View Article & Comments

So Piers has predicted an earthqauke risk on 15 of the 30 days. But wait, he also likes a day leeway either side so that adds another 11 days making a total of 26 days out of 30.

As has been pointed out before, a 6.0+ quakes occurs on average every three days as highlighted by the recent execellent article by Erik Klemetti http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=9482&linkbox=true&position=10.

A fuller list of 6.0+ quakes during april is

PDE-Q 2012 04 02 173642.63 16.46 -98.30 9 6.0 MwWCMT .FM .......
PDE-Q 2012 04 06 161555.81 -4.57 153.50 88 6.1 MwWCMT .FM .......
PDE-Q 2012 04 11 083836.90 2.29 93.08 20 8.6 MwWCMT .CM .T.....
PDE-Q 2012 04 11 092756.88 1.28 91.73 9 6.0 mbGS ... .......
PDE-Q 2012 04 11 104310.67 0.80 92.46 23 8.2 MwUCMT 5FM .T.....
PDE-Q 2012 04 11 224146.04 43.58 -127.64 8 6.0 MwGCMT ..M .......
PDE-Q 2012 04 11 225510.17 18.22 -102.68 20 6.5 MwGS 7FM .......
PDE-Q 2012 04 12 070601.48 28.85 -113.03 9 6.0 MwGS ..M .......
PDE-Q 2012 04 12 071548.62 28.62 -113.12 13 7.0 MwWCMT ..M .......
PDE-Q 2012 04 14 105619.48 -57.68 -65.29 15 6.2 MwWCMT 3FM .......
PDE-Q 2012 04 14 220526.46 -18.97 168.74 10 6.2 MwWCMT 5FM .......
PDE-Q 2012 04 15 055740.19 2.58 90.27 25 6.2 MwWCMT ..M .......
PDE-Q 2012 04 17 035016.64 -32.70 -71.48 37 6.7 MwWCMT ..M .......
PDE-Q 2012 04 17 071349.05 -5.46 147.12 198 6.8 MwWCMT 5FM .......
PDE-Q 2012 04 17 190356.46 -59.01 -16.66 11 6.2 MwWCMT ..M .......
PDE-Q 2012 04 21 011652.83 -1.60 134.28 16 6.7 MwWCMT 5FM .......
PDE-Q 2012 04 23 173621.88 -28.49 -177.35 116 6.0 MwWCMT ..M .......

Comment edited by Co2sceptic (forum) on Friday April 27, 2012 at 3:21 AM EDT

Hi Tom

The list is meant to be M6.5 and above and has been since the start of the trials, why are you including M6.0 and above?

I have put a RED highlight on your M6.5+

Comment edited by Co2sceptic (forum) on Friday April 27, 2012 at 3:26 AM EDT

oh dear Tom - notice you never replied to the comment which Piers reproduced recently - funnily enough mentioning Eric Klemetti - after you tried to discredit him (interesting you pop up with the 'statistical noise' theory but never respond when fairly challenged) http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=9340

So in the hope you may respond in kind;

1) Where are your predictions then to prove this is just statistical noise?
2) Your list is a just list. Piers does not claim all earthquakes etc happen only during CH facing periods so your point is totally lost on me. Yes there are several eq's per year but that has never been the point. We are watching for 'solar kicks' and magnetic influence which appears to influence eq's. As I said before watching this as a sceptic I have been impressed at how it works. Also you'd notice if you read what is said rather than assuming the day before is often important - if I am not mistaken Piers (who must be stuck in the mud) has modified the theory and has actively questioned why and when eq's have not happened. This is all archived here if you care to review it.
3) Piers is not saying this theory is 100%, anything but stressed clearly by the 'trial' terminology. He is asking all and sundry to test the theory so it can be improved upon - the more information we put forward to prove/disprove the better (note your lists, for reasons listed before, is not helpful to prove or disprove). My understanding - greatly improved thanks to Piers and Gabriel's comments - is activity in different hemispheres of the sun are affecting different hemispheres on earth (apologies if I have this wrong).
3) The list you provide actually coincides with Piers forecast. If you've watched this for any length the day before/after are just as important and bear watching as we enter the earth facing Coronal holes. The last one you add (23/4) I believe is the M5.8 for the Kermadic Islands region (as listed by the USGS). Do you have a link for your source. As a general rule the closer an observation agency is to the eq itself the more 'reliable' the actual figure produced (i.e. check JPGS for Japanese quakes rather than USGS). Piers noted this with quakes in New Zealand being reported differently than on USGS.

