Dec-08, 08:54 PM
A few thoughts ...

There are people who were "outsiders" to a field of science but through diligent work made valuable contributions. A recent example is how Kevin Cowtan and Robert Way used kriging to reprocess global temperature data and provide better estimates for unobserved areas.

Davidson has published a method and analysis. Now this may be in a journal that is considered low quality, not peer-reviewed, etc, but there it is, available to be reviewed/critiqued. Copernicus provided a link upthread, and I downloaded the paper. One of his co-authors may be a bona fide statistics expert (I haven't checked the credentials) and the other seems to be an electric universe crank. I'm unsure of the way they chose to express the significance of their results, but it's been a while since I've had to work with probabilities. So that may be my problem. But I'm unimpressed by the fact that they state some of their important results are in "Appendix B", but I cannot find an Appendix B. Again, maybe my problem. I'm also unsure if the way he defines his "Significant Windows" leads to ignoring some quakes that happen at the "wrong time". It would take a lot of work to replicate what he claims to have done, but someone should be able to do it. Next, if this is the last thing that he published, how did he go from possibly establishing a general correlation between the solar polarity peaks and the occurrence of M8+ earthquakes to a making forecasts of earthquakes in the M6+ range over specific areas on earth?

I wonder if Davidson is making forecasts at a sufficient frequency that it could be subject to a skill analysis, the way weather forecasting systems are. I'm not at all familiar with how this is done, but I think that's the line of enquiry that needs to be followed.

geonuc
2016-Dec-08, 09:57 PM
For the third time, what would convince people that he's wrong?
I believe I stated before that I'd like to see a competent statistical study exploring the correlation between earthquakes and solar activity. A couple people have since posted links to peer-reviewed studies, so that's good enough for me.

Copernicus
2016-Dec-08, 11:44 PM
Ben calls the 7.8 earthquake, in the solomon islands a miss even though it was close. See image link below.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CzLB3FVUoAEcFga.jpg:large

Reality Check
2016-Dec-08, 11:44 PM
I believe Ben is trying to get his work published. Especially difficult when one doesn't have the credentials.
There is no sign of that on his web site and it is easy to get valid science published even without credentials. All you have to do is produce enough evidence to convince a few experts in the field that your theory is correct to get it published in a credible journal.
There are also "predatory" journals that will publish just about anything for money so no credentials is not a problem for publishing somewhere.

Reality Check
2016-Dec-08, 11:50 PM
So, you swing from accusing him of being a crank (until that's called out) all the way over to accusing him of being irresponsible as an authority.
Ben Davidson has traits of an Internet physic crank - climate change denier, conspiracy theorist, etc. (https://forum.cosmoquest.org/showthread.php?163105-Quake-Predictor&p=2380915#post2380915) He had these traits when I first learned about him a few years ago. He still has those traits.

Reality Check
2016-Dec-09, 12:34 AM
Davidson has published a method and analysis.
No one who is not an paid subscriber to his web site knows what Ben Davidson's method or analysis actually is.

There is an article called "Relationship between M8+ earthquake occurrences and the solar polar magnetic fields" in an online newsletter (PDF) (http://www.ncgt.org/newsletter.php?action=download&id=149) called "New Concepts in Global Tectonics" for anti-mainstream geologists (specifically plate tectonics). See Organized Opposition to Plate Tectonics (http://www.davidpratt.info/ncgt-jse.htm) by their current editor David Pratt in 2006.
The co-authors are

An electrical engineer Kongpop U-gen who is another speaker at EU conferences.
the statistician Christopher Holloman.
Holloman is associate faculty at the Ohio State University Statistical Consulting Service (http://www.stat.osu.edu/people/faculty).

The subject is a relationship between M8+ earthquakes and the extremes and reversals in magnetism of solar polar magnetic fields.
The other relevant newsletter article is " A surge and short-term peak in northern solar polar field magnetism prior to the M8.3 earthquake near Chile on September 16, 2015. Ben DAVIDSON".

Ben Davidson's method is something to do with coronal holes/CME/outgoing longwave radiation/maybe peaks in solar polar field magnetism/something else?

ETA: Trying to link earthquakes with the Sun via coronal holes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coronal_hole) and CME (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coronal_mass_ejection) is a reason why that model looks bad.
Individual coronal holes and CME are rather trivial events when compared to solar insolation (the power per unit area the Earth gets from the Sun). Coronal holes and CME influence space weather (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_weather) by changing the solar wind and have some known effects at ground level, e.g. magnetic storms inducing electric fields in the lithosphere with effects on human technology but no known geological effects.

