Petra-EQF, I don't know if it is against the law as such. And, the limitations may be to USGS and NOAA. I could predict away if I wanted to, as far as I know. But, since I have no basis to predict, it would damage my credibility, which would hurt my ability to get funding. Credibility is important. Also, I don't usually look at EQFs links, but did this time. He was giving a big list of factors that he thinks may trigger earthquakes-many of which have been discussed by Lowell and others for decades. These are not big secrets unknown to seismologists. Instead, there is a lack of evidence that many of these factors are generally important to triggering earthquakes. So, may factors would be rejected by seismologists due to lack of evidence that they have any strong affect. And, due to lack of a scientific mechanism for many of them.
I think there is a positive trend on this page that we are now questioning some of the triggers-instead of just accepting them as fact (e.g., 2 cents, Roger, me). That forces us (e.g., Lowell) to come back with stronger evidence or different ways of presenting the evidence. For example, plots like Roger made of earthquakes before and after the largest ones on the FFA ring maps. It would be good to get graphs (rather than just statistical correlations) of solar activity-related seismicity (e.g., time series of global M>4.5 EQs after an X class flare, or after Kp>=7 geomagnetic activity, or limit this to quakes within 100 km of ocean spreading center if you want. Simple graph: number of such quakes per day, before and after, centered on the flare or Kp max. Do this for all of 2000-2001. There will either be a visual correlation or not. If not, then any statistical correlation will be of a weak effect. Canie: Are you interested in doing things like this (maybe with Lowell?) as part of your studies? Do you have any science-oriented intentions to work on things like FFAs and solar triggering?
Just stirring the pot-even if I annoy people (Lowell?), I think my advice is good.
Chris