[Island Chris]

Hmm, I thought I already posted this but it did not show up. I'll try again. The link is very interesting. It is a news article from Science about a scientific paper in Geophysical Research Letters. I have not read the GRL paper yet.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/10/s...id=1632982

[Roger Hunter]

(10-31-2017, 05:09 PM)Island Chris Wrote: Hmm, I thought I already posted this but it did not show up. I'll try again. The link is very interesting. It is a news article from Science about a scientific paper in Geophysical Research Letters. I have not read the GRL paper yet.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/10/s...id=1632982

I haven't read it either but I seriously doubt it. I looked at all 7+ quakes per year since 1899 and don't see any 32 year period. There are only 3  possible cycles in that timespan, too few to establish anything credible IMHO.

Roger

[Skywise]

It's too bad that the article is behind a paywall. It would be interesting to see what statistical methods they used to tease out the pattern, not that I'd be ale to replicate it very well. My statistics knowledge sucks. Although I wonder if some sort of Fourier analysis could be applied. I don't know the math on that either but I am very familiar with it's use in audio and radio frequency spectral analysis.

But I tend to agree with Roger here. Given the short catalog and therefore low numbers of this size quake, it's hard to see how a pattern could be discerned. I mean, there's not even four full cycles in the catalog (2017-1899 = 118 years divided by 32 = 3.6875). Drawing from my astronomical knowledge, I think that's barely the minimum number of orbits required for planetary transits of stars to reliably detect a planet from the dimming of the star as the planet blocks some of the light.

Brian

[Roger Hunter]

(11-02-2017, 05:00 AM)Skywise Wrote: It's too bad that the article is behind a paywall. It would be interesting to see what statistical methods they used to tease out the pattern, not that I'd be ale to replicate it very well. My statistics knowledge sucks. Although I wonder if some sort of Fourier analysis could be applied. I don't know the math on that either but I am very familiar with it's use in audio and radio frequency spectral analysis.

But I tend to agree with Roger here. Given the short catalog and therefore low numbers of this size quake, it's hard to see how a pattern could be discerned. I mean, there's not even four full cycles in the catalog (2017-1899 = 118 years divided by 32 = 3.6875). Drawing from my astronomical knowledge, I think that's barely the minimum number of orbits required for planetary transits of stars to reliably detect a planet from the dimming of the star as the planet blocks some of the light.

Brian

Yes, this paywall business hampers things for individuals who have no ready access to university or government libraries. That's my only regret about retiring.

Roger

[Island Chris]

Brian and Roger, if you promise to not post it, I can get the article and email it to you attached. I have an email address for Brian that has as the last digit "1" and it is ".com".

I have one for Roger that has "lp" as part of the name.

Let me know if you will only use this for yourselves.

Chris

[Island Chris]

(11-02-2017, 04:58 PM)Island Chris Wrote: PS: it is an AGU publication and these become Open Access after 2 years. But I figure you should see this article now.
Chris

[Roger Hunter]

(11-02-2017, 04:59 PM)Island Chris Wrote:

(11-02-2017, 04:58 PM)Island Chris Wrote: PS: it is an AGU publication and these become Open Access after 2 years. But I figure you should see this article now.
Chris

Chris;

Gladly but that's an old address. I think Brian has the current one containing the number 906

Roger

[Skywise]

(11-02-2017, 09:25 PM)Roger Hunter Wrote:

(11-02-2017, 04:59 PM)Island Chris Wrote:

(11-02-2017, 04:58 PM)Island Chris Wrote: PS: it is an AGU publication and these become Open Access after 2 years. But I figure you should see this article now.
Chris

Chris;

Gladly but that's an old address. I think Brian has the current one containing the number 906

Roger

Chris, I have sent you a private message here on the board with both of our current addresses.

Thank you for doing this. For me there's no hurry. At your convenience.

Brian

[Skywise]

(11-02-2017, 02:19 PM)Roger Hunter Wrote:

(11-02-2017, 05:00 AM)Skywise Wrote: It's too bad that the article is behind a paywall.

Yes, this paywall business hampers things for individuals who have no ready access to university or government libraries. That's my only regret about retiring.

Roger

Something I've been seeing a lot of in the astronomy and related sciences is at least the data is open access to everyone. Maybe the research papers are still a bit locked up, but anyone can access the data. For example, all the imagery from our space probes are freely available. A specific example is Kepler, which was designed to detect planets around other stars. And there's a lot of citizen science projects related to astronomy. Quote-unquote "ordinary people" are beginning to make real "big" contributions to the science. I mean big like more than just discovering a comet. If I had the time, I could access the raw data and start looking for exoplanets and I would get at least partial credit for discovering them. There's also the Galaxy Zoo project where a new type of astronomical object was discovered several years ago, with the prototype being named after the one who inquired about the strange green galaxy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanny's_Voorwerp).

But then, astronomy has always been much more accessible to the public than other sciences.


How easy would it be for me to analyze seismological data, much less get a hold of something like seismic reflection data, and get a discovery published?

Brian

[Roger Hunter]

(11-03-2017, 02:28 AM)Skywise Wrote:

(11-02-2017, 02:19 PM)Roger Hunter Wrote:

(11-02-2017, 05:00 AM)Skywise Wrote: It's too bad that the article is behind a paywall.

Yes, this paywall business hampers things for individuals who have no ready access to university or government libraries. That's my only regret about retiring.

Roger

Something I've been seeing a lot of in the astronomy and related sciences is at least the data is open access to everyone. Maybe the research papers are still a bit locked up, but anyone can access the data. For example, all the imagery from our space probes are freely available. A specific example is Kepler, which was designed to detect planets around other stars. And there's a lot of citizen science projects related to astronomy. Quote-unquote "ordinary people" are beginning to make real "big" contributions to the science. I mean big like more than just discovering a comet. If I had the time, I could access the raw data and start looking for exoplanets and I would get at least partial credit for discovering them. There's also the Galaxy Zoo project where a new type of astronomical object was discovered several years ago, with the prototype being named after the one who inquired about the strange green galaxy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanny's_Voorwerp).

But then, astronomy has always been much more accessible to the public than other sciences.


How easy would it be for me to analyze seismological data, much less get a hold of something like seismic reflection data, and get a discovery published?

Brian

Brian;

Not hard at all. It's essentially public property since it was obtained with tax money. At one time someone was downloading the quake catalogue and selling copies. Our branch chief was ticked off about it but there was nothing he could do about it.

Getting it published would be the problem. Journals can be fussy about credentials. 
I did manage to get one published but being a USGS employee accounted for that.

Roger