On Aug 3, 5:52*pm, Weatherlawyer wrote:
Interesting design concept he https://www.fnmoc.navy.mil/efs/dynam....EFS.no_pac_ga...

More interesting stuff:
2.9 * * *NORTHERN CALIFORNIA
2.6 * * *NORTHERN CALIFORNIA

3.1 * * *FOX ISLANDS, ALEUTIAN ISLANDS, ALASKA
2.7 * * *FOX ISLANDS, ALEUTIAN ISLANDS, ALASKA

3.3 * * *SOUTHEASTERN ALASKA
2.5 * * *NORTHERN CALIFORNIA
2.9 * * *FOX ISLANDS, ALEUTIAN ISLANDS, ALASKA
2.8 * * *KODIAK ISLAND REGION, ALASKA
4.6 * * *NEAR THE SOUTH COAST OF PAPUA, INDONESIA
4.1 * * *SOUTHEASTERN ALASKA
2.9 * * *RAT ISLANDS, ALEUTIAN ISLANDS, ALASKA
2.9 * * *NORTHERN ALASKA
2.8 * * *PUERTO RICO REGION
2.6 * * *NORTHERN CALIFORNIA
3 * * * *GREATER LOS ANGELES AREA, CALIFORNIA

6 days to go. The last earthquake of 7.0, or above was on 19th July,
two weeks ago. USGS has an average of 17 earthquakes of 7.0, or above,
each year since 1990, about 1.5 per month. The last earthquake of 7.5
was on 5th July, about a month ago, as a guess, from their frequency
table, I'd say there are about 5/6 earthquakes of 7.5+ per year. I
would would back against a 7.5+ earthquake occurring in the next 6
days and also against a 7.0+, based on that kind of frequency.

You know this W, very well. Your predictions about earthquakes tend to
come when there has not been a large earthquake for a while and
sometimes you'll get lucky, however, you push your luck a little bit
and you are with the likelihood of a major earthquake here.

Get it right once and people will say it's pure coincidence (sorry,
but your record does not inpire confidence; they may well say nothing
at all, too). Get it right twice running and people will take notice,
including me. Get the prediction of a major earthquake right three
times and you're onto something that the whole seismological community
would have to take notice of. Raise that percentage rate to, say, 50%,
over time and - wow! Have a success rate of 17% (1 in 6, in just over
3 months) and don't be surprised if people don't take your ideas
seriously. You have to be able to use your theories to gain a
reasonable forecast outcome percentage rate, or your ideas are
worthless. Your theories have to have application. Your fingers must
be crossed for a major earthquake occurring in the next 6 days. That
would raise your success rate to 2 in 7, or 29%, in almost 3.5 months.
You need a straight run of 4 correct forecasts to raise that
percentage rate to 5 in 10, or 50%.

Tough, this prediction game, when it is monitored, isn't it? You'd get
much more kudos if you monitored it yourself and explained your
faliures and your odd success against chance, instead of simply
focusing on connections which hardly anyone else in the whole
scientific community acknowledges and your own forecasting success
rates are suggesting, very strongly, are spurious.