Roger, your data might be more significant than you think.

My own forecasting efforts are part of a larger effort designed to save lives. Forecasting earthquakes is one possible way to do that. And I try to encourage other people’s efforts which are headed in the same direction. Unfortunately, most of the discussions that we have had here in this board have not been too productive. They seem to run out of steam and stop. However, in a week or two a discussion might get started regarding a past topic which is now getting into an advanced stage in discussions being held elsewhere.

If I understand your earthquake – geomagnetic data correctly then it looks like this subject might have some “legs” as the saying goes. The data could be significant. And something productive might result from it.

*** My own theories propose that on days which are roughly multiples of 7 days from some significant event such as a major earthquake we can expect to often see other significant events such as earthquake aftershocks. About 14 days and 28 after would be the most significant. And I see that your table has sharp spikes at 14 and 29 days.

*** As I pointed out in notes 19941 and 19945, it is my understanding that certain geomagnetic storms are supposed to be better at triggering earthquakes than others. I am not certain if there are readily available records for the storms you checked which indicate if they were electron or proton type storms. But if the electron ones promote earthquake triggering and the proton ones suppress it (or vice versa) then factoring that information into the equation should in theory cause the results to become even more clear.

*** If it looks like this discussion has some potential I can ask some of my international contacts to check to see what research has been done along these lines in other countries. I have been sent some information in the past but would need to get people’s permission to discuss it.