Tom, I think what I am trying to say is by all means be sceptical of this theory - I was for quite a time and that, if anything, is what is needed - but sniping is not the same as giving valid feedback. It's not an easy theory to digest (the implications) but bears watching because it is very interesting and, if true, very important for us bearing in mind periods of low solar activity appear to be strongly correlated to seismic activity (Eyjafjallajökull being a good example despite that it was not a major eruption - winds made more difference in the disruption). I believe many here would welcome you to provide constructive criticism - it all helps refine the theory (I think that's the scientific method but excuse my ignorance if I fail to throw increased CO2 into the mix)

Gabrielle, I know Piers is looking at M6.5, however I think M6 are statistically significant during the Qq periods. I'd even say M5 would be worth watching. Even M4.5 (which are recorded by USGS although I don't know how good this is for all M4.5). I don't keep good enough records (life intervenes) but as a lay person following even these appear affected. There have been many instances of M4.5 clusters following Piers predictive periods. The how and why these are affected could be useful in refining the theory. I've only seen correlation with M4.5-6 but this is without understanding the hemispheric influences/process you kindly mentioned. If the process can affect big quakes it should/must affect smaller ones - for example in Europe which it's rare to have an M6 let alone an M6.5. How this can be judged from the background noise of M4.5s I don't know but I think over time the pattern should present itself. I'd add that I saw a rebuttal of the solar/lunar influence theory by GeoLurking at volcanocafe.worpress.com recently but the basis he compared seemed to me to lack the understanding (I say that with respect, GeoLurkjng does some phenomenal charts and I highly recommend his charts which use statistical info to 'see' volcanoes). He did a basic sunspot/eq correlation which would not pick up what Piers is looking at which is fluctuation, especially short term basis which I don't believe would appear in a 'long view' of SSN vs Quakes - which is what the Tom approach seems to be (apologies Tom but I hope you see where I am coming from). Is it just me or does no one seem to understand the basis of this work? Seems clear to me but then again I seem to be in a minority - albeit, I hope - an enlightened one.

Anyway please keep up this fantastic and important work. Perseverance is as much a part of science as inspiration.

THANKS Co2sceptic & Craig.

I think Tom does not exist to advance science.

Yes what we do is trial periods for M6+, M6.5+ and we might go higher, and we test in the narrow windows and +/- half day and +/- one day.

The wider windows are obviously shorter odds and we do it to see if what is going on at opening and closing stages of extra solar effect (under our definitions) has significance.
Note. I used to teach statistics and electromagnetism and.... for some years at University level so can say that even if Tom thinks we don't know what we are doing the University of London and Southbank University do.

AND note getting so many large Earth-facing Coronal holes right IN these narrow windows is a fair feat I think and there are fewer of them than quakes; AND BIG quakes came with them, but oops Tom didn't notice that.

So these "exposes" by these churlish fools of the fact that wider windows succeed at shorter odds is just total dishonesty. The answer as Peter Mandelson used to say when such 'Questions' were put to him is:- "AND?? ".
If we were only making 10% at bets at fair odds we would be onto something, but we appear to be well ahead of that.