Copernicus
2016-Dec-09, 01:21 AM
I don't know what his method were, but his alerts in mid December went 7 in a row. Chances of that are probably one in a million. If his alerts only cover 1/7 of the faults and it happens 7 times in a row I'm thinking that it would be seven to the seventh power which is about 1 in 800000. Now I don't know what his method is or how such a small force such as a corona hole would make could cause an earthquake. Perhaps whatever is emitted from the sun, during a corona hole changes the friction level near the tectonic plates. If the friction suddenly is a lot less, the plates could slip. I don't know what his theory is about why it would happen. Many times why doesn't matter, only results matter.
Personally I think he doesn't explain enough. I'm thinking there must be at least a little truth to his model, whatever it is.

Reality Check
2016-Dec-09, 01:26 AM
I don't know what his method were, but his alerts in mid December went 7 in a row.....
Guessing at random might give the same result. That is why the lack of an available statistical analysis of his results is bad. All we have is his numbers and we do not know where he got them. It will not be a "seven to the seventh power". It is more a statistical test comparing his results to a null hypothesis, e.g. picking an earthquake prone region at random each day.

Look at the story you have for the mechanism - that may be all he has. We do not even know if he allows for a basic fact about coronal holes and CME - most of them miss the Earth. A coronal hole in images of the face of the Sun may not mean that it is actually getting to the Earth. That "small force such as a corona hole" may only happen for a coronal hole on the solar equator directly facing us.

Jens
2016-Dec-09, 03:00 AM
I don't know what his method were, but his alerts in mid December went 7 in a row.

They did? I thought he missed quite a bit.

DaveC426913
2016-Dec-09, 03:59 AM
That is why the lack of an available statistical analysis of his results is bad.
This is the cause for skepticism.

It is not enough to just post numbers. If no one can show a statistially significant result, then there's nothing here.

Copernicus
2016-Dec-09, 05:41 AM
They did? I thought he missed quite a bit.

I'm sorry. The seven in a row was from part of October through most of November.

01101001
2016-Dec-09, 06:53 AM
The seven in a row[...]

Please explain the significance of "in a row". What about it persuades you?

Copernicus
2016-Dec-09, 07:10 AM
Please explain the significance of "in a row". What about it persuades you?

Lets say Ben was randomly marking 1/7 of the earthquake zones. The chance of having the next earthquake in the area he chose is 1/7. It could happen. To do this 7 times in a row is like throwing heads 20 times in a row. One would have to throw the dice a million times before the chances of throwing heads 20 times in a row even once, was reasonable. Since there are only about 100 6 pointers a year, it would take 10000 years of predicting to do what he did in month. It could be done, but not likely at all.

Gillianren
2016-Dec-09, 05:14 PM
I believe I stated before that I'd like to see a competent statistical study exploring the correlation between earthquakes and solar activity. A couple people have since posted links to peer-reviewed studies, so that's good enough for me.

Frankly, you aren't the one I wanted to answer this, and I'm starting to suspect that Copernicus has blocked me.

Copernicus
2016-Dec-09, 11:06 PM
Frankly, you aren't the one I wanted to answer this, and I'm starting to suspect that Copernicus has blocked me.

No I didn't block you. What would convince me that Ben Davidson is just a crank. I watched him narrow down the location of 7 greater than 6 earthquakes in a row. Somewhere between a minimum of one out of 500000 to one out 2000000 million chance. In the last week he predicted that with a corona hole there would be an uptick in earthquakes 6 or 7 magnitude. It happened. Now that could have been mere coincidence. He predicted the location of two of the 4 last larger earthquakes. The other 2 were just off by a little bit, in distance, from his alert zones. Not nearly as impressive, but better then mere chance. He clearly articulated what was happening in California the days before the earthquake and alerted the zone that had the earthquake just hours before it happened. I don't think there has been an earthquake that powerful in California in a long time, 6 years that I can tell since there was one bigger. Granted he has put California, or the west coast on alert before. But I think everyone had to be pretty freaked out by that earthquake.
The one in the Solomon Islands he had alerted that exact zone the day before, and was only off by a few dozen miles at the time of the earthquake in the Solomon Islands that was a 7.8 earthquake.
For scientists his way of conveying information is sloppy. It doesn't bother me that he is making a living doing this. He is, for sure, is associated with flaky people if he is associated with coast to coast, which is clearly a way out and entertaining show.
I guess if he misses 7 primary 6 or greater earthquakes in a row, I would start to question if he was just winning the lottery one time.
He could probably use help in presenting his information in a way that is appropriate for trained scientists.

