|
|
|
|
| MORE ASTONISHINGLY ACCURATE EARTHQUAKE FORECASTS + Note for Canie – August 23, 2011 |
MORE ASTONISHINGLY ACCURATE EARTHQUAKE FORECASTS + Note for Canie First the note for Canie. Canie, aren’t you glad now that you have gone through the trouble of keeping this bulletin board running? Powerful earthquakes are fairly rare here in the U.S. And now that several have just occurred in Colorado and Virginia this board is providing people including yourself with an opportunity to comment on them in a somewhat protected environment. If board posters tried to do that in any number of other bulletin boards or in the sci.geo.earthquakes Internet Newsgroup they wouldn’t have that type of protection. Nor would they have as many other friendly people with whom they could compare notes. Additionally, if any of those powerful earthquakes had occurred directly beneath a large city there could have been a lot of trouble. So, these types of discussions could be quite important if they help move earthquake researchers around the world closer to having an ability to forecast significant earthquakes. Anyways, thanks (again) for keeping the board running. EARTHQUAKE PRECURSORS If any board visitors reading this report observed any precursors for those recent powerful Colorado and Virginia earthquakes then it would be appreciated if they would post a note about that here or send me an E-mail discussing the precursors. And if they would like me to store a copy of their E-mail note on this bulletin board they can also request that. If the note appears to conform to the board monitor’s rules I will try to post it here. MORE ASTONISHINGLY ACCURATE EARTHQUAKE FORECASTS Remember, my forecast charts are intended largely to provide earthquake researchers and disaster mitigation groups around the world with current information on where they should be watching for significant seismic activity. Additionally, I occasionally post specific Earthquake Warnings and Advisories that recommend that those people immediately check for any possible approaching seismic activity. If all of the links used here work then the first chart below is the present version of my August 20, 2011 Data.html Web page forecasting chart. It will change as new versions are stored there. The chart below that is a modified permanent version of that same chart. It has had some information added such as longitude lines so that I can explain the significance of the chart data. The third chart is a copy of my August 15, 2011 forecasting chart. These charts downloads are stored on the Webs.com Web server. They are not stored on Canie’s Web Server. So, they should not cost her any download bandwidth even if she did have a limit on that. The following fairly significant earthquakes just occurred in Colorado and Virginia. And more fairly powerful aftershocks will probably occur before too long. So far, I have not seen any reports of injuries or fatalities from any of them. 2011/08/23 17:51:05 37.93N 77.93W 6 5.8 Virginia The following reports state that at parts of at least one U.S. nuclear power plant were automatically shut down when the Virgnia earthquake occurred. This second report states that the Pentagon was even evacuated after that earthquake. HOW MY FORECASTING PROGRAM WORKS As stated above in this report, when there are line peak groups on my forecasting charts such as the chart below it can indicate that earthquake forecasters and disaster mitigation groups around the world should be checking along those longitudes for possible approaching significant seismic activity. Additionally, as my computer programs regard earthquakes occurring 90, 180, and 270 longitude degrees apart as being somewhat similar, when researchers see a strong line peak group somewhere they should also check for activity along longitude lines that are 90 and 180 degrees to the east and west of that line peak group. This first chart is my current forecasting chart that will change with time as new versions are stored on my Web site. With the August 20 version visible when this report was posted, a line peak group can be clearly seen in the 78 W area where the Virginia earthquakes are occurring. The second chart will discuss that further and also the Colorado earthquakes.
The Colorado earthquakes at 105 W are more problematic. My forecasting program compares EM Signals with data for past earthquakes. And the more records of earthquakes there are in the database file, the more likely the program will find a match between the EM Signals and some earthquake. Peak heights on the Database Earthquakes line on the bottom of the chart, # 15, show how many earthquakes there are in that file that occurred at various longitudes. And as can be seen, there are not too many that occurred around 105 W. So the program could have a difficult time with pointing to the approach of earthquakes that were going to occur there. There is a small line peak at 165 E that might be associated with the Colorado earthquakes (105 + 90). And there is a larger peak around 73 E (roughly 105 – 180, or more exactly, 105 - 178). That information might have been helpful to earthquake researchers if they were checking a large enough area. So, at the moment it looks like my program did an excellent job of detecting the approach of those Virginia earthquakes. Additional data analyses might indicate if it also clearly spotted the approach of the Colorado earthquakes without the program's being able to display that on the charts. The third chart below for August 15, 2011 has a strong line peak group around 168 E. And on August 20 there were powerful earthquakes in the Vanuatu area at 168 E. That chart has been included here to show that there were essentially no strong line peak groups around 78 W or 102 E on the forecast chart generated just 5 days earlier.
These charts appear to be more accurate for many earthquakes than they were just last year. And the reason could be that I am now using quite a few new types of low intensity EM Signal data when preparing the charts. And it appears that those new data could be be making quite a difference. Additional tests would need to be run to see if that is actually the case. Previously, only 1 or 2 low intensity EM Signals were being detected and used each day. That number has now arisen to between 5 and 20 low intensity EM Signals per day. And the quality of the higher intensity EM Signal data has improved. SO, WHY AREN’T GOVERNMENT ABLE TO FORECAST EARTHQUAKES? Those charts are clearly demonstrating that at least some of our significant earthquakes can be predicted. So, if those data are available for free, then why can’t our government predict their earthquakes? The answer is quite complex and involves a mixture of government and international scientific community politics. But in very simple terms, discussing one part of the problem, Earthquakes need to be forecast by researchers who have the necessary technical background. So, they would mainly be degreed scientists such as myself. Scientists around the world generally choose to go into fields of science that are of interest to them, fields where they can make a living, and fields where there isn’t too much controversy that could an damage their careers. As far as I am aware, there are not too many reasonably well paying jobs out there for earthquake forecasters. And there is more than enough controversy for this field of science. Partly as a consequence, though there are probably at least some scientists who would like to specialize in this field, without funding and with all of that controversy, most of them choose to work in other fields. There are at least two problems that result from that: First, there are simply not enough qualified people to do the necessary work. Second, science areas generally get more funding when there are large numbers of scientists who are telling governments etc. that funding is needed in that area. And with so few people working om the area of forecasting earthquakes, their requests for funding are getting largely buried by requests that innumerable scientists are making for funding for projects in other areas of science. That funding problem is so severe that I long ago decided that I would do all of my own earthquake forecasting work for free rather than waste my time trying to apply for any government grants etc. or even to try to directly sell my forecast data to governments or the general public. It is better for people to have at least some free data than no data at all. The information in this report represents expressions of my personal opinion. Follow Ups: ● Update – August 23, 2011 - EQF 19:46:56 - 8/23/2011 (79108) (0) |
|
|
|
|