There are other things developing which merit discussion but doing it in public might not be the way because I, and I suspect many readers, would prefer not to have to endure the green bile of people who have problems with science and life. This will be a loss to the majority of public readers but what we have done so far in public will continue in public.
This is unlike 95% of all physics research most of which never sees the light of day or peer- (or ANY) review but turns straight into weaponry and high tech products like aero-engines, racing cars and mobile phones.
So why these sad fools prattle on about me not telling them how we do things which are company property beggars belief, but then of course as a protest they never fly anywhere, watch F1 or use mobile phones or watch flat-screen TV or appreciate the Defence of the Realm which they enjoy. Or am I wrong on this?

Cheers, Piers

PS Apparently Al-Qaeda are annoyed that the design of Army roadside-bomb proof vehicles has not been peer-review published and are seeking a meeting with The Royal Society to demand an end to this transgression of scientific norms.

AND.................HOWZAT

QV3 Period 28-29th confirmed by M6.7 Tonga 28th:

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/recenteqsww/Quakes/usc0009e33.php

and notice the last previous one of M=6+ was IN the last narrow predicted period 21-24th (ie there were no M6+ in between then and now.) See:
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/map/

The little band of warmist snipers seem to have nothing to say.

I notice, as for 21st the quake came in the early part of the QV period. The change in approach to make some of the QV's start before the corresponding R (weather) period appears to be working.

Piers

So as we come to the end of the full April earthquake prediction period we can clearly see that the Corbyn Method has no statistical significance this month.

There were 6 periods of 'Extra Major' earthquake risk covering 15 days (50% of April) 5 earthquakes of magnitude 6+ occurred within these time periods. 4 earthquakes of 6+ occurred outside of a prediction window.

Of the 5 EQ's that occurred in a warning period only one fell in an 'R4' period (7 days) the other 4 fell in the lesser 'R3' period (8 days).

There were 3 EQ's of 7+ these all occurred in a non warning period.

No response from Piers or his followers?

Using M6+ EQ's showed there was no correlation between warning period and EQ frequency. So I tried looking at all M5+ EQ in April 2012.There were 181 EQ's falling into this category, bearing in mind that 50% of April dates were in a warning period and 50% without warning, there was a statistical significance to be found.Interestingly it was the wrong way round for the Corbyn Method! 31% of EQ's occurred in the warning period leaving 69% occurring in the non warning period!

Trying to be fair and take note of your modifications to warning periods I added a day either side which leaves 17% of April dates without a warning, during this time 18% of April's EQ's occurred which unfortunately for your trial, is much as would be expected with a random selection.

The Earthquake prediction approach is very similar to the approach taken in the 'peer reviewed' (not really) '85 percent accurate' prediction of tropical storms - predicting TS every few days in the relevant region's peak TS season, during which there are only 2 or 3 days per month when the aren't tropical storms. Pretty good chance of success I'd say. This will probably be met with an aggressive response on this site. I'd suggest that people aren't so interested in your technique Piers, more in proof of your claimed accuracy from a source not sponsored by yourself... other than Wheeler (old and not conclusive) and the 85 percent TS piece, do you have any other (recent?) information on your level of accuracy on regular UK weather forecasts, rather than simply crafting the impression of accuracy by trumpeting your correct predictions and sweeping the incorrect ones under the carpet (like the fact you predicted a dry end to Apr in the UK). Perhaps not true, but certainly the impression you give. I accept that the bottom line is you don't have to prove yourself as long as people are happy to pay for your forecasts, I've no problem with someone running a business such as yours, if you are making money then all credit to you. I'm just interested and slightly suspicious, that's all. I can't find any convincing evidence of forecating skill on WeatherAction (scientific knowledge yes, you are proficient at analysing what has happened... but not forecasting skill). Any chance of a constructive, rational response, please?

Perhaps not true, but certainly the impression you give. I accept that the bottom line is you don't have to prove yourself as long as people are happy to pay for your forecasts, I've no problem with someone running a business such as yours, if you are making money then all credit to you. I'm just interested and slightly suspicious, that's all. I can't find any convincing evidence of forecating skill on WeatherAction (scientific knowledge yes, you are proficient at analysing what has happened... but not forecasting skill). Any chance of a constructive, rational response, please?

