Yes...there are problems. I still give the author credit for trying though.

I made the post to bring a visual graphic into the topc of discussion not that I neccessarily subscribe to it (though I try and keep an open mind).

One thing that struck me was that the earthquake points seem to be scattered evenly about the curve with the exception that they seem to cluster around the bends a little bit. The other point is that a third Mag. 8 did not happen on a sharp curve but during a straight line section of the graph (well...2 out of 3 ain't bad eh?).

One might suppose that if a standard of scientific presentation in the form of statistics were used, that no great trend could be discerned given the size of the data set used (or that the time percentages are not narrow enough to be useful). Perhaps adding more data may change that? It might be interesting to continue to track the 2002 chart to see what happens....

One might also have to wonder if using a narrow point of view as to a local area is the correct way to view the general problem of predicting quakes (e.g. Seattle vs Bay of Fundy, etc.) (Though it seems appropriate for the specifics of tidal differences as you have done).

Gravity and dynamics balancing out...? Hmmm seems that it may be true on one scale but not on another scale...time will tell how understanding develops in this area.

The charts are a good effort at trying to tackle the problem and we'll see if it pans out any....

Just $.02