Gillianren
2016-Dec-10, 05:31 PM
But I think everyone had to be pretty freaked out by that earthquake.

. . . You don't know any Californians, do you? Freaked out? Not at all. For one thing, it was well off the coast. 6.5? Yes. But no one actually in California felt it as anywhere near that large. Granted, most of my friends are in Southern California, but the main response to it from what I could see was, "Oh, that's what I felt." If anything. Heck, even if they had felt it as a 6.5, that's not large enough to freak everyone out unless it's been a lot more than five years since the last one. My younger sister was seriously freaked out by the 5.9 Whittier Narrows earthquake in 1987, but she was seven at the time. Once my mom decided it was unlikely to be a precursor to the Big One, she stopped worrying even though it had been, to my recollection, longer than five years since we'd had one of that magnitude.

Why don't other people's analyses that indicate the opposite of Ben Davidson's claims even seem to interest you? They've been mentioned in this thread.

Copernicus
2016-Dec-10, 06:41 PM
The 6.1 in Arawa Papua New Guinea would be a miss for Ben's Quake prediction App except that it might be an aftershock of the Solomon Island quake since it is on the same fault line.

Copernicus
2016-Dec-10, 08:16 PM
The following are current alerts from Ben Davidson.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CzUakNKUUAAMRQH.jpg:large

geonuc
2016-Dec-10, 08:35 PM
. . . My younger sister was seriously freaked out by the 5.9 Whittier Narrows earthquake in 1987, but she was seven at the time. Once my mom decided it was unlikely to be a precursor to the Big One, she stopped worrying even though it had been, to my recollection, longer than five years since we'd had one of that magnitude.


Although not nearly as damaging as the later Northridge and other earthquakes, the Whittier Narrows quake was more intense than the Richter magnitude suggests due to the specific geology involved. Your sister was not the only one that got freaked. It's much like the Loma Prieta - the relatively low magnitude of 6.9 doesn't tell the story of what was a very devastating earthquake.

But yeah, you're right, Californians don't even get out of bed for anything less than 6 normally.

Jens
2016-Dec-11, 10:32 AM
Although not nearly as damaging as the later Northridge and other earthquakes, the Whittier Narrows quake was more intense than the Richter magnitude suggests due to the specific geology involved. Your sister was not the only one that got freaked. It's much like the Loma Prieta - the relatively low magnitude of 6.9 doesn't tell the story of what was a very devastating earthquake.

But yeah, you're right, Californians don't even get out of bed for anything less than 6 normally.

Just as an aside rather than any direct response, I wanted to point out that in Japan, people don't actually use magnitude when talking about earthquakes. There is a Japanese measurement system, which is essentially the amount of shaking recorded by seismometers. Whenever a seismometer picks up a certain threshold of shaking (actually, I think it requires two to give a reading, to prevent malfunctions from causing alerts), it sends a message to the central data system (I'm not sure how the information is transmitted, but would be interested to know, I just can't find it anywhere on the Interwebs). So we get an alert on TV, but it basically gives the area with the highest shaking, and then a map with the areas with shaking of above 2 or 3 I think. Then, maybe 30 seconds later, the information on the magnitude, epicenter, and depth is given. But basically when people talk about an earthquake they say it was a "four" or "five weak" or "five strong," talking about the highest shaking recorded. It's actually helpful because, as you pointed out, the magnitude doesn't actually give an accurate picture of the potential damage. If it's out at sea or very deep, the shaking can be weaker than you might expect. A lot of times I can tell things about an earthquake before it comes on TV. For example, if it's very slow motion and lasts for a long time, I can guess that it was a big earthquake that was fairly way away, where if it's kind of jolting and doesn't last so long, then it was probably a nearby but shallow quake. I did go outside after the 3/11 earthquake (the magnitude 8.1 one), but I've never gone outside for any other. I just sit at my desk or lie in bed and wait for it to pass.