Hi Dan

Your welcome to follow whatever comes our way, but whats the objective in what your saying.

Do you think Piers is paid a Government grant to do this work?

Do you think Piers is funded by Oil companies

Do you think Piers is funded by the Tobacco Industry

Do you think Piers has time to explain to "Dan" that he knows how "Climate Change" works, and that people who have Government grants don't.

Dan, please feel free to make a constructive comment, but leave the rest of it alone.

no.
no.
no.
yes, and he or one of his aliases frequently do. Anyone going to try and deal with my questions? Or are they a bit near to the mark? Very defensive, obtuse response...

Foolish claptrap from Elim (not real name) with dishonest conclusions.
Dan B, also misleading and snide but perhaps an unwitting agent, see below.

"ELIM"
1. April Quakes See my comment under
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=9551
- for a more objective assessment, and these should be taken with March too now because it was fully on CR. Elim why don't you do that? Well you know, I know and readers know.

BUT NOTE
1.ELIM YOUR FIGURES ARE WRONG. THERE WERE 22 M6+ QUAKES in APRIL You only have 9. WHAT ARE YOU DOING?
See http://neic.usgs.gov/cgi-bin/epic/epic.cgi?SEARCHMETHOD=1&FILEFORMAT=4&SEARCHRANGE=HH&SYEAR=2012&SMONTH=04&SDAY=1&EYEAR=2012&EMONTH=04&EDAY=30&LMAG=6.0&UMAG=&NDEP1=&NDEP2=&IO1=&IO2=&CLAT=0.0&CLON=0.0&CRAD=0.0&SUBMIT=Submit+Search
2. We didn't make any forecast for M5+ so why should you 'test' something we did not do a forecast for?

Your assessment is compete nonsense

Three things I notice, that are the hallmarks of these dishonest 'assessments' are:
(i) They contain lies or trickery which amounts to the same.
(ii) If I don't waste time responding tweets etc appear on the lines "What's the prob? why havn't you replied?" - implying the libels and falsities have credibility.
This is the Goebbels approach. The perpetrators should be made aware that stories that used to appear in some 'news'papers on the lines "The Town Hall has not denied accusations of pedophilia and baby-eating" are themselves libel.
(iii) They always avoid the latest major successes (- eg our May forecast so far).

The method in (i) is usually they look for something we didn't predict - ie we were not making predictions of (or they actually make up predictions**), then 'assess' them and then announce we failed. Utterly pathetic.

**We had someone asking on a website "What happened to our forecast of a super-quake to happen in UK in Feb (source not given)?". In fact we have NEVER made any forecast of any quakes in UK, let alone a big one.

STOP PRESS!! I want to inform everybody that David Beckham FAILED to score in the match on Tuesday [He wasn't playing but then you wouldn't let that be known would you].

We have not made any forecasts of quakes lower than M6 or thereabouts in these active times, so you decided to make one up. We said nothing about M5 in April. So why 'assess' them, for other than dishonest intent? {NB. M5 is one tenth of the amplitude of M6 and even less of the power}.
I recall an equally dishonest report against us once (by a real sneaky trickster and charlatan) where we had talked to some interested people including him about a whole lot of stuff and said we were NOT submitting xyz (trials) for consideration/assessment because we were not yet in a position to forecast xyz. So, what did he do? He 'Assessed' xyz and told straight lies (wrapped in fancy graphics) about the rest.

YOU CAN ONLY ASSESS WHAT WE SAY WE ARE (TRIAL) FORECASTING. We do not do low level forecasts around the world for very good reasons explained in the link above STOP DECEIVING PEOPLE!

STOP PRESS 2 I want to announce YOU and DAN B also FAILED to score any goals on Tuesday.


DAN B

Where are you coming from?

1. I don't use any aliases on the web. So withdraw that accusation and if someone said that to you please give me their name and legal address.

