Having been in correspondence with the person in question for over five years now, I would endorse Canie's remarks.

However I would urge caution with the last sentence. It is easy to say on the one hand, "here is a signal which I believe relates to such-and-such a period", then wait until the next felt earthquake and say "aha, the signal must have related to that earthquake, but it was early/late/on time (strike out whichever do not apply)". This way one can build up a huge edifice of post-hoc justifications which don't actually have any real backing.

Just as Dennis was prone to noting that some large earthquake had just occurred in Indonesia, and saying "so THAT is why my dog was acting so strangely!".

Post hoc NON ergo propter hoc!