Gillianren
2016-Dec-11, 05:24 PM
I went outside after the Nisqually earthquake here in Washington, but that was because I was living in a state building at the time (the dorms at my alma mater!), and I knew we'd be told to evacuate so they could check out the building anyway. The problem then turned out to be that there are not a lot of places on campus that are neither heavily wooded nor with tunnels underneath. Actually, there weren't really any aftershocks, given the type of quake it was, and I was cold and hadn't yet gotten out of bed at the time the earthquake struck, so we went out to eat while they cleared our building for us to go back in. And, yes, quite a few Olympia restaurants were open, despite it being the largest earthquake most of the people in town had ever experienced.

Actually, I experienced the Loma Prieta earthquake from Los Angeles County! We were having dinner, and the light fixture in our dining room started swaying very slowly. We looked at it and said, "Well, someone's having an earthquake." Within minutes, the news cut away to exactly who was having an earthquake and how bad it was.

Copernicus
2016-Dec-11, 07:14 PM
New alert zones 12/11 from Ben Davidson.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CzagUmRUQAEjHHA.jpg:large

Copernicus
2016-Dec-11, 07:16 PM
Just as an aside rather than any direct response, I wanted to point out that in Japan, people don't actually use magnitude when talking about earthquakes. There is a Japanese measurement system, which is essentially the amount of shaking recorded by seismometers. Whenever a seismometer picks up a certain threshold of shaking (actually, I think it requires two to give a reading, to prevent malfunctions from causing alerts), it sends a message to the central data system (I'm not sure how the information is transmitted, but would be interested to know, I just can't find it anywhere on the Interwebs). So we get an alert on TV, but it basically gives the area with the highest shaking, and then a map with the areas with shaking of above 2 or 3 I think. Then, maybe 30 seconds later, the information on the magnitude, epicenter, and depth is given. But basically when people talk about an earthquake they say it was a "four" or "five weak" or "five strong," talking about the highest shaking recorded. It's actually helpful because, as you pointed out, the magnitude doesn't actually give an accurate picture of the potential damage. If it's out at sea or very deep, the shaking can be weaker than you might expect. A lot of times I can tell things about an earthquake before it comes on TV. For example, if it's very slow motion and lasts for a long time, I can guess that it was a big earthquake that was fairly way away, where if it's kind of jolting and doesn't last so long, then it was probably a nearby but shallow quake. I did go outside after the 3/11 earthquake (the magnitude 8.1 one), but I've never gone outside for any other. I just sit at my desk or lie in bed and wait for it to pass.

Interesting. Never heard of this before, although was aware that there are many factors involved in the amount of damage, injuries, and mortality.

Reality Check
2016-Dec-11, 10:15 PM
...it would take 10000 years of predicting to do what he did in month. It could be done, but not likely at all.
That conclusion is incorrect. Consider tossing a coin. You could get 7 heads in a row after tossing the coin for 10 years. You could get 7 heads in a row at the start. That makes Ben Davidson's numbers statistically meaningless.
There are statistical methods (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_hypothesis_testing#Common_test_statist ics) taught to undergraduate science students which statistically test whether a sample is distinguishable from what is called a null hypothesis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis)

In inferential statistics, the term "null hypothesis" usually refers to a general statement or default position that there is no relationship between two measured phenomena, or no association among groups.[1] Rejecting or disproving the null hypothesis—and thus concluding that there are grounds for believing that there is a relationship between two phenomena (e.g. that a potential treatment has a measurable effect)—is a central task in the modern practice of science, and gives a precise criterion for rejecting a hypothesis.

There is the adage that is taught to high school science students - Correlation does not imply causation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation). If Ben Davidson ever does a valid statistical analysis of his tweets and if he finds a correlation then he is still missing a viable mechanism.

Swift
2016-Dec-11, 11:37 PM
New alert zones 12/11 from Ben Davidson.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CzagUmRUQAEjHHA.jpg:large
And on those final notes, this thread is done.

The future direction of this thread is clear. Mr. Davidson will keep posting his prediction tweets, which will be linked to here. People will keep questioning them, but since Copernicus isn't advocating this ATM idea, those questions will go unanswered. So we will get no where.

If Mr. Davidson wants to come here and defend his idea in ATM, that's fine.

If he ever publishes a real paper on it, we can discuss the paper.

But this meaningless score keeping, when it often isn't clear what the prediction means, is pointless.