2. There are plenty of independent measures (using a full set of forecasts) of our forecasted extreme events on the website
http://www.weatheraction.com/pages/pv.asp?p=wact45
This includes information on weather bets which we won consistently until we were banned. I also have many hundreds of pages of internal assessment of full sets of many things.

3. What you say about tropical storms is totally dishonest and amounts to a pack of lies, I suspect fed to you from elsewhere because obviously you havn't looked at anything on that either.
(a) There is no assessment on our web site of any season of tropical storms, mainly because we didn't do them every year. There are some one-off TS/TCs as part of the set of extreme events including blizzards, tornadoes etc predicted and go towards the 85% success in the way defined.
(b) There is no peer-reviewed assessment of any of our TS seasons in existence. YOU MADE THAT UP so you could make up a fictional criticism. If you think there is one let's see it. I think you are repeating lies put about by 'green' gravy trainers in closed meetings who are desperate to keep their con going.

Now I know what you/they say next
"Oh my, a defensive response, therefore..."
Dan B GET REAL. That fact I object to lies being told about me - even angrily - doesn't mean the lies have any foundation. Lies will be called lies or if you want to prance around with 'terminological inexactitudes' go ahead.

What you are saying (and I realize you may just be repeating something fed to you in which case this is a criticism of your source rather than you and I would like to know the source) is lies. Lies on the web is libel by the way.

(c) The time windows we use for TS forecasts are about storm Formation (and/or rapid development) NOT "Is there a storm or not?" which of course in season there often is one somewhere in the region, so your point is pure fiction showing yet again you havnt read anything.

(d) Our whole season tropical storms forecast for 2011 - the first full season fully long range ever was a fantastic success by any measure - see:
http://www.weatheraction.com/docs/WANews11No12.pdf
http://www.weatheraction.com/docs/WANews11No32.pdf
http://www.weatheraction.com/displayarticle.asp?a=393&c=5
EVEN if just our correct prediction of the timing formation and track of what became named as IRENE was the ONLY thing we got right in TS last season and all the rest were 'random' we would still be miles ahead in TS forecasting power (imaginary profit on bets at fair odds).
Now Let's assume you are an honest person who has been fed lies and so I invite you to assess our whole season ATS forecast for last year, 2011, and let us know what you think.

4. Wheeler's paper (on UK gales a dozen or so years ago) being 'old' is a totally invalid criticism. And you Lie (oops that word again) when you say it was "inconclusive".
Show us a quote from him saying that.
There is none. You made that up. He shows our gale forecasts were statistically significant.
Lies (oops that word again) were subsequently written by others about what Wheeler had assessed and false conclusions 'drawn' and not peer-review published because at their level of dishonesty even given the corrupt nature of a lot of peer-review they wouldn't have got far. (note our forecasts then were explicitly not for all storms but only forecasts that there would be gales in some specific time windows and not forecasts about other times).
It shows that even way back then we had skill in those forecasts {of events in certain time-windows, and we knew there would also be other gale events}
This 'it's too old; reasoning is a bit of a hoot coming from the green sect who rely on very old erroneous work on CO2 - Arrhenius. "On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground". Philosophical Magazine 41, 237 (1896)..." as their founding truth - 116 years ago) And since you obviously have a sense of humour how about scrapping the wheel, it's too old an invention.

5. Us sweeping stuff under the carpet - eg (end) April dry is another, yes - the L word. I repeat the L word again I say in a very restrained manner.

Try Reading, again; this is getting boring.
We got the second half of April wrong (ie missed the floods in the drought) and we said so, and its on video, and put out an update in public:
http://www.weatheraction.com/displayarticle.asp?a=450&c=5
http://bit.ly/JU6CYM <=VIDEO
and have discussed it on the web and found out what happened and produced SLAT7A as a consequence.
And you say you've looked at our stuff! - Joking of course.

