On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 18:14:30 -0000, Skywise
into@oblivion.nothing.com> wrote:

Hatunen <hatunen@cox.net> wrote in
news:bppup39asup0fnqefnfsnq8p60hpf2gjno@4ax.com:

Simply make a prediction as to range, like "between 6.0 and 7.0",
or even "6.0 or greater" and then ruthlessly exclude anything
outside the range.

And what happens when a M5.9 or M7.1 quake strikes within the time
and location of the perdiction?

What does "ruthlessly" mean?

What if there's and M5.5? Or a M5.2? Should they count?

The predictor is free to make his bounds as loose or as tight as
he (or she) wishes, and if his method is any good he will be able
to set those bounds. If his method may lead to this sort of
result he/she needs to cover it, perhaps by explicitly defining
such deviations as may be acceptable. The important thing is
clear criteria which do not have to be fudged in any way, post
facto, to make the facts fit the theory.

One problem is that it is so easy to toss around simple numbers
like 8.0 without accounting for what they really stand for. In my
example of "between 6.0 and 7.0" energy values of over thirty
times are being covered. Your example of 5.9 would be an
earthquake of something like one-third the energy of the 6.0.

If you were to say "5.0 to 7.0" then you are covering an energy
range of 1000:1. Any proper theory should be able to fit into a
range as wide as these. In fact, from a sort of common sense
standpoint, it would seem that any predictive theory should be
able to cover an energy release range of no more than, say, 10:1.

In article <13pur86stknrka9@corp.supernews.com>,
Skywise <into@oblivion.nothing.com> wrote:

Hatunen <hatunen@cox.net> wrote in
news:bppup39asup0fnqefnfsnq8p60hpf2gjno@4ax.com:

Simply make a prediction as to range, like "between 6.0 and 7.0",
or even "6.0 or greater" and then ruthlessly exclude anything
outside the range.

And what happens when a M5.9 or M7.1 quake strikes within the time
and location of the perdiction?

When rocket scientists present the expected landing areas of their space
craft, they give them in terms of probabilities: 90% within this
ellipse, 99% within this larger one, 99.99% on the planet somewhere...
Likewise, when astronomers predict impacts of asteroids on Mars, they
give likelihoods within target areas.

Indeed, mainstream geological predictions of earthquakes are along the
lines of "66% likelihood of an earthquake M6 or greater on the Hayward
fault in the next 33 years." (Not the actual prediction, but it makes
the point.)

Why not allow amateur predictors the same latitude? Still require time,
place, and magnitude but add the requirement of confidence intervals. So
a range would be predicted as M5±.5, 90%, ±1 10% If an earthquake occurs
meeting the other two criteria and is M5, that gives a 90% score for
magnitude ... but if it happened with M4.4 or M5.6, that would give only
a 10% score.

Hatunen <hatunen@cox.net> wrote in news:h4vup39v94ss97afurog12orv05giu6q75@
4ax.com:

On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 18:14:30 -0000, Skywise
into@oblivion.nothing.com> wrote:

Hatunen <hatunen@cox.net> wrote in
news:bppup39asup0fnqefnfsnq8p60hpf2gjno@4ax.com:

Simply make a prediction as to range, like "between 6.0 and 7.0",
or even "6.0 or greater" and then ruthlessly exclude anything
outside the range.

And what happens when a M5.9 or M7.1 quake strikes within the time
and location of the perdiction?

What does "ruthlessly" mean?

What if there's and M5.5? Or a M5.2? Should they count?

The predictor is free to make his bounds as loose or as tight as
he (or she) wishes, and if his method is any good he will be able
to set those bounds. If his method may lead to this sort of
result he/she needs to cover it, perhaps by explicitly defining
such deviations as may be acceptable. The important thing is
clear criteria which do not have to be fudged in any way, post
facto, to make the facts fit the theory.

My point was that, post facto, the predictor will try to claim
"close enough". And when you or I say "HEY!!! Not fair!", we
get dismissed with the usual ad hominems.

The issue here is that we need to make the effort to bring the
predictor and the evaluator to the same game. As it is now
the two sides are playing by different rules, which makes all
of this effort not much more than preaching to the choir, for
BOTH sides.


One problem is that it is so easy to toss around simple numbers
like 8.0 without accounting for what they really stand for. In my
example of "between 6.0 and 7.0" energy values of over thirty
times are being covered. Your example of 5.9 would be an
earthquake of something like one-third the energy of the 6.0.

If you were to say "5.0 to 7.0" then you are covering an energy
range of 1000:1. Any proper theory should be able to fit into a
range as wide as these. In fact, from a sort of common sense
standpoint, it would seem that any predictive theory should be
able to cover an energy release range of no more than, say, 10:1.

I'm not convinced that making an issue out of the logarithmic
scale will solve anything. The dynamic range of potential
earthquake energies is just too vast to work with linear
values.

