Success Criteria

  • We see that the geophysical events can coincide with, follow, or preceed the astronomical ones, or they can not occur at all. In May the moon was new on the 24th, the perigee was on the 26th, and the moon conjoined Saturn on the 31st. We see cyclone Aila batter Bangladesh, along with a long rainy spell in the southeast US following the new moon, then a 7.3r quake off Honduras on the 28th, before the conjunction. Then on June 2 we see a 6.3r quake in Vanatu, following the conjunction.

    We are confronted with a notion, or questions about success criteria, as to what qualifies as a successful forecast. While success obviously entails correct forecasts, that looks different for hurricanes than for earthquakes or tornadoes. In the case of tornadoes, we know that not every thunderstorm produces them, that our sucess rate for predicting them is about 50 per cent (by looking at storms), and that our lead time is now about 16 minutes. As one tornado forecaster said, he is all about increasing the lead time and reducing false alarms (predictions).

    Here is an article where scientist suggest that they can detect quake precursors, to which I ask, Is 10 seconds enough time to make a difference?

    That method is not unlike trying to predict quakes or storms on the earth due to observing sunspots or ejections from the sun, except that our lead time is longer there since the solar wind takes days to reach the earth from the sun. By that I mean, we are not really predicting there as much as identifying precursor events, like with the earthquakes above.

    * Note also that earthquake and storms are know to happen at new and full moons, and at eclipses. Wood shows that hurricanes cluster at high tides. We can safely say that if storms happen at new and full moons and high tides without ejections from the sun, and ejections from the sun happen that impact the earth that do not form storms (like June 29 and 30), then it is going to be hard to make the case that those 'cause' storms, or even indicate (are hypersymmetrical with) them.

  • The main problems with the solar theory are 1) accounting for each and every sunspot and ejection, as well as for 2) each and every quake and storm. Big questions arise about ejections not associated with geophysical events, or quakes and storms not associated with solar events.

    See the current Solar Outlook at spaceweather.com . Note that you can search their archives in the upper right hand corner. See also the Sunspot Plotter, where you can view the daily sunspot number back to 1755. NOTE ALSO that on days like today (6/14) when there are no sunspots and no coronal holes, there is not much for this theory to point to if a storm or quake should occur; that's why I call this method a 'one trick pony'.

    Proponents of the solar model suggest that ejections from the sun account for at least some of the quake and storm activity on the earth. I have invited a defender of that program to account for the top quakes and storms this year with solar statistics.

    05.29.2009 NOAA's Solar Cycle Prediction They are now saying May 2013 for the peak?

    DC Symbols Homepage