Dan B if you really do want to find out what's what try reading before shooting your dishonesty (or that of others planted on you) at us. And ask yourself if so many (L word)s were written about you on the web would you stay 'Oh so polite'.

Next a mission or two for you.
1. Ask Netweather to
(i) admit they were wrong about May so far and as far ahead as standard Met can see.
(ii) Work out why they were wrong! Ho Ho Ho or is it LOL!!!!

2. Whack around a few posts to Met Office whom you pay for through taxes (whereas you dont pay anything to us as far as I can see). Of course as for us don't bother to read or check anything they say beforehand just say:
i. No report exists peer-review or other showing you have long range skill does it?
ii. Reports show the Met Office has in fact zero skill and negative forecasting power in long range whilst WeatherAction has high skill:
http://www.weatheraction.com/docs/WANews11No6.pdf
http://www.weatheraction.com/docs/WANews10No34.pdf
iii. Has the Met Office ever discussed why they got anything wrong, learnt anything from their mistakes and improved their forecasts as a consequence?

We hold monthly public meetings/video recordings - last Friday every month - to which anyone can come and ask questions. We have found that those who 'ask' most on the web never come.

Thanks, Piers

Well, thank you for the reply. I'm trying to engage in discussion, I don't really find being accused of dishonesty, ignorance and trickery really very helpful or scientific - maybe you could just calm down a bit?

I was working from the USGS significant earthquake list, but I can use the alternative that you provided.

So, taking the actual Q warning periods that you've put dates to, 9 of the 22 EQ's occurred in a warning period, the remaining 13 (or 59% of the EQ's) occurred in the 15 days (50% of days in April) without a warning.

Using the add a day either side criteria we end up with 25 days (83%) of April covered by a warning. 82% of EQ's occurred in this time.

I am still not seeing anything of statistical significance here.

I'm still trying to get my head around the Beckham goal and Town Hall analogys. Do you mean that an EQ occurring outside of a warning period is of no relevance to this trial? You are just looking for EQ's occurring in the warning period to confirm that warning?

And finally, I can see why it is being said that you predicted a UK EQ for February - it is a bit misleading http://bit.ly/JxlYOP

Thanks.

Quote Corbyn:"these should be taken with March too now because it was fully on CR. Elim why don't you do that? Well you know, I know and readers know."

No problem Piers.

Using your preferred EQ list http://on.doi.gov/JIq8Ih There were 35 M6+ EQ in the combined March/April period of 61 days.

Using your Wide Margin (+/- 1 day) there were 45 days (74%) in a Q warning period and 16 days (26%) without a warning.

If your predictions were totally random we should expect to see roughly 26 of the EQ's occurring in the wide warning period, there were actually 29 so you did slightly better there.

However as we are looking at warning days we would be better served looking at EQ days too. So, in the 61 day period there were 19 days (31%) with EQ's. A random selection of 45 days would see roughly 14 of those days having an EQ.Using the 45 days selected in your trial we see there were 15 days with an EQ. Therefore your selection of days to include in a wide windowed Q trial did not do significantly better than a random selection would, for the observed period.

Elim,

I have to say you are time wasting, foolish and don't know what you are doing. You havn't yet explained why you talk about 9 quakes when there were 22 in that M6+ category. Just what are you up to? The list we use IS the USGS list, you do not even have a basic grasp of counting M6+ or any category.

Note we pointed out the higher quakes M6.5+ M8+ if they are around etc are the more important for which we have skill, which is why of course you 'assess' the lowest you can find - M5 which we don't predict or normally consider. Your approach is dishonest and incompetent. The reasons why the bigger are most important follows from the ideas behind all this and it is just wrong of you to pretend to test by using the smallest.

This is a barmy discussion and I suggest you go back to your "quake it cant be done or whatever" clique and tell them we would more appreciate someone who actually has basic grasp of counting numbers in data presented and listening to what is being done rather than do the opposite.

