The article is mostly about wild animal behavior prior to a large quake, but there's a one liner in there abut VLF which has relevance to Duffy's work. I hope he's still listening.
Brian
Rumble in the jungle: can wild animals help us predict earthquakes?
(04-25-2015, 04:40 AM)Skywise Wrote: The article is mostly about wild animal behavior prior to a large quake, but there's a one liner in there abut VLF which has relevance to Duffy's work. I hope he's still listening.
Brian
Rumble in the jungle: can wild animals help us predict earthquakes?
Yes, I'm still listening thanks, Had nothing post worthy for a while, but I still tune in for time to time.
Thanks for posting the links, It was encouraging to read a theoretical explanation which could have possible correlation to a practical application such as mine.
I've had a couple of weak EM signals these past few days, but I didn't record anything of significance for the Nepal quake, and to be honest I'm kind of glad I didn't, probably the worst thing to say on a prediction site but I've been feeling bad for those people all day. Hope that makes sense, and I'm not being more of a jerk than I usually am!.
I'm skeptical that there are positive ions that animals avoid. Even if there are positive ions, why would animals void them? I may have to download the Paper, but don't really have time to read it. It would be good to have a seismologist comment on this, like John Vidale used to. I don't think this is what Roger works on/ worked on.
(04-26-2015, 04:36 PM)Island Chris Wrote: I just went to Brian's links.
I'm skeptical that there are positive ions that animals avoid. Even if there are positive ions, why would animals void them? I may have to download the Paper, but don't really have time to read it. It would be good to have a seismologist comment on this, like John Vidale used to. I don't think this is what Roger works on/ worked on.
Chris
Do you have access to download it? That is without paying? Maybe I could try slogging through it.
OK. It took me long enough but I finally got around to reading this paper.
It was interesting, but also troubling.
There were two aspects discussed. First was animal behavior as monitored by triggered wildlife cameras. Second was VLF anomalies.
I'm quite dubious about the animal behavior claim in this paper due to the distances involved. By the paper's own admission the animal study site was over 320km from the quake epicenter. I don't dispute the animal behavior analysis, but I struggle to accept that animal behavior this far away could be linked as a precursor to the quake. To give an idea of what this distance means, it would have been like studying animals in Reno, NV and linking their behavior to the 1989 Loma Prieta quake. It's about the same distance for a similar sized quake. For Duffy, that's about the distance from London to Paris.
Regarding the VLF claims, my response is mixed. Again, I don't dispute the analysis of the VLF data. But the proposed explanation I find myself divided on. Basically the claim is that positive charge carriers are formed deep underground which work their way to the surface. These charges affect the ground environment thus affecting animal behavior. Further, these charges then also migrate up the atmosphere column and affect the ionosphere.
As for the positive charge carrier explanation, I'm mostly OK with it. It's not dissimilar to how semiconductor electronics work which I am familiar with. However, the explanation of how those charges then migrate to the ionosphere left me wanting. It wasn't so much the explanation itself, but the references. In this part of the article all the references were to papers by Freund. Somehow, finding so many references to other articles by the same author as the article you're reading seems a bit tautological to me. "I claim X to be true." "Cite please?" "My previous papers." Not enough peer review.
Finally, something completely lacking from the paper was any self critique. Is it not normal for a scientific paper to end by discussion of known issues with the proposed theory and how it may be resolved? I even see that in many of the Scientific American articles I read. But there was nothing in this paper like that at all. I reminds me of confirmation bias.
There may in fact be merit to these ideas, and further research may be warranted. But the flavor of this paper kind of leaves me with a bad aftertaste.
I suspect you are at least in part if not entirely correct in your skepticism. Papers are published in prestigious journals by famous people and they just are not correct. This is from the perspective of me being full of myself and thinking I am always right, liking controversy so I disagree with famous people: therefore they are wrong. (partly but not entirely joking).
Brian knows this, but some may not. What I just said does not mean that evolution/plate tectonics/global warming are incorrect. It refers to second order stuff. I have no patience with people who just don't have a clue about reality (flat earth/did not land on moon). There is some good line about unicorns.
(06-07-2015, 08:03 PM)Island Chris Wrote: Hi Brian,
I suspect you are at least in part if not entirely correct in your skepticism. Papers are published in prestigious journals by famous people and they just are not correct. This is from the perspective of me being full of myself and thinking I am always right, liking controversy so I disagree with famous people: therefore they are wrong. (partly but not entirely joking).
Brian knows this, but some may not. What I just said does not mean that evolution/plate tectonics/global warming are incorrect. It refers to second order stuff. I have no patience with people who just don't have a clue about reality (flat earth/did not land on moon). There is some good line about unicorns.
Chris.
It really troubles me how little people understand the scientific method and/or the scientific process. So many people are constantly putting down science and scientists. Some of their complaints are justified but misplaced. I'd say nearly if not all the legitimate complaints should be directed at the human and the human nature, not science or scientists.
Scientists are human beings are they are subject to all the foibles that humans have. They are not infallible. But the failures of the human are erroneous attached to science as a method and as a profession. This is the 'hasty generalization' fallacy. Just because some teachers are child molesters, are all teachers molesters? Is teaching a bad thing?
The only solution I can think of is stronger scientific education, and starting early in the schooling years. But science seems to be going the way of shop and music classes. Basketball is just soooo much more important.
Logout 
Portal 
Forum
Search
Members
Help 