Furthermore, a prediction of "5-6" with a miss at 4.9 is off
by the same relative amount as a prediction of "7-8" with a
miss of 6.9. So what's the diff?

Well, of course. But close only counts in horseshoes and
handgrenades, as they say.

What's needed is a clear explanation of the predictor's method,
though, before any further critique can be made.

On Jan 29, 2:34 pm, Skywise <i...@oblivion.nothing.com> wrote:
Hatunen <hatu...@cox.net> wrote in news:vu5vp3t4a4rfvehuph691cr7mr1dqev7vl@
4ax.com:

Well, of course. But close only counts in horseshoes and
handgrenades, as they say.

And nuclear war? I've always added that one to the saying.

What's needed is a clear explanation of the predictor's method,
though, before any further critique can be made.

Agreed. Like I said, both predictor and evaluator must be on
the same game table playing by the same rules.

LOL!

Nice in theory but impossible to achieve in reality. JOB will give
very specific rules but will then turn over rocks looking for ways to
get a hit. Especially where magnitude is concerned. He'll search the
world looking for the right number instead of sticking to one source.

On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 12:54:31 -0800, Timberwoof
timberwoof.spam@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com> wrote:

In article <13pur86stknrka9@corp.supernews.com>,
Skywise <into@oblivion.nothing.com> wrote:

Hatunen <hatunen@cox.net> wrote in
news:bppup39asup0fnqefnfsnq8p60hpf2gjno@4ax.com:

Simply make a prediction as to range, like "between 6.0 and 7.0",
or even "6.0 or greater" and then ruthlessly exclude anything
outside the range.

And what happens when a M5.9 or M7.1 quake strikes within the time
and location of the perdiction?

When rocket scientists present the expected landing areas of their space
craft, they give them in terms of probabilities: 90% within this
ellipse, 99% within this larger one, 99.99% on the planet somewhere...
Likewise, when astronomers predict impacts of asteroids on Mars, they
give likelihoods within target areas.

Indeed, mainstream geological predictions of earthquakes are along the
lines of "66% likelihood of an earthquake M6 or greater on the Hayward
fault in the next 33 years." (Not the actual prediction, but it makes
the point.)

Why not allow amateur predictors the same latitude? Still require time,
place, and magnitude but add the requirement of confidence intervals. So
a range would be predicted as M5±.5, 90%, ±1 10% If an earthquake occurs
meeting the other two criteria and is M5, that gives a 90% score for
magnitude ... but if it happened with M4.4 or M5.6, that would give only
a 10% score.

As I point out in my oher post, the problem is that earthquake
magnitudes are not given in linear terms. Not to mention that the
rocket scientists have good old consistent Newtonian mechanics to
base their calcs on and plain old distances, which are exprssed
linearly.

But earthqauke magnitudes are not linear and do not lend
themselves to such calculations. To do this, the magnitudes would
have to be given in linear terms, i.e., the actual energy of the
earthquakes. Then the energies could be converted back to M
numbers.

But I don't beleive any of our erstwhile predictors are using
actual probable energy levels for their methodology.

Timberwoof <timberwoof.spam@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com> wrote in
news:timberwoof.spam-F92627.12543129012008@nnrp-virt.nntp.sonic.net:

In article <13pur86stknrka9@corp.supernews.com>,
Skywise <into@oblivion.nothing.com> wrote:

Hatunen <hatunen@cox.net> wrote in
news:bppup39asup0fnqefnfsnq8p60hpf2gjno@4ax.com:

Simply make a prediction as to range, like "between 6.0 and 7.0",
or even "6.0 or greater" and then ruthlessly exclude anything
outside the range.

And what happens when a M5.9 or M7.1 quake strikes within the time
and location of the perdiction?

When rocket scientists present the expected landing areas of their space
craft, they give them in terms of probabilities: 90% within this
ellipse, 99% within this larger one, 99.99% on the planet somewhere...
Likewise, when astronomers predict impacts of asteroids on Mars, they
give likelihoods within target areas.

Snipola of rest

You make a good point, and I do think it can be done that way.

First, technically, how do we statistically analyse such
predictions to determine if they are better than chance, or not?

But more importantly, and this is the deal breaker, even if
we do develop such a method of analysis, how do we get the
predictors to accept it? So many of them dismiss anything a
"scientist" has to say.

Hatunen <hatunen@cox.net> wrote in news:vu5vp3t4a4rfvehuph691cr7mr1dqev7vl@
4ax.com:

Well, of course. But close only counts in horseshoes and
handgrenades, as they say.

And nuclear war? I've always added that one to the saying.

Brian

But more importantly, and this is the deal breaker, even if
we do develop such a method of analysis, how do we get the
predictors to accept it? So many of them dismiss anything a
"scientist" has to say.