The number salad you present is a waste of space. You making up insane tests of things we don't predict or fiddling around with stuff we know is secondary is loony. Rational people can see the data shows the most skill in the PREDICTED QV4 and QV5 periods maybe +/- half a day for BIGGEST quakes (NOT below M6.5 generally in these periods of high activity) and also of course the earth hemisphere of hits and the earth-facing solar coronal holes/active regions. What nonsense would you care to concoct to cope with that PREDICTED reality?

In case you missed it - from Comment 3 on
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=9551&linkbox=true&position=6

Using success level, S, (1=chance).
Qin = number in the periods, Qt = number in month.
(using most recent USGS and it can change as they revise!)
Din = days in periods Dt = Days in month.

S = (Qin/Qt)/(Din/Dt) TABLE:

M level narrow +/- half day +/- one day

M8+...(0/2)/(15/30)=0...(2/2)/(20.5/30)=1.5...(2/2)/(24/30)=1.25

M6.5+..(4/8)/(15/30)=1...(6/8)/(20.5/30)=1.1...(7/8)/(24/30)=1.1

M6+..(9/22)/(15/30)=0.8..(12/22)/(20.5/30)=0.8..(18/22)/(24/30)=1.02

So we see windows are almost right +/- half day gives best skill for highest quakes. Skill on this month for M6 is not present, but it was in March. Overall it is there for M6+, but less than for higher quakes.

The CH/active regions earth facing and hemisphere results are significant and important and continue successes in previous months

Do you accept

1. That the M6+ and M6.5+ show positive results for narrow+/-half day(best) and narrow+/-one day. NOTE the fact the skill goes down away from the window does at first sight show we are onto something but more results are needed?

2. Therefore you 'assessing' things we know don't show anything (M6 for this month at least) and don't consider (eg M5) is dishonest?

3. These are trials and we are trying to find things out and we (not you) decide and change the rules on our trial to find out what works over large enough samples

BTW have you noticed its cold outside?
Piers C

Comment edited by Piers Corbyn (Twitter) on Friday May 04, 2012 at 6:26 PM EDT

Comment edited by Piers Corbyn (Twitter) on Friday May 04, 2012 at 6:36 PM EDT

"foolish....don't have a basic grasp of counting....waste of space...insane...loony"

These are the words of the playground, not of scientific discussion.

Piers, not everyone who questions your findings has an AGW warmist agenda. I agree that both solar and lunar influences outweigh any anthropogenic influence on climate change. I am concerned that your drive to prove this means that you might dismiss anything that does not support your theories. That's clearly seen in the text above, I accepted that we'd worked from different lists within USGS and clearly stated that I would use the 22 EQ's, not just the 9 I'd used originally. As part of my analysis the number '9' cropped up again:

Quote Elim: "9 of the 22 EQ's occurred in a warning period"

Quote Corbyn: "You havn't yet explained why you talk about 9 quakes when there were 22"

I think you were maybe too focused on dismissing what I said rather than noting that I was indeed discussing 22 EQ's

That's backed up by your insistence that using M5 was "barmy" I'd made it clear that I was using M6+ EQ's only, I also refer you to this page http://bit.ly/KpgmNx where I explain why I had extended the range and stated "I note that this is in fact not acceptable in this trial."

So, back to the combined March + April analysis that you suggested I did and haven't commented on.

I'll make it even simpler using the marble in bag technique.

In March + April there are 61 days.

You had a wide window Q warning for 45 of those days represented by 45 red marbles.

The remaining 16 days without a warning are represented by 16 blue marbles.

In the 61 day period there were 19 days of M6+ EQ's.

If we were to draw 19 marbles at random out of our mixed bag of red and blue we would expect to get roughly 14 red and 5 blue marbles. Matching your prediction days to actual EQ days gave 15 matched days i.e you drew 15 red marbles out of the bag. This is not statistically significant.

[Yes, it is a chilly start to May, especially after the record warmth of March. I expect it'll warm up soon though]