1. Originally Posted by Copernicus
The seven in a row[...]

2. Established Member
Join Date
Jan 2010
Location
Wisconsin USA
Posts
2,972
Originally Posted by 01101001
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.

3. Originally Posted by geonuc
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.

4. Established Member
Join Date
Jan 2010
Location
Wisconsin USA
Posts
2,972
Originally Posted by Gillianren
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.

5. Originally Posted by Copernicus
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.

6. Established Member
Join Date
Jan 2010
Location
Wisconsin USA
Posts
2,972
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.
Last edited by Copernicus; 2016-Dec-10 at 06:43 PM.

7. Established Member
Join Date
Jan 2010
Location
Wisconsin USA
Posts
2,972
The following are current alerts from Ben Davidson.

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

8. Originally Posted by Gillianren
. . . 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.

9. Originally Posted by geonuc
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.

10. 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.

11. Established Member
Join Date
Jan 2010
Location
Wisconsin USA
Posts
2,972
New alert zones 12/11 from Ben Davidson.

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

12. Established Member
Join Date
Jan 2010
Location
Wisconsin USA
Posts
2,972
Originally Posted by Jens
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.

13. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Aug 2008
Location
Wellington, New Zealand
Posts
4,332
Originally Posted by Copernicus
...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 taught to undergraduate science students which statistically test whether a sample is distinguishable from what is called a 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. 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.
Last edited by Reality Check; 2016-Dec-11 at 10:20 PM.

14. Originally Posted by Copernicus